Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

Requested Photos

• Aerial of Twin Lakes
• Map of Twin lakes
• Free images of Trayvon / Zimmerman.

Request to use a more current photo of Trayvon Martin

According to the mortician, the gunshot wound was to his chest. WHY is this vital information omitted from EVERY account of what happened? What happened to his clothes? If he was shot in close combat, they would contain powder burns. WHY is the media not asking what happened to them? The wikipedia article is notably silent on these rather vital details. Also, here is the account of the mortician in this case. Should be worked into the story as the very FIRST physical evidence of Trayvon Martin's condition following his encounter with Zimmermann.

""There were no physical signs like there had been a scuffle," Kurtz declared, which the network said proves Zimmerman's claims of a violent encounter with Martin before the shooting are false. "The hands--I didn't see any knuckles, bruises or what have you, and that is something we would have covered up if it would have been there. He looked perfectly normal to me when he came in and the story just does not make sense that he was in this type of scuffle or fight in anything that we could see."

Except, he said, the gunshot wound."

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403734n

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-case-exposes-worst-media-210020839.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.174.146 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

and this is one from the wagist blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Black Max, that's why I think that using the picture of him standing with the girl would be a good idea. It's not showing him as a wannabee thug or as a choirboy, but it is showing his height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.4.210 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Shooting of Trayvon Martin → Death of Trayvon Martin – Current title is ambiguous to status of Martin (e.g. did he survive the shooting?) and is not consistent with other WP article titles of similar nature where victim was shot (e.g. Assassination of JFK[1], Death of John Lennon[2], etc.). Redredryder (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Bad proposal It needs to be moved to "Shooting death of..." That martin was shot is critical to the article. That he is dead is also critical. Neither automatically implies the other. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, if we are going to do this lets have opinions on each possible title. If I missed any go ahead and add one. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Richard - it may help. Tvoz/talk 08:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is terrible in form. People of one decision type should not ballot stuff the opposing views. This completely negates previous discussion and obfuscates the reality of Wikipedia's naming conventions and NPOV. Why is 'Murder' even on here as an option, it is not even before the court and Zimmerman has not been charged and convicted of a crime! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why is this done even in this form anyways? With the existing title up for vote. I'd move for a complete tear down and simplification like other methods for consensus. You cannot possibly support two different titles at once. One per person, one comment per person. Not multiple supports and opposes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the original proposal, change Shooting of Trayvon Martin to Death of Trayvon Martin, was too narrow and, as it turns out, not the most popular. The process was changed on the fly. Very clumsy, I agree, but consensus is pretty clear. HiLo48 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • No arguments have brought forth to deal with policy concerns or prefix concerns for 'Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin', not now not in the previous discussion. This needs to be cleaned up and the arguments presented are not being specifically responded to. Currently there is no consensus and policy and procedure weighs on 'Death of Trayvon Martin', but with such a mess the singular choice of editors like Tvoz are unclear with multiple supports. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
      • The whole point of this was to clean up the arguments for renaming it Death of Trayvon Martin from Shooting of Trayvon Martin, there was no need to hijack it so people are "voting" on five different titles. Do we really need to read the same reasons for opposing a title four different times? If people felt Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin was a better title, that should have been made as a seperate section. Also I'm removing Murder of Trayvon Martin, this is in clear violation of WP:NPOV at this time. Killing of Trayvon Martin should also be removed for the same reason. Redredryder (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Do not delete other people's proposals or opinions. What were you thinking? What policy are you acting on? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, I thought I saw somebody somewhere say it should be murder, I can't find it now. I threw it up there so we could all say hell no. We have and it is done. I have to go do real life stuff. Don't delete people's stuff while I am gone please. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's my bad, I wasn't aware we could lock section like that. Apologies for any confusion I caused.Redredryder (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Shooting death of Trayvon Martin

• Weak Oppose not concise per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support It very concisely describes what happened. That Martin was shot is critical to the article. That he is dead is also critical. Neither automatically implies the other. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support As stated in thread. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support One extra word does not make this unconcise - this title covers the two salient points - that he was shot and that he died from the shooting. See my comments in the thread. Tvoz/talk 08:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support This title contains both keywords that readers would likely search for and either word would redirect the reader to this article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• neutral support would keep "shooting",or "shooting death" Gaijin42 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on the proviso that there is a general convention for article names dealing with the death of someone--whether in the context of assassination, homicide, suicide, shooting, stabbing, poison, etc.--as "Death of [Name]." In that case, we really should not make exceptions, especially with all the political static associated with this case. If there is no such convention, then I very weakly support this title, if only because it is a better alternative than "Shooting of..." But seriously, it's awkward. If he were stabbed, would it be called "Stabbing death of Trayvon Martin"? The fact is that "Shooting death..." gives itself to some of the ferocious argument that surrounds American gun law, which this killing has caused to bubble up. I don't like Wikipedia getting into the political stuff through the naming of its articles. Same way I oppose the races of the people being spelled out in detail in the lead. We're a cataloger of, not a participant in, the public debate. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - less clear than current title. -- Avanu (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support "Shooting" or "Shooting Death" both seem to mean similar things, if it were to change, I think "Shooting Death" would elaborate things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darter9000 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support The title is concise and to the point of what the article is (supposed to) be about: George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin, his death as a result of the shooting, and the events surrounding the incident. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support It was a shooting that lead to a death- explains a lot with few words.Emeraldflames (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Violates Naturalness,Conciseness, and Consistency of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Redredryder (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rename unless and until actual facts (like autopsy) are available Any name chosen now is quite likely to be inapt in six months. Collect (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is just not a natural enough title for this article. "Death of Trayvon Martin" covers the essentials more naturally and concisely. This is a title; 99.9% of the details are going to appear in the article, not in the title of the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Redredryder's violations - in particular a very unnatural sounding title. AIRcorn (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to create a new prefix when WP has been nearly consistently using other article titles for years. Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Redredryder, Angryapathy, et al. This would create a ridiculous precedent. I can see the arguments regarding accuracy, as well as the appeal of splitting the difference between "Shooting of" and "Death of," but as a solution, this is cutting the baby in half. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

• Tentative Oppose only if we can reach a consensus on some other name. Otherwise we should keep this per WP:TITLECHANGES although it is not consistent with other article WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't say he's dead. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ```Buster Seven Talk 08:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't make clear that he was killed, but better than "Death of" alone. Tvoz/talk 08:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• neutral support would keep "shooting", or "shooting death" Gaijin42 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Support if the assassination of Bin Laden is going to be called "Death of Bin Laden," then one would think that "death of..." is a stand-in name for all articles that deal with the death, murder, killing, suicide, or otherwise demise of a person. There really should be simple standards for this. If that is an established convention, I see no reason to change it in this case. If it is not, then "Shooting death" would do the job, despite its awkwardness. Big mistake. I had put this in the wrong section. OPPOSE. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The shooting is the primary issue of the incident. The participants and the consequences are—sad but true—secondary to that. Alandeus (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - It doesn't need to say he's dead. People know he is, and the more concise title is easier and in line with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Conciseness and Precision. Also, as has been point out before, the notable thing in this is the event, not the people. -- Avanu (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral Support I'd be fine if it stays as it is, but think it could be expanded and still be even more effective. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Being dead is more important to the story than being shot. If he were shot and alive, we'd have two sides to this story. As it is, I prefer "Death of..." or maybe "Killing of...". At some distant future date, once things have been resolved legally, it might become more appropriate to use "Murder of...", if that's how the courts decide. For the moment though, the story is about a kid who came to be killed. If Zimmerman had stabbed or bludgeoned him to death, the story would be just as significant. The method of killing is not nearly as important as the outcome. Dragons flight (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Until further information is actually at hand to determine an NPOV title. Collect (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Best choice for now. Death omits the violence, Shooting Death seems unnecessarily redundant, murder is non WP:V. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If you just look at the Special:PrefixIndex/Death of versus Special:PrefixIndex/Shooting of, one can see how seldom "Shooting of" is used, and how often "Death of" is used. We should stick to convention. Angryapathy (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dragons flight and others. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, commenting on a couple of the other proposals as well, but the actual death made this newsworthy and notable for our purposes. If he was only shot, it might have made Wikinews at best. Consistency, accuracy, and fairness point clearly to "Death of." --BDD (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Death of Trayvon Martin

• Support concise and consistent with other article WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't say he was shot, which is why this article exists. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, can't help myself. See my comments below. If he were only shot, the article probably wouldn't exist. It's his death that made this event all too notable. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Incomplete. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't make clear that the death was not accidental and not of natural causes. Tvoz/talk 08:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  You could say the same for Death of John Lennon. The name alone need not include all that information. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• oppose his death is not particularly notable. its the shooting and the circumstances around it that are causing controversy. If Martin had survived, many of the same issues would be discussed (perhaps less strongly) Gaijin42 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The people in this are not notable beyond the EVENT. So the title should focus on an event, not a person. -- Avanu (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  Is a person's death not an event? --BDD (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Death of Trayvon Martin is the correct one. 'Shooting Death of' would create a new category of prefixes as no other title in all of Wikipedia shares the prefix 'Shooting Death'. User:TheSoundandFury is correct that it is awkward, biased and unprecedented in Wikipedia to come up with a new prefix entirely for this case when other cases have been put forth. See [3]. Shooting of, has 12 entries not including redirects.. 29 with 'Killing of', but many redirects. It is not neutral. The titles of other news sources focus on Death of Trayvon Martin or Trayvon Martin's Death, which some do not even have proper naming itself, disproportionately exist to the 'Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin' or 'Trayvon Martin's Shooting Death' as a title. The current 'Shooting of Trayvon Martin' still has more support then it though. I don't see why this is still an issue. If our result is to create an entirely new prefix that is not even neutral; how is that fair. Wikipedia standards come first and it does not rest on creating new title prefixes that are better covered by existing forms. To bring it up again. Shooting of John F. Kennedy redirects to Assassination of John F. Kennedy.Killing of Muammar Gaddafi is a redirect for Death of Muammar Gaddafi and he too was shot and died from his injuries. There is no 'Shooting Death' for a prefix and should never be. Redirect as you need, but the prefix 'Death of' is neutral, unbiased, concise and standard form for Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Why invent a new prefix ("Shooting death") when almost all other Wikipedia articles use "Death of" as a article title when referring to a death. And leaving it as "Shooting" is not explicit enough. Angryapathy (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Prefer consistency with the way similar articles have been named. We can certainly include a variety of relevant redirects, and the article lead already makes the broad strokes plenty clear. Dragons flight (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't address that the shooting and the events leading up to it are a huge part of the story. Because we've known from the jump the cause of death and by whom, it's the cause and the shooter who are also of interest. "Death of..." doesn't give a complete enough picture. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  See Death of Caylee Anthony. Over 80% of the article is about the Casey Anthony trial, but the source event is the death. Angryapathy (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  Note that from the beginning of the Caylee Anthony case, it was not certain who killed her or how. The cases are completely different. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the events have differences. But there are a plethora of details in both articles (nearly all of them) that are critical to a complete description of the event but not mentioned in the title. The title should be the shortest combination of words that unambiguously identifies the subject. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support for consistency's sake. ChrisGualtieri has covered this ground well, but I'll reiterate and add that "Death of" is much more accurate than "Shooting of." People can be shot without dying. It's very likely none of us would have known the name "Trayvon Martin" had he not died. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless and until further facts are determined. Collect (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'm curious, are you expecting that further facts will make him not dead? I don't see how "death of..." would be contingent on any further knowledge. Dragons flight (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - best meets the criteria per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA of naturalness, concision, recognizability, precision, and consistency with other similar articles. VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - had to resist the urge to do a "strong support." I think it is important in our community to maintain standards. Nearly every article about a death is called "Death of..." The idea that we should use "Shooting of..." is, in my view, giving too much emphasis to the current, overheated political exigencies in question. If it was a poisoning event, the page would absolutely not be called "Poisoning of..." And I think this says it all. In order not to be biased, political, and in order to be independent and judicious, we should apply the same standards to this death event as we do others. For that, and all the reasons mentioned above. This is a question of the integrity of the naming process of the encyclopedia, which reflects on Wikipedia and this community as a civic institution. So you can see I feel strongly that we get this stuff right. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Out of all the proposals this fulfills the the naming criteria the best. AIRcorn (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Death is a neutral word, and it matches the other "Death of X" articles on Wikipedia. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 23:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support If fulfills the naming criteria the best and is consistent with other, similar articles. Oppose all other names.LedRush (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (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.

