Talk:George Zimmerman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo (for example, during a public appearance), or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Note icon
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
WikiProject Virginia (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Florida (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida.
If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Latinos (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latinos, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hispanic and Latino American related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Crime (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Police chief comments[edit]

Florida police chief Steve Bracknell of the Lake Mary police department, which is currently investigating Zimmerman, agreed with a comment made by a member of the community that George Zimmerman is a "Sandy Hook, Aurora waiting to happen," reports The Guardian.[1]

The first result from a Bing search is this article. The headline quotes the chief of police as saying that Zimmerman is a threat to Public Safety. http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77454679/ Please note that this article was published in Orlando Florida, the state Zimmerman is from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.23 (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This page will not function as a list of complaints from across the internet speculating about a living person's future behavior. Please review WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK, and WP:ATTACK. VQuakr (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
BLP just says we have to make sure everything is well sourced, and this has been very well sourced. Nor is it an "attack" on the subject, we are just reporting in a NPOV manner what the sources say. Finally it is relevant to this subject given the nature of what makes him notable and the topic of the section "encounters with police". Please assume Good Faith and don't assume editors have an agenda to attack Zimmerman just because the available sourcing doesn't make him look good. That's not our fault. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not assume bad faith. Again, this page is not going to contain everything someone says on the internet about Zimmerman, particularly such speculation. Per WP:BLP, we are conservative and wait for clear consensus before adding such material to the article; your re-addition of the content while discussion is underway is not appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, please don't minimize WHO made this statement. This is a statement made by the Chief of Police of the town Zimmerman lives in, and it was made in response to his most recent encounter with the police, and it was published in a subsection called 'Other encounters with the police.' No one is suggesting that every statement ever made about Zimmerman should be included. It's nonsense to suggest anyone said that. But this is an important statement made by an important man, placed in the correct section of the article, and it is a statement that has been published in numerous reputable sources internationally: https://www.google.com/search?q=george+zimmerman+sandy+hook&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Bracknell's comment would sure belong in his article if he would have one. In this one it only belongs if it is (or if it will be in the future) notable, demonstrated by RS coverage of his remarks. I don't now if or if not this is already the case here. Just drawing the BLP line a bit more clear.TMCk (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a very notable statement, demonstrated by the fact that it has been reprinted in just about every major paper in the country, and even in the world. This is a statement by the Chief of Police of the town Zimmerman lives in regarding Zimmerman's most recent encounter with the police and it is published in a section titled "Other encounters with the police." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── George Zimmerman's brother has now demanded a recusal of Chief Bracknell for his statement that Zimmerman is a Sandy Hook waiting to happen and a ticking time bomb. This statement has now taken on a life of its own, and it is unprofessional of any editor to attempt to remove this statement from this article. This statement is now undeniably notable. http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/20/george-zimmermans-brother-demands-recusal-in-domestic-incident-probe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that your hostility towards other editors is unwarranted. Can you please try to explain more clearly how a statement by GZ's brother, directed at Bracknell, makes this more relevant to an article on GZ? Particularly using the full quote rather than something along the lines of "Zimmerman's brother called for Bracknel to recuse himself following statements of opinion made by Bracknell"? VQuakr (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's inappropriate of you to accuse another editor of such things. Further, your statement is inaccurate. As for the statement by the Police Chief, it's self-evident that the statement has taken on a life of its own and has become an important statement, along the lines of Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

POV issues[edit]

Calling someone a serial killer waiting to happen is an extreme break of POV rules. We do not engage in defamation of private citizens. The police have charged Zimmerman with no crime since his aquital. Police chiefs mouthing off to denounce people they disagree with is not the stuff encyclopedias are made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of editing a Wikipedia article, what matters is whether said statement was made by a notable person (it was; the chief of police where Zimmerman lives), and whether the statement was published in reliable sources (it was; Huffington post [George Zimmerman Is Another 'Sandy Hook' Waiting To Happen: Police Chief [2], the Guardian, etc.). This statement is far more weighty than what you are implying. This wasn't some random police chief "mouthing off" about some case he's not involved with. This is a police chief sharing his opinion of one of the most infamous men in the country who was recently acquitted of murder, has been continually in trouble with the law since the acquittal, and who lives in the town said police chief is responsible for. The police chief's "POV" is of great importance for the town he oversees, which is the town Zimmerman lives in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.9.54 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
As of this writing, the Guardian article about Bracknell's statement is the second result yield by a Google search of the name George Zimmerman. This is a notable and pertinent statement made by a notable and reliable source, published by reliable sources. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.9.54 (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
And the first result yield from a Google result as of this writing is an MSNBC article that opens with the following paragraph: "The police chief of the Florida town where George Zimmerman lives agreed in an email exchange that Zimmerman is a ”ticking time bomb” and a “Sandy Hook, Aurora, waiting to happen,” according to emails revealed by the website ThinkProgress." [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.9.54 (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

completely WP:UNDUE ones statement, by one man, regarding a person who is not at this time accused of any crime. This is completely unencyclopedic and a clear WP:BLP violation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to minimize the significance of this statement is transparent. This is not the statement of "one man," that is, some anonymous man in a crowd.... It is the statement of the Chief of Police of the town Zimmerman lives in, and it has now been published internationally in many papers. It is in the top Google result when you search "George Zimmerman." Further, your attempt to keep it out of the Wikipedia article is pointless because this statement has already circulated all over the Internet anyway. Notable statement, on-topic for the article/section, published in notable/reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.104.246 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a new article that mentions the Sandybrook reference in the title http://www.classicalite.com/articles/2807/20130917/george-zimmerman-update-next-sandy-hook-trayvon-martin-murder-trial.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sherrifs association, self appointed[edit]

This content is WP:UNDUE and a WP:BLP violation, in addition to being factually incorrect. The sherrif's association does not have a monopoly on neighborhood watches. The neighborhood watch program was administered by the local police department, and zimmerman was not self appointed, he was selected by the community. We have numerous reliable sources saying so, including the testimony of the police department during the trial. Per tutko (the NSA person quoted) "Chris Tutko, the national director for the program at the association, said there were 25,000 registered neighborhood watch groups in the United States today, and far more unregistered groups like the one in Sanford."[5] "The Neighborhood Watch at Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Zimmerman lived and was chosen as coordinator by his neighbors, was formed in September, Dorival said. It is not registered with the national group, but there is no registration requirement. The Sanford Police Department provides training and community signs, and informs residents about crime trends and prevention." [6] Finally, as the NSA website is a WP:SPS it is specifically a violation of BLP to use that to make claims about others. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You can disagree with these statements and dislike them all you want. But they are verifiable statements made by notable people and they are entirely on-topic. And we also have it verified that Zimmerman disobeyed 911 orders by following Trayvon. And the claim was never made that the Sheriff's Association had a "monopoly" on neighborhood watch. The statement was made that they never had a program in that neighborhood; they referred to Zimmerman as "self-appointed"; and they say he went against everything they stand for. Verifiable facts.
He can make whatever statement he wants, but as he was not involved at all, his determination of facts is weak. We have repeated testimony and documentation that Zimmerman was not self appointed. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes he can make whatever statement he wants in his capacity as the chief of police. This isnt a trivial statement by trivial man in a trivial situation. this is a man in a very important position in this situation and these are verifiable statements by notable man in verifiable reputable publications. that's all that matters for the sake of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The quotation attributed to the Nat'l Sheriff's Assoc is factually incorrect, and using that quote rather than the one I posted, which was sworn testimony from his NW trainer, demonstrates a clear bias which should not be tolerated at Wiki. The statement above that "we also have it verified that Zimmerman disobeyed 911 orders" is also demonstrably false on at least two levels: Zimmerman was speaking to the non-emergency police dispatcher (not via 911) and dispatchers are not police officers and they are forbidden by policy to give orders. It is true, however, that when given advice ("we don't need you to do that"), Zimmerman immediately replied "OK", indicating compliance. The person here who defends the "objectivity" or validity of the Sheriff's Assoc. statement and makes such a patently false statement is exhibiting both a profound ignorance of this case and a rather pronounced bias. Riversong (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "911" is quite routinely and not altogether incorrectly used to refer to personnel who answer/respond to calls to emergency agencies, regardless of the phone number used to contact them (literally 9-1-1 or some other number). In many agencies, they are exactly the same personnel. "911" is generally understood as a synonym for emergency responders, regardless of how they are contacted. To use a reference to "911" versus a police dispatcher at a non-emergency phone number to declare a statement "demonstrably false" is disingenuous and absurd. Dwpaul Talk 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Biased pro-Zimmerman editing[edit]

No one is allowing anything critical of Zimmerman to be posted in this article. Wikipedia standards are that something must be published by a reliable source and it must be notable. The statements from the Chief of Police of Lake Mary meet those requirements. If people want to have a balanced article then they naturally have to allow both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.104.246 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference to "misleading media coverage" is itself misleading[edit]

The statement "Six weeks after the shooting, amid widespread, intense, and in some cases misleading media coverage,[20][21]Zimmerman was charged with murder" smacks of pro-Zimmerman POV and implies that charging Zimmerman with murder was influenced by misinformation. But looking at the references cited, the "misleading media coverage" referred to is a single incident of an edited tape aired on a news outlet. If that incident merits mentioning, fine. Explain it properly. But to disingenuously use it to insinuate that "some cases" of misinformation prompted the murder charge is wrong. The overwhelming pressure to charge Zimmerman began before that airing of an edited tape and continued after the editing was exposed. A man with a history of violent encounters admitted to intentionally killing an unarmed child and walked away without charges -- that was the reason for the public outcry. 76.174.24.153 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We could split it into two sentences; (1)"After the shooting, there was widespread, intense, and in one case a misleading media report about the shooting." (2) On April xx, Zimmerman was arrested and charged...-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I believe this reference to the media coverage being misleading should be removed from the article. It's very obvious at this point that people who are editing this article are often very much pro Zimmerman. It seems to be a struggle to keep anything in this article that is critical of this man who was recently charged with murder, An acquittal that led to widespread protests throughout the nation. I believe in keeping things neutral in articles about living people but we also have to keep things realistic. It would be laughable to keep anything critical out of this article because this is a critical situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's disgraceful how misleadingly biased the editing is. Nothing about Zimmerman following Martin and saying "they always get away" -- the encounter is instead just described as an "altercation." 76.174.24.153 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:MUG[edit]

NOTE: An editor of this page has now taken this argument even further, filing an incomplete "deletion request" on Wikimedia, attempting to have this image deleted entirely from Wikimedia sources: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Zimmerman,_George_-_Seminole_County_Mug.jpg Mug shot in question.

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)...see WP:MUG.

George Zimmerman is not currently under arrest, in custody, nor is he facing any criminal charges. If the purpose of the image is to identify Zimmerman, and there's not a suitable picture, then we must rely on a text description of the subject. Using a mugshot is clearly a violation of WP:BLP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The statement is that images of mug shot should not be used out of context. George Zimmerman is most famous for being on trial for the murder of Martin. This article wouldn't exist if not for the murder trial. Frankly I'm surprised that this article exists at all because usually they don't allow Wikipedia articles to exist for people who are primarily famous for only one thing. I suppose this article exists because ever since the acquittal Zimmerman has remained in the media, that is in trouble with the law. At any rate it seems to me that it is very much in-context to have the main picture of Zimmerman be a mug shot because the murder trial of Martin is what is most famous for. Lastly a mug shot is obviously in the public domain which is what Wikipedia biography articles want. What would you prefer? A picture of him with his faced bloodied? That picture is on the main article. A picture of him in the court room on trial for murder? Those pictures have been published all over the media. Pictures of him receiving speeding tickets? Or a picture of him in his recent encounter with the police at Lake Mary? Face it, there aren't many pictures out there of this man that do not involve some sort of confrontation with the law.

