Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

Mortician's account of the state of Trayvon Martin's body

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)

Request to use a more current photo of Trayvon Martin

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

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

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

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

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

and this is one from the wagist blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)
• Oppose — I did a search in Wikipedia for article titles that had "Shooting death of" and I didn't find a single one.[3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:05, 7 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)
• Support DocTree (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support — There is not a single article in Wikipedia that has "Shooting death of" in its title.[4] "Death of..." seems only appropriate for people who were notable for who they were when they were alive, or for people who died of unknown causes. The fact that Martin was shot is the point, not that he just died. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 7 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 [5]. 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)
• Oppose — "Death of..." seems only appropriate for people who were notable for who they were when they were alive, or for people who died of unknown causes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:32, 7 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 [6]. 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[7] 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, 10 oppose
• Shooting 7 support, 9 oppose (3 of the supports are "neutral")
• death 10 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)

Given the contentious nature of the topic, waiting the full 7 days on this name change discussion seems reasonable. VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 7 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)

I don't get who told you white hispanics is a purely racial term, or else what gave you the idea terms have to be purely racial. Many people have been saying before you started this thread and after you started this thread it is not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No one "told me" it was a purely racial term. Using it AS a racial term is wrong, however, as was being done.Whatzinaname (talk) 21:27, 5 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)

In matters like this wikipedia primarily relies on self identification. In the absence of that, we may go by RS. We don't generally care about maintaining arbitary 'standards' whatever you mean by that, nor do we try to force consistency when things naturally vary for whatever reason. BTW, while this article is US related, wikipedia as a whole is not 'american-related'.

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 ([8]) and verified by ABC News and CNN ([9], [10]). 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)

I get it - this is a late April Fools' joke, right? Cell phone records are accurate to the minute. Cell phone plans bill by the minute. How could they do that if their logs were not accurate to the minute? Please, explain this to me. Then you can explain why we should set aside verifiable material from a reliable source in favor of your personal opinion. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you ignorance is a joke, I'm not sure. It is april, though. Cell phone "time stamps" are rarely ever accurate to the minute as it related to when the call is made/ended. The duration of the call is accurate, probably even to the second. We don't care about the duration. Additionally, no one knows the EXACT time the incident occurred. There is supporting evidence that his girlfirend was talking to him approximately at the time of the incident, but not during or immediately prior. There is a colossal differenceWhatzinaname (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cellular telephone time stamps in the USA are almost always accurate to within less than a second as required by FCC regulations that implement CALEA. See page 49 of FCC 06-56, para 1.207(a)(14) at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf which states:

Timing information. Capability that permits a LEA to associate call-identifying information with the content of a call. A call-identifying message must be sent from the carrier's IAP to the LEA's

Collection Function within eight seconds of receipt of that message by the IAP at least 95% of the time,

and with the call event time-stamped to an accuracy of at least 200 milliseconds.

Please provide reliable sources to support any assertation that cellphone time stamps "are rarely ever accurate to the minute."DocTree (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC) (whose RL job for last 22 years is law enforcement communications)

Phone records count any part of a minute as a full minute. Thus a call might be recorded as having lasted from 7:05 to 7:07 if it started at 7:04 and 59 seconds and ended at 7:06 and 1 second--62 seconds rather than 120. In a case like this, trying to synchronize events, seconds count.70.233.162.238 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Count for what, exactly? This thread started with one false assertion (that phone records didn't corroborate a call), which was repeated after being proven false, then followed by a third false and frankly ludicrous assertion (that cell phone records aren't accurate to the minute). Now you're saying that unless the records are accurate to the second, they're meaningless. Put yourself in my position - would you take this discussion seriously anymore? MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. I didn't say they were meaningless but when you are trying to establish the exact time that actions of numerous individuals occurred in relation to one another--and this is crucial in a case like this--you want to get the times down to the exact second if possible.70.233.140.13 (talk) 02:37, 6 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)

The accounts of the father and the brother are relevant and should absolutely be included. It may be appropriate to do that under a separate subhead. MiamiManny (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

By walking along the sidewalk to the next street he was not following Martin. On the police call Zimmerman said that the subject had fled "towards the back entrance", i. e. south between the two rows of townhouses.70.233.128.167 (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Nobody can get a clear idea of the geography of this incident without a map. If you do a search of Google maps for 1111 twin trees, sanford, florida it will bring up the gated community.70.233.128.167 (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Aerial view of points of interest --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:39, 8 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) You time-line is off by 9 minutes and that basically signifies you don't know what happened for 9 minutes. Once again: Dispatch records are an OS and if you feel you do not want to include the seconds it is fine but minutes are important. Main Stream Media is appreciating the time line and if you choose to ignore it than you will be left behind. Last chance warning as I will rub the importance in your face when the case comes down to time lines. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC) AndyB

The precise time should absolutely be included. Wikipedia should strive to be a source of accurate information. In this matter, seconds make a difference. I will add it if others will not.MiamiManny (talk) 22:08, 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. .

• Strong Support Of course Zimmerman's family history and the occupations of his parents are relevant and should be included! There have been countless articles written in the mainstream media that mention his dad was a magistrate. The fact that Zimmerman's dad was a member of the judiciary is repeatedly brought up in blogs and discussion boards that speculate on the potential influence his dad may have had on local law enforcement and the prosecutor. In fact, I initially visited this article to learn about Zimmerman's dad and his legal position. (I read on a blog that he was a U.S. magistrate, which was inaccurate.) I am sure there are thousands of other users who have done the same. People come to wikipedia to see a full and complete article about a given topic. Why any wiki editor would want to err side of censorship and exclusion is beyond me. It's a shame.MiamiManny (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Only some (Please specify which ones.)