---

Killing of Trayvon Martin

• Oppose not any better the "Shooting of". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't say he was shot, which is why this article exists. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Too strong. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Better than "Death of" or "Shooting of" as it gets across the fact that he died, and that it was not accidental or natural. "Shooting death of" accomplishes the same thing and is also fine. Tvoz/talk 08:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose removes information compared to other titles, implies intent, although it is technically acurate
• Oppose - Shooting is more precise than killing, and while Killing is not inaccurate, to me it doesn't hit the right tone. -- Avanu (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Inflammatory. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2012 (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.

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.

---

Murder of Trayvon Martin

• Oppose WP:POV Pushing Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Richard. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this was not suggested by anyone, and is not appropriate at this time. Tvoz/talk 08:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Richard. May also sound like it was premeditated Alandeus (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• strong oppose would have to wait until after a conviction for this title. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - we have no conviction or admission of guilt in the sense of murder, and so it is inappropriate to use this title. -- Avanu (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Inflammatory and inaccurate. No murder charges have been filed. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2012 (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.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Thought we could clear this up and get some outside thought on the matter. For those joining, there is a fairly large discussion regarding the title change here [4]. Redredryder (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard-of-Earth has added WP:NAMINGCRITERIA to several of his comments above, presumably implying only his opinions comply and that different opinions do not comply. That is disingenuous. I would argue that my views comply better with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA than his, but I'm not going to stick it in every post I've made above. That would be silly. Can we stop this dumb game playing and just admit that what we each post is done in good faith and is our own opinion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hilo, that wasn't my intention. I apologize if thats the impression you got. I just wanted to cite the policy I assume everyone would go by, rather then just give an opinion. I was adding the links as you were voting. Of course, everyone interpretation of the policy is just as valid. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I closed the previous discussion, so this one would be the prime discussion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not a vote. Stop cross posting your views. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about titles and such that "Death of Trayvon Martin" is the correct one. People who oppose should not ballot stuff as it breaks Wikipedia's rules and you could be blocked. We have too many proposals up and people for one are forcing their views into other groups to generate consensus against a side they do not agree with. This is sillyness. It completely makes the previous discussion useless by design and misrepresents the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC)That's right. It is not a vote so there is no "ballot stuffing". It's just editors choosing from the asst. vegetables available. You seem to be the only one that has a problem with the collaborative effort of your fellow editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So you think posting multiple supports and multiple oppose in the same survey is not rigging of consensus? I'd disagree and it runs afoul of the rules. As your views are clearly noted and Wikipedia is not a vote based system, continuing to spread your opinion in multiple areas of a single survey... especially without comment is wrong. Considering arguments, not a strawpoll is how things are handled here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Considering arguments and continuously arguing is NOT the way things get done. All I needed to say I had said in the previous discussion. The same with most others that chose and commented. Collaborating gets things done not chiding other editors for stretching the Holy Rule Book. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The survey needs to be fixed, it is not a fair representation and making good arguments are a proper way to get things done, if no editor can address the evidence put forth in such a way as to refute the point or offer a better alternative, option or evidence about it, then my argument still stands. Wikipedia is not based on strawpolling, but matters of policy, convention and neutrality. Multiple votes for and against contradict the nature of a title change. Things should be done by those policies and not by breaking or stretching them to suit your purposes. One vote per person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri : What is happening above is not vote stuffing. It is effectively 5 separate proposals, to see which ones have support. This is very common, and accepted in wikipedia. See the ongoing RFC for muhammad images Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images other high visibility RFCs. especially in a multiple choice siutation here, you can believe more than one of those results is acceptable, while others are unacceptable due to policy. Saying "I like this one", should not preclude you from saying "using the word murder is a blp violation". Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• That discussion is different and notice that the same user, for example Student7, does not have a support and oppose for both sides of the same question. This is not something so complex or so controversial in nature either. You can realistically only support one title, not two... not three, but one. If you pick for multiple competing viewpoints it is not making concensus, your decision should be singular as the choice is singular. A title is a title, others with enough support should become redirects. I am not stating that comments on sections shouldn't be allowed, but that a single editor not raise multiple supports and opposes like it is multiple-choice and multiple-selection. Any other with a proper arguement should be labeled as '''Comment''' instead. This prevents a misunderstanding of support and still details issues without stating a for or against. It is common to use those comments to strengthen or counter arguments and is not a representation of that editors single vote. Putting multiple votes of support or opposition runs counter to this survey and it should be corrected. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a well established practice. Wikipedia:How_to_hold_a_consensus_vote#Third_choice:_Approval_voting Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• No activity from 06? A withdrawn proposal for a guideline? It is only kept for historical purposes. Don't misrepresent. WP:Strawpolls and specifically, WP:DEM. Wikipedia is not a democracy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed afterwards it was withrdrawn, did not mean to mislead. However, I do note that that propsal does refer to times approval process was used to gather consensus. In any case, it is clear that there is a consensus for deciding the process this way, as you are the only one objecting. (Meta consensus ftw! )Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Trayvon Martin already redirects to this article, I don't think it really matters all that much what the article is called. 6ty4e (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris, "ballot stuffing"? Come on - there is nothing being done under the table or without full disclosure of who is expressing which opinion which is what ballot stuffing means. As others have said, this is well-established practice here -surveys like this are often done so that people can express their preferences for various proposals, and briefly explain why they favor a proposal or not, and perhaps try to rank their own preferences. It is common form and in fact is useful because it goes beyond a straight-up vote, which you know we are discouraged from doing, and with luck it helps people refine their thinking. Consensus doesn't easily come from forcing a commitment to one and only one response - a survey like this gives people some room to consider alternatives to their own first choice.

As for your concern about whether policy is being considered, since you singled me out above for some reason (in the subsection "Survey"), I'll reply: the cited policy in the now-closed discussion above was WP:CRITERIA, which enumerates some criteria to be considered, and the specific ones brought up in the context of this article were that they are to be neutral, precise and concise - the specific objection to Shooting death of was whether it is concise, and I directly responded to that concern in my survey replies, and also gave reasons for why I was less in favor of other titles, including clarity of meaning. (And by the way, WP:CRITERIA also says these are "goals not rules".) Tvoz/talk 20:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:VOTE matters, do not use the article when it is not the same thing. The matter of the discussion done poorly and with preference to votes, not arguments as what is the best reason. Now fabrication of 'concensus' is being used to try an unprecedented prefix? The votes both for an against obfuscate the reality of the situation. All it is doing trying to reverse or delay the decision for 'Death of Trayvon Martin' which was set to be done today, barring arguments from the 'Shooting Death of' side. None of which have been made to directly counter the very heavy evidence presented against doing so. Considering the term itself is not even neutral; I've faced attacks from fellow editors for going by policy, procedure and of all things prefixs. Maybe Ballot Stuffing is a term which you do not like, but typically I don't see this as 5 separate proposals because only one title can be chosen. They are options and only one will be chosen, each editor should only have one vote... not 5. Pick your side, support it and leave the rest to others. Don't go filling up the others with 'oppose' or 'support' when you should have a single vote amongst them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Some here are desperately grasping at the word "concise" in policy to argue against "Shooting death". I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Shooting and death are two almost independent and both equally relevant adjectives for this event. Just using one does not automatically imply the other. He could have been shot but not dead, or dead but not shot. One more word, giving much more complete information, does not negate conciseness. Leaving out one of "shooting" and "death" provides a lot less information and leaves obvious doubt and possible confusion. And there's nothing POV about "shooting death". Martin was shot, and he is dead. Both unarguable facts. Neither fact implicates anyone. So let's drop this nonsense about non-neutrality, or about policy allowing only one option. Oh, and comparisons with Death of John Lennon are also invalid. Lennon was famous. His shooting is already well known about. The article simply fills in details. Martin was an unknown. The whole story needs to be told here. I simply cannot understand the opposition to a simple, clear, five word title. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a news article. This is an entry in an encyclopedia. Here are the arguments that require counterpoints: WP:Namingconventions on Naturalness, Conciseness and Consistency. Also on prefix. WP:NPOV for neutrality on subject matter. The term imparts perspective and it is a poor word choice. Rather then complain about these points, address them. Your own argument for Death of John Lennon only makes the case for Death of Trayvon Martin stronger because familiarity with the subject is not a requirement for its title, it should be logical. If I don't know how John Lennon died, then why must I find his cause of death before I find the article? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I just happen to think that's not a valid response to anything I said. But life goes on. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I suppossed to react to you referring to me as Student7. You should worry more about your manners and the way you treat a veteran editor with 20K edits than you care about your skewed interpretation of the guidebook. You may be biting off more than you can chew. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@Buster Seven. Do not threaten me. Do not harass me. You are making a HUGE misunderstanding. Student7 is entirely different editor in who's commented on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images. I even stated that I was using it as an example in a direct reply to the argument presented. I even go on to point out the differences in that article's discussion versus this discussion. Your offense is misplaced and unjustified. There are other editors that share a similar name to my own and sometimes they reply to the same discussions as me, here and on IRC. Now kindly, look at that discussion and see for yourself that Student7, who was previously the last supporter at the time for Support and the first one I grabbed. (Until FurrySings replied recently added support, making it second last.) Also, Student7[5] is a recent golden award winner and fellow editor with more then 50k edits. He is not you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

When we say Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin are we supposed to assume it was a firearm shot by someone else that caused his death? How do we know from just the title it wasn't a bow and arrow? or a slingshot? Or he was shooting up too much heroin and it caused his death? Or was he cleaning a gun and it accidentally went off killing him? In short, it's too ambiguous and is less concise than something like Death of Trayvon Martin. Redredryder (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Redredryder, really? Including "shooting" is more ambiguous than "death" alone which could be from vastly different causes ranging from illness to suicide to accident to murder? It's longer - one word longer - but surely it is more informative=less ambiguous. Tvoz/talk 05:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Death of has one question surrounding it, How? Shooting Death of doesn't completely answer the how, and introduces two new questions, Who did the shooting? and What was used in the shooting?. It's less concise because it raises more questions than it answers. Redredryder (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cut the crap. Of course it's a gun he was shot with. Find me one normal human being who reads "shooting" and assumes it's something other than a gun, and I will apologise. As for "death" being unambiguous, there's an international comedy festival on in my city right now, and every stand-up comedian speaks of dying on stage. Is that a sillier interpretation than a slingshot? But I'm happy with "death" here. A "shooting death". Accurate, concise, informative, etc, etc, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It may imply that a gun was used but in now way does it confirm that one was. As for your comparison to the comedians? Come on, they are using it in a figurative sense. This is wikipedia, we use language in a literal sense, so of course it's a sillier comparison. Redredryder (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of 3.9 million articles none of which use it. It has shown to not be concise or natural. An article title is key to how an article is discovered and how other people refer to the article. The action which resulted in a death should not be necessary to communicate, find or inform others about said with its own title. Which is probably a good reason why 'Overdose Death of' and 'Suicide by Hanging of' and 'Car Accident Death of' are not used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your first sentence makes no sense at all. And the rest is marginal. HiLo48 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it does. But an inserted comment and a missing comment shouldn't make it much harder. So here it is again. Out of 3.9 million articles; none use 'Shooting death' as a prefix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Results

• Shooting death 8 support, 6 oppose
• Shooting 8 support, 4 oppose (One of the supports is listed above as a "tentative oppose, but their criteria for keeping is in play I believe, see below)
• death 8 support, 7 oppose

Based on these results, I think it is obvious we do not have a clear consensus at this time.