More succinctly: a mug shot is an appropriate picture for someone who is primarily known as a defendant in a murder trial. He wouldn't be a public figure and wouldn't have a Wikipedia article if he hadn't been on trial for murder of Martin. The picture on this article to depicts him in the manner in which he is most famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe a mug shot should not be used because he was found not guilty. WP:MUG supports this: "This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)…" Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, But that's not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is to refer to people and depict people in the context in which they are most famous. Wikipedia policy is also to use pictures that are in the public domain. For these reasons a mug shot is the obvious choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
And this argument is futile anyway. About 90% of the pictures of him in a Google search pertain to the murder trial. Removing his mug shot from this article is just a drop in the ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case the picture is not being used to give a false impression, Zimmerman is only known due to his arrest and trial (see first sentence of article). It would be false if it was a person otherwise known as a politician or movie star for example. However, if there was another public domain picture available, the mug shot could be moved to the crime section of the article. Either way the picture stays in the article. Since it's the only picture we have it makes sense to use it in the infobox. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:MUG clearly says "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." This is clearly presenting him in a disparaging light as he was found not guilty. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but this picture in this article (arguably) does not give a false impression of guilt or disparagement since the only thing he is notable for is the arrest and trial. We are just repeating ourselves multiple people have said the same thing above, there doesn't seem to be consensus to remove the picture. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The point is - he isn't under arrest anymore, he isn't standing trial anymore. He's just a regular citizen now. A regular citizen with a mugshot. Yes, he became notable because of the shooting and subsequent murder trial of Martin, but that's over now, he's just a regular citizen now. If we're going to use a mugshot for his bio article, then the content of the article should reflect his time in jail, because that's what a mugshot of an individual implies, he's in jail, under arrest or somehow in trouble with the law. Zimmerman is not in jail, nor is he under arrest, nor is he awaiting trial. His mugshot is being used out of context to present him in a false and disparaging light. It's extremely disrespectful and clearly impugns his reputation by using a mugshot of him related to a crime he has been acquitted of. Arguing that it's the only picture available is not an excuse for violating WP:NPOV or WP:BLP (editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing a crime unless a conviction is secured). There was not a conviction secured in this case, and by including this material (mugshot), it suggests Zimmerman has committed, or is accused of committing a crime - he hasn't committed a crime, nor does he stand accused, he has been acquitted. If there's not a suitable picture, then we must rely on a text description of the subject.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Zimmerman was already well-known when his mug shot was taken six weeks after he killed Martin. Regardless, the policy is that mugshots are not appropriate for the main picture in articles about people. TFD (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
But what was he known for? Exactly what you mentioned above: The murder of Trayvon. And why was his mug shot taken? Oh because he was charged with the murder of Trayvon. Your argument is self-defeating. And as others have mentioned this conversation is going in circles. This is a waste of time and space. My personal interpretation is that certain editors will not accept the reality that this man is known solely for his crimes. My personal opinion is that a biography article shouldn't even exist for this man As Wikipedia rules are that someone does not deserve a biography page when they're known only for one thing. And in fact this article has indeed been nominated for deletion by at least one editor. The reason given for keeping this article is that ever since the acquittal Zimmerman has remained in the public eye. And why has he remained in the public eye? Because he has been accused of a few crimes since the acquittal. I'd be interested to know what those who oppose the mugshot think this man is actually famous for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.23 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules do not say mugshots are inappropriate for biography pages. They say that a mug shot should not be used in a misleading manner. Everyone agrees that is Zimmerman is most famous for being charged with the murder of Trayvon. Even the few people who want the mug shot removed agree that he is most famous as the defendant in a murder trial. I get the feeling that the people who want the picture removed Are the same people who wrote in the main article that the media coverage was misleading. And I get the feeling that said people are in the minority here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.23 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed the image, since per WP:BLP we are conservative and default to not including while discussion is underway. I also posted a notice at WP:BLP/N to encourage broader input. As a living person who was acquitted, it is not acceptable to use this booking photo. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDVICTIM "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." I personally can't stand the guy. However, my opinion isn't WP policy. The Florida courts found him innocent and that is enough for Wikipedia to not use images of him portrayed as an arrested person. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the picture into the shooting section where it is used exactly as in the other two articles about the shooting. There is no way anyone can claim BLP when the picture is used in proper context to be about the shooting incident, inside the shooting section, just as in the other two articles (Shooting of Trayvon Martin, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman), where nobody has complained for the many months that picture has been used exactly as it is being used here (BLP is not limited to just biography articles). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm against the use of the photo per WP:MUG as it is being used here to disparage a man who has not been found guilty of any crime.-- KeithbobTalk 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:MUG says pictures should not be "used out of context" to give a false impression. In this case the picture is in its proper context, contained with a sub-section about his arrest. It's not our fault he got arrested, would you rather we not report he was arrested? You seem to think that readers will assume he was found guilty when our article and picture says nothing of the sort, it is a history of his arrest, of which the mug shot is an integral part. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If you had other pictures, that argument might make sense. But given that he is notable for only one event, BLP says "including every detail can lead to problems", like portraying him as a convict through imagery with no counterweight imagery. Including every detail no matter how sourced and accurate is expressly discouraged by BLP, especially when there is no counterweight. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter would be that this image should be used on this article because it is already used on several other articles on this topic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zimmerman,_George_-_Seminole_County_Mug.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talkcontribs)

An argument clearly in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyways, I see six editors above (including myself) that agree this image should not be included. Do we agree that this is an adequate consensus to keep the image out of the article? VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
VQuakr, there's no consensus. The WP:MUG section of BLP is very clear on the point of context, as you said: "I can see the argument for using it further down the article, in the context of a trial and acquittal [section]." As a reminder, MUG says pictures "should not be used out of context". The word "context" is there for a reason. Anyway you're too personally involved in this debate to declare consensus, can't have it both ways taking sides in the debate and declaring an outcome. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Green Cardamom, yes you are correct, WP:Mug states that pictures "should not be used out of context", but no one is arguing this is "out of context", so there is no gain in you citing that again. WP:Mug also says "including every detail can lead to problems". That is the focus of the debate here. Is this an overly negative detail to add to a BLP given our duty to "be conservative" with details that portray the individual in a negative light. As I read your above comments, it appears as if you're suggesting there is no possible negative perspective added by including this picture. Is that really accurate? Do you really think there is no added negative impression by including a mug shot? If not, then you would need to explain what added benefit there is to adding this picture, that outweighs the negative. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • no one is arguing this is "out of context" absolutely untrue, people have been arguing this point on this page, please pay attention, they are saying the picture makes Zimmerman look guilty since it's a mug shot and thus "present a person in a false or disparaging light". And that argument in invalidated by the issue of context since the picture is in the section about his arrest. WP:MUG does not say "including every detail can lead to problems". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, WP:AVOIDVICTIM says "present a person in a false or disparaging light" and I ask, how does the picture being in context "invalidate" WP:AVOIDVICTIM? Additionally, WP:BLPCRIME says that "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Given that he is not convicted, and an unknown for any other event, we should take extreme caution in presenting any information about him being accused of committing a crime other than basic explanatory information. This is not arguing out of context. This is arguing not necessary even in context and well cited. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not say "present a person in a false or disparaging light". You keep misquoting the rules, and changing which rule you are referencing even though we have a specific rule for Mugshots. As for BLPCRIME, George Zimmerman is not "relatively unknown" by any measure his arrest and mug shot was world news. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"There's no consensus.... you're too personally involved in this debate to declare consensus." Really, Cardamom? VQuakr (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes really, VQuakr. You said consensus had been achieved, and I responded that no, the conversation is not over because there are still valid arguments to the contrary, and you respond by calling me a hypocrit<sic>? Suggest you review WP:CIVIL and deal with the issue on a rules basis. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Where did I say consensus was achieved? Anyways, if you really still think this should be included, I suggest a RFC to formalize the decision. What do you think? VQuakr (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Well you asked the question yesterday right in the middle of an edit war, people posting on your talk page in disagreement, a BLP discussion ongoing elsewhere, other anons posting here in dispute - stuff blowing up left and right, it was quite clear there was no consensus. There hasn't even been a straw poll, much less a RfC, zero formal conflict resolution. Further you singled out the 6 people who agreed with you as reason to suggest consensus may have been reached, ignoring dissenting opinion. RfC is probably needed, but also some agreement on how to word it, how to advertise it, and neutral parties to help. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
VQuakr asked "Do we agree that this is an adequate consensus to keep the image out of the article?" He never stated it was consensus, you just accused him of such (WP:CIVIL?)Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment/General statement of fact: By the rules, BLP and else, the mugshot can clearly be used in this article, not as the leading image but placed in a section where there is context. There must be a brought consensus with good reasoning not to use it at all and as a side note, nominating it for deletion at commons was maybe made in good faith but completely out of line in regards to policies over there. So since there are editors who want to use that (or another image, of him being arrested [see thread below]), the question basically comes down not if we use it but how. I refused to check the article by now to see if it is still implemented there somehow or not since in any case there should be a policy based consensus on, again, how it's been used. This or another arrest image will be implemented in this article at some point w/o doubt; The question is which one and how to keep context clear. The image itself is not disparaging, only the use can make it so. And Dkriegls, You say in the following related thread regarding primary sources that: "Using court or police pictures counts as using public documents to support claims against him that the courts disagree with." Our policy for primary sources do NOT include images! If so there would be no mugshot in all wikipedia. Thought about that and why it isn't so?
    The discussion about "can we use that image" is senseless b/c we can and thus the discussion should focus on how to use it in context and find consensus in that. Everything else is a clear waste of time and editors who don't see it that way might want to raise the issue at the appropriate boards, like the policy pages they refer to, but not here.TMCk (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Please show me where "Our policy for primary sources do NOT include images!" I in no way indicated a policy interpretation that would restrict the use of all mug shots. Only those mugs of people found not guilty of the accused crime. Your suggestion otherwise was at best a misquotation. That BLP policy I quoted asks us to exercise extreme caution when using public records, it didn't "forbid it" and never excluded photographic public records. The entire arrest is an "assertion" of guilt that the courts overturned. We are not supposed to use Wikipedia to support assertions, only report the well sourced facts about the assertion. How exactly do you find that a mug "image itself is not disparaging"? Given that Mug Shot#Prejudicial nature states "The US legal system has long held that mug shots can have a negative effect on juries" (Citation: Barnes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 365 F.2d 509, 510--11). Do you have some evidence that this particular mug shot doesn't hold the same prejudice for our readers? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The OR policy on images has it's own dedicated section and the BLP policy WP:MUG section makes clear how images should need to be used: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context...". So again, it is under our discretion if and how to use such images within policy.TMCk (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
And BTW, ALL images are by nature "primary sources".TMCk (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
If you agree that pictures are primary sources, then extreme caution should be used. The is clearly the "spirit" of OR rules. But we obviously disagree on whether this image presents "the subject in a false or disparaging light" (WP:OI, WP:PRIMARY). So determining the degree of disparaging light is the actual debate here. I've cited evidence that Mug Shots are prejudicial by nature and have asked for counter citations. I still maintain my original point that if there was another picture for counter weight, it would balance the very limited prejudicial nature of that mug shot. However, another compromise I think might work would be to follow the Handbook of Massachusetts Evidence and "use reasonable means to avoid calling the (jury's) attention to the source of such photographs used to identify the defendant". We could do this by using a synonym for Mug Shot in the caption. One I found was "Identification Photo". We could label it his "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012". I still think a another less disparaging picture would be better for balance, but this compromise should also blunt the prejudicial nature of the photo. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 15:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Part. response: Why don't you contact him/his legal team at gzlegalcase.com and see if they're willing to provide some free images of Zimmerman for upload? There is a lack of free images we can use in his bio.TMCk (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I previously made such a request back before the trial. They (wisely imo) declined. To comply with wikipedia's license, such a photo would be free from any restrictions on use, including use in commercial ventures, and GZ has a big target on his back (pun unavoidable?) for malicious use of the photo. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The trial is over thus their position might have changed. Pointing out that now that he has a bio own his own here could help too. And BTW, please stop trying to get any image of him that you apparently don't like deleted. Just saw this deletion request of a photo that is clearly in the public domain by Florida law. It doesn't make you look much neutral if you keep doing this. strike -- wrong editor; was meant as advise for Dkriegls.TMCk (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
For the record, those deletion attempts aren't me. My personal views on him are severely negative and I wouldn't be trying to delete pictures just becasue "I don't like" them. However, I do like the idea of reaching out to his firm for a Fair Use picture for the top. I don't plan on asking though. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I should've paid more attention to editors handles. It was indeed another editor and I corrected my mistake in my previous post.TMCk (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible image for "Other encounters with police" section?[edit]

File:Neighborhood-watch zimmerman.jpg I was just wondering if perhaps this image would be acceptable in the section about his other encounters with the police. This is a screen capture from the dashboard video camera of the police department of Lake Mary, an image of Zimmerman in hand cuffs being detained and questioned by police. It is believed this is in the public domain, so it may be suitable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talkcontribs)