1. .

• Sure:So why the hell not.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

Well, work on that, will you? And polls are useless. Policy matters. (Common sense isn't in great demand here, or in supply for that matter.) 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I don't see how the occupations of Zimmerman's parents would be relevant to this article. If there's even an article on Zimmerman alone, their occupations might be appropriate. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose No need for it, their jobs are not notable for influencing the case in any way and its just extraneous irrelevant material in the article. Like what pair of shoes Trayvon had on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For the sake of this decision, I don't believe including their occupations would be consistent with the de-facto policies of this article as apparently established through consensus. On a personal level, I find the occupations of the parents interesting and don't see the harm in including them. My philosophy is the more well-sourced facts in the article the better. But if prior suspensions, prior arrests, various audio recordings, and the like are excluded for a lack of relevance then it would be impossible to argue that the occupations of either of their parents is relevant. Emeraldflames (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Additional Comments

• 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)
• 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)
• If an edit war was going on then it is proper that some discussion be brought up, doesn't need to be called a poll, but it seems to be falling under WP:SNOW as to where this is headed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:51, 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)

You know what I meant. I am sure you whois my IP and see where I live, and can see this subject is close to home. Additionally you would be one of the first ones screaming if references were made to George and Martin. So knock it off with the hypocrisy and grow up!--70.119.53.11 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• No I don't. I haven't checked who you are; I couldn't care less (you're not that interesting). As for the names--boo hoo. "Trayvon" is a pretty recognizable name, as is "Zimmerman". It doesn't work that way with George and Martin, you brilliant mind, unless one is referring to George Martin.

I concur. Either use first names or last names as that is fair and reasonable. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Lighten up. this is a talk page, not the article. The rules are looser here. In the 2007/8 primary campaign people tended to refer to Sen. Clinton as Hillary and Sen. Obama as Obama, and the world didn't come to an end. In the article, of course, we generally go for the formal, full name. Unless you are writing about Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. No issue - move on please. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Civility Please

As a personal request, can we limit the language to civility? And limit the profanity to direct quotes? Thanks--DeknMike (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes a little breaching of the civility guidelines, rather than maintaining artificial niceness, goes a long way towards resolving massive breaches of the unwritten guidelines on common sense. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, you're right again. What's gotten into you? 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have one set of rules for some and another set for others. Attacking editors, cussing them out, taunting them, and insulting them. Is this what Wikipedia is about? If you agree with the "established" editors then you are treated as kin, but if you disagree, or questioned your are whipped? What is next? What would you do in the real world of people you claim to not have "common sense"? Exterminate them? There are some folks here who do not like to be questioned, or challenged. I find that interesting for a project like Wikipedia.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Which "you" are you talking about? Who are you proposing to exterminate? Little breaches of civility are normal in robust debate. Name calling is not normally tolerated in Wikipedia, nor is profanity. ANYONE can contribute, but the practices built up over time keep the discussions about the work and not the personalities. (yes, I have long-standing disputes with some editors on other boards.) I'm semi-established because I've been at this for several years and have contributed to a variety of types of articles, not simply those that are hot in the news.--DeknMike (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the 'you' was implied for 'HiLo48' because of the earlier cursing in all caps, taunting and attacking. Just was missing the indent. And I don't think you (DeknMike) have done that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

911?

In the beginning of the shooting section it states that Zimmerman called the police non-emergency number. The rest of the article says he called 911. There is nothing in the article to say he made more than one call so something needs correcting. Did he call the non-emergency, 911 or both? Wayne (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Its somewhat WP:OR, but the best guess is he made a call to the non-emergency number. However, it was widely reported as 911. The OR comes in by listening to the phone calls, and the 911 calls all have a 911 greeting, but his is a different greeting. however, 911 is refernced many places because thats what many of the sources say. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the article that "Zimmermans call is often misreported as being a 911 call." Saying he called 911 supports claims that he was assuming Martins intent ie: profiling. Wayne (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A simpler approach might be to simply rephrase it to say "Zimmerman placed a call to law enforcement." -- Avanu (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

NBC Nightly News said that Zimmerman's calls were to a non-emergency number. I agree with WLRoss above. Emeraldflames (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good time to begin a review of material in this article