The relevant policy

If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

Based on that, I think the two available choices would be either "Trayovon Martin" which was my original title, or "Shooting of Trayvon Martin", which is the longest standing title, and the one that the majority of the expansion happened under.

Other relevant parts of the policy, to try and head off objections

In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; the WP:OTHERSTUFF objection. there are lots of other articles called "death of",

While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. So this sort of is a policy against "shooting death" since that was a compromise position - the funny part is I meant that suggestion as a joke, but people ran with it :)

Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names more of the WP:OTHERSTUFF objection. there are lots of other articles called "death of",

While you certainly can have continued objections to this title, I don't think anyone can say that there is consensus for a change, and the policy is clear on what happens if there is no consensus. The current title stands. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not a vote. Based on arguments made there has been no single counter to 'Death of Trayvon Martin' and neither your calls for 'title to remain based on length' the dispute has been going on for a long time. Arguments made, not votes, and considering you made it up as a joke it should be obvious that for all the reasons support it not be used! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You are the only one objecting to a !vote. Neither the !vote, nor arguments made prior achieved a consensus. It is clear that a lack of consensus for a move, or a move to a particular destination exists. WP:STATUSQUO. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The system for Requested Moves wasn't designed to be a vote on five different possible choices, therefore we shouldn't count Opposes as if they mean anything because if you are going to support a choice, it is natural that you oppose the others, and we have the current title listed now so those who oppose changing it all would have naturally voted to support the original title. And if you look at who actually voted you will see that some users voted in support of two different titles (Rollo V. Tomasi). When this was changed to include five different titles it flawed the entire process. Plus it's only been two days, per WP:RMCI we have a total of seven before we declare any action, including declaring whether there is a consensus or not. Finally, you forgot to count my vote for Death of Trayvon Martin. I started the Requested Move and that automatically gives my support. Redredryder (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris Gualtieri is right that this is not a vote. See WP:NOTVOTE.Redredryder (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguments for and against. Personal Opinions shelved.

• Shootin Death:
  • Oppose: WP:Namingcriteria for Naturalness, Conciseness and Consistency. General convention, Unused Prefix, Title search, neutrality. Personal opinions.
  • Support: Personal opinions
• Shooting of Trayvon Martin
  • Oppose: WP:Namingcriteria. General convention, Rare Prefix, neutrality. Personal Opinion.
  • Support: Personal opinion. Weak on WP:Namingcriteria.
• Death of Trayvon Martin
  • Oppose: Personal Opinions
  • Support: WP:Namingcriteria for Naturalness, Conciseness and Consistency. General convention, Normal Prefix, Title search, neutrality, precedent, recognizably. Integrity. Personal Opinions.

Seems pretty clear that Wikipedia policies and their specific sections have not been countered to specific policy and their specific arguments. This is not an exceptional case that requires an entirely new prefix or brings issues of neutrality with it. These should at least have counterarguments made or at least have their arguments against the opposition citing specific examples be at least discussed. Every 'oppose' in the 'Death of' category has had their personal opinion rebuffed by fact. How can this possibly be 'no consensus' when there is no single credible argument against 'Death of'? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear that there is not a consensus Your opinion about what particular policies mean regarding the titles and how they apply is your opinion. You may be right. Your opinion that approval voting is not valid is also just your opinion. What is a fact is that there is no consensus for a move. You are right about the 7 days, we should let it simmer, but I dont see a consensus magically appearing. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Approval voting is NOT a valid means. It is in the policies. Wikipedia is not a vote. It is not my opinion about the title either, it is a shared opinion by other editors tied specifically to matters of policy and convention. Therefore our argument is that much stronger and in two sets of discussions not a single argument has been raised against those policy points. The discussion continues and our arguments are meant to persuade other editors of our views; ideally some argument would be raised against our arguments, but it hasn't. Consensus arising from a rational discussion based on policy and common sense is the Wikipedia ideal. However, the practical reality of editing often falls short of the process described herein. Concensus is best described with this quote, "In 2012, a group of researchers studying Wikipedia disputes reported: "Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group." I am trying to uphold the value of merit and policy and I've been attacked for using 'The Holy Rule Book' as a way to point out the clear lack of argument and issues of policy put forth by the community. I've taken my opponent's side when their arguments are good, but it doesn't seem like merit or persuasive debate will impart my fellow editors to do the same. I say let the discussion continue! Do not find 'no consensus' as no arguments have been brought forth, let other editors reply. Time must be given to make this critical decision proper discussion. I'm not saying to change it, just please let the discussion continue until counterarguments have time to be brought forth. This is an important matter which will stay with the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I am fine with letting the consensus stew boil. Do you have any policies that specifically address approval voting as not being allowed? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are still votes rolling in. Let's wait a few days before finalizing it. It seems that 'death of' is more in favor than the current title. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A FUCKING VOTE!!!!! Do any of you pay any attention to Wikipedia policies on that? Quality of argument is meant to count for something too. Several of the Supports for "Death" alone are just plain illogical. HiLo48 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chill out. If he'd put !vote in front of it would that make you happy? This is wikipedia dogma where you get to jump on editors not savvy enough to know the superstitions we have... yes it's not a vote, but it's also not an excuse for you to say GOTCHA. Shadowjams (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If editors are "not savvy enough" to read and comprehend rules that have been widely described, then their contributions deserve to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. I haven't reached that level yet. Topics like this do attract a lot of ignorant bigots, and I at least partly mean ignorant in the sense of not knowing the rules here, we don't just drop those rules for the newcomers. We expect them to learn and follow the rules. HiLo48 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean rules and policies such as WP:CIVILITY? Redredryder (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My bad for not putting the "!". The response seemed rather disproportionate, though. The point is that "death of..." is closer to meeting the naming criteria and conforms to existing convention--or put another way, it has the least amount of defects as a title. I suggest giving a few days to the decision. Seems kind of obvious which is the least-worst choice, which is what we're arguing about. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of moving this entire section down further; it is getting pretty far separated from the rest of the current discussion. As for Gaijin's request, WP:Notvote Specifically first section. "3. Polls might lead editors to expect that a majority will automatically win the argument, or that the result is permanently binding. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not (a democracy), and what it is (a consensus). 4. If Wikipedia were to resolve issues through voting on them, editors would be tempted to also use voting with respect to article content. This might undermine Wikipedia policies on verifiability, notability, and the neutral point of view." Which is further backed by WP:DEM. Numbers should never be the basis for concensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with !vote. This is not a democracy, it is not majority rules. However, polling is a valid tool for gauging consensus, and as such it is uncontroversial. However, when a !vote comes back as 50/50 (ish) for all 3 proposals, with a very similar number of suport !votes for all 3 viable choices, thats pretty clear that we are not near having achieved a consensus. My request was not about !vote in general (which I think we are in agreement about), but specifically that approval voting is not an acceptable tool for doing a !vote. I posit that the situation above is 5 proposals. Is there consensus for any one of the 5 proposals. Nothing in !vote, or in any other consensus methodology says gathering consensus must be a binary operation with only 2 possible outcomes. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. Number of supports or opposes are not to be considered in any shape or form. Evidence is vastly for 'Death of' and the number of 'votes' mean absolutely nothing. Let it go for a week, but no matter what, the ratio of votes or their number is not indicative of what the argument and its strength is. I'll bring this before the boards before allowing uncontested arguements rooted in policy are discounted by unsupported personal opinions or numbers of 'votes'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris, it would be good if you'd take a step back and reconsider what "consensus" means and how well this group is actually working together, even though we don't all agree on everything. Just because you think the "evidence is vastly for 'Death of'", your preference, does not mean we have reached consensus. And threatening (or at least that's how it sounded to me) to "bring it before the boards" is really extreme, when what is being suggested is to maintain the status quo until we do reach more agreement.

Gaijin correctly presents the results of the survey as of now, and it shows that people are not in agreement that "Death of" is the best title, despite your best efforts at promoting it. I agree with Gaijin that there is no clear consensus at present for any of the choices, so it seems policy is clear that we should leave it at Shooting of, let the discussion simmer, until further developments in the story, or further community discussion persuade editors to change their preference.

Although I clearly do not think Shooting of goes far enough, I am more than willing to let it stand for a while longer, pending further discussion, and I hope some reassessment all around. We can't go back to Trayvon Martin, because that one is, actually, incorrect for what this article is - this is not a biography of Trayvon Martin, as I believe we all agree. It is an article about the shooting - and I believe it needs to be clearer that he was killed as result of the shooting, so still prefer Shooting death which I do not find so unconcise as to be ruled out. And despite some people's concern about precedent, precedent is not the determining factor alone in titles, nor is "prefix".

So, I agree with Gaijin that we leave it as is for now, and see if we get more input that persuades us otherwise. Comments that state that one or another title is "the right one" are not really helpful, and policy allows for interpretation here - policy would prevent us from creating a POV title that violates BLP - like "Murder of Trayvon MArtin", although it is certainly possible that circumstances could eventually lead us to that title. But obviously not now, and no one suggested it to be that, and policy would be clearly against it now for obvious reasons. But the other choices are quite far from that, and therefore the policy that requires us to change that title do not apply here. The policy points are subjective - one person sees something as concise, another one does not. There is no absolute right or wrong. So I am in favor of letting it sit at Shooting of Trayvon Martin for now, as is common practice when no consensus is reached, and see what happens.

And a word about how this group has been working together - many of us disagree, and there are some outliers who have been more extreme, but I have to say that by and large even people who do disagree have been working fairly well together, trying to sort this out. I've worked on many other contentious articles, and I think this one is remarkable in how little vitriol has been spilled, and if memory serves, only one brief time of full protection to stop an edit war. Most of the trolling and inappropriate language has come from drive-bys, as is not surprising. but by and large I feel that the group is trying to work things out. This survey is a good example of that.