From a BLP standpoint, it certainly seems to portray the subject in a negative light per WP:MUG. So no, not suitable. Editorially, I do not see it adding much to the article anyways. Zimmerman's back is turned, and it does not inform the reader about anything related to the incident except that Zimmerman was detained. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, there needs to be a solid argument for what this adds to the article that outweighs the negative implications. Just having a picture that is verifiable is not enough according the WP:Mug. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's your interpretation that it's a negative light. You are suggesting that it is the job of Wikipedia editors to portray people in only a positive light, which seems to be impossible concerning someone known solely for being charged with murder, and whose acquittal outraged a significant portion of the population, even eliciting an unprecedented speech from the president of the nation from the White House. You are implying that it is your job and agenda to police this page to ensure that it remains "positive" -- and that's demonstrating skewed and unencyclopedic bias on your part. This man is not known for positive things, so it makes no sense to think his page would consist of positive portrayals of him. But if you want to portray this man as such, by all means do so -- and thus contribute to the general popular conception that Wikipedia falls short of its aspirations of being a serious encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.223 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not mine or anyone's interpretation. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states that we the editors need to "exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" and that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." George Zimmerman is a private citizen found not-guilty of the crime he was charged with. Using court or police pictures counts as using public documents to support claims against him that the courts disagree with. Not including every possible negative image of him is not the equivalent of giving him in a "positive portrayal" as you suggest with your all or nothing False dichotomy. This article is almost entirely about his murder and police altercations. Adding the picture is just piling-on until he is convicted of a crime. Which, if past behavior is predictive of his temperament, will happen sooner or later. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Look we have a special rule for Mug shots stop trying to apply every rule you can find to bypass that rule. A mug shot does not assert guilt when used in the proper context. It shows the person involved in an arrest which was broadcast on front pages around the world. Here's what we can do: 1. The image caption can easily be used to confirm he was not found guilty. 2. The sub-section where the image is placed says nothing about guilt and can be renamed to "Arrest, trial and acquittal". 3. The article says multiple times that he was arrested and not found guilty. Any assertion that there is confusion about guilt is unreasonable and baseless. WP:MUG is quite clear that mug shots can be used within the proper context and we are going to great lengths to ensure there is no confusion about guilt, in fact repeating multiple times over and over that he was found not guilty. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, there is no such thing as a "special rule" on Wikipedia, and one rule does not trump another. Me citing rules is not meant to be used for WP:LAWYERING and misses the forest for a single tree. Citing rules is simply a way of working towards consensus on this page, here and now, based on previously met consensus by a broader community. The overall "spirit" of WP:BPL is to write articles "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". Suggesting a Mug Shot has no inherent bias is simply not supported by cited evidence. I would be all for including this pic if you could provide an argument for what it adds that is worth trumping the prejudicial nature (which I admit isn't strong, but does exist)? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • See "Comment/General statement of fact" in above section.TMCk (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that although WP:MUG says that mugshots shouldn't be used to represent people out of context, it doesn't make clear exactly what a mugshot represents that may be out of context. Does a mugshot represent that someone is a criminal? If so, then no, it shouldn't be included. Does a mugshot represent that someone is famous for being arrested? If so, then yes, it should be included. We need to figure out exactly what a mugshot implies before we can decide whether to use it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Small correction. You write "...mugshots shouldn't be used to represent people out of context.." but it is the mugshot itself that shouldn't be represented out of context just to show people in a bad light. That means that when using such images, (and it doesn't have to be a mug shot), we need to provide proper context to not make an individual look better or worse considering his legal standing. Would his only arrest be in relation to the Martin trial I would not use any booking image at all in his bio. The problem (for him and thus for us) is that he was detained by now at least 3 times, counting the one time before the main incident and the recent one after. This itself and covered by the media is notable for his bio I would argue. My personal problem is that we don't have any other images in this article and think we can do w/o a mugshot, just explaining his arrests in prose. But those who want to include such an image have a valid point and if presented the right way within policy I don't see a problem with it. You say "...famous for being arrested?" and I say, it looks more and more like a second fame which made this article possible. Further in response to your post, a mug shot itself implies that a person was arrested for whatever reason, even falsely. Hell, Bill Gates has a mugshot on his bio and it doesn't imply he's a hard time criminal with the context given.TMCk (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We have control over context. We can write a picture caption and change size of image and placement in article. It is unambiguously clear he is not guilty through these contextual measures. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I have protected this to stop the edit warring. GB fan 01:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The full protection has expired, I have reinstated the indefinite semi-protection. GB fan 11:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing info from existing sources in biography section[edit]

Text in question:
"At the time of the Martin shooting, Zimmerman was employed as an insurance underwriter and was in his final semester at Seminole State College for an associate degree in Criminal Justice.[3][12]"
The citations give much more detail thus the paragraph should be expanded like following (or similar):
"His mediocre grades had led to academic probation in 2011 and he was expelled from school less than a month after the Martin incident, citing the safety of students on campus as well as Zimmerman's."."
Note that I summarized it w/o giving every single detail from the sources. I'm placing this here for discussion since the article is protected so there must be some consensus to add the above as is or with the wording tweaked. Comments/thoughts please.TMCk (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Article locked - need to decide something[edit]

The article is still locked and no one can edit it to make changes. It is hurting the article development. I would like to suggest we try the compromise suggested by Dkriegls above to use an alternative caption of "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012", placed in the trial section, with the photo reduced in size. It is the closest compromise that has been offered so far. If that doesn't work than suggest an alternative picture in the public domain: George Zimmerman white shirt 1. There are a series of these walkthroughs in a white shirt this seemed the most neutral in pose. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do you suggest the "white shirt" picture to be placed? It sure is not suitable as the lead image and is of such low resolution that no reasonable quality image can be cropped out from it.TMCk (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
And the article will be unprotected early if there is a good sign of consensus on how to proceed.TMCk (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Trial and shooting section. Caption saying name and date. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Only slightly possible, but fit's better in the shooting incident article. Context for the image would need to be given in the main prose which it doesn't belong as being too much of a detail.TMCk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
See the problem with images and context about details in his bio vs. the shooting incident article?TMCk (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok then the police ID photo is not too much detail, since his arrest is discussed in this article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Green Cardamom—you say "There are a series of these walkthroughs in a white shirt this seemed the most neutral in pose." I don't think the photo you link to is acceptable. This is not an article on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. We already have that article. Nor is this an article on the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. We already have that article. This article is not a rehashing of already existing articles. This would seem to be an article on the whole person, not a revisiting of the chapter in George Zimmerman's life that spanned approximately February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. There was an unfortunate and tragic incident, but there was also a trial and an acquittal. We have articles focussing on the tragic incident and the trial that took place. The acquittal at that trial brings closure to the chapter in George Zimmerman's life that spans February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. I don't think there is any special need to document in this article, by means of a photograph, that particular chapter in his life. I think that revisiting that chapter by means of a photograph in this article is uncalled for. No photograph is preferable to a photograph that presents George Zimmerman in a negative light. This article is not an article about a person convicted of the utterly serious crime for which there was a trial. Acquittal has to mean something. We should stop focussing on that which the other two articles adequately address. Bus stop (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually each article on Wikipedia is standalone, not dependent on other articles (with some special exceptions). Content is redistributed in books, CD's, we write each article as a singular standalone unit independent of other articles (with some special exceptions this not one). I'm sort of amazed at some of your comments: "bring closure to the chapter in George Zimmerman's life" - are you in any way connected to George Zimmerman? You seem determined to "bring closure" and prevent any picture of "that particular chapter in his life." Our job at Wikipedia is to document history, Zimmerman participated in one of the most important trials of the 21st century, the lack of any photograph in this article on that topic can be addressed using what is available in the public domain. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to be close to him to interpret BLP as calling on us to provide balance to a private citizen who has not been found guilty of any crime. The fact that his legal team did not provide a fair use picture, the last time an editor asked, should give us great pause about using one that does not present him in a neutral light. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The Zimmerman legal team has done a terrible job managing their clients image. That they failed to provide a flattering picture for social media like Wikipedia is just further evidence of ineptitude in that regard. Regardless it's our job to document Zimmerman and we have pictures to choose from. The interpretation of BLP and context has been gone over but you made a statement that you would consider an alternative image caption, which is in the first post of this section. I'd like to hear what you think since it was your proposal. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Green Cardamom—we should choose a format for writing about an incident that transpired in Sanford, Florida, in the time period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. We should not choose multiple perspectives and then set about writing articles from each of those perspectives. Yes, each article on Wikipedia is freestanding and independent of one another. But Wikipedia should not be a collection of articles recounting the same incident in multiple formats with varying layouts and varying perspectives. This article should probably be deleted. It probably represents a poor approach to writing about the incident that transpired in Sanford, Florida, in the time period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. There is little justification for this article. Bus stop (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Green Cardamom Actually, the legal team is probably quite wise to not give wikipedia a picture. For the same reason we don't have flattering publicity photos of most celebrities (The NYT wrote an entire article about this). To give a photo to wikipedia is to give a photo to the world, which can be used on any merchandise, posters, etc without any legal recourse. Including if that photo has been significantly manipulted to be unflattering, or making political statements. That is a big can of worms Zimmerman's team is smart not to open. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Could we use a picture of him at his trial? I think that is probably the most common image of him. TFD (talk) 14
58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I am unsure of the copyright status. Almost all of them we have access to are via the media (with media watermarks/logos etc). But I believe that the source of those was a ahred cam from the govt, but I suppose it could have also been a media pool cam. If its a pool cam, the images would be copyright. Not sure if this has been addressed before in other articles or not. 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
We can use Fair Use if no PD is available of the trial. The quality of the images suggest media pool and probably should be assumed without other evidence. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
As you pursue the use of photographs from the period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013 you reduce the justification for this article in the first place. This is an incident already written about extensively in two other Wikipedia articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Each article on Wikipedia is standalone. AfD of no concern. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Green Cardamom—complete agreement that "Each article on Wikipedia is standalone." But we should not be creating articles that substantially duplicate one another. You have been arguing for a reduplication of material already found on Wikipedia. You are insisting that we delve into, with this article, the area already covered exhaustively in other Wikipedia articles (Shooting of Trayvon Martin, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman). How many more articles are needed to tell the reader about George Zimmerman? The reader can learn all that is proper for them to know about George Zimmerman from our already existing articles on the incident that transpired in Sanford, Florida, in the time period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. This is a biography of a living person. You have suggested that I may bear some "connection" to George Zimmerman. That is totally incorrect. I am simply trying to keep Wikipedia in line with my conception of propriety in these matters. This was a tragic incident. Trayvon Martin lost his life. Our responsibility as an encyclopedia is to contain the information relevant to that incident. The duplication of that information for no obvious reason is not serving the purpose of the encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This article does not "substantially duplicates" any other article (ie. WP:CFORK) and adding a single picture is not going to change that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia can be put to problematic purposes. All such problematic purposes have not been categorized and given a name. You are saying that this article is not a WP:CFORK. I have not said that it is a WP:CFORK. That might be a "straw man argument". But the point I wish to make is that this article represents a misuse of Wikipedia. That is because this article serves no purpose. It is almost entirely redundant. There is no information in this article which both justifies the existence of this article and is not already found in other Wikipedia articles such as our Shooting of Trayvon Martin article and our State of Florida v. George Zimmerman article. This article is a restating of information for no known purpose. This article, in the light of the existence of those other two articles, represents a gratuitous publicizing of George Zimmerman's travails occurring in the time period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013, in Sanford, Florida. In light of our other two articles on the subject, this article represents a figurative tarring and feathering of the subject of this article. There is nothing of any importance found in this article not found in already existing articles on Wikipedia. This article is serving almost no purpose other than the dubious purpose of restating that which is already found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, back on point with this section. I wanted to see where Bus Stop was going, but that just veered off topic. I agree the white T is too low quality for the top. Otherwise though, I like Green Cardamom's proposal. Perhaps we could add the white T to the Biography and the "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012" to the shooting and trial section. As thumbnails on opposite sides. If we get a better resolution non-mug shot, that should replace the white T and be moved to the top (if good enough). Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by estranged wife[edit]

Zimmerman's estranged wife has issued a statement saying she now doubts his innocence in the murder of Trayvon. [7] Seems like a fairly significant statement that should probably be included in the article when it can be edited again. And as of this writing, Zimmerman is suspected of breaking into the apartment of his in-laws. [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.90 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, she said "she believes the evidence"
  • The article you linked specifically says "they do not have any suspects"

Your attention to accuracy is astounding! Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head when you described her as "estranged". I think we should wait for the dust to settle a little bit around these divorce proceedings before we start adding every little thing she says about her soon to be ex-husband. I do agree that she can offer a unique perspective about Zimmerman, and some of her statements about him have been fairly significant, but it's also very important to remember that they are going through a seemingly ugly divorce and her comments only came about after she announced she was filing for a divorce. As far as the home being broken into, the police are investigating that incident and we can wait for their investigation to conclude. The statement I saw released from the Lake Mary police said: "There was some damage to the house. Who committed that damage, I don't know. Was it there before hand, I don't know, We're trying to figure out exactly what we have here". [9]-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 :: Yes it is evident that I do pay attention to detail as I am the one brought two new developments to the attention of editors. And isn't it to be expected that a man accused of murder of a child would have ugly divorce? Isn't it astonishing the lengths some editors will go to in order to keep anything not pleasant about this man out of the main article? Several people seem to be bending over backwards to try to paint a pristine picture of this man known solely for crimes. (And don't act like it's not obvious what has gone on… the home of his in-law was broken into weeks after he was detained by police at said house. And don't act like it's not significant that a wife who stood by him during the trail now agrees that he's guilty and she doesn't know what he's capable of. But continue to defend a child killing vigilante that even the police chief says is a danger to society…) 172.56.32.80 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


Articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say - that is policy. I suppose some stories will be prejudicial to the subject, while others may be laudatory. It is not our role to pick and choose which are which and whether or not to report them. TFD (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As to my attention to details, it says right there in the header of an article by Christian Science Monitor (a very reputable news source), "George Zimmerman is also being investigated for stealing a TV and a couch from his in-laws." [10] 172.56.32.80 (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please attend your acute detail gathering skills to our Wikipedia guidelines on biographies about criminals. Specifically: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law." We do not typically write Wikipedia content about being being investigated for crimes. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The article you linked to also says: Hudson says officers are handling the matter as a landlord-tenant dispute and want to talk to Shellie Zimmerman's parents and also George Zimmerman before deciding if a theft took place. Judging by your comments above, you are clearly biased against Zimmerman and you seem to want to turn this article into a WP:ATTACK. As far as WP:RS is concerned, just because it's reported doesn't necessarily mean it has to be included. WP:CONSENSUS is a determining factor in content as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the article I added says right in its intro that he is being investigated for theft. This is an accurate statement and it is correctly cited. Please note that I didn't add it to the main article, but merely linked it here on the discussion page which is appropriate. I have cited a reputable source and I have accurately quoted them. It is in violation of Wikipedia rules for you to interpret my motives. My personal opinion of Zimmerman is not the issue. The issue is whether the statement is accurate and correctly sourced. And it is. 172.56.32.80 (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite this rule? I'm sure the rest of the editors here would be interested learn how "It is in violation of Wikipedia rules for you to interpret my motives." Also, no one is interpreting your intentions, you flat out said: "Seems like a fairly significant statement that should probably be included in the article". We are simply telling you that this information violates our WP:Biographies of Living People rules guidelines. We thank you for sharing, and no one is accusing you or trying to interpret your motives. We're only critiquing the information. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. All I did was offer a timely article from a reputable source and ask if others thought it would be appropriate for the article. Please don't deny that this is on-topic and well sourced. The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most respected publications in the nation. Thank you. 172.56.32.89 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, because I'm assuming that your comments about Zimmerman on this talkpage are because you're not familiar with WP's guidelines, rather than because you've chosen to intentionally ignore them. WP:BLP not only applies to articles, it also applies to talkpages as well and it says that unsourced material that is negative or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your comments above; man known solely for crimes and child killing vigilante are defamatory towards Zimmerman and yes, make me question your motives. Would you care to remove those comments? I'm not opposed to including this information, but rather waiting on the outcome of the investigation to determine what happened. WP is not a "breaking news" organization.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: this is well sourced information. Wikipedia policy is that in order to be included in a biography of a living person, Information must be well-sourced. And I repeat for about the third time now: This is well sourced. 64.134.157.128 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is required that information be well-sourced. It is not necessarily sufficient. BLPs have higher standards, particularly when the very source you are attempting to use directly contradicts the statements you propose for the article. When this information is widely covered, and directly and unambiguously implicates Zimmerman, then consensus will determine if it meets the criteria for BLP and should be included in the article. It is clear that such consensus does not exist currently. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't contradicted myself at all. It says right there in the article from the Christian Science Monitor that Zimmerman is being investigated for breaking into the apartment of his in-laws. And this is only one of numerable sources that make the same statement. 172.56.32.80 (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

NBC news story: http://www.today.com/news/george-zimmermans-wife-i-have-doubts-i-also-believe-evidence-8C11257699 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.240 (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding to a request for input made by Legebot. I think the article is fairly balanced at this point, however brief, given the complexity of the situation. Also, it mentions via a quote that his wife is on probation but does not say why. She was put on probation after pleading guilty to lying to the court about the state of their finances which were considerably more than the Zimmermans had been claiming at his bail hearing. Activist (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by estranged mother-in-law[edit]

Another possible source for this article? Reputable, established newspaper.

The dailymail article explicitly says "according to TMZ". TMZ is NOT a reliable source. This information should be excluded under WP:BLPCRIME unless he is actually charged with a crime, unless this story is covered by multiple reliable sources and not just reprinting gossip rags. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The statement is actually found in many articles: https://www.google.com/search?q=george+zimmerman+mother+in+law+accuses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=george+zimmerman+mother+in+law+accuses&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.240 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of which source the story to TMZ. Add -TMZ to your query, and the results are significantly lower. Of the non-blogs that remain, two that stick out are CBS, and Orlando Sentienl, (along with UPI) which say :

  • "There was some damage to the house. Who committed that damage, I don't know. Was it there before hand, I don't know," Lake Mary police officer Zach Hudson said. "We're trying to figure out exactly what we have here."
  • The police press release did not state whether George Zimmerman is suspected of removing the items.
  • Dean "has not yet produced the lease agreement to the Lake Mary Police Department and we have not yet confirmed ownership of the items that were alleged to have been removed," Hudson said. "This incident is being reviewed to determine if it will be a civil or criminal matter."

So the facts are, Zimmerman was legally staying in the home. After a messy divorce proceeding begins, The owner of the home claims some damage and missing items. Without evidence (that we are aware of), they have blamed Zimmerman. Police say THEY DONT HAVE ANY SUSPECTS. THEY DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN. IF IT WAS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHO DID IT. Including this story at this time would be a gross violation of WP:BLP, and at this point continued pushing for this story on the talk page here is a violation as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/lake-mary-police-talk-to-george-zimmerman-about-reported-theft/-/1637132/22259964/-/kjj42u/-/index.html Erik Sandoval, "Lake Mary police talk to George Zimmerman about reported theft", Click Orlando WKMG, 3 Oct 2013.

"Zimmerman had finished moving out of the home the day police received the call from [Machelle] Dean. As they question Zimmerman, police say the list of items allegedly taken from the home is shrinking as the Deans now report they've found the television in another location."

There is nothing that fits WP:RS like an estranged mother-in-law unless it is an estranged wife. --Naaman Brown (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Biography section[edit]

(1) I've been working on expanding his biography section and was researching some basic info to add about where he attended school and have run into a puzzle - Here are the two RS I am working with: This Reuters article and this Washington Post article. The WaPo says the Zimmerman children attended All Saints Catholic School on Stonewall Road through the eighth grade before going to a public high school. That seems to make sense since he was an altar boy for 10 years and worked in the rectory and his mother was very involved in church activities. However, the Reuter's article says that at age 10, because he was bilingual, he would be called to the principals office of Haydon Elementary School (a public school) to often translate between immigrant parents and school officials. I read the Reuters article first and just assumed (because it implies) that he had attended this elementary school, but then I found the WaPo article which contradicts that assumption. It seems rather strange, doesn't it, that a public elementary school would call on a 10 year old boy who attended parochial school to translate for them? Surely he wasn't the only person in that town who was bilingual. Search engine queries about bio info for Zimmerman yield results that show most sourcing either relied on the Reuter's article or the WaPo article. Any thoughts/comments/suggestions or additional sources? I was wanting to use the fact he was bilingual at an early age to show he had strong ties to his hispanic background, which he has consistently self-identified as throughout his life. But if I added this info, it also seems to imply he attended that elementary school. I used WaPo in the article for Catholic school.

(2) I also just used generic naming for sub-sections that someone may want to look at if they think it needs to be changed. I also moved his 2005 arrest to this section because it seems to fit better there with a chronological biographical timeline of his life before the shooting. The "Other encounters with police" section, I think could be used for encounters after his trial, maybe a section title re-name to that effect? There was also a lot of other background information concerning Zimmerman when he lived at The Retreat, but it's covered pretty thoroughly in the shooting article, so I left it out in this one. I didn't add any current material surrounding Shellie's filing for divorce and details she has given in media interviews, until we gather a consensus on some of those issues.

(3) I also removed the expansion tag from the shooting section, why expand that section, there's an entire article on the shooting. The lede also could use some work and expansion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should photographs be included in this article?[edit]

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. I have also reviewed this earlier discussion prior to reading this discussion for better context. Speaking of context, that plays an important role in this discussion. The short conclusion for those who like to read bold print is that editors were opposed to using photo #2, but there was a consensus of editors in favor of using photo #1 (not for the infobox).

Editors who opposed both photographs argued that both are contextualized during the period of his arrest, and therefore are inappropriate to use out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light, and also noted that it is not necessary to have an image. Editors who specifically did not support image #2 agreed with this assessment, but did not agree that image #1 casts a negative light on the subject. Editors argued that #1 does not violate WP:MUG because 1) although it is technically related to the crime, there is nothing apparent in the picture to suggest it, 2) the accompanying caption is relatively neutral.

Importantly, editors emphasized that a should a better quality and free image turn up, it should be considered as a replacement. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should one or more of these photographs be included somewhere in the body of the article? (not infobox)

  • Photo #1. Caption: "George Zimmerman, 2012"
  • Photo #2. Caption: "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012"
Notes on RfC
  1. An exhaustive search of the web for photographs of Zimmerman that are not trial related was conducted. There are three known pictures from before the shooting, but they are rights holder unknown (presumably Zimmerman). Due to Wikipedia Fair Use restrictions it is probably not possible to use them since public domain pictures of Zimmerman exist, or could likely be made to exist. Thus the only pictures of Zimmerman available are trial related, there is no prejudice or bias in choosing trial related pictures, rather that is all that exists to document Zimmerman visually on Wikipedia.
  2. Picture #1 and #2 were selected from the Commons pool based on previous discussion for as neutral a pose, background, expression and context as possible.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Please !vote Support or Oppose. "Support" votes say which photo.