Per Whatsisname's comment in the previous section, I started looking at each sentence in the lead paragraphs. One the first problems I discovered is that an oft-repeated piece of information about Detective Chris Serino is that he supposedly wanted to arrest Zimmerman for manslaughter. However, we have seen a LOT of shoddy and biased reporting in the media, and I could only find one source for this from ABC News. All the other "sources" are simply parroting what ABC News reported. Zimmerman was held in custody and released and this claim from Chris Serino would fall under our Verifiability policy (Exceptional claims require exceptional sources). Without this, it is yet another BLP problem for this article, and it needs to be something that is reviewed before being re-added to the article. I am almost 100% sure there are other parts of the article that need a similar vetting to insure that we are closely following our policies on Verifiability, BLP, and NPOV. -- Avanu (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires that material be relevant and well-sourced. This material is obviously relevant, and ABC News is generally considered a reliable source. I don't see the BLP issue, although arguably the material belongs in the body rather than the lead of the article. It's in no way an "exceptional claim" that a homicide investigator would suggest arresting a man who accosted, pursued, and shot to death an unarmed teenager. MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Verifiability page that I linked to says this: "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". The relevant community was the law enforcement for Sanford, Florida. Apparently the decision was made to release Zimmerman. Yet we have ONE source that claims he should not have been released and no other sources, and no direct quote from the subject of this quote. It is an extraordinary claim because it goes against the actions of all of law enforcement up to this point and we have no evidence to support that Serino really is making such a statement. -- Avanu (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I agree with MastCell here - ABC News has not retracted this story, and I think the previous comment brings us dangerously close to OR and SYNTH. We should not be inserting ourselves into the investigative journalism process to decide if a story is credible - as long as we're not quoting from marginal sources. For example, Washington Post here, this week includes reference to the claim about Serino, without saying their investigation finds it lacking; Jonathan Capehart also reported on this - again from the same source, but not questioning its accuracy; I saw the mother of the 13 year old witness interviewed on MSNBC I believe, and she claimed that Serino told her that he didn't believe Zimmerman's story and was trying to prove it - I am looking for a source on that, so am just saying that I saw the interview (not good enough, obviously, but if true, is an entirely separate , verifying source that Serino had that opinion). I don;t know if the story is true, of course, but it has been reported enough by reliable sources that I think it should stay in. I am not comfortable with our deciding to take things out based on our independent analysis of the sources - to this degree -I understand that extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, but I think you're taking this too far. I also think that this approach to editing this article, well-meaning as it may be, is inherently biased, no matter how hard we try not to be - putting sources through our own personal filters means we're using our own personal opinions to help us decide what sounds like bullshit and what sounds real. This may work, but in an article like this, where there are such strong opinions on how we look at the same set of facts, we should be particularly careful about rejecting claims as "extraordinary". So I think the Serino material should stay in, and stay in the lead as it is a summary of the rest of the article, and it is an important point, if it bears out to be true, because some people do think that there may have been some high-up intervention in the decision making regarding why there was no arrest. I do not want to add speculation into the article, but I think we should prominently have - unless it is refuted or retracted - some indication that there might be more to the story than the official police version. Right now, trying to read the article objectively, I think it has become more slanted toward Zimmerman's story than it had been, which I find troubling. If ever there was a news story that it would have been better to not write an article about until more facts emerge, this is it. That's not realistic, but I am starting to think that the encyclopedia would be better off if we just had a "watch this space" placeholder than this constantly changing piece - changing not because of new information emerging as much as changing based on who has the most stamina to add/delete the same text over and over and over. (This comment not directed at Avanu's edit here - I mean this about the overall editing.) Tvoz/talk 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The relevant community is the law enforcement community. Clearly there's a substantial part of that community which feels that arresting Zimmerman should have been considered more seriously; hence the special prosecutor, and all the other levels of inquiry which are currently ongoing. MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good point. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the state of the evidence is that Zimmerman did not "accost" Martin and nor was he "persuing" anyone prior to the shooting. Logically, I cant see any reason for an accusation of manslaughter by Serino before the facts were known. Such an early accusation implies incompetence on Serino's part. The ABC story itself seems to be reporting un-named "sources" beliefs (OR) based on the "unconvinced by Zimmerman's account" affadavit which at best would only result in an investigation not arrest. I've searched other mentions and they largely cite the ABC article as their own source. The remaining sources (such as this one) say that Martins attorney Ben Crump was the source of the claim used by ABC. The original Crump claim is contained in this letter which assistant DA Roy Austin stated was full of "outright lies". If this is the case, it is a BLP violation to attribute the claim directly to Serino rather than Crump. Wayne (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The "state of the evidence" - or at least the evidence we've been told about - that you're citing is based completely on Zimmerman's own self-serving narrative, so it's not exactly gospel - the claim about Serino is that he didn't find Z's story credible. It may not seem logical to you, but we're not supposed to be evaluating whether sources inside of an article were telling the truth -that is OR to the max. OR is what we are not supposed to do - it is not some kind of independent rule out there for investigative journalists. They are expected to have sources, and they are not required to have named them for us to cite them. This entire matter may turn out to be untrue - and if so I'd say we'd want to include it along with the fact that it was refuted, once that actually happens, not based on our own interpretations - but in any case, to say that this is a BLP violation on Serino because you think it implies incompetence on Serino's part is really stretching this policy beyond recognition. You think that, and others think if Serino actually filed that affidavit that he is a hero in the story, not accepting the shooter's story as the truth. We don't know what actually happened and it is not for us to insert ourselves into the mix in that way. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine with this if we had at least that mother's comment because it sounds like an independent verification of the same statement, but I am growing more wary of things coming from the major media on this because they have shown themselves to be very very biased in their reporting of this story. The information we have about the case has barely changed since the day we all first found out about it, yet the media has gone on rampages of alternately villifing the various players in this drama. Whether left-leaning or right-leaning, the media has shown that it is not reliable when it comes to reporting on this story. So I would say that prudence would tell us we need to do our best to have multiple, independent sources for our material, especially if it is something highly inflammatory or unusual. A police detective close to the case saying that he thinks the shooter needs to be locked up despite being free to walk the streets is an inflammatory and prejudicial statement. I take no position on who was in the right or wrong that night, but we are not dealing with a reliable media, and consequently, we need to carefully examine what we add based on their word. -- Avanu (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK - I agree that more sourcing is always a good idea. I saw the interview myself, but I have to see if I can find a link to it, or, better, some reporting about it. SWill look tomorrow when both eyes are open. Tvoz/talk 06:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I watched that entire 8:14 minute video, but I didn't see the mother's confirmation of Detective Serino's statement. Also, do you think that her statement is an acceptable source for this? The father's retelling of the police description of events described by Zimmerman was one of the most complete versions of the story I have heard, but unfortunately the father feels it is not a truthful description of the facts. -- Avanu (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