So please chill out a bit and let the process take care of itself. There is no rush to do anything. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not to be combative, but I do find some fault in that 'Taking it to the boards' was a bit out of context leaving the rest of the sentence out and all. We were fine, but I was referencing the recent post with the caps and the cursing. It is proper to go to dispute resolution and seek third party, it is not a threat or in anyway negative. It is fair to seek a third unbiased opinion when things are at an impasse or when things get out of hand. I'd sooner take it to the boards for those reasons then entertain negative ad hom attacks from editors who disagreements raise matters of bigotry against others. If these kinds of attacks become more frequent then that course of action is fair; even if it has been relatively peaceful. It is like how I agree to disagree with Gaijin on as many issues, but we are still respectful to one another; even though I am more talk page heavy then him. Attacking one another should never be condoned or endorsed, I am grateful about the amount of civility going on considering the circumstances of this article topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, you're right, I should have quoted your whole sentence, which was I'll bring this before the boards before allowing uncontested arguements rooted in policy are discounted by unsupported personal opinions or numbers of 'votes'. - which doesn't sound to me to be about ad hominem attacks at all. It sounds to me to be about what you had been saying your argument was, which is that your choice is rooted in policy and the other comments are personal opinions and vote-counting.Tvoz/talk 01:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually think it would be a good idea to get 60 or 70 Wikipedia editors to quickly think about the proper title of this article and see which wins. Like a vote but more like a !vote. Or maybe a ?vote. The reason? People editing the page are looking at the title from the perspective of what they personally think is important about this topic (that a gun was the instrument of death) rather than from the wider issue of what community-wide conventions govern what we name our articles. Since all the arguments have been raised, and people are decided how they think, I think it would be wise to consult a much wider set of people. Just my thoughts. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It might seem like rushing, but considering that it was originally set to have action on Monday... you might be right. All this talk of concensus this and concensus that has been pushed by the opposing side without countering the strong arguments made; only recently has the 'Death of' section seen a good amount of support (in numbers not arguement) which is now '50/50'. It would be a simple way to settle easily without risking a breakdown of civility. No matter which way this survey goes will undoubtably be contested by the other side. If the matter won't be decided on merits, bring it for third opinion and those who are familiar with that specific issue. I'm sure that a collective decision will help quell the inevitable uproar. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I recall, nothing was "set to have action on Monday", although you made that point earlier. One editor (I forget who - was it Sound and Fury?) suggested during a one-day lull in the back and forth that we try for Monday, but then the conversation started up again, and no one set any deadline, because no deadline is necessary. As for "consensus this and consensus that", I'm just laughing - I thought that was the idea. I'm not opposed to getting more opinions, but I don't see this as some kind of apocalyptic moment that requires high-level intervention or an influx of editors stopping by just for this who aren't as familiar with the nuances of the situation, or the possibility of POV pushing for a title change. We've managed pretty well without it so far, and we haven't been edit-warring or fighting too terribly much. I don't really know why you, Chris, are so adamant that the title be changed immediately. As I've said, I'm not particularly in favor of the current title, but I'd rather see it stay as it is for now, than to change it to something that a lot of the editors disagree with. We've had this title since almost the beginning - and it has been stable - so what is the rush to change it about? Seems to me if we don't change it, the "inevitable uproar" you predict won't happen - and if we make a change that we have a real consensus for, then there shouldn't be any uproar because people thought it through and agreed to whatever we go to. Uproar happens when decisions are made high-handedly or ignoring the positions and reasoned arguments of others. Tvoz/talk 01:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Civility is waning and I am not one to stand allegations of bigotry, name calling or cursing in the discussion. Even minor misunderstandings are blown out of proportion with threats and not even a single apology given. Given that I've thrice been attacked for upholding policies in other aspects of this article and had one even calling for my blocking do you really expect me to entertain further degradation. Those boards exist for a reason and it is not some 'high-level intervention' and characterizing it and my points of view in a negative light. Last I checked comments like this: "Topics like this do attract a lot of ignorant bigots, and I at least partly mean ignorant in the sense of not knowing the rules here..." is not a term which 'ignorance' is really applied it still stands that at least some of us are 'bigots' because of our stance. Even an implied allegation is offensive to me. I rather get a third party to handle matters if this is the direction in which the discussion goes; simple as that. Last I checked, DR is not binding, at least not at that 'level'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Map

I cobbled together File:Shooting of Trayvon Martin neighborhood.png, a map of the 911 calls since Zimmerman apparently moved to the neighborhood in 2009, marking points on Martin's route. Despite much associated publicity, and our own linking to the primary material, I suspect some people would say it is too stalky, and without a doubt it is too crudely drawn to really deserve use here, but I think something of this type should be very beneficial to the article. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think its going to run into OR/SYNTH rules. Any particular fact on there may be well sourced, but I dont think there is any single source showing them all, which would be needed to avoid SYNTH. I think it is only a matter of time before one of the major news outlets does this though, and then we can make our own copy, using that as a source. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

NYT did a fairly comprehensive map. Can someone copy that? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

link?

Zimmerman's Brother's Statement

Under Zimmerman's statement, (where it is at least inappropriately placed) the CNN interview with Z's brother is all hearsay and not admissible. He is just repeating what his brother told him, much of which has been disproved. I Will boldly remove this later if there is no great objection. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand where you're coming from with this question or why you believe it should be removed. You say it's not admissible, but this isn't a court of law. Why wouldn't this article report what Zimmerman said through his brother? I would wait on removing it at this point if I were you at least until more people have had their say here. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This interview by Piers Morgan on CNN has been roundly critisized on news radio because Morgan did not challenge any of Robert's statements, even those that were previously disproved. It is listed under the header "Zimmerman's statement" which it implies that is it George.

Robert was not there. He is not a witness. He is just repeating his brother's claims. Hearsay is not acceptable in Wikipedia nor in court.

WP:Hearsay Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the judge and the jury, just something that echos reports. If the article says Zimmerman's brother said this on CNN on behalf of his brother..it's as admissible as as any witness statement, all of which can be scrutinized. It would be inadmissible if we just said X happened without making it clear to the reader where it was coming from. Media critique is irrelevant. --Львівське (говорити) 04:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

But he is NOT a witness, he may as well be a parrot. SEE WP:Hearsay Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Hearsay is just someone's old essay. It is neither policy nor a guideline, and isn't binding on anything. Dragons flight (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If he may as well be a parrot, then that's good, because he's providing more information on Zimmerman's account of the events - which is the purpose of the section. If we're calling into question the veracity of his statement as 'hearsay', as in "I heard from someone that this is what happened..." that doesn't really line up with this situation, as it's his own brother making a televised statement on behalf of his brother. It's not really a game of telephone here. If Zimmerman told the police, or reporters this version of events, and they repeated it, that's no different than this IMO.--Львівське (говорити) 04:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

DocOfSoc, while I agree the brother's statements are clearly hearsay, I don't see where much of the statements of Zimmerman (the shooter) have been disproved. Maybe you have some sort of magic information oracle that is giving you answers, but as far as I can tell, we (the public) are not much farther in terms of solid facts than we were a month ago. -- Avanu (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My Magic Oracle whose name is Logic ;-) after reading Z's account many times, states

Fact: Z lied about who was screaming.

Fact: Z said he was reaching for his cell phone but gun appeared in his hand instead

Fact: While being beaten on the concrete face down he magically flipped over and shot the teenager in the chest

Fact: According to mortician there were no marks on Trayvon's hands as there would be if he was beating Z.

Fact: Shot in "self defense" Was Trayvon going to kill him with his skittles?

There is more, after consulting with my policeman son, who says the whole thing does not make sense. But I will stop here, so you may tell me here I went wrong. Respectfully, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Lied about who was screaming? Where is the disproof of that?
• Not sure about this cell phone versus gun comment... sounds like it is a bit irrelevant.
• Witnesses have said it appeared that Zimmerman was being fought by Martin. As to the status and who was winning at whatever point during the minute or minutes, I don't know how any of us can say. So there's nothing 'magic' there.
• According to a mortician... by the way, what does the medical examiner or forensic scientist have to say? Why do we need ME's if we have morticians? This isn't a "fact", it is an observation by a person skilled in embalming corpses, not examining them for police investigations.
• It doesn't require any deadly weapon of any kind of self-defense to be asserted. It sure helps, but it is about whether the person rationally felt that their life was in danger and had to respond with deadly force or be killed. I am not George Zimmerman, I don't know his mindset and I wasn't there in this fight and don't know how things went once the two of them were in a confrontation. This again is no fact.

While I don't dispute your son's qualifications, I can clearly say that we simply don't have all the facts and these inconsistencies that you point out are for the most part invalid, and if not invalid, irrelevant. We simply don't know the facts, and the only things the police have are the eyewitnesses and earwitnesses, the 911 calls, and various pieces of forensic evidence. The forensics will speak louder than any statements made by frightened apartment residents or even George Zimmerman, and hopefully the police did their duty, not only for Trayvon's sake, but George's as well. The true facts are what is needed, not armchair quarterbacking by a million people who think they know better. -- Avanu (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not been established in a court of law if Zimmerman was lying about who was screaming. So it can't be considered a fact yet. According to a "mortician"? Who is this alleged mortician and are his comments considered heresay or are they on the legal record that will be presented in court? Since I don't think you were there, I don't think you or anyone else working on this article knows how the whole incident occurred and whether anyone "magically flipped over". Even if your policeman son were there after the incident occurred, I'm assuming he's not with the DAs office where the shooting took place, so how can he know enough of what happened to make an intelligent comment about it all? Even if he were there, would he be giving his opinion to a parent and still hope to retain his badge? With all of this in mind, let's not forget that a trial let alone a charge has yet to be brought against anyone. The incident has been tried in the court of public opinion enough that they may have to try it in another country. Let's not make the same mistake here. This place still isn't a court of law and from all I've read, it's supposed to present UNbiased facts, not personal opinion. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the last comment (re: was trayvon going to kill him with his skittles?) this lines up directly with the brother's quote - trayvon saw the gun and was going to disarm him and used it on Zimmerman. That death threat + the beating...yeah, that's pretty straightforward self defense--Львівське (говорити) 07:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Avanu and Rollo. You did not present one fact in support of your position. Robert Zimmerman backed up his brother's version of the events and offered new information as well. If someone (including a relative) comes out in support of Zimmerman and his version of the events, that is relevant as the media has proven that they are biased against him and anyone who supports him is certainly worth noting in this article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job guys. If this had happened in Calif., where my son is SWAT team member in a large city and decorated for bravery (brag), we wouldn't be having this kind of discussion. With tongue firmly in cheek I will continue to apply logic to a situation that would be untenable in most other states. Keeping it there keeps me from yelling in frustration. BTW we have no proof there WAS a death threat, and I am fairly sure that those of you who do not live in the US cannot comprehend the deep institutional racism in this country, particularly in the South. I do appreciate the effort here of most of you to keep an unbiased stance. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see where you're coming from, what untenable situation you're referring to, what relevance your son and California have to the article, or what deep institutional racism you're seeing in the article as it stands currently. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• @Rollo. I suggest you learn to read more carefully and perhaps think "Compare and Contrast" TY. Namaste 00:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your son's service to the citizens he protects and serves is much appreciated. As far as your logic, it sounds more like an opinion based on how you evaluated what has been presented in the media so far. We simply don't know all the facts yet. Circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence (if there is any), witnessess and Zimmerman's statement will be the final arbitrator in this matter. If Zimmerman did say there was a death threat, it really doesn't matter, the question is and always has been if it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman thought he was protecting himself from death or serious bodily harm.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

TY!! We appreciate the kudos anytime. You present a very reasonable argument; So I will rephrase: IMO it has always been reasonable to believe that Zimmerman was bound and determined to get himself a "F'ing Coon". Total Bias acknowledged. I feel better now. Back to trying to be fair and balanced. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe you just ascribed such a bigoted, prejudiced feeling to Zimmerman without blinking. Having recently read up on the rules regarding biographies of living persons in Wikipedia, I believe the rules for such biographies apply to talk pages as well. I have no clue how to report such a statement, but hope someone with the know-how will see your comment and do the right thing. Racism and prejudice go both ways, and you have crossed a line that never should have been crossed. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe such comments and soapboxing fall under WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP. DocOfSoc is sure showing he has a WP:POV to push.--Львівське (говорити) 02:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya'll apparently missed the part where I said "with tongue firmly in cheek". Also, I was just quoting George Zimmerman. Sorry you were offended. Black Humour. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't miss it and it still doesn't make what you wrote acceptable or appropriate. I don't care if you are black, in my opinion, your comments are beyond offensive. Like Lvivske said above, you're showing a "POV" and that probably goes against editing rules. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

See the definition of of Black Comedy. I have apologized and crossed out. Back to biting tongue and WP:DNB — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that the original comment was out of line, but that "black humor" being taken wrong was completely hilarious. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm out to lunch when it comes to "black humor". I didn't find it amusing in the least. For what it's worth, I don't think my African-American relatives would have found it humorous, either. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Black humour" has absolutely nothing to do with race. And, No, it was not amusing when George Zimmerman said it. Therein lies the Irony.

— DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. It's not funny when Zimmerman allegedly said it, but you think it's funny when you say it? If it's not funny the first time, it's not funny the second time. I was always taught that hate speech is hate speech and contains no humor no matter who presents it and no matter the justification. That's pretty much all I'm interested in saying on the matter. You apologized and crossed out your offensive words, so that's good enough for me. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he's making an even worse joke about 'black humor' which are jokes about death. Being a matter of race on the term as supposed to be irony because he is making a racist joke in the process. This is way out of line, DocofSoc. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Chris, I really have respected your intuitive input on the article. However you are way off base in your interpretation of what I meant. Gallows humor is about death. Go see Black comedy for illumination on black humour. Goerge Z is the one being racist here. I do not understand where you get racism unless you simply don't understand the Communication terms which I used and have taught in the most multi-cultural University in the country.(CSULA) I don't have a racist bone in my multicultural body. I already apologized and if you want to take this to my talk page we can discuss it further. "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate" Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The communication error is yours. The article you highlighted goes directly to what Chris said it would go to: gallows humor. For the record, nothing's been proven Zimmerman said what you claim he did. He was alleged to say it, but saying Zimmerman is racist based on something he might have said is another rush to judgement editors of the article are supposed to be avoiding. Is it possible your admittedly biased take on the incident had clouded your ability to work on this article and discuss it in a fair and unbiased manner? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Using the term and then referring to is misinterpretation as irony is pretty clear under the definition that it has a double meaning or more; to which one party knows and the other doesn't know. From the Irony definition on its own page, "Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension" So basically I can take your 'black humor' at being a joke about 'black people' and 'black humor' as being a joke about 'death' and because of your specific call that the misinterpretation of the latter can invoke the former. A third possible outcome is humor of 'black people' as it is a joke for them. Sadly, your statement does not give credit to your view as the first line clearly states the connection between black comedy and gallows humor, "A black comedy, or dark comedy, is a comic work that employs black humor or gallows humor." It is just another name for gallow's humor and your 'irony' does much to further confuse your miscommunication. It still crosses the line, no matter how you slice it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

so is Obama "multiracial"?

Or does his wiki page call him straight up black. Oh, wait, here is the lede "Obama is the first African American to hold the office." Oh gee, goood ol' wikipedia's double standards as always. I'm sure if Obama were a pedophile or mass murder he wouldn't be called "black" not "multiracial". Whatzinaname (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it has to do with him self identifying as such; even someone who is multiracial would be 'an American of African descent' vis a vis 'African American'--Львівське (говорити) 06:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He's only partially afircan american -- and even then there is debate if that term belongs to Obama since his father was purely African, not african american. That being beside the main point, Zimmerman does identify as hispanic, and his family calls him hispanic, it's even on his voting recordWhatzinaname (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've slightly modified the lead in line with addressing your comments. While I can see the points you are making, the approach you used seems to be lacking in good faith just a bit. Please understand that while not everyone can always agree, we are usually trying to work hard toward the common goal of building a worthwhile encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the angry sarcasm in Whatzinaname's post just doesn't work for me. I have no idea what his point is. (Apart from general whining.) It's a pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why AGF works both ways. While it does have a bit of a tone that isn't necessarily helpful sounding, the point seems to be that we should be consistent with our racial names, not making them up to fit a situation, like the media seems to have done in this story. -- Avanu (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's a cultural thing. I'm not American. And I still can't get much sense out of that rant. Surely the real problem with names for racial categorisation is that it's all so artificial. Nothing is precise. Nothing is right, or totally wrong. (Apart, obviously, from the now non-PC terms like nigger.) I don't know why people get so hung up over the names of racial groups, which are mostly only social constructs anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The US population is obsessed with race. They always try to categorize every possible shade of skin color into a separate "race". E.g. the whole categorization of Zimmerman into "half-white-half-hispanic" is plainly idiotic. Hispanics are almost exclusively descended from Europeans and everybody else on the planet would say they are "white". The truth is that everybody who is not of WASP descent is not considered "white" in the US and they make up new categories to fuel their ubiquitous racism. Even though racial segregation was officially ended 40 years ago, everything in the US, especially in the South, is still about race. Or religion. For the rest of the world there are only 3 or 4 "races" while for Americans there are hundreds. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The US population is not obsessed with race, only the left/democrat race hustlers in the USA is/sre concerned with dividing people up into their own respective ethnic concentration camps and telling them about just how aggrieved they are to live in the most free country on planet earth. and how only a democrat/race hustler like them can fix their situation. That said, I'm not going to stand by why you make this stuff up. Some countries are largely European/caucasian in makeup, like argentina, while others are highly mixed like mexico, still others have racial pockets with essentially caucasian people in parts, blacks in others, native americans in others, and mixed in others -- like Brazil. In the future, I wouldn't recommended opining on things you know little of. Whatzinaname (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call there- Mr. Zimmermann's biological parents were non-Hispanic white (probably 95+% from presently recognized European groups) and Peruvian (likely primarily Amerindian, possibly some African, very likely at least a small component of modern European commonality). He's likely closer to modern European population groups than modern non-admixtured native South American populations, but there really isn't a term in common American English usage for that. If we're going to use social labels, the term which is closest is 'mestizo' (commonly used in South American countries)- 'Hispanic white' includes people fresh off the boat to America from Spain. Nevard (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Nevard, it would be incorrect to describe him as Hispanic white. He is both Hispanic (50%) and white (50%) but the Hispanic part of Zimmerman comes from his mother, who is in all likelihood a woman of mixed descent, going by the pictures we have of Zimmerman. Any more sources on his mother? We know his father is white, but that does not make Zimmerman a white man. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone being mixed race (however you define it) doesn't preclude them being the first whatever. No one said Obama is the first 'exclusively African-American' to be president, whatever you mean by that. Take a look at Lewis Hamilton who is commonly called the first black in a number of areas (as identified in our article) despite having a mixed-race background, as also identified in our article. I'm not sure if Lewis Hamilton identifies only as black or also as mixed-race but there are plenty of mixed race people who will identify both as A and as B which means they are both but doesn't mean it's inaccurate to say they are the first A or first B if they are. The idea that racial terms have to be exclusive or precise is a little silly, they are ultimately artificial constructs. And as I've said before, the meaning of such identifies often varies from culture to culture. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is wikipedia "culture", it's also the English wikipedia, and it's also an american-related wiki, all of which go into describing the characters and vernacular involved therein. The point is, there needs to be a standard maintained. You can't call Obama, also an american-related wiki, black or african american, and then come here and call this guy "mixed" or even "white hispanic" which is the most bogus and absurd "racial" description ever known to manWhatzinaname (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

White hispanic is not absurd, it makes perfect sense. Anyone whos ancestors are pure spaniard are White hispanic. There are also black hispanics, asian hispanics, and indian (native american) hispanics. Knowing which label correctly applies to Zimmerman is much more complicated, but there is 0 doubt that such a thing as a white hispanic exists. There is however a good argument to be made that we shouldn't track hispanic the way we do, since we do not do so for any other ethnicity. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He's clearly not descended from purely spanish stock when he looks more mongoloid than caucasoid. White hispanics do exists, but it's not a racial term -- white hispanics are simply whites/caucasians, the hispanic part is purely ethnic. This is why the term is idiotic. Whatzinaname (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and his father is Peruvian American, and many of which are mixed european descent. So white/european hispanic makes perfect sense.--Львівське (говорити) 02:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

new trayvon picture

So some editor has swapped out the hoodie pic for a new pic. The hoodie pic is now down lower.

Can we use two photos? I think the policy technically says 1 fair use photo, but I think we can probably stretch that to two in this case.

Is the new photo acceptable? I think it is not prejudicial (either putting Martin in a bad light, or presenting him as a young kid etc)

I possibly object that everyone else has a nice "headshot" picture, and then we have a very casual, not looking directly at the camera shot for Martin, which seem sort of place comparatively. I would prefer a shot of him looking directly at the camera, but I do not know if that is enough of a reason to formally object to this new photo.

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The provinence of the new image is highly suspect. Until a reliable source makes it clear that it's actually a picture of the subject, it should not be used. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comon, be serious. Its obviously a picture of Trayvon. Be neutral, fight for objectivity, but dont just make objections for the sake of making objections. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "obvious," is my "please find a reliable source." Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember the last set of Trayvon pictures that came out was from someone in Georgia? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A second Trayvon image is justified

The "hoodie" image alone is suboptimal because it's dated but it is iconic. A more recent trayvon image (if sourced) would be a welcome addition. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Most likely we can only use one photo of Trayvon due to copyright issues. There is a fair use exemption for a single photo. If we can get consensus on a photo other than the hoodie one we can switch, but we probably can't add an additional one. As you can see above, some of the editors are going to be sticklers about sourcing to make sure it is authentic, and there will definitely be a debate of balancing the "choir boy" vs "thug" camps. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall a "iconry" section in wikipedia policies. We should use whatever image is the most recent for either person, assuming we have some way to fairly confirm the dates/ages. That's the real difficult part.Whatzinaname (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Right now, this page involves a lot of overlapping issues. Who is at fault, did law enforcement behave appropriately, political impact, etc. Eventually the "actual shooting" will involve into a subarticle just on the shooting itself. When that happens we can't have enough images of the subjects on commons. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OR by SYNTH

Could someone explain how this is not obvious WP:SYNTH? The text linked to contains not a single mention of this case. Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The expert being quoted by ABC, in the previous sentences of that same section, gives specific criteria under which voice analysis can be found useful. In any case, I have added an additional RS making the linkage. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Searching on a random website for things they have said in relation to other things, and then saying those things about this thing is improper synthesis. Please restore my tag, cease edit warring, and allow others to comment about your disruptive changes. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am baffled that you can think that the experts own statements, regarding the type of work he was doing, is syth. This is not some other expert, it is the SAME EXPERT quoted by ABC. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The same expert discussing something else. This is impermissable SYNTH. Let someone else comment on your actions, let someone else remove tags on text you wrote, let someone else get a word in edgewise, dear creator and protector of this article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It was clearly synth. And most of this method is entirely unfounded as a method, we do not even get the statistics value properly. A 48% is not a 48% chance is not Zimmerman, it is the ratio of the voice difference to Zimmermans. Its like saying DNA wise that humans are 1% different, but a jellyfish is scientificially related at 48%. That's just an example though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support gutting the entire call forensic analysis section. I agree it is very shakey science. "coincidentally" (notice the scare quotes), the software the guy used was written by... himself, and was released... 2 days ago march 1st (misread). He was trying to drum up press for himsself. He is certified by the board that he is the chairman of, etc Here is some clearly non RS analysis of him, so we can't include it, but I would say its enough to say we should not have the information in the article unless backed up by more verification/vetting. This is too close to a "finding of fact" imo, which should be reserved for the court