  • Support Per previous discussion. Photo #1 a neutral photo and caption. If there is consensus also include #2, or instead of. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • support Just like most of the photos of celebrities in wikipedia, our photos of them suck. We take what we can get that is licensed or fair used appropriately. Although #2 would normally run afoul of WP:MUG it is not obviously a mug shot (there is no height chart behind him, he isn't holding up a sign, etc). It could just as easily be his driver's license photo. However, I hold no special love for these two photos. I also support replacing them immediately if and when better photos become available. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Either or both photos. Preference is #1 as it is applicable to the case. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of one or more photos. Between the options of photo 1 and photo 2, photo #2 is preferable because it is of higher quality (clear and sharp as opposed to blurred like photo 1). Dezastru (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: the caption proposed for photo #2 is problematic under WP:MUG, inasmuch as Zimmerman was acquitted. The proposed caption should be changed to read simply, "George Zimmerman in 2012". The photo itself does not appear to show Zimmerman in a negative or false light (hair is not disheveled, it is not a classic combination of front view with side view traditionally prepared for police bookings, he does not appear to be under duress, and there are no police booking numbers or markings evident to indicate that it is a booking photo as opposed to a driver's license or passport photo, or a self-portrait from an automated photo booth), so there should be no other problem for inclusion under WP:MUG. Dezastru (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Either or both pictures would be fine. Copy Editor (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as per other editors. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. WP:MUG reads: "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), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed." This is not just about mug shots: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." This is not the article on "The incident that transpired in Sanford, Florida, in the time period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013, involving George Zimmerman". This is the article on the entire life of George Zimmerman. Notice the title of the article. George Zimmerman was found not guilty at trial. The photographs being suggested undoubtedly cast Zimmerman in a "disparaging light.". Bus stop (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose both per Bus Stop comment above. This article does not have to have a photo. There are many low notability BLP's on WP that do not have photos. Later when another photo is available, one that is not a police photo and does not disparage the subject, then that new more appropriate photo can be used.-- KeithbobTalk 20:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support #1. The image doesn't show him in a disparaging light at all and would fit perfectly in the "Trayvon Martin shooting and trial" section. It's just a shot of a simple walkthru at a crime scene that is usually done with suspects, witnesses or victims. As a side effect it would show readers how he looks like, a common "urge" when reading about a person. But I agree that although the mug-shot looks just like an ordinary portrait, per BLP it cannot be used as a lead image in the infobox and I personally think it would be difficult to make it fit into the proper section w/o being POV even if context and a NPOV caption is added.TMCk (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose both per WP:MUG. Instaurare (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support #1. Subjectively, #2 seems fine, but there have been credible WP:MUG issues raised. I think these issues are less compelling in the case of #1, and I agree with TMCk. Maybe someone should try to contact the subject and request a public domain pic, which would solve this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose both per comments by Bus Stop above. We should just wait until a good picture comes along. I do not know what that picture will look like though. Banishing a gun? Buying a hot dog? Shaking hands with his lawyer? Pulling people from an overturned SUV? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support #1. Agree that #2 poses WP:MUG problem, but curious as to how #1 was obtained and if it is truly in public domain. --- never mind just read the accompanying info after it occurred to me to look. :) Wickedlizzie (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support #1. Not a great photo, but if it is the best available that meets our BLP policy then I suppose it is better than nothing. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support #1.I really do not see any explanation why this photo would be contrary to the policies. The only Wikipedia policy invoked here is wp:MUG which states that image "should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light". First of all, this photo is not out of context. This person is notable solely because of his trial, so this photo is perfectly in context. Second, I don't see any reason this photo presents him in "a false or disparaging light". He is dressed normally, his face is calm, he is in no way being "in a false or disparaging light". The wp:MUG policiy also states that we should not use police mugshots (which this one is not) or photos "where the subject was not expecting to be photographed" (It is obvious that he did expect to be photographed). So, this photo perfectly fits into wp:MUG policy. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
He was found not guilty. In accordance with WP:MUG a photo should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. In the context of the outcome of the trial, the photos presented above disparage Zimmerman. These were photos from a time when he was under a cloud of suspicion of being legally culpable for the death of a person. He was eventually cleared of those charges in a court of law. It doesn't matter if we are talking about a photo that is literally a mugshot or simply a photo that clearly relates to a crime of which a person has been exonerated. As a practical matter, most photos taken between February 26, 2012 and July 13, 2013 are going to be ineligible for inclusion in this article. We would need a photo unrelated to the Trayvon Martin shooting. I doubt that we are going to find such a photo from that period of time. Photos before or after that period of time are more likely to be consonant with his innocence as established by due process. Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
"In the context of the outcome of the trial, the photos presented above disparage Zimmerman.... As a practical matter, most photos taken between February 26, 2012 and July 13, 2013 are going to be ineligible for inclusion in this article." This is a wildly overbroad interpretation of WP:MUG. The policy does not say that no images taken during a period in which a person was under investigation for or being tried for a crime can be used. In fact, when the language we now have in WP:MUG was originally being discussed, an initial proposal would have had the policy specifically read, "Mugshots resulting from a false, illegal or wrongful arrest should not be used in a living person's biography. This includes cases where the person was later cleared of all charges, or where all charges were dropped. Exceptions may be made where the subject has reproduced the image in their own published or self-published writings." That language was rejected in the discussion. In subsequent discussion, an argument was advanced by some contributors that all mugshots are inherently demeaning and should never be included in articles subject to BLP policy. That argument also failed to gain consensus. One editor who argued strongly for excluding all mugshots cited a ruling from a United States Court of Appeals, which held that "The double-shot picture, with front and profile shots alongside each other, is so familiar, from 'wanted' posters in the post office, motion pictures and television, that the inference that the person involved has a criminal record, or has at least been in trouble with the police, is natural, perhaps automatic" – again, the images under discussion in the Zimmerman case do not fall into the double-shot or "wanted" poster category. Several of the contributors in the discussions also noted that consideration should be given to whether the mugshot was recognizable as a mugshot. The contributor who had cited the court ruling, for example, later in the discussion wrote: "I think there is a big difference between a situation where a mugshot is the only free image available and a situation where many usable free images exist. In the former case, we should crop the photo to only show a face-on image, with no profile view, sign board, height markers or other mugshot giveaways. The caption should not indicate it is a mug shot." (In other words, the kind of image we have in photo #2.) Dezastru (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This person was found not guilty. Find a photo consistent with his innocence. If it can be found within the time period February 26, 2012 and July 13, 2013 that is fine. But this article is on the whole person. He was not convicted of a crime yet the photos being suggested relate to a crime. That is disparagement. Find a photo of him playing the piano if he plays piano. WP:MUG is clear that we should not be using photos that disparage. As an aside, many of those arguing for these photos are arguing that Zimmerman is only notable for one event. Those are arguments for deletion of the article. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. We have two articles besides this one: State of Florida v. George Zimmerman and Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Do we not have sufficient coverage of this event already in those two other articles? OK—there is sufficient interest at least among Wikipedia editors for an article on George Zimmerman. But this is not necessarily an article on the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" or the "State of Florida v. George Zimmerman". This is an article on the entire life of the person in the title of the article. This is an innocent man. Not because I say so. We are writing an article about a man found not guilty after a jury trial of wrongdoing in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. At the conclusion of the trial Judge Debra S. Nelson said to Zimmerman "You have no further business with the court." There are no strings attached. He is not semi-innocent. Wikipedia has to use photos consistent with his innocence. That is the "context" in which we view Zimmerman. Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. There is nothing remotely "guilty" about Zimmerman. Therefore if we have pictures of him at the piano (if he plays piano) those would be appropriate for a man who is completely innocent of any crime. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You continue to cite WP:MUG without acknowledging that the photos under discussion here are qualitatively different than the kinds of photos that were intended when WP:MUG was drafted. If there are alternative photos of Zimmerman in the public domain, the burden is on you to identify them. (Incidentally, the jury's verdict was "not guilty." It was not "innocent.) Dezastru (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree that there is any immediate need for a photo of Zimmerman in this article. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Just because it doesn't appear to be a police booking photo does not negate the fact that it is indeed a mugshot taken of an individual who was arrested and charged with a crime at the time the photo was taken. Suggesting that we just ignore the fact that it is a police booking photo by slapping a neutral caption on it is exactly the reason we have WP:MUG and WP:BLP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

• The idea that the mug shot depicts him in a negative light, is a ridiculous argument. First of all, as others have noted, unless told so, one wouldn't even assume that it was a mug shot. It actually looks more like a portrait. Then there is the argument that this is a page about his overall life and not just his killing of Trayvon Martin. Ok. Fair enough. But, you see, not just anyone can get a Wikipedia biography page. Wikipedia requires that one be notable in some way. So, what was it that made Zimmerman notable? Ah, yes… the fact that he killed Trayvon Martin. While it is true he was found "Not Guilty" (by jurors who say they were in tears at feeling pressured to deliver that verdict [11]), even Zimmerman admits that he killed Trayvon. He even issued an apology to Trayvon's family [12]. But before I get off- topic… let's not forget that while this is a biography page, it is the biography page of someone notable solely as a defendant in a murder case and who has remained in the media spotlight solely for subsequent encounters with the police. If you try to disassociate Zimmerman from his being the defendant in a murder case, then you take away his one claim to notability, in which case it would actually make more sense to nominate this biography page for deletion, rather than contest the inclusion of information regarding his sole source of notability. 172.56.32.129 (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Is Mr. Zimmerman under arrest? Is Mr. Zimmerman incarcerated? Is Mr. Zimmerman still on trial? Ah, no...he was acquitted. And if we are going to use the logic that "you really can't tell, it looks more like a portrait", then lets snag his 2005 booking photo and we can justify using it by telling the readers the orange jumpsuit he is wearing is really just a Halloween costume, because he dressed up as a pumpkin. And it is painstakingly obvious how he acquired his notability, the question is - do we disrespect him by using a mugshot of him in an WP:BLP article? BLP says that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". To me, that means we err on the side of caution and not use an image of him that represents one of the most humiliating and degrading experiences of his life - being booked into a correctional facility. Being photographed for a mugshot and fingerprinted and strip searched and being forced to bend over and spread your ass cheeks while you cough and being housed in ad-seg is extremely humiliating and degrading. Especially so for Mr. Zimmerman who was forced into hiding because of an onslaught of negative media coverage, despite the fact he unequivocally maintained his innocence and was denied due process throughout this whole incident. If there is even a slight possibility it could cause harm to Mr. Zimmerman, then our editorial judgement should tell us not to use a police booking photo of him.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Is George Zimmerman notable for anything other than the fact that he killed Trayvon Martin? Ah, no.... that's all he's known for. That is his single "notable" achievement which has apparently warranted a biography page on Wikipedia. Does the mug shot pertain to Zimmerman's single claim to notability? Ah, yes.... (And, yes, we're all aware that Zimmerman was found not guilty. In your repeated reiteration of that fact, you continually leave out the fact that his acquittal was handed down by jurors in tears, one of whom said "in our hearts he was guilty," [13] and that it sparked widespread outrage throughout the country, resulting in unprecedented demonstrations and protests of hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of people. And then there is also the thing about the President of the Nation even taking the unprecedented action of talking about it from the White House: Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.) 140.211.67.19 (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that because a juror was emotionally impacted by serving on the jury and returned with a verdict of not guilty, that it's now OK to disrespect Mr. Zimmerman? It doesn't make any difference if they were doing cartwheels on the courthouse lawn or if tears were streaming down their faces - the undisputed fact remains - they returned with a verdict of Not Guilty. And I would also remind everyone that Mr. Zimmerman is keenly aware of how his image is being portrayed in the media and has taken legal recourse by suing NBC for broadcasting information about him that was used out of context and presented Mr. Zimmerman in a false and disparaging light. Furthermore, the answer to your question "Is George Zimmerman notable for anything other than the fact that he killed Trayvon Martin? Ah, no....that's all he's known for," leaves out a crucial fact to this discussion - he is also notable for being found not guilty of killing Trayvon Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm flatly stating something everyone knows: the only "notable" thing that George Zimmerman has done, the only thing that has warranted him even having a biography page on Wikipedia, is that even by his own admission (and apology) he killed Trayvon Martin. It's hilarious how you and several other editors are attempting to divorce this man from the only thing he has done to warrant even being mentioned on Wikipedia. Stop attempting to bury this very obvious point. (Hilarious that you are inserting this idea that he is "notable for being found not-guilty." The term "notorious" would probably apply better because I have already stated numerous times, his acquittal was delivered by jurors in tears who felt in their hearts that he was guilty, sparked outrage throughout the world and even internationally [14], and elicited unprecedented commentary by the most powerful man in the world. Oh, and what was this all about, again? Oh, yes.... the fact that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. You know, the single thing he ever did that gained him notoriety, notability, thus earning him, apparently, a Wikipedia biography article. Stop trying to bury the obvious here....) 140.211.66.246 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You just don't get it, you completely ignore that his trial and subsequent acquittal was a notable event. Why do you think the jurors were crying? Why do you think there was "outrage" and "unprecedented commentary by the most powerful man in the world"? What was this all about? Oh, yes...he was found not guilty. Immediately following the shooting, there was outrage calling for Mr. Zimmerman's arrest and the president made comments then as well, all notable and directly related to that timeframe of the aftermath of the shooting. But the jurors crying, the outrage and the unprecedented comments by the most powerful man in the world that you reference came about as a direct result of a notable event - his being found not guilty. The jurors emotional response was a direct result of him being found not guilty. The outrage throughout the world was a direct result of him being found not guilty. The unprecedented comments by the most powerful man in the world was a direct result of him being found not guilty. I totally agree that his initial notability was acquired from the shooting and killing of Mr. Martin, but ignoring that his acquittal was a notable event as well reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
And what was that trial about? Oh, yes.... the fact that he killed Trayvon Martin. And Barack Obama's speech was about the injustice of the fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty of -- what again? -- ah, yes: the murder of Trayvon Martin. (There is a distinction here. Zimmerman admits to the killing after all.) No matter how you dice it, this man -- I repeat for about the sixth time here -- is notable only for the fact that he killed Trayvon Martin. Every other thing that he has been in the media about -- being found "not guilty" (by a jury that said they were in tears), multiple subsequent encounters with the police, etc. -- would not have received any media coverage if not for the fact that he had become notable/notorious solely for killing an unarmed child. You cannot divorce his notability from the fact that he killed Trayvon Martin. That is the ONE thing this man has done that has warranted mention on Wikipedia in any context. This is a "biography page," but there is nothing in this man's biography that would warrant a page on Wikipedia other than the fact that he killed Travyon Martin. 140.211.113.103 (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"And Barack Obama's speech was about the injustice of the fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty of -- what again? -- ah, yes: the murder of Trayvon Martin." The jury found the evidence matched a justification of self-defense and found Zimmerman not guilty. By the date of Zimmerman's acquittal, under stand-your-ground in Florida, four out of six blacks charged with homicide of whites where SYG was applied were found not-guilty. If a white president went on TV and complained about those defendants not being found guilty of murder, my reaction would be the same as my reaction to Obama's complaint: that's abuse of authority undermining the legal system and contributing the hate that some gleefully heap on a man found not guilty in a court of law. 30% of the beneficiaries of SYG have been black, yet blacks are 16% of Florida's population; SYG is a law that disproportionately benefits black victims who have had to defend themselves.--Naaman Brown (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I have already stipulated how Zimmerman initially acquired his notability and that it is the sole reason he became notable. And yeah, I kinda accepted that fact about 18 months ago. And yeah, I know he admitted to shooting and killing Martin in self-defense. And yeah, I realize that no one would know who he is if it wasn't for this fact. And yeah, I know the jury was in tears. And yeah, I'm not trying to divorce his notability from the fact he shot and killed Martin. But none of that negates or diminishes the fact whatsoever that subsequent events that arose out of the shooting were notable as well. C'est la vie.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Shooting and killing an unarmed child in the name of "defense," and later being acquitted solely due to a controversial law in Florida called "Stand Your Ground," will make one notable. Sad but true. 140.211.113.171 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
One, child? a 5'11" 170lb 17 year old could enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps with parental signature. Two, unarmed? 6% of US homicides are committed by "unarmed" assailants using hands or feet--nationally 800+ per year. Three, the jury acquitted Zimmerman because the evidence showed a reasonable person in his position would be in fear of death or greivous bodily harm. Common law self-defense. The defense did not invoke SYG: the judge added that to the jury instructions. "unarmed child" keeps calling up Martin's self-presentation on social media as some kind of gangster wannabe, images Martin posted but everyone seems to want to keep out of sight.--Naaman Brown (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the WP:MUG policy, it may be useful in the current discussion to review the issues that were discussed when the language in that policy was adopted in August 2009. The primary impetus appears to have been a need to decide whether a mugshot of Prof. Henry Louis Gates should be included in either his bio or an article about his having been arrested for breaking into his own home. There are several discussions in WP:BLP talk archives #22 and 23. Dezastru (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • The two images proposed for inclusion constitute disparagement. This is because George Zimmerman was completely exonerated of the crime for which he was tried. The two suggested images very strongly relate to the crime for which the subject of the article was completely exonerated. To depict him that way would constitute figurative tarring and feathering of the subject of the article. The article can remain without a photo until such time that a suitable one becomes available. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time: he is notable solely for having killed Trayvon Martin. No one would know who he was if he hadn't killed Trayvon Martin. It doesn't matter that he was found "Not Guilty" in this regard, because the killing of Trayvon is the sole reason he is notable. The fact that he was found "Not Guilty" of murder (though even he admits to killing Trayvon) does NOT change the fact that if not for the fact that he killed Trayvon, no one would know who he is and he wouldn't have a Wikipedia biography page to begin with. You and a few other editors here really need to just come to accept this fact. It's rather astonishing the back-bends you are attempting in order to avoid the obvious. 140.211.67.131 (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not relevant to a discussion about a photo per WP:MUG. The text at WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME suggests we should give consideration to not having an article here, but I think the consensus is that the extended duration of the coverage makes a biography worthwhile. VQuakr (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Obviously the article should be deleted according to 140.211.67.131's argument. But if the article exists, it should not contain disparaging imagery of George Zimmerman. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