← Not sure which video you are talking about - this is the interview I saw (and the length is 10:49, not 8:14) - the one with Cheryl Brown, the eyewitness's mother, and Al Sharpton - and the accompanying article, both of which say that she reported that the lead detective (who was Serino) said to her, on March 5, that he didn't believe it was self-defense. "The lead investigator from the Sanford Police Department stood in my family room and told me that this was absolutely not self-defense and he needed to prove that." And that he went on to imply that it was racial profiling - "stereotyping" he called it. I found her to be credible and clear as she stated what she was told by Serino. I believe this confirms the ABC report more than enough to justify including it, and certainly enough to allay your concerns about an outlier (but not retracted) report. Also I'm not clear what you mean about the father - you mean Tracy Martin I assume - right, he didn't believe the police's retelling of what Zimmerman said happened. How can you say that Zimmerman's story is the most complete version of the story? Surely you would agree that Zimmerman is the least reliable witness about any culpability he has - you just accept his version of the story as true? But what does that have to do with whether Serino doubted the story? Maybe i'm misunderstanding what you're saying on this - are you talking about a different video? Since in fact Cheryl Brown does say exactly what I said she said, and since you said that including the mother's comment would be confirmation of the unrelated ABC report, I am rewording it slightly and including it in the lead with the sourcing. We can of course talk some more about it, but this has been in there for a long time, and is better sourced now, so I think the original concerns you voiced should be allayed.Tvoz/talk 07:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I watched that other video. The 13-year-old's mom seems credible in that statement and it is an independent voice verifying the same information. -- Avanu (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reuters is reporting the same information about Serino with a source that talked to them in this article. Their story is not based on the ABC report about Serino. A law-enforcement source, who had been informed of the case by investigators, told Reuters that Serino was eager to bring a charge but encountered resistance from the office of the prosecutor, State Attorney Norman Wolfinger. This is another independent source, besides ABC and the 13 year old's mother, who I think can be considered reliable and could be cited as well.--Isaidnoway (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem, "A law-enforcement source, who had been informed of the case by investigators..." That is not a source. It is quite literally, "Someone told someone else that..." as the person making the statement wasn't present and was no way involved in the matter. If we cannot get anything better then 'Someone told someone else and that someone told the news' it should not be given any weight as this is no different then other allegations of Zimmerman being a 'jew' or 'KKK member' when this unsourced opinion has such a lash back. That inherent lack of verification MUST be given notice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that, but something else to consider is the source reporting it. I think ABC and Reuters wouldn't put their butts on the line if they didn't believe their sources were really connected to the investigation. I also tend to agree with Tvoz's observation above that this article is slanting towards Zimmerman a little bit. Obviously, we are only including what has been put out there, but is all of it really that relevant, or are we just looking for ways to include it?-Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Isaidnoway - ABC and Reuters, and the Washington Post, and even CBS and Daily News who trusted the ABC story - and their journalistic standards - enough to republish it. And yes, it looks to me like things that are "anti Zimmerman" are challenged heavily and expunged, and "pro Zimmerman" points are welcomed - I think the balance is off.

Chris, I think there comes a time when you have to stop and read what it says, not what we want it to say. He (or she) spoke on condition of anonymity - that does not mean that his identity, and his credentials, were unknown to the investigative reporters. It means that the source did not want to be identified to the public for reasons that we are not privy to. Perhaps he or she works in the DA's office or for the police or in the courts - "that's the way this county does business" he says. Fear of reprisal is usually the reason a source speaks on condition of anonymity. Not by making a call in the dark without identifying himself to the reporter, but the newspaper just goes ahead and prints it - that is not what a responsible journalist and a responsible media outlet do. This is one of the reasons we are careful about what consider to be a reliable source here - not the source to the reporter, but the source to 'us: the news article, the publisher, its writer.

And I'm sorry, but your examples of saying Zimmerman is a Jew or a member of the KKK are absurd, and completely different from this situation. Those comments were never published in reliable sources as truth as far as I am aware, and they were not sourced to anyone, let alone someone who speaks on condition of anonymity. The nonsense about Zimmerman being Jewish or being a member of the KKK are just that - made-up nonsense. The report that a law enforcement source who spoke on condition of his or her identity not being revealed is classic journalism - think Deep Throat and Woodward/Bernstein on Watergate - they knew who the source was - the former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt - but Felt spoke to them with their assurance his identity would not be revealed, which it wasn't until over 30 years later. Obviously the stakes were quite different, but the fact is a source wishing to remain anonymous bears no resemblance to some troll or extremely POV blogger or wherever these false claims came from, announcing that someone is Jewish or in the KKK - a non-fact which no responsible journalist would report.

We do not know that this source was telling the truth - of course - any more than we know if any witness, or "expert" or anyone is telling the truth. But we have more than enough sourcing to include this, and we will see where it goes. Our standard is verifiability, yes, but that means readers can, on their own, verify that the news article or report etc said what we claim it said. We do not analyze if the source was telling the truth to the reporter. Tvoz/talk 23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Another thing to consider is the police and state attorney's office has seen all this information being put out there and if they want to refute any of this information being leaked they have that opportunity to do so and that should be included as well. Norm Wolfinger came out recently and vehemently denied reports he had met with anybody in secret the night of the shooting. If the police or state attorney's office or Zimmerman's attorneys offer a rebuttal and it is verifably sourced, then we should include it.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction - Trayvon Martin described as a "man."