• http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/this-is-the-expert-witness-the-orlando-sentinel-is-touting.html
• http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/are-there-any-media-people-in-new-york-city.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop linking to random blogs. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Go bother someone else. I stated specifically that they were not reliable sources. I know they are not for inclusion in the article. That does not mean as non reliable sources they cannot be used to point at some information which can be helpful in making a decision. Thanks for not calling me a racist this time though. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you like reading the conservative blog that you keep linking to randomly. Please stop. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually it puts forth some good claims, but we should only use the current recognized one, not this self-proclaimed expert. And the board chairman is actually going against his own conventions and standards with said claim as listed in other reliable sources. Seems that the section is opinion and not actual legal evidence and should be treated accordingly with other matter of opinion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

is there a consensus to remove the forensic analysis content at this point then? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Its not a consensus. It should be addressed, not entirely removed. Though the source clearly did not do good fact checking, but the official stance must be noted for their statement and criteria is notable and takes clear stance against it. It should be noted that it is not evidence for court and it should reflect it as opinion and not a legal analysis. State it for what it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's make an effort to focus on what sources say, rather than our opinions. The cited sources indicate that the role of voiceprint analysis is unsettled and its record of admissibility in court is mixed. The sources also question the reliability of voiceprint analysis in this setting, but they do not dismiss it out of hand. WP:BLP does apply to the voice analysis experts quoted by the Sentinel, so rather than editorially impugning their professional credentials, it's probably worth focusing on the content of reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Split to "Reaction to the shooting of Trayvon Martin"

Split if article grows - If the article makes it over 100kB, then split part of it into "Reaction to the shooting of Trayvon Martin", if not, then it doesn't need its own article at this time.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support a split - It's getting large and I doubt that will change. It's also a brightline split and will be easy to move large sections into the new article. This is a customary subject on which to split an article too. Shadowjams (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose a split - Yes it will get big, but later it is likely to get smaller again as details that are not really needed are removed. Then there will have to be AfDs to remove the splts and reintegrate them into the main article. And really, it's the way people are reacting to this event that makes it notable, so it shouldn't be hidden in a seperate article. Eventually, I could see some timeline articles being created since we are chronicling an event, but more time needs to pass to make it worth it. Lastly, 175kb would be a better point for consideriing a split, because articles like this are citation heavy. Over half of this article is citation. (Just copy and paste the text to your sandbox to see.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose a split When writing about a current event, there is the constant need for editing and re-editing as the story unfolds. Splitting would be a disservice to the readers, Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Resisting officer without violence

Aftermath section, second paragraph. Is this some kind of new charge? The 2005 charge was resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law-enforcement officer, it was later reduced to the misdemeanor charge. This info was left out for awhile, was a consensus reached on putting it back in?--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If the charge changed then that has to be mentioned, if there is a reliable source to back this up. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no such charge as resisting officer without violence.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In Florida there is "resisting arrest without violence" (which means just about nothing). Collect (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted [6] "Resisting officer without violence" ... it is real. Collect (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see that, but regardless, according to the Orange County Clerk's website, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest with violence and then that charge was reduced to resisting arrest without violence.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If the person did not realize the officer was a police officer, then no felony ensues as I read the cite. If he does, then even touching the officer may be "violence" - I suspect that the case for a felony was nearly non-existent, especially if the defendant seeks a trial. Collect (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the officers were not police officers. They were officers of the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco who had gone to the University of Central Florida to arrest an employee when they spoke to a friend of Zimmermans for underage drinking. According to the report of agent Paul Fleishman, Zimmerman walked up to the friend, began chatting and refused to leave. Zimmerman then pushed the agent. The agent arrested Zimmerman for "battery on a law enforcement officer and obstructing justice" but when charged this was amended to "resisting officer with violence." When it went to court the charge was amended to "resisting officer without violence" and he was placed in the "pre-trial diversion program". Wayne (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

major talk vandal

Someone replaced major sections of the talk page, with what I think was previous archives. I have reverted to before the vandalism, There were a few edits lost from Shadow that need to be replaced. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• It wasn't recorded to a user. I doubt it was vandalism and probably some other error. Should be reported still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was... I've fixed it. Don't worry about replacing what I added... some of it was initially misinformed for exactly the reason that I couldn't see the talk. I've warned the editor that did the removal. Shadowjams (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It was this edit, very subtle vandalism, marked as minor! [7] Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow... that's not even on my history as a removal. Its an addition. Clever. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem intentional, was very weird. Why warn him twice for the same post? Whatever happened wasn't normal and I do vandalism patrols. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be hard to do by accident. It wasn't just a simple revert to a previous version, which maybe you could do somehow without noticing. I went with the second warning as a more formal warning to set up a block if he comes back again, vs shadow's more informal (imo) warning. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is something really scary about that diff. Wow. Congratulations for catching it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like what he did was edit some old version of the talk page and saved not realizing that would undo 2 days worths of edits. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of discussion of Martin / Zimmerman's history

As far as I can tell, the current article is conspicuously silent about both Zimmerman and Martin's prior character history. That is to say, Zimmerman's prior arrest and subsequent dismissal of those charges, and Martin's suspension. Both of those facts are being reported on widely by reliable sources, and have been in the article earlier, but have now been removed.

I understand the bio concerns, and these are not intentionally public figures, however prior history is immediately relevant to both, and the fact it's not included is strange. The previous discussions about this were a while ago, and it seems ripe to deal with.

I do agree, however, that the character things need to be all or nothing... in other words, if we discuss prior incidents of one individual we must do the other as well. Shadowjams (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No pseudo-bios or bios for this article. Both of their unrelated 'issues' should not be here as they have no background or relation to the incident in question. The last suspension of Martin is questionable as is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's arrest has been put back in, somebody added it in the aftermath section, second paragraph.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues are related to that point. What do you mean questionable. There's multiple reliable sources. If the discussion of Zimmerman's past incidents is included, Martins need to be as well. If the major national papers are reporting on these subjects, your assertions that it's not relevant is unpersuasive. Shadowjams (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, they are related to that point, but I also agree with your above statement, that it should be all or nothing.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason its relevant and the news covers it, is because it suggests how someone may act in the future. That sort of reporting is routine. If someone has a record of being in trouble with the law or otherwise, that reinforces or undermines the notion that did something wrong again.

Of course that inference can be horribly wrong too. That's why rules of evidence routinely exclude exactly that kind of information.

The point is whether or not the coverage of those issues outweighs the prejudicial affect that they might have. The degree to which the mainstream coverage has focused on them is the most relevant part of that question. That's open to debate, so that's why I bring it up. It's also why this is question about a category of information, and why that category is all or nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear that people notable for one event should not have full biographies on an incident page and to specifically avoid pseudo-bios. Per WP:PSEUDO under inclusion and WP:HARM#TEST most of it is not needed or required and only serves to damage the integrity of their character. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an essay, not policy. The policy is WP:BLP1E. Although I think that essay's criteria match what I wrote above. So it's not enough for you to just state the policy and then say end of issue. You need to now apply it. Shadowjams (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I used the wrong one. Sorry. For Zimmerman's 'crime' WP:BLPCRIME "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. 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 when the person has not yet been convicted." And WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I wish I could find the policy that made mention that a biography should not be tied to a person notable for a single event, but it is growing and I think WP:BLPCRIME covers it well enough. No conviction. No need to plaster it like it was a crime. Same with Martin's so called 'burglary'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I said nothing about a "burglary"... I only used the examples of Zimmerman's arrest and Martin's suspension, which were both widely reported. And we should never suggest or say something that could be disparaging (or glowing for that matter) if there's not a reliable source to back it up. That should go without saying. The policy you're looking for is the one I linked above. It's all part of the same one though: WP:BLP. Shadowjams (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree with this, but do note that we absolutely need to be treating martin and zimmerman the same. (Theoretically martin gets less protection as no longer living, but for this discussion lets say the same). Under the crime etc policies linked above, about 2/3 of the "aftermath" section needs to be deleted. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of it does need to go based on policies. The news is clearly being sensational, misreporting and speculating on a great number of issues. Remember that is was original for violence? Now it was 'without violence'? Each week the entire story changes and the news is clearly not consistent. If our so called reliable sources are not reliable then we should limit our coverage until they become reliable. If we took the case to Reliable Sources and laid out the situation I have no doubts that they will come to the conclusion that the media will not be credible for a great number of these claims put forth. Even common blogs directly have piles of evidence to show for this and specifically cross check sources and material which we could clearly cite as evidence in that case. Face it, the information changes all the time, there has not been one aspect of this case that has been steady other then the fact Zimmerman caused Martin's death. Here's a short list of major issues from the so-called Reliable Sources: Ethnicity, religion, political affilations, two gun shots, the gun itself, execution, lack of injuries, witness accounts, 911 tapes, Zimmerman's that night, police reports, photo manipulation and editing 911 tapes to push racism. Let's not even get into Martin being Jesus Christ.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the with violence->without violence change was part of his plea/pre-trial agreement, but its moot as between the two of us the information is currently gone. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it pretty clear cut the only reason Martin was in the area at the time was because he was serving a school suspension? [8]. Seems relevant enough to me to be included. I don't think it's really comparable though as a reason for adding Zimmerman's dropped charges since those are not related in any way to the shooting.Redredryder (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the suspensions are relevant and important to the story. The Miami Herald (the home paper for me and the Martin family) has written several articles about Martin's suspensions BECAUSE THEY ARE RELEVANT. Wikipedia should not be a source that sanitizes a person's history and censors legitimate information simply because it is uncomfortable or inconsistent with an editor's political or world view. Please include the suspension information. Thanks! MiamiManny (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The bios should be full and complete for both Zimmerman and Martin. I support efforts to put in all information that is well-sourced, whether it reflects negatively or positively on the individual. If the mainstream media is covering an angle of their biographies, that means it is relevant and it has a legitimate citation. Wikipedia should not be used to sanitize their biographies. Wiki readers deserve complete, sourced, unabridged information about both individuals. If we need to set up separate biography pages for both individuals, so be it.MiamiManny (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that the material regarding Martin's suspension from school is relevant to the article. If for nothing else but to give a reason why he wasn't in school that day and walking through the gated community. Mind you, I'm not saying that he wouldn't have been shot if he had behaved himself in school, just that it gives a more complete picture of why he was where he was when he was there. As far as Zimmerman's claims that Martin looked suspicious and as if he might be on drugs, the reason for Martin's suspension (being in possession of drug paraphernalia and traces of marijuana) also make the suspensions relevant to the article. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed --Львівське (говорити) 21:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Martin and Zimmerman personally, I am mostly in agreement with you. The parent's professions are quite a tenuous link though. There are no allegations of political motivation during the incident, or of political connections etc being used in the aftermath. Some non-reliable, non-notable commentators, who are not included in the article, made disparaging remarks about Zimmerman saying he was a typical right winger, but since we are not referencing those comments, refuting them is not relevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Editor Rollo V. Tomasi (great name) What is your source for "Zimmerman claims.....as if he might be on drugs."? I am not in favor of including prior incedents in the article about the shooting death of Martin. I don't thihk they are pertinent or necessary. During the moments of their extended interplay, neither of the parties had any awareness or cause to be aware of each others history...good or bad. This is the type of information that would flourish at Aftermath of the Trayvon Martin Shooting...or, as suggested above, seperate biography articles. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's claim is made on the phone call he made. he obviously had no knowledge of Martin's past, so that leaves three possibilities, actual observation of odd/drugged out behavior, racism, random paranoia. Based on the rate of leaks from the PD, I assume we would know at this point if Martin had significant drugs in his bloodstream, but pot is relatively hard to test for in the short term. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

state attorney acuses martin family of spreading lies

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/State-attorney-outraged-by-federal-review-request-in-Trayvon-Martin-case/-/1637132/10042672/-/13nq8rrz/-/index.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link. Interesting reading. How do you think we should proceed to incorporate it into the article, Gaijin? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The primary source as well (The letter from the martin family attny) http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/10042462/data/2431932/-/12q62jp/-/Crump-letter-for-review.pdf