South Park episode about George Zimmerman[edit]

South Park aired an episode last night that was about George Zimmerman. This is a very popular and notable cartoon. Should this be mentioned in this biography page? http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/blogs/tv-guy/os-south-park-skewers-george-zimmerman-20131009,0,4575567.post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.113.171 (talkcontribs)

That has nothing to do with him. Saturday Night Live and other shows make fun of people all the time, but we don't add information about that into their articles. Dream Focus 22:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually it is about him, did you read the article titled "'South Park' skewers George Zimmerman, stand your ground laws"? It is absolutely notable, it shows his continued influence in and on American culture. This wasn't a mere mention it was the topic of an entire episode titled "World War Zimmerman". And yes, we do add appearances on big shows like this, in particular when it's part of a larger cultural debate. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It pretty obviously is inspired by the subject of this article. Does it add anything useful to the understanding of the subject, particularly given our requirement of being caution per WP:BLP? If there really is much sentiment that this is worth adding, I think it merits a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually the first step is someone needs to make a proposed addition. The source itself is reliable and of a notable subject (presumably), the question is how to use it in the article so that it is shown to be useful in the article. If you then disagree on whatever grounds (BLP or take your pick) start a discussion somewhere appropriate. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Context matters in BLP as well as anywhere else. I personally have reservations about adding this in any way to the article, but I agree that no real conclusion can be reached (or useful noticeboard query made) without a draft proposal. VQuakr (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been carried in mainstream media and therefore should be mentioned. TFD (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only was George Zimmerman the subject of an entire episode -- World War Zimmerman -- but the episode was give a glowing review by Marcus Gilmer of The A.V. Club, who gave it an A−, describing it as excellent satire, concluding, "Some of those moments were brutal but it in a meaningful, impactful, and, yes, even funny way. That's what satire does when it works: It scorches." http://www.avclub.com/articles/world-war-zimmerman,103877/ 140.211.66.236 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Think this is as notable (not) as the South Park references to MechaStreisand. --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support : While South Park may be nonsensical and funny at times, it does commonly reflect not only current culture but changes in behaviors in society. Just as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, South Park makes the point of its writers through satire. Further, the episode, according to Nielsen carried millions of viewers. It should be included badboyjamie talk 10:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is merely entertainment. In addition to being about the G. Zimmerman/T. Martin incident and subsequent trial, the show addresses related American issues. The source says "The audacious "South Park" on Wednesday skewered stand your ground laws, George Zimmerman, racial prejudice and the death penalty." This is not anything of lasting importance. Obviously it includes G. Zimmerman but there is nothing in this particular entertainment skit that goes beyond the rehashing of what has already transpired and which has been reported on. The juxtaposition of G. Zimmerman to unrelated concepts (such as the death penalty) is only done here for entertainment purposes. It is all tongue in cheek[15]. No source is saying this sheds light on anything. G. Zimmerman is not the "stand your ground laws … racial prejudice and the death penalty." Furthermore Zimmerman is a private individual; Barbara Streisand is a celebrity. An entertainment entity of little further significance, in relation to Streisand, has even less place in a biography of a private individual. This is of no importance and doesn't belong in the Zimmerman biography. Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Low profile individuals don't hire PR firms to represent them.[16] They don't engage in social media campaigns.[17] He may have been low profile at one time but not anymore. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If it's not of lasting importance, then why did Wikipedia give it an article called World War Zimmerman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.67.207 (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

An appearance on South Park is absolutely notable when there are reliable secondary sources that discuss it. The only question is how to neutrally add it to the article, and where to put it. If anyone reverts, we discuss for a bit, refine the wording, and if there is still no consensus start an RfC. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The bit about the South Park episode strikes me as trivia, and I think it has no place in this article. Maybe it could go in an article about the television series itself, however. TheScotch (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman arrested[edit]

Media is reporting Zimmerman was arrested after disturbance call. [18], [19]. Sheriff's office to release details.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Saw it. Zimmerman qualifies for WP:WELLKNOWN at this point, but I think WP:BLPCRIME still says this should stay out of the article, until he is actually charged with something (or at least until we nkow for sure what the story is, and not "according to an anonymous source...". Also, should stay completely out of the shooting article, unless he ends up convicted/restrained/ etc (which would likely end up with him losing firearms rights, which would be relevant to the main article) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for my incorrect writeup of what was reported. CNN said that the Seminole County Sheriff's Office said that Zimmeran was arrested in a news release, that isn't "according to an anonymous source..."?Shiningroad (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That he was arrested did come from an official source. The details are anonymous. We don't know what he was arrested for, if he will be charged, who else was involved, etc. We do not have nearly enough sourced information to satisfy WP:BLP at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It will be nice to have all that information, but we have a very reliable source(s) saying he was arrested. We can say "He was arrested by the Seminole County Sheriff's Office on Nov. 18, 2013", we don't have to wait for all information about the incident, unless you believe there is room for doubt that he was not arrested, which would be hard to see given the new mugshot photo on CNN. Also BLPCRIME is to protect low profile individual's privacy and Zimmerman is not low profile. BLP only goes so far in protecting people who are low profile, it wasn't meant to protect higher profile individuals from negative press in reliable sources. --Green Cardamom (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
CNN now reporting he was "charged Monday with aggravated assault, domestic violence battery and criminal mischief, after an incident at his girlfriend's home in central Florida."[20] Dwpaul Talk 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

He has now been charged, which puts things into a more includable category imo. aggravated assault, domestic violence battery and criminal mischief. Allegedly pointed a shotgun at girlfriend.

Agree that this pretty clearly merits inclusion in the article. VQuakr (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting the same charges [21]. Zimmerman has been charged with aggravated assault, battery domestic violence and criminal mischief, and being held without bail. Deputies said Zimmerman was reported to have pointed a shotgun at his girlfriend, 27-year-old Samantha Scheibe. He also broke a table, pushed her out of the home and barricaded the door with furniture. Deputies received a call from Scheibe around 12:30 p.m. Monday and when they responded and went into the home, Zimmerman was there and was not armed. He was arrested and booked, said Chief Deputy Dennis Lemma of the Seminole County Sheriff's Office. We have enough RS to merit inclusion at this time.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Bond set with conditions[edit]

Bond was set at $9000 with conditions and there are new allegations, how much detail do we want to get into on this new case.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

9k bond seems pretty low. Prosecutors asked for 50k. Interestingly, this judge is the one who previously recused herself from the TM case. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I moved his 2005 arrest and the other domestic incident to his bio section when I expanded it, should we move that back down to the encounters with police section. There really seems to be a pattern of domestic violence in this man's life.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think they can be moved down all together. This case is largely he said/she said, since they both called the cops (although he is certainly the one in jail, and maybe he was just smart enough to call the cops again to create doubt). My guess is that the charges get dropped/plead out, and a restraining order is granted, which will mean the end of Zimmerman and legal firearms. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think he called 911 for just that - to create doubt. I agree it's a he said/she said case, and we'll have to wait and see if she (or the state) decides to aggressively pursue it. If she does, then I think the prosecution will ask for jail time. He'll probably want a trial at that point.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this story, The girlfriend and her mom has been talking to the media for ~3 weeks, trying to get national media interviews,specifically "looking for payment", which nobody offered - which increases the likelyhood that this situation goes into the deep weeds imo. http://m.clickorlando.com/news/george-zimmermans-girlfriend-speaks-to-local-6/-/16721250/23057000/-/cn8pijz/-/index.html

Apostrophe[edit]

National Sheriffs' Association, not "Sheriff's" (this article is protected). That article title, the organization's webpage, and their logo all say "Sheriffs'", and it makes more sense as an association of sheriffs than of one specific sheriff. 2601:8:B500:862:D59:82E6:AAB5:4AF0 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Dwpaul Talk 05:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandyhook comment included now?[edit]

Earlier, there was much debate about whether it was appropriate to include the statement from a police chief who said he agreed with the perspective that Zimmerman was a "Sandy Hook waiting to happen." [22] Now that he has been charged with threatening his girlfriend with a gun, the police chief's comment seems quite appropriate. Granted, he hasn't killed several children, but the statement seems rather in-context now. Can the Sandy Hook reference be included in the article now? 140.211.66.119 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Have the two been linked by a secondary source? We are not going to connect them here. Regardless, the reasons for not including it before still apply, to exactly the same degree. VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a community consensus, not a dictatorial website where one person proclaims themselves "we" as in "we are not going to connect them here." The obvious point here being that the police chief's comments can no longer be singled-out as the isolated, out-of-context comments of one person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.67.105 (talkcontribs)
"Dictatorial" melodrama aside, community consensus is that our BLP policies cannot be overridden by local consensus on a single article talk page (ie here). "We" refers to the editing community. The Sandy Hook reference is no less isolated or out of context than it was before. VQuakr (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not "melodrama," but rather reading two entries above this one, to point out that you unilaterally spoke for the entire Wikipedia community when you referred to your opinion using "we." Thanks. 140.211.66.106 (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman to not face federal civil rights charges[edit]

Not covered by secondary sources, but during a SYG congressional hearing Sen Lindsay Graham says ~1:30 "Do you agree with Holders decision not to pursue federal charges in the TM case". Ron Sullivan from Harvard Law School then goes into reasons why the decision is correct. Sybina Fulton is sitting immediately next to him during the question, and Sen Graham addresses her at around 4:20 . John Lott is also on the panel, and is asked some statiscical questions about race-on-race crime.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Some what contradicted by secondary sources saying a decision is still pending (from 2 days ago), but Graham may have some inside baseball too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/holder-justice-dept-to-soon-announce-decision-on-zimmerman/2013/11/19/e792797a-5142-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Mug shot picture now appropriate?[edit]

Earlier, there was considerable discussion about whether it was appropriate to have a mug shot picture of George Zimmerman on this page. The continual argument against was, "He's not even charged with a crime...." Well, now he IS charged with a crime.... 140.211.66.56 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:MUG. The argument is not "He's not even charged with a crime...." but "He has not been convicted of a crime." VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, BOTH arguments were made regarding the mug shot. Now, he IS charged with a crime, and it remains to be seen if he is convicted.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.67.105 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Height and weight[edit]

His height and weight are mentioned in the infobox, sourced to a police report of him as an inmate. Since his physical attributes are irrelevant to his notability (unlike that of an athlete), I think we should remove them per WP:BLP (especially WP:NPF). Ypnypn (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

But size was relevant to the physical altercation, that is the ultimate source of his notability isn't it? (Height and weight at that time, current height and weight I agree are irrelevant)Gaijin42 (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I've moved this earlier discussion to the bottom of the page because I came here tonight with the intention of making the same suggestion as User:Ypnypn (and then noted it had been brought up before). Every time I see GZ's height and weight in the Infobox (and the connected footnote) I think they are extraneous and excessive details that do not belong in a BLP. In response to User:Gaijin42, GZ's physical attributes (then or now) are not the cause of his notability; his poor decisions are. If anyone wants to know whether he was capable (in terms of his stature) of defending himself (assuming defense was needed) against his ultimate victim without a weapon, these statistics are available (as noted) in the source. I do not think they belong in an encyclopedic article about someone who is notable only because of their involvment in a killing. It almost makes it seem like an article concerning an athlete (where these kinds of statistics would be relevant). Propose removing height and weight (and footnote). Dwpaul Talk 03:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, the inclusion of these statistics without an explanation of why they are there appears to me to be an attempt to make an implicit argument concerning whether the killing was justified, hence violates WP:UNDUE. Dwpaul Talk 03:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE says nothing about implicit arguments. It says things should be discussed relative to their presence in reliable sources - and the size of the participants in the shooting was extensively covered in the media (often incorrectly), and the trial. Certainly the size is not the source of his notability, but it is relevant to the incident which IS the source of his notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Im sure I could find many more. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think it is important to note that the relative size of the participants was extensively covered in the media, perhaps that information should appear in the body of the article. It should not be offered (implied really) as an unexplained set of statistics in the Infobox, as if it was a baseball card. Since the decedent's height and weight do not appear there with the survivor's, the statistics offer no useful information to the reader without additional research. We do not need to (nor should we) try to introduce every piece of information offered at trial here, even if reported by media. Dwpaul Talk 15:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Stories specifically dedicated to Zimmerman's weight (gain)