"Soon afterward, both men engaged in a confrontation that ended with George Zimmerman fatally shooting Trayvon Martin."

"Man" refers to an adult male. Trayvon Martin did not reach adulthood before death. The sentence should be edited to make note that the confrontation was between a male adolescent and an adult male.

66.27.28.71 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin was taller and stronger than Zimmerman. "Male adolescent" implies a child. "Youth" may be a better word but this still implies some inequality. I'm sure Martin considered himself a man, "men" is more neutral and accurate. Wayne (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A 17 year-old person can become a U.S. Marine with a parent's signature. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlage.htm 68.3.103.157 (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Somebody changed it to just read "Soon afterward, both engaged in a confrontation". The word man was just taken out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I took it out. The important thing here is to present the events, and if controversy can be avoided while doing it then it's all for the better. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the term 'young-man' would be appropriate here? Diraphe (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Use the most neutral terms possible. A 28 year old male (I'm not exactly sure of his age) and a 17 year old male. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Request edit- Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea

Where is the original source of Trayvon getting Skittles and Arizona iced tea? Was it found on him? Did someone testify to it? What time did he leave to the store? If his dad and his girlfriend went out to dinner how did he get permission? Who was left in the house when he went? 68.3.103.157 (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC) AndyB

Looking, but can't find it... found this story though. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/03/sourcing-narrative-facts-in-the-martin-case/

-- Avanu (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There are MANY sources saying he was found with skittles and iced tea. Finding the original is going to be almost impossible at this point, since it has been repeated so many times. We do not know the exact time he went to the store, but as there is no evidence he did something OTHER than go to the store, that is not relevant. 17 year olds do not need permission to take a 15 minute walk in their neighborhood. As best as we know his younger (unknown how young) was also in the home at the time. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The oldest report of Skittles that I could find was on Mar 16 by ABC News.[11] Skittles was put into Wikipedia Mar 25.[12]--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any relevance regarding what he had bought? Would he be alive today had he not had Skittle and tea on his person? 67.233.245.93 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant because that is the source of skittles being used in the protests. Otherwise no. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source saying that he didn't have these items purchased or on him? If so, then put in a line that says "prior reports said... but later reports indicated..." and include citations to each. If this has only been speculation, and major newspapers/journalists haven't reported it, then it shouldn't be. Shadowjams (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again some has decided to post the unsubstantiated rumor that Trayvon went to convenience store where he bought a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona Iced Tea. There is no reference of anyone seeing him buy these items and there is no reference where a source states that he went out to buy these items. We don't know what time he left his dad's girlfriends house or what he actually went to do. If Zimmerman did see him around 11 Retreat View Circle it is by no entrances to the gated community. In fact it is well away from the gates in the community. Please check your bias before you change the article. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

"...a reader forwarded an email exchange he had with a Miami Herald reporter, who said that the source of the information regarding Skittles and ice tea was the former Sanford Police Chief, although I don’t believe the Herald ever attributed the information to him in any of its articles."[13] --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is Zimmerman's criminal history absent from the article? I see some discussion about it here, but I don't see why it isn't currently in the article.

Case #s found at http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/ : 2005-CF-009525-A-O 2005-DR-013069-O 2005-DR-012980-O — Preceding unsigned comment added by Error9900 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Need to explain the relevance to the event, rather than simply including ad hominem information. -- Avanu (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The relevance has been established. Was there consensus to take this out?LedRush (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems that there is/was some sort of agreement to not cover the multiple suspensions of Martin on the grounds they not do the same with Zimmerman's resisting arrest. Makes no sense to me, personally. Martin's suspensions are definitely relevant and should be detailed for a multitude of reasons. Zimmerman's is more debatable and being a living person gets broader protection. Whatzinaname (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So for those of us who didn't hear the explanation of how these prior acts are relevant, please explain how they relate to the night in question? Additionally, the sourcing must be impeccable, and despite Zimmerman being alive and Martin being dead, we still need to present a neutral point of view and treat the 2 primary subjects in a similar manner. NPOV applies no matter what. But the idea that BLP is a one-way street when one person kills another is somewhat ridiculous. -- Avanu (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

They relate to the night in question because zimmerman said he thought Trayvon was on something, and for all we know he was. And he has a drug paraphernalia possession in the past. All connected. Zimmerman also said he was "walking slowly and looking at houses". Martin had been found with women's jewelry and a burglary tool in his backpack. For all we know Martin was casing houses and looking for an easy mark to break into. The media narrative also depicted trayvon as some sort of honor student choir boy who never got in any trouble, which is equally refuted by the very same facts. BLP is what it is, and it doesn't cover dead people.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Zimmerman's arrest record should absolutely be included in this article as well as details about Martin's suspensions. MiamiManny (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note - There were a number of prior discussions, spaced out by a few days apart, that dealt with whether or not to include both of these. There was discussion, but not many editors participated. Some opined that these facts weren't relevant; some others had some interpretations of the WP:BLP policy that I don't think are accurate. I'm of the opinion that news coverage should determine the relevance, not the whims of however many half-a-dozen editors notice the thread at that moment. I'm not expressing an opinion either way about whether they should be included, but the relevant criteria is how widespread the news has covered those facts. Of course, every statement like this needs to have a reliable citation. Also, the BLP criteria should apply equally to Zimmerman and Martin. The fact that Martin is not alive should not change the application of the policy in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a mention in the BLP policy page that people that have died with a specific time frame are still considered "living"? News coverage does not determine relevance. Gross coverage only affects notability. The quality of the source and relevance of the information is what is important. No matter how many times something inaccurate is repeated it's still inaccurate.Whatzinaname (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