Not sure on how to include yet we may need to rearrange some information to make accusations vs defenses, or just add it into the official statements area Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the BLP material it references. That is a VERY serious accusation that was made and should not be attributed to a nameless source on a non-neutral poor fact checking sensationalist source. It is unconfirmed by Reuters. And the source of that information is the media from the family. [9] As far as it is concerned, no source, no fact checking, not on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to claim that WKMG-TV is an unreliable source, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I am unaware of this 'Must Be Mentioned By Reuters' rule you propose. Nevard (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Again and again, this must be repeated. The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. (See WP:RS) WKMG-TV is a PUBLISHER, not a SOURCE, but just a COMPONENT of a SOURCE. WKMG-TV may generally have a reputation for reliability, but that does not automatically mean every writer or every article from WKMG-TV is automatically reliable. -- Avanu (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have stated no attribution or independent verification. This one unsourced statement which is unconfirmed, unsupported and unfounded has no ties to any individual and is at best gossip. It infers a conspiracy and has not been attributed and denied by public officials who have multiple documents and statements that point to it being false. Shall we go over Daisey and the Apple Factory from NPR? Just because something is broadcast doesn't make it true, if the fact checking fails even after the statement and it cannot be confirmed and is largely denied doesn't make it automatically true. This American Life officially redacted the entire episode because of those lies which it did not catch. Even if WKMG-TV doesn't take the same stance in this case, evidence from Reuters and other major news sources cannot attribute or confirm it and a good amount of evidence shows that the allegation is unfounded. Without those it should never be on Wikipedia when so much is against it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. The trace back to the original publisher is The Grio with this article. [10] It states, "A source with knowledge of the investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin tells theGrio that it was then Sanford police chief Bill Lee, along with Capt. Robert O'Connor, the investigations supervisor, who made the decision to release George Zimmerman on the night of February 26th, after consulting with State Attorney Norman Wolfinger -- in person. Wolfinger's presence at the scene or at the police department in the night of a shooting would be unusual, according to the source. On a typical case, police contact the state attorney's office and speak with an on duty assistant state attorney; they either discuss the matter by phone or the on duty assistant state attorney comes to the crime scene - but rarely the state attorney him or herself." This statement was used by the Martin family attorney and the Grio responded to defend this anonymous source with the following, "The letter doesn't doesn't offer any caveats regarding the allegations, including reporting by theGrio, via an anonymous source, that Wolfinger traveled from his home on the night of the shooting, after 7:30 p.m. on a Sunday night, to confer with the police chief and the investigations supervisor, Robert O'Connor. " [11] To sum up the situation, Crump's letter states theGrio's anonymous source which cannot be independently confirmed about this alleged meeting and makes allegations about the way in which it was handled. The fact that other news agencies cannot confirm this 'anonymous source' despite attempting to is a serious counter to its verification and integrity. theGrio is also far from neutral with a clear POV and target audience. Giving the circumstances it is clear that it should not be touted as a fact in the case, which is why I removed it. The allegation was treated as fact despite the evidence against it; it is why I removed it outright under BLP concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that any specific allegations should not be reported as fact, or even as a detailed allegation probably. However, the fact that some non-specific allegations and accusations have been made might be due a line or two in the overall article, as well as the response from the officials. While certainly the family may be mistaken in their claims, aand relying on poor information or logic, I do not think there is any doubt that they indeed are making the claims, and those claims are continuing to drive a good portion of the outrage/response (See the change.org etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not like the example of a 'politician who reported to have an affair and denies it', this is a single anonymous source which has not been verified as having made a statement of an event that they were not present for. If they were present in the meeting then the source of the leak would be known or at least confirmed. Despite attempts at verification, they have failed and Reuters even confirms this. Other works refer to 'theGrio' as their source, but none actually cite an independent confirmation of said statement. Its an allegation of dubious nature by a source with a clear bias. I do not think such damaging information or allegation should be entered without at least confirming a named or verified source. Even blogs (which are rejected as always unreliable) make better arguements then theGrio when considering such allegations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? I am discussing the letter from the Martin family linked above, that is not anonymous. Are you talking about the letter from zimmerman's family saying he was involved inthe Ware case? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

How is this any different than a source leaking information to ABC about the investigation? We have it included in the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The atty for the family has made a serious allegation, the state attorney has disputed it, and both of those things are verified. In light of the Wolfinger denial, we shouldn't report it as fact, but we should report the dispute. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Help defending the article

I notice an individual has been trying to get the images of the Chief and the hooded representative on the floor of the US House removed. Am I correct in thinking both images should remain? --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think there are any overriding policies mandating one way or another, so it would just be whatever consensus decides. Personally I think the chief one should definitely stay, as illustrating someone directly involved in the case. The hooded rep image im neutral about. It can illustrate one of the more notable protests, but it it were to go away, I don't think it would be a big deal. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't he affiliated with the NBPP? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he was. Could you explain the relevance of your question? MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The congresman? not as far as I am aware, but I haven't looked deeply into his background. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he was a member of the panthers in the 60s, but I do not see anything about recent affiliations (not making a statement either way as to if he is or is not currently affiliated, just saying I didnt see any in a casual search) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Congressman Bobby Rush from Chicago, IL has been in Congress for 20 years. In the 1960s he was involved in the civil-rights movement. He worked in civil-disobedience campaigns in the South, and co-founded the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers in 1968 and was made its "defense minister". Rush was present when fellow Black Panther Fred Hampton was killed in a police raid. So that we all know...what does NBPP stand for? ```Buster Seven Talk 22:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

National Black Panther Party Gaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So, do I hear a consensus for including both images in the article? --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unnecessary, he is unrelated to the case. It would make more sense to have a picture of Jackson or Sharpton first. It was a political move and in no way related to the current case. Obama's comments were more important, why not have a picture of him to? It is unnecessary. Several of the pictures are already pushing the limit. I say keep them off. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. This would be fine on a Reaction to the death of Trayvon Martin page if we ever decide to spin one off, but at the present it would just make the article a soapbox for Rush. We should always be cautious before including political stunts.Redredryder (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I'd still contest a picture of Rush even on a reaction page. His importance is limited and doesn't meet the requirement for a picture for many more reasons other then the single sentence or half paragraph that would possibly be generated in an article that will dwarf the current one with the overload of information which cannot be included under matters of relevance or weight here. It just really isn't that important, and its not even being discussed. Its more of a news blurb which deserves a mention on his bio, but not much more then that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• The Rush picture should be removed. Including the Rush picture, there are now 4 pictures related to protest using hoodies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Going to remove it per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE as Rush is no way directly related to the incident. Others should be removed, but this one is a good option to go first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Also, in the section "Allegations of racism", there are two pictures of Million Hoodies March. One should be removed. I would suggest keeping the top one because it has the most people. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It should go too, but I will not remove it at this time. You can if you want. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly identifying facts from disputed claims...

I noticed a few places in this wiki where claims that were made, and have been disputed are presented as facts. The most glaring example is in the first paragraph of the wiki

"During the event, Martin received a phone call from his girlfriend, and Zimmerman made a phone call to the police during the incident, which was recorded."

The claim by Martin's girlfriend that she was on the phone with him is disputed, and so far as I'm aware hasn't been able to be corroborated by any cell phone or other records from anyone involved. It seems to be presented as a factual statement included with the call that Zimmerman made, which is fact.

Since I am unable to edit, I thought I'd make a note here for those who can do so... — Sothe (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the call from Martin's girlfriend has been corroborated by phone logs released by the Martin family's lawyer ([12]) and verified by ABC News and CNN ([13], [14]). MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

it's not "verified" by anyone that DURING/immediately prior to the event he was talking to his girlfriend by anyone other than his girlfriend.68.115.51.198 (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong; if you click on the little numbers in brackets in my above post, you'll see that phone logs show Martin was talking to his girlfriend immediately before the incident. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't know EXACTLY the time the incident occurred, and those cell phone dats/times are not accurate to the minute.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Detailed Timeline released

Reuters has released an excellent timeline of events with more background than was previously available. It confirms dad's fiance lived in the community just a short distance from the shooting, but they were out on a date at the time. It also shows how Trayvon's mom found the attorney and how the case was turned into a media event. A very good read. http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-world-heard-cries-183813181.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.187.44 (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Very handy. This is so much better than the NYT version, it's really not right. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It was an interesting article. What I found interesting was Tracy Martin's recollection of Det. Serino telling him Zimmerman's story the night of the shooting. Different version of events than previously has been reported.

I also think that Martin's parents and their attorney, Benjamin Crump should be put back into the article in some capacity since they were instrumental in bringing this story to the attention of the media. It wouldn't be necessary to include every single statement they ever made, but a brief synopsis of their involvement is warranted. If it wasn't for their efforts, this article wouldn't even exist.--Isaidnoway (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to original article on reuters

Edit request on 4 April 2012

There is a factual error in the information regarding the father of George Zimmerman. The existing information states,

"George Michael Zimmerman[25] was born on October 5, 1983, in Virginia,[26] the son of Gladys Zimmerman, who is from Peru, and Robert Zimmerman Sr.,[2] a retired Supreme Court magistrate from the United States.[27]"

The line above, which begins with "George Michael Zimmerman", is factually inaccurate. George Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman Sr. was NOT and was never a "retired Supreme Court magistrate from the United States." Instead, it should be noted that Robert Zimmerman Sr. is a retired magistrate in the State of Virginia. A magistrate, more commonly known as a Justice of the Peace, is not a judge and frequently have no formal, legal background.

Here is a link to a description of the judicial hierarchy of the Virgina judicial system:

Another source of information regarding the duties and powers of a Virginia magistrate is located again on the Virginia Judicial system's web site at the following link:

The Wiki entry above is prejudicial in that it purports that George Zimmerman's father, Robert, was high in the judicial system of the United States wherein he was actually at the absolute lowest rung of the ladder for justice in the State of Virginia. I suspect that this biased "error" was placed to suggest that Robert Zimmerman had some sort of powerful contacts in the judicial system that will preclude justice from being served.

RifleMat (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done by someone, I dont see supreme court any more Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012

In the 'Zimmerman cell phone call to police' section there is the following statement: "However, before hanging up he changed his mind". The term 'changed his mind' is leading, unsubstantiated and pure speculation. The reference listed does not supply the addition of the 'changed his mind' term. The sentence should read: However, before hanging up he said “Actually, could you have him call me, and I’ll tell him where I’m at?