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And what is the point of that? His fluctuating weight after his arrest has nothing really to do with the case for which he is notable, nor anything to do with his height and weight at the time of his arrest as currently included in this article. Once again, just because media reports (or speculates) on something doesn't mean it should appear here. Dwpaul Talk 16:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion about what is notable or not is WP:OR. It is extensively covered by reliable sources, that is by definition what is notable in wikipedia terms. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If it is so notable, it belongs in the body of the article, not in the Infobox. Dwpaul Talk 17:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Estranged wife describes Zimmerman as "ticking time bomb"[edit]

This is the second time he has been referred to as a ticking time bomb. The first time being the police chief who likened him to Sandy Hook waiting to happen. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/shellie-zimmerman_n_4316412.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.67.105 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In this case Katie shamelessly dropped the ticking time bomb, saying "doesn't he seem like a ticking time bomb?" and of course his wife responded "yes he does seem like a ticking time bomb" - she was agreeing with Katie's characterization, not initiating it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It appears that his newest ex is piling it on as well. A local Florida station is reporting that his ex-girlfriend described Zimmerman as alone, depressed and fascinated by guns and said she feared him, but stayed with him because she thought she could help him. The ex-girlfriend's mother told the station that Zimmerman sent a text message with a still image from an intimate home video of Scheibe and Zimmerman to the ex-girlfriends daughter.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Which puts this woman deep into the woods - she is accusing zimmerman of choking her, and sending her 8 year old porn, but she stayed with him and apparently convinced him not to leave a few weeks ago, by telling him she was pregnant (which she isn't) all the while asking for money for national interviews. Zimmerman may very well be a loose cannon, and unstable, but this womans credibility is dropping like a stone, very quickly. (that said, even an un-credible story can probably quailfy for a restraining order, which would end zimmerman's firearm ownership) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLP violation redacted VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Is the conversation in this section intended to and/or likely to generate improvements to the article? If not, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Also, please take just a moment to sign your contributions to talk pages with 4x~. Dwpaul Talk 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Encounters with police section needs to be retitled and expanded[edit]

The latest incident where he was arrested and charged with assault with a weapon needs to be its own subsection. ScienceApe (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would this need to be a subsection? How do you reconcile your opinion on the degree of coverage to afford this arrest with WP:BLPCRIME? VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know why as well this incident is deserving of it's own subsection?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe because it's the second time he has been charged with a crime regarding a gun. Just a stab in the dark here.... 140.211.66.106 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's already mentioned in the encounters with police section, the question is - why would this incident merit it's own subsection?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Spoofed on SNL[edit]

This should probably be mentioned on the Media Perceptions section: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/blogs/tv-guy/os-snl-takes-aim-at-george-zimmerman-20131124,0,972324.post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.149 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is good. Would like to see another source outside Orlando his hometown. With some social commentary of broader significance, beyond "he appeared on this show and it was lulz". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

USA Today likens Zimmerman to OJ Simpson[edit]

Interesting perspective that could be included in the article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/11/25/george-zimmerman-trayvon-oj-simpson-column/3692533/ 172.56.8.174 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and it's reasoned and supported. However it's an Opinion column, not a news story under editorial control. Although opinion pieces are allowed with reservation on Wikipedia, when making such a large claim as "Zimmerman is another OJ" we need more than a single opinion piece, by one journalist. Don't see how it would pass BLP. With that said if Zimmerman goes down the path predicted there is no doubt more will pick up on the OJ analogy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
USA Today is under editorial control and that is what's relevant when determining reliable sourcing. Opinion pieces are also allowed if they are attributed accordingly. I don't think it's necessary to find other columnists who share the same opinion/analogy between OJ and Zimmerman either, the shooting article is chocked full of opinions by single author's. The pertinent questions are whether it improves the article and is there consensus to add it - or if someone wants to be WP:BOLD.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't care, but I think that's a fairly aggressive interpretation of the existing rule for opinion pieces, and considering how acrimonious this article has been - it's not my fight. The thing I see here is that the Opinion piece is by a journalist, it's like who cares what one journalist believes (unless it's someone well known). And opinion pieces are by their nature not the viewpoint of the paper, they always have disclaimers. The editorial control is limited by design. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't care either, but it's certainly not in any way an aggressive interpretation of the rule for opinion pieces. WP:RSOPINION says that: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Right the spirit of RSOPINION is to primarily credit the author as the source. Which leads to the question if the personal opinions of DeWayne Wickham are important enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. We should examine who Wickham is, as a source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Pitts | Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman - who's the real thug?[edit]

Another interesting article of possible inclusion: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20131129/OPINION04/311290024/Leonard-Pitts-Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-who-s-real-thug- 172.56.8.174 (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wants to drop charges and be with him[edit]

The girlfriend now says she no longer wants to press charges against him and instead wants to get back together with him. According to court documents filed by Zimmerman's attorney, she gave a sworn statement in which she wrote, "I do not want George Zimmerman charged." No surprise there, I guess.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

According to investigators this happens all the time in domestics cases. Victims get scared and afraid to go forward. 64.134.142.134 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC) http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/justice/george-zimmerman-girlfriend/?c=&page=4

Selling art on eBay[edit]

Appears Zimmerman is selling his own original artwork on eBay. Yours to have for 50 bucks. [23] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey something positive. This is notable for his biography to sell artwork for the much. The auction closes Dec. 21 and see what it sells for and more press coverage. Knowing George it will become a controversy but keeping an open mind what the sources say. Wish him luck parlaying his fame into something positive. -- GreenC 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Bidding has reached 100K, probably worth a mention in this article after the painting is sold.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I would wait until a secondary source picks up on it. TFD (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the link above would suffice. It is a secondary news source and mentions that the bidding is over $100k. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

While certainly this passes WP:V, I think it is trivia. Are we seriously going to put every media mention of the man into the article? If he becomes a notable artist sustained over time, then this type of content will be appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it true "we put every media mention of the man into the article"? User:Isaidnoway has been good enough to post stories here as a sounding board to discuss, that is what talk pages are for. Most of the sources Isaidnoway has posted have not been added to the article. This is different though, it's extremely unusual for an untrained unknown artist to sell their first painting for $100k+, that is not trivial, the dollar amount and national press coverage have instantly made him a known artist. This will get exposure not only in the popular press but the art press as well. Anyway I trust the press coverage objectively shows us this is notable, it will become much clearer in days ahead. -- GreenC 19:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"If he becomes a notable artist sustained over time, then this type of content will be appropriate." Agree. Dezastru (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's very unusual for an unknown artist to sell their first painting for over 100K - that fact is what makes this story notable, and when you combine the fact that it was Zimmerman, I think it's more than just trivia. After the painting sells, I think it's worth a mention in his bio article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Painting sold for $100,099.99 and Zimmerman has promised to hand deliver it to the winning bidder.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Mmh. No lawsuit filed yet for copyright infringement or any trouble for passing it on as "original work"? He seems to be lucky so far. Still wondering what will be next. Guess by tomorrow sources will be catching up - for us to decide what if anything to include.TMCk (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Jewish descent on his father's side[edit]

In the Real Time with Bill Maher interview Robert Zimmerman says that his father descends from jews who changed their surname to Zimmerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.172.60 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Can someone add that he is of jewish descent or german-jewish descent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.172.60 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He says in the interview "not Jewish". -- GreenC 18:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
He says in the interview that his father's ancestors were jewish and that they took the name zimmerman to hide from the nazis. Alot of jewish people do not practice judaism but are still called jewish on wikipedia. At least put in that his father's side of the family comes from jewish stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.138.250 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
He actually said that he "believes" that his grandfather is decent from one of those Jewish people that changed their name to the non-Jewish German name Zimmermann to escape prosecution by the Nazis. So a belief is not a fact and not suitable for a BLP.TMCk (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013[edit]

You may consider adding Zimmerman's new painting selling for $100,099.99 on eBay. Thanks! http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-painting-ebay-20131221,0,1080701.story Krcd573 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


X mark.svg Not done Besides not providing wording and placement as explained in the template, there is an ongoing discussion about this issue above which you should consider to join. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

New artwork possible lawsuit[edit]

Zimmerman's latest artistic creation of Angela Corey has drawn the attention of an AP photographer who claims that Zimmerman's latest painting is from a copyrighted image he published. The AP has sent a cease and desist letter to Zimmerman with the threat of a lawsuit.[24][25][26][27] According to the AP lawyer, “If Mr. Zimmerman decides he is not accountable, he will be reckoned with.”-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comparisons to be made with how this is commented on (in a legal/fair use sense) in the public as compared to say the Barack_Obama_"Hope"_poster. Id say wait a bit to see if the suit goes anywhere or if it gets more sustained media attention. We didn't keep anything about the prior painting, so at this point I see no reason to keep this one either. (however if this trend continues with more paintings in the future, I could see a new painting section being added) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity boxing match[edit]

Zimmerman has agreed to take part in a celebrity boxing match on March 1. No opponent has been selected yet.[28][29]-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's apparent Zimmerman is trying to find ways to capitalize his fame (or infamy). We learned during his most recent arrest he is millions of dollars in debt and broke without a job. He tried selling artwork but it's been tainted with copyright violations and classified murderabilia by art critics. So the boxing is not surprising, and whatever else he may try. We'll integrate this larger story once sources pick up on the narrative. -- GreenC 18:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


If the match actually takes place it is likely suitable for coverage. However, I think STATicVapor's contributions are not currently policy compliant. The announcement of a future press conference is not encyclopedic. We are not a newspaper. Nobody is going to care about the press conference as soon as it happens, let alone in 10 years. We are not tvguide or a boxing PR site. The fact that a press conference will happen in the future adds nothing to the encyclopedic value of this article. I am removing it. WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Zimmerman will be matched up against rapper DMX and DMX was quoted as saying that he wants to do it for “every black person who has been done wrong in the system" and he is going to beat the living fuck out of him and he's going to break every rule in boxing to make sure he fucks him right up. DMX stated that “Once I am done with him, I am going to whip my dick out and piss on him … right in his muthafuckin face...Zimmerman is a piece of shit and that’s what he needs to drink." Wow, some really tough talk, let's see if he can back it up in the ring.[30][31]-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It could be interesting. Z is 30 and claims to have some training (although I think the results of the physical altercation with TM indicate he certainly isn't a master of the sport), DMX is 45, but my (perhaps stereotyped) guess is that DMX probably has significantly more practical fighting experience, and obviously does not intend this to be an exhibition match. I wonder what the contrats would look like, and what the penalties (financial or criminal) would be for intentionally breaking the rules. Z getting the crap beat out of him could possibly provide closure for everyone who felt that the verdict was an injustice, but as this opinion piece says, that isn't necessarily the best way forward http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/03/lining-up-to-knock-out-george-zimmerman/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop edit warring and violating WP:OWN with the article Gaijin42, it is very disruptive. The opponent will be announced (or confirmed as DMX) at the press conference, that is why it is notable. Neither of those guidelines apply to the situation is the slightest. It adds to the section instead of us having a one sentence section, which are strongly discouraged. I cited a reliable source for the addition, so the content should be there. STATic message me! 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You had 3 different editors revert your change yesterday. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG when accusing people of edit warring. Recentism "When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time. Yes, unneeded content can be eliminated later, but a cluttered "first draft" of an article may degrade its eventual quality and a coherent orientation may not always be attained." WP:10YTGaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please learn to count, it was only one and that was you. Others made changes to the text, but were not reverts at all. You on the other hand reverted three times, enough to earn a WP:3rr warning. Edit warring aside, you still have a major ownership problem. Anyone is allowed to edit the article and all changes do not go through you first. The information would only be there until the event, then it would be replaced by what was announced on the event. Our articles must be presented in real time, it is not set in stone and [[WP:PAPER|Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. STATic message me! 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fight cancelled[edit]

Fight has been cancelled by the promoter [32] and [33]. This should probably be removed from the article altogether, and it probably should have never been mentioned until the fight actually happened.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I will remove now. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Was this edit reviewed by a moderator? --Faizi1997 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What moderators? Wikipedia doesn't have such a thing. the article is semi-protected but all that does is prevent IPs and brand new accounts from editing. In any case, there is a new fight rumor started http://www.thesuperficial.com/george-zimmerman-celebrity-boxing-over-fight-club-trayvon-martin-foundation-02-2014 I continue my position from above that this should not be included until the fight actually happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should wait on including this until the fight happens. There is way too many rumors and speculation surrounding this for it to merit inclusion at this time.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

The first sentence of the lead sounds rather unnatural to me ('known for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin'). The lead never says that it was he who shot Martin. The following sentence ('... ended in acquittal') confuses things further. If someone were to read the article who knows nothing about the case, he might believe that Zimmerman was wrongly accused of shooting Martin, not wrongly accused of murdering Martin. Might it be better to word the introduction along the lines of, 'George Zimmerman (born ?) is an American known for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin on ? in Sanford, Florida, and was subsequently acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter.' 131.111.185.66 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD currently is poor. The lead is normally a summary of the entire article a couple paragraphs long, sort of a min article. Currently it focuses only on one aspect and not very well as you point out. -- GreenC 17:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox criminal[edit]

Why don't we put an Infobox criminal under the "Trayvon Martin shooting and trial" section for all the stuff you don't want to put in the main infobox.--76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Since to date Zimmerman has not been convicted of a crime, it would not be appropriate (in fact it would be inappropriate) to include Infobox criminal here. Also, it was unclear to me why you have reproduced the contents of the current Infobox person for this article (expanded, it appears, to include the criminal charge in the Martin case, and a verdict of "not guilty") in this section, so I have hidden it. Dwpaul Talk 23:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't want to include an image or his criminal charge/status in the main infobox, so that's why I think you should put it as a secondary infobox under the "Trayvon Martin shooting and trial" section.--76.105.96.92 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps something should go there, but not Infobox criminal. It is intended only for convicted criminals, and (perhaps) those accused but not yet adjudicated. Its doc does say it can be used as a secondary box for individuals "whose notability is not due mainly to their being convicted criminals", but it says nothing about using it for anyone who has been found by a jury not to be a criminal (whatever we may think about him). Dwpaul Talk 01:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
And I have removed the Infobox criminal you added (replacing the box mentioned above), since its use, even here on the Talk page, to describe someone legally determined to not be a criminal is a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies. Dwpaul Talk 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

CNN Interview[edit]

GZ wants to "go back to school and pursue a career as a lawyer 'to stop the miscarriage of justice.'"