CNN backtracking on audio

CNN is now backtracking on their initial report of what Zimmerman allegedly said under his breath in his call to police. Last night on AC360, they enhanced the audio with new "high-tech gadgetry" and are now claiming he may have said something entirely different than fucking coons. We should either add this new analysis of the audio, like we did when ABC backtracked on the surveillance, or take out the original report. Here is a link to the new enhanced audio.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont have flash at work :( Are there any articles discussing on CNN?Gaijin42 (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's that blog you don't like. [14] Here's National Review [15] And for records it sites [16] with a cold temp of 63 at the time of the shooting (for florida). Remember that CNN is the source of this development with their audio expert, the response will be to their analysis. Considering that they both did asserting the fact and now retracting... it should get a point on the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Play nice. Well, the enhanced audio convinced me on the "cold" interpretation. Now the question : Do we just gut the entire exchange, or say the initial and then the retraction. Normally I would say gut, but in this case since the "coon" interpretation was used as part of the evidence towards the alleged racism, I think we should mention the entire chain. "was interpreted as coons, was used as evidence of racism, later analysis revealed" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am playing nice, but we both know that source is well... a problem for both of us because of its research has constantly come up and created hassles for us that have no fact-checking or reporting and a clear POV. I thought our opinions were mutual and given our continued interaction it would be a friendly nudge on something we both don't like. I'd actually keep it as unintelligible as it is on the tape. Then detail suspicion of the slur and evidence against the slur. As whether or not the slur was said is not definitive, we should make it clear that 'enhancing' and what people believe it is being reported, and has not been confirmed/denying/clarified by Zimmerman himself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your nudge :) Here is a nice graph showing average temps for sanford. http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/32771 If this is combined with the weather underground info which also includes average temperatures (not synth, just two points of evidence), I think we need to be careful when including any analysis of what the temp was. 60s on that particular night is well within the average temps for Feb, according to both sources. That is not evidence for or against any analysis of what Zimmerman may have said, but just that we should not be saying "it was unusually cold on that night" or anything like that. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It was raining. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think we have any sources saying what type/amount of rain was falling at 7:00 in that part of sanford, so we have to be careful. We can say there was rain that day, or had been rain etc, but not that it was raining at that exact moment I don't think. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman says it is raining during his 911 call

Actually that source says the temp 63 at that time and that it had light rain. Listed at 0.03 inch of rain fall from one station. It still as listed in that hour, but the temp was constant and probably would be fine to state light rain that night. Its all at the source, but I'd just be careful of wording. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to keep unintelligible in there as well, that way it covers both analysis of their versions of "enhanced audio". A source including temp and rain would fit nicely too. In one of his first interviews, Zimmerman's neighbor Taafe, when asked about this tape said he thought Zimmerman said cold. About two weeks ago, I said the same thing (cold) on a forum elsewhere and was villified for it.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny how that works. I keep telling everyone that the 'facts' change weekly and so far I've been right about it. We don't have Taafe's on here, but we should, we can dig up the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This clearly belongs in the media bias section. i lost track of how many idiots on MSNBC/CNN/ABC "know" what they heard on the tape (coon) and didn't even need the "first" video analysis to confirm what their owl-like auditory acumen had already decided the tape said. So basically gutted from main issues of the case and moved over to the bias section.Whatzinaname (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The information about CNN's reversal and the improved audio analysis should absolutely be included. MiamiManny (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Now, CNN's Martin Savidge is reporting that Tom Owen of Owen Forensic Services, a company that specializes in audio enhancement and improvement has determined that it was punks. Savidge interviewed Zimmerman's attorney as well: “Last night, I had a conversation with attorneys that represent George Zimmerman and I specifically asked about the issue of the racial slur because it is so inflammatory in the whole story. They said Zimmerman never made it. I said have you asked George Zimmerman about that. They said, yes, they did, George told them the words he used were f-ng punks." I think we should reconsider and gut this whole thing about this tape, this makes three different times CNN has put out a "new and enhanced version" of this tape.--173.218.27.174 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The newest interpretation of what was said "Fucking CNN" lol. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is we should wait for another day to see what CNN thinks Zimmerman is saying before we edit this anymore:)Isaidnoway (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman passes Voice-stress test which is similiar to lie detector test.