68.3.103.157 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

 Done That part was just poorly written. Updated as requested.Redredryder (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

nbc apologizes for deception in editing of tape

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-issues-apology-on-zimmerman-tape-screw-up/2012/04/03/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html Gaijin42 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

7-Eleven

I looked at the three references that are after the sentence that says Martin was returning from a 7-Eleven. I don't see them mention 7-Eleven. One mentions "convenience store". The nearest 7-Eleven appears to be a good walk PAST a Target. (User:Wickorama) —Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Oh firetruck me, here we go again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_2#Request_to_edit_inaccurate_description_.22nearby_7-Eleven.22 FML, 완젬스 (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No RS mentions a 7-11, but only 'convenience store'. To say specifically a 7-11, or as in #Shooting, a specific store, is OR, speculation or reporting rumor. If there is a reputable source, it needs to be in the article.--DeknMike (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're joking right? The 3rd sentence of the article unequivocally says:

The shooting of Trayvon Martin took place on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed, 17-year-old African American male who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old man of mixed ethnic descent (Latin American mother, white American father). Martin was walking from a 7-Eleven convenience store to the home of his father's fiancée when Zimmerman, a community watch coordinator, began following Martin and called the Sanford Police Department to say he witnessed suspicious behavior

Right, the Wikipedia article on "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" says that he was walking home from a 7-Eleven. I am looking for the newspaper article that is the reference for that. I don't see 7-Eleven mentioned in the 3 articles which are being used as references for the statement that he was coming from a 7-Eleven. Wickorama (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, just being devil's advocate, but if you're saying that we're wrong, then go ahead and remove the 7-eleven reference. I trust the fact you're possibly correcting a major article's basic facts (in the lede of all places!) so if you're right, you're right but don't expect for it peaceably be challenged. (hint: expect a heated, battleground scenario) However, count me as one of your supporters if this spawns an edit war. Cheers, 완젬스 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Can restore if RS determines which store Skittles came from, but it's a trivial point not germaine to the core narritive of the story.--DeknMike (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been reported in the media as both ways, convenience store and 7-11. But he was right, the references cited did not specifically mention a 7-11. In addition, reference number 1 cited after unarmed is tagged as an unreliable source and it links to nothing about being unarmed. However the references cited at the end of that sentence do specifically mention Martin being unarmed. I'm not sure why someone would insert a cite in the middle of the sentence anyway, when the other cited references were adequate.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the duplicitous reality of editing a politically controversial article. Don't say I didn't warn you! 완젬스 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The father and girlfriend were out on a date when Trayvon left the house. No one (NOT ANYONE) can say when he left or where he was going. The story about his leaving at NBA half-time to go to the store was made up after the fact by the Martin family. Just because media picks up false information and publishes it doesn't make it a valid source. The entire reference to where he went or was coming back from should be deleted. True Observer (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon had a younger step-brother who was also home at the time when they went to dinner. It is reasonable to assume the information of when Trayvon left and where he was going came from him. When the parents returned, he told them, and then the family issued that statement. It's also reasonable to assume the step-brother was interviewed by the police.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT reasonable to assume the police interviewed the step brother. First, we MUST have sources. Second, the parents complained in news stories about how they didn't know where Trayvon was, and that he was labeled John Doe at the morgue. My impression is that the step brother would not know who was shot or even if a shooting happened based on his parents expressing ignorance of where Trayvon was. -- Avanu (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Where did this tidbit come from? Are you saying Trayvon was babysitting his dad's girlfriend's son (not a stepbrother) and left the child alone?--DeknMike (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Younger does not imply needs babysitting. I don't know which sources it was, as there are so many at this point, but that is the original source for "break in the game 7-11 trip". as reported by the family I believe. Regarding if it should be deleted or not, we should make it clear that it is the familys statement of what happened, and not an observed fact, but it should not be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin is 100% correct and has cited a well established Wikipedia policy, which is to put the statement in the "voice" of the originator, rather than making it seem like Wikipedia is vouching for the content of this particular article. If there is a statement, we must give context to the statement and present it accordingly. Once again, we should make it clear that it is the family's statement of what happened, and not an observed fact. Well said, 완젬스 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is the article talking about them going out to dinner and leaving Brandi's son (future step-brother) and Trayvon at home. Who else would know what Trayvon was watching on TV at the time and where he was going? It wasn't reported by Trayvon's girlfriend in their cell phone conversation. These were two of the last people he talked to while he was alive who would know that kind of information. That's why I said it was reasonable to assume that Brandi's son was the source, it would only seem logical that Tracy Martin would ask the kid where Trayvon was when they got home. I think it is also logical to assume the police interviewed the kid as well. They were complaining in the press they didn't know why he didn't come home that night. I wasn't talking about including any of this in the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's account of events

I think this section should only include what Zimmerman allegedly told police. If you add what his brother says in interviews as "Zimmerman's account of events", then you should also add what his father says in interviews (and for that matter, what his lawyer says in interviews) which includes a statement that Zimmermann walked on the sidewalk all the way to the street (away from where his vehicle was parked and towards where Martin had been walking). The father's statement says that this was not following Martin (even though it was the same direction/route he would have gone if following him), but trying to get a street address to give to the police. The father also says that Martin saw the gun while fighting and added a death threat to his punches. The father does not say that Martin tried to disarm Zimmerman or go for the gun. I think it is very strange that the father says that Martin saw the gun but does not say that Martin tried to get it. Possibly he is concerned with the issue of fingerprints (or lack therof) on the gun. Wickorama (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Under heading "Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch"

Sentence in the second paragraph currently reads as follows: "Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting." Saying "one other shooting" implies that the shooting of Trayvon Martin falls into the category of "crimes committed at The Retreat." Since the question of whether or not the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a crime is still in dispute, I would recommend that the word "other" be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorAaron (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

MiamiManny, you are edit warring, and in violation of the 1rr on the page

• dif1
• dif2
• dif3

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop you personal attacks on me and assume good faith. You damaged the article twice with sloppy edits and I fixed it. MiamiManny (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

MiamiManny has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on this article. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this page still unedr 1rr?? I don't see a mention/warning anywhereWhatzinaname (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

When you edit the article, this box is displayed at the top. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not being confrontational, please understand that. I just don't understand why MiamiManny was censored, even if just for 24 hours. I read the edits provided, and do not see that they were "warring" as defined by Wikipedia. It does appear that the rules for dealing with new editors is being completely ignored by long-time editors. I know this is challenging as this article has attracted many "newbies", however Wikipedia is built on a certain foundation, and that foundation needs to be respected regardless of the article subject.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There are very specific rules in place on this page, due to the controversy. It is called a 1 Revert Rule. You may only revert a particular change once within 24 hours. MiamiManny made the "Democrat" change 3 times, including after being warned. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I understand now. Still don't think their edits (from what I read) were wrong, but if you can only do it once in 24 hours, and they violated that, then rules are rules, and I respect that. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012

The statement "Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department police at the non-emergency number at approximately 7:00 p.m." can be be further corrected to read "connected to the police dispatcher at 19:09:34" See page 46 of 911/police call log for George Zimmerman at http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf

68.3.103.157 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

 Not done I can see no cause to change perfectly reasonable prose into unnecessary detail. Pol430 talk to me 22:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, a timeline of events, in a case such as this where those events were in quick succession, is very informative to our reader. If and when they become available, I see no reason to exclude them. The change from an approximate to a definitve time is responsible and correct. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not limit ourselves to seconds, then. Surely we can be more specific. After all, our job is not to produce legible prose--it's to report every single fact, preferably before it happens. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that level of precision is not needed, unless some controversy arises regarding down to the second/minute information, which thus far nobody has alleged. The only thing I can see regarding this that could be relevant is the interval between when the phone calls of martin and zimmerman ended, but before the 911 calls started, in order to account for how much "unknown" time there was, and therefore how long the altercation might have gone on before the shot. However, I do not think we have access to that information, as Zimmerman hung up significantly before the interaction, and we do not have that level of accuracy regarding what happened during the girlfriends call, and how long the call continued after the phone was dropped. Therefore, currently the extra detail adds confusion, but no actual informationGaijin42 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos wanted

We're going to need a free map or aerial photo of the area. The locations are sufficiently relevant that a diagram is called for. We also going to need a "contemporary" photo of Trayvon at some point, but not at the expense of the iconic hoodie image that's become such a symbol. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can devote an entire Wikipedia to the case, so we can list every single detail, map it with GIS software, spell out the words of every single speech, include pictures of every single "I am Trayvon Martin" hoodie, and so on. BTW, I haven't found a section yet on the parents of the owners of the construction company which build the sidewalk on which Trayvon Martin was walking, which must be due to censorship. Was there even a sidewalk? If no, why not? Hey, Hector, maybe you can make an animation of the entire series of events, starting with the birth of his grandparents. We're going to need that. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Shooting of Trayvon Martin neighborhood.png . ```Buster Seven Talk 00:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the colored dots indicating?

Here's a google aerial view in an RS for reference.[15] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

edit request, remove magistrate

I am at my 1rr already on that item, but I think its a very tangential piece of information, that is only being used to imply Zimmerman may have gotten preferential treatment. There is no evidence of that, and no RS/notable accusations of that. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Which section is it in? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. I think. But please check to make sure it is the same thing you were asking for. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it in there anymore. Good Job!--Isaidnoway (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

With the 1 revert rule I didn't want to get it wrong. Glad it was the right one. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus poll regarding adding the parents' occupations

Should the occupations of the respective parents of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman be included in the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes

1. .

CAN WE DROP THESE FUCKING POLLS? THEY ARE NOT USEFUL PRACTICE IN WIKIPEDIA (especially when called polls) AND DO NOT LEAD TO CONSENSUS. Just use normal discussion. Delvier quality arguments for your point of view. Open your minds. Read what others think. Consider changing your mind. Yes, I know this topic has attracted some newbies, but it's time you all learnt more about how things are supposed to work here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Only some (Please specify which ones.)

1. .

No

1. .

• strong oppose Information about the participants themselves and their bio may have value. Their parents bio is a level removed, and therefore also a level less relevant. There are no allegations or accusations from any reliable or notable sources that have any impact on the shooting or its aftermath. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• strong oppose Were the parents of either involved in the altercation? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• HiLo isn't often right, but this time he is. Also, Bob needs to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a record of the world. No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.247.159 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, a compliment! (I think.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

66.168.247.159, I started this poll because there was an edit war going on. I haven't made up my mind whether the material should or should not be in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Additional Comments

• .
• I think Trayvon's parents deserve some kind of mention in this article, after all they were the ones who brought their son's shooting into the national spotlight. Zimmerman's father has interjected himself into this as well and it's been covered by the media, it should be included. As far as their occupation's go, who cares, unless their jobs somehow become relevant to this in someway.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

First Names and Last Names

At the top of this discussion page there is a request for photos of "Trayvon / Zimmerman" It is obvious that the author has a bias against George Zimmerman. Either write it as "Trayvon / George" (although I doubt ANYONE here would ever refer to George Zimmerman as "George") or Martin / Zimmerman. I am very tired of trying to reign people in on their biases. Enough is enough. Please practice what you preach! Get mad at me if you want, censor me if you want, but where is the interdependent thought process?--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe it's hopeless and you should give up. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I have been surprised several times at the fairness here by the majority. Still there are some that would love to see Zimmerman hang without due process. And to be fair I have also seen some here that think he is an automatic saint. I just want things to stay balanced and honest. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was kidding. You're offering martyrdom for a notice on a talk page. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you think this subject is a joke. Obviously you don't live here. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• The subject isn't a joke. Your comments are. Also, you shouldn't live on a talk page. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)