"George Zimmerman: God is 'the only judge that I have to answer to'". CNN. February 17, 2014. Retrieved February 17, 2014. 

- Dwpaul Talk 21:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Should this article have an infobox? It seems to give very little to the article and it seems entirely unnecessary to be discussing Zimmerman's height and weight so prominently. One does not see such boxes on similar articles. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. See discussion above. I also just explained to someone why we should not add an Infobox on the article for Trayvon Martin, and it seems to be less than NPOV to maintain one here when the same criteria apply. Dwpaul Talk 01:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The infobox should be removed from the article in my opinion. If anyone wants to do that it's fine with me, it doesn't do much for the article in my opinion. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I won't contest removal but if someone wants to add it in the future this discussion shouldn't be seen as "consensus" since there hasn't been formal consensus and a number of people seem to have wanted it in the past. -- GreenC 15:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
In the spirit of WP:BRD, I have removed the infobox, replacing it for now with a hidden comment directing to this discussion (but not mentioning "consensus"). Dwpaul Talk 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
They both have infoboxes on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin page.--71.59.58.63 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

George M. ZimmermanGeorge Zimmerman – I understand wanting to disambiguate, but he is rarely referred to with his middle initial, while the others (George O. and George J.) are. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support· George M. ZimmermanGeorge Zimmerman, as proposed by Taylor Trescott – George Michael Zimmerman is commonly known as "George Zimmerman" and the article should bear that title per the policy on using the common name. Almost no sources (and very few of the sources cited in his Wikipedia biography) refer to him as George M. Zimmerman or George Michael Zimmerman, whereas the physicist and the mayor of Buffalo are referred to fairly commonly in sources as George O. Zimmerman and George J. Zimmermann, respectively. Of the three, the most widely discussed in sources by far appears to be George Zimmerman of Seminole County, Florida (ie, George M. Zimmerman), as shown by Google searches for "George Zimmerman", which return information primarily about that George Zimmerman. Also note that the Wikipedia article on George J. Zimmermann, who died more than 70 years ago, essentially remains a stub, with just one source cited, although it was created 5 years ago. The page has been viewed 1269 in the last 90 days. The article on George O. Zimmerman, the 79-year-old emeritus professor of physics, was not even created until a little more than a month ago; only 6 sources are cited; only two editors have contributed to the article; and the page has been viewed only 55 times since its creation. By contrast, the article on the George Zimmerman known for the shooting of Trayvon Martin, created two years ago, cites approximately 55 sources, has had scores of contributors, and has been viewed almost 300,000 times in the past 90 days. In short, the primary topic readers are after when they come to Wikipedia for information on George Zimmerman is the George Zimmerman known for the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
Entering "George Zimmerman" in the Wikipedia search box should take readers directly to the biography on the Zimmerman of Florida. A hatnote should be available in the article directing those who are seeking information on one of the other George Zimmerman(n)s to a disambiguation page, similar to how Wikipedia handles the names "Muhammad Ali", "Steve McQueen", "Bill Clinton", "John Howard", and "Joe Clark". Dezastru (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sure that's an ok idea. I did the move to solve technically the dab problem with no agenda about the article name. You never know if I did it the other way someone might have complained because the other GZ's sometimes go by "George Zimmerman" (or Zimmermann) without middle initial and given his notorious reputation it might be a problem. Ultimately it comes down to a question of primary topic, which this probably has. -- GreenC 01:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The individual that is the subject of this biography has the full identifying name of George M. Zimmerman. We are not a tabloid and we should not be following trends in popular culture in choosing a title for an article on this subject. Therefore it should matter minimally to us that he may be "commonly known" as "George Zimmerman". WP:COMMONNAME is in fact not applicable here. The subject of this biography is not (note the examples at WP:COMMONNAME) a well-known politician or entertainer. The subject of this biography had renown thrust upon him through one incident. (A tragic incident.) He should simply be referred to (in our title) by whatever his correct name is, with consideration given to disambiguation from other people with similar names. This person is essentially a private individual who did not choose fame or notoriety. Again—this is a person who was involved in a tragic incident. This person did not run for political office or perfect a scheme for entertaining people. This article's present title is adequate because it is in keeping with the generally serious purpose of an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The reason for the subject's notability (or notoriety), or their own contribution to it, has no bearing on this question. As Green Cardamom correctly states, the relevant policy here is primary topic. There is no question that the vast majority of those users searching for a George Zimmerman will be looking for George M. Zimmerman, not George J. or George O., hence this (the primary topic) is where they should arrive first, then have the opportunity to disambiguate if it turns out he's not the one they seek. Dwpaul Talk 02:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
"WP:COMMONNAME is in fact not applicable here" because why exactly? That policy on using the common name rather than the "official" name applies to all kinds of article titles, not just to names of people who are politicians or entertainers. It applies to names of foods, animal species, laws of physics, obscure cities in ancient Greece, etc. Dezastru (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The examples at WP:COMMONNAME were selected from popular entertainers and politicians only to provide familiar examples; there is absolutely nothing there that says it only applies to people (or things) that became notable by choice. Dwpaul Talk 03:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I Agree, if WP:COMMONNAME was meant to only apply to people who were famous by choice I am sure the guideline in question would have mentioned that.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The most notable by a long shot. They should have the main link, with a disambiguation hattip. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support He is best known as "George Zimmerman" and is the best known person of that name. So DISAMBIG says this article should be the main page with a link at the top to the disambiguation page. TFD (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. DBaK (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, I was a bout to ask the same. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Just because the killer is currently better known is no reason to send all inquiries right there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE it is. VQuakr (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment The problem is an inexplicable editorial need to explore every nook and cranny of an incident—a tragic incident—that has modern day racial overtones. We have the following articles: State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Trayvon Martin, George M. Zimmerman, Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago, World War Zimmerman. Wikipedia doesn't merely cover the tragedy of the death of Trayvon Martin, but rather it duplicates some information in several articles. The name of the individual covered in this article is "George M. Zimmerman". That is not his stage name. That is his actual name. He has not sought to be in the spotlight. He was involved in a tragic interaction on February 26, 2012 which thrust him involuntarily into a spotlight of public scrutiny. My argument is that we should not consider ourselves at liberty to shorten his name. It should not matter to us that the media commonly refer to him as "George Zimmerman". Our primary concern should be with identifying him. That is best accomplished by using his full name (including middle initial). Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
In actual fact, his full name is George Michael Zimmerman, not George M. Zimmerman. Do you have any evidence he shortens it by using the middle initial as opposed to shortening it by omitting his middle name entirely or not shortening it at all? But that's not the point at issue. We use WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia. If he's not commonly referred to as George M. Zimmerman in reliable sources then that isn't what we call him. If you want to change the policy then try it on the policy's talkpage, not on individual article talkpages. I very much doubt whether you'll succeed, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the present title is an embodiment of commonsense, more so than the suggested move. Sure—"George Michael Zimmerman" would also suffice. But it is unnecessary for disambiguation purposes. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
So, why exactly are you suggesting we should go against our own policy and style guide, agreed after much discussion and in place for many years, for this one individual? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
"The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic."[34] This is not the departure from policy that you are suggesting. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
"Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and initials. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You said above: "Rename to George Zimmerman (something to be determined)". Can you give me an example of any word or words that could possibly be placed within those parentheses? Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per common name, notability, reliable sourcing and common sense. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to their being other people named "George Zimmerman" as shown in the disambiguation page. To avoid ambiguity, his title should be more specific like keeping his middle initial "M" in the title or perhaps adding something in parentheses like "George Zimmerman (murderer)" or "George Zimmerman (criminal)". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Your comment is a pretty blatant WP:BLP violation. I suggest you remove it. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
My guess is you're suggesting that having "murderer" or "criminal" in the title goes against WP:NPOV, in which case I apologize. Perhaps it could be "convict" instead. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you working under the assumption that he was found guilty of something in the shooting of Trayvon Martin? Or something else in his past? Whatever that is (if anything), are you saying that conviction is the source of his notability? If a parenthetical is needed, the appropriate NPOV one would be something like George Zimmerman (found not guilty in the shooting of Trayvon Martin) or something like that, which runs afoul of the "Conciseness" criteria for titles imo. Either that, or you are making a WP:POINT that you think he SHOULD HAVE been found guilty, in which case WP:NOTFORUM and the aformentioned WP:POINT and WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It was based off of him being charged with the murder, though it looks like "murderer" or "assassin" go against WP:NPOV. He is unquestionably best known for the controversy. I wasn't trying to make WP:POINT or anything, though, or insert my personal opinion of the case. If no parentheticals, then it is best to just leave as "George M. Zimmerman". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:CONCISE, primary topic, common name... Red Slash 22:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - while this is probably the result of recentism, this George Zimmerman is currently the primary topic by a wide margin based on page views. In a few years, when the public will have forgotten about him, perhaps the issue should be revisited, but we're not there yet. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Statistics[edit]

The purpose of Primary Topic is to establish if an article is more likely for readers to search on. George M. Zimmerman is roughly 100 to 1,000 times more likely to be clicked on than the others. A strong statistical signal that George M. Zimmerman is a primary topic. -- GreenC 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural objection[edit]

This request would need to be a multiple RM, with notices on the other affected pages. Given that it is malformed (the target page name being occupied already), it should be closed procedurally and restarted correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I object to your objection. Wikipedia is (allegedly) not a bureaucracy. This page was quite recently boldly moved with a disambig page started at the old location - holding a discussion before undoing it is a great idea but not necessary per WP:BRD. Everyone would care would be watching this page. In any case, I do not see anything particularly malformed about this request. VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll notify the other two articles about this discussion. -- GreenC 06:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok I added talk page notices at George O. and George J., and added {{Disputed title}} to the top of George Zimmerman directing here. -- GreenC 06:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This move would only be malformed if done incorrectly. The only other directly affected page is the newly created disambiguation page, which can easily move to George Zimmerman (disambiguation). Dwpaul Talk 12:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • also object to objection It is proper to notify the other pages, but the move does not directly affect those pages. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The disambiguation page George Zimmerman has been viewed 82,000 times in the last 30 days.[39], George J. Zimmermann has been viewed 500 times,[40] George O. Zimmerman has been viewed 200 times,[41] and George M. Zimmerman has been viewed 6000 times. Do we want 80,000 readers each month who are looking for George M. Zimmerman to go to a disambiguation page and then pick him out of the list? And George J.'s surname isn't even spelled the same. TFD (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    • There wasn't even a disambiguation page until 3 days ago when this article was moved from George Zimmerman to George M. Zimmerman. and then the redirect left behind was converted to the current disambiguation page. The stats page for George Zimmerman is reading the views to this article until the time it was moved and then on 9 March it starts looking at the views of the dab page. George M Zimmerman has already been viewed 6000 times in the last 3 days. GB fan 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure[edit]

I initially closed this discussion, on the basis that there have been no further comments for four days and the !votes so far are 910 (including the nom) in support of the move with 4 opposed or recommending alternative action. I then thought the better of my closure, since I have participated in the discussion. Request that an uninvolved admin (or non-admin per WP:RMNAC) close this discussion and complete the move. Dwpaul Talk 00:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox[edit]

I suggest we move the infobox from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article to this article. --71.59.58.63 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Links[edit]

All the links to Zimmerman's page still link to "George M. Zimmerman" instead of "George Zimmerman." --12.177.80.66 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --GreenC 15:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)