New source revealing more information that Zimmerman passed a voice-stress test. [17] "Late Tuesday, veteran Orlando-area criminal defense attorney Hal Uhrig, who often works on cases with Sonner, announced that he was joining the defense team. He is confident of their client's self-defense claim, Uhrig told WOFL, in part because Zimmerman has already passed a voice-stress test, something similar to a lie-detector test, administered by Sanford police." Which is actually very limited in detail, but data mining shows that Zimmerman had this test done and he passed which should further be noted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That is pretty significant news, I'd say. Would be wise to include. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ya should be included. Question is where : As this is a police run test, something tells me up by the 911 calls and surveilence video, but on the other hand those both happened the night of the incident, so this may be more relevant in the investigations area? Or the defense of zimmerman area? I found the snippet very interesting in the article that Zimmerman has not met his lawyers yet due to danger. Highly unusual, and perhaps useful in the threats section. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Support It is relevant to his credibility and it absolutely should be included.MiamiManny (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Whether or not it is usable in the court of law, it supports Zimmerman's perception of events in a quantifiable way. Not proof, but definitely support. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is an additional source on the test, which also includes a new pic of Trayvon I haven't seen before. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57409329-504083/veteran-attorney-hal-uhrig-joins-george-zimmermans-defense-team-reports-say/ Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this is that significant. It's not going to be admissable in court, unless both sides agree to it, and there is no way the prosecution would agree to it. It only shows that Zimmerman believed he acted in self-defense and was possibly telling the truth about his version of the events. Even with the police administering the test, Serino still wanted to pursue charges against him. The circumstantial evidence, physical evidence, witnessess and Zimmerman's statements will be the key factors in this case. For every expert for something like this or the voice analysis of the screaming for help, there is plenty of experts against it.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"It only shows that Zimmerman believed he acted in self-defense and was possibly telling the truth about his version of the events." I don't think it even shows that. Voice-stress tests- and lie detector tests for that matter- are notoriously unreliable. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would what's admissible in court be important to this article? Like I said a few days ago to someone else (don't remember who right now), this isn't a court of law. We're supposed to include facts relevant to the incident and investigation in this article, aren't we? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If this were a test arranged by the defense, using some private researcher, I would agree with you. As a test performed by the police, I think there is very little chance it would not be considered admissible, unless the defense objected (which clearly they wouldn't in this case). Showing that zimmerman believed it was self defense is 90% of the case. If he did not believe it, it is clearly not self defense. If he does believe it, the prosecution must prove that such belief was unreasonable, which is a really high bar to reach, especially as there are conflicting witness accounts. Those conflicting witnesses do not prove anything one way or another, but the certainly do raise "reasonable doubt". The voice analysis for identification, your logic is much more sound, as that particular test will certainly wont be admissible (although an expert witness on either side certainly could happen) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Upon further research, polygraphs are not admissible in court in florida in general, regardless of circumstance. (Not an RS, but does cite the relevant case law )http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2011/06/are_lie_detector_test_results.html. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• • It is significant regardless of whether or not they will later use it in court documents, it is a law enforcement tool that is recognized in multiple countries and by the CIA and FBI and the state judicial systems. You might as well remove Ms. Cutcher's testimony as she is unreliable for court, but then again we are not debating whether or not this is court permissible, we are debating that the police did this test on Zimmerman and he passed which lends credibility to his statements. It is the same as Zimmerman passing a lie-detector test (because it is the same type of test under a different name and system) which is also widely recognized. Florida courts can come up with what they want to be permissible, but other states recognize it and even without it being in court, gives weight to Zimmerman's statements independent of any pending court matters for reliability in said statements. It is relevant because it influences the interaction between the police and Zimmerman. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(a) Lie detectors are generally inadmissable in court, whether performed by the police or third parties; (b) lie detector (or stress tests) are commonly used by police as part of their investigation, for example to decide on what leads they should focus; (c) WP isn't a court of law and whether or not something is admissable in court has little (not "no", but "little") value in determining whether it is useful here; and (d) I think the information should be included. It is relevant and widely reported.LedRush (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The prosecution reviews the investigative work and then they decide what evidence they will present. Yes, it is often used to determine if a person is telling the truth or not, but we have Serino still wanting to pursue charges against him anyway, that tells me there must be other evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's statements or just flat out didn't believe him. This will be included in the discovery that is turned over to the defense, but if they want to include it, the prosecution must agree. Lie-detector tests are generally not admissable unless both sides agree to admitting it. The only way the prosecution would use it is if they can impeach Zimmerman's statements with other evidence they have. I think this is more of a play by Zimmerman's defense team trying to improve his image in the media.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

They get to decide what evidence they will present, but not presenting exonerating evidence is a good way to end up with a mistrial, and actions taken against the prosecution. We do not know the timing of the test, if it happened that night, or after, which would have a big impact on how that influenced Serino. In any case the test will be inadmissible under florida's Frye standard regardless of who would agree. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? This is WP, not a court of law, and the information is obviously relevant as part of the police investigation and it is widely reported in RSs, so we should put it in.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The prosecution does not have to present exonerating evidence. They turn over the discovery of the investigation to the defense and they can use it if they want too. Now, if they didn't include the exonerating evidence in the discovery, then yes, a mistrial would be called for. If this voice stress test exonerated Zimmerman, then the investigation would already be over. The DOJ and FBI would have been made aware of this as well and all the evidence has to be considered when filing charges. It really doesn't matter if Zimmerman believes he acted in self-defense, of course that will be his defense. What matters is if the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman's belief was unreasonable with the other evidence they have collected. Anyway, we are getting way off topic here, is it relevant to this article. I don't think it is, but if the consensus is that the media is reporting on it and that is the way it is presented then I am OK with that, but it shouldn't be included as to represent any credibility to Zimmerman's statements. I still believe that this is just his defense team trying to combat his negative image in the media and they know it doesn't carry any weight either.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

While it's obvious you have some knowledge of the law (is your knowledge of the law applicable to Florida where this will be tried?), the question is whether or not this new material is relevant to the article and if it belongs in the article. I think it is and does AND should be presented to support Zimmerman's statements (in a non-biased manner). Without a clear rationale as to why it's relevant, it shouldn't be included. I don't think an article's talk page is supposed to be a forum for hashing out what we know about the law and what we don't, because the article isn't about that, it's about the incident. Someone put a link related to talk pages not being a forum a day or so ago. We could probably try harder to abide by that. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated above, I don't think it is relevant, but if the consensus is that the media is reporting on it, then I'm OK with that, as long as that is the way it is presented. I don't think we should include it in a way that suggests it lends credibility to Zimmerman's statements though. And yes I did veer off topic and yes I do work for a law firm.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, to those of us with no more then average knowledge of the law, this news does in fact lend credibility to Zimmerman's claim. As is what the news articles suggest. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It obviously lends credibility to Zimmerman's statements. It is evidence that he believed he was in danger. That's the heart of the credibility issue. While pehaps proving that point is not enough to satisfy the requirements of an affirmative defense, it goes a long way to showing both his state of mind and making it harder to show that his actions were unreasonable under the circumstances. And, as we've said, this isn't a court of law. Evidence of his state of mind is of paramount importance in this article.LedRush (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think, more importantly here, is that it lends credibility to the police department/DA decisions following the shooting. It should definitely be included as it contradicts a common media narrative the police just patted zimmerman on the head and told him "ya dun real gud" and let him go home. Also, important to include, that he offered to take the test, which he had no legal obligation to do. 68.115.51.198 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You're missing my point, and I wasn't trying to be a wiseass about where I work, sorry if it sounded that way. My point is if Zimmerman actually believed he was acting in self-defense, then there is no reason he shouldn't have passed the voice stress test. Of course he thought he was acting reasonable, what else is he going to say. The test only indicates that Zimmerman thought he was acting reasonable. It doesn't make his statements any more credible if there is other evidence that contradicts his statements. I just think it should be included that the media is the one saying it lends credibility and we maintain a NPOV when presenting it in the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. If Zimmerman believed he was in danger, that greatly helps his case and, more importantly, is relevant to this article. Furthermore, if Zimmerman believes in his account of events (that he was being beaten, that Martin said that Zimmerman would die or that Martin went for the gun), it makes it exceedingly difficult to prove his actions weren't reasonable. I understand what you're saying, to a degree. This information, even if allowed in court, isn't dispositive of the legal issues. But surely it helps incredibly. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, we are talking about the article. If Zimmerman believes in his public account of the events (meaning, it's not spin or a lie, which would be normal in a case like this), it adds tremendous credibility to his claims. However, there is no need to say that anyone says it adds credibility to his claims. We just put in the information in a NPOV way and let readers do with it what they will.LedRush (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think you were being a wiseass, Isaidnoway, but I do think your experience in the law doesn't lend credibility to your editing this article. There's no legal analysis to put in the article, so why would it matter what you know about the law in your state and what you don't? I know nothing of the law in Florida, and I have no professional or layman's experience in law, but I can still edit the article (as others can). So, back to whether or not the voice stress test is relevant and adds credibility to Zimmerman's statements: as others have pointed out, it does. I'm not going to rehash what they already said in regard to this, because they presented what I already think about it in terms of the article. And, as LedRush said just a few minutes ago, when it's included, it only needs to be done in a non-biased manner. There's no experience in an legal profession necessary for doing so. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be almost an assumption that if Zimmerman passed the voice-stress test that he *believed* what he was saying. I think some folks are giving this voice-stress test way too much credit. I think it's credibility is on par with flipping a coin and Ouija boards. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Isaidnoway's point is that the "reasonable belief" part is an objective standard, not a subjective one. Would a reasonable person in the same shoes think the same thing, not did he think the same thing. Of course how this relates to the article, let alone the original point in this thread is beyond me. Shadowjams (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. Reasonable depends on the subject(defendant) in question, so it's also going to have a subjective standard element to it. An 80 year old woman might have more reasonable belief her life is in danger when a 300 pound 30 year old male pushes her down to the ground than would, say, another 300 pound 30 year old maleWhatzinaname (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to not understand what's been said. "Reasonable person" is a standard in common law jurisdictions. You don't seem to understand what that means. Your example is also horrible contrived and confuses the subjective part. What you think is "subjective" is actually quite objective. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Information regarding Zimmerman's father being a retired magistrate judge has been removed

Can someone re-add this information: "...the son of Peruvian born Gladys Zimmerman, and Robert Zimmerman Sr., a retired magistrate judge.

<Reference> Neighbors describe watch leader at center of Florida investigation CNN. Accessed: 28 March 2012. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Support It is relevant and should absolutely be included.MiamiManny (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Support It serves to indicate a potential source of Zimmerman's interest in community law enforcement.

If his father were a former gun dealer or a former paramilitary mercenary contracted out to participate in death squads killing innocent civilians in El Salvador this would also be of similar interest, thus adding to the article. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Magistrate Judge as they are two separate things. Zimmerman's father was a retired Magistrate from Virginia as evidenced by a much earlier edit request.68.3.103.157 (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

I restored it. Let's see if the wikibully attempts to remove it again. --MiamiManny (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a consensus a few days ago about removing Zimmerman's parents' occupations. Their occupations have no relevance to this article. If there was a separate article about Zimmerman himself, then it would be relevant. I have removed it once again (per the consensus tally). Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

False. As you can see here, there is no consensus to exclude it. Please stop trying to remove relevant and sourced information from the article. --MiamiManny (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Look at section 9 (as of today) on this talk page. There was a fairly overwhelming consensus to keep Zimmerman's parents' occupations out of the article as irrelevant to the incident. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevant and sourced Zimmerman bio information is being removed without justification

Some editors are under the misunderstanding that a consensus has been reached to censor relevant sourced information about George Zimmerman. This includes reference that Zimmerman's father was a Virginia magistrate and that Zimmerman is a registered Democrat. Both of these items have been widely reported in the mainstream media. There has been no consensus on these talk pages to exclude the information. If someone believes a consensus was reached, I am reopening the discussion. I support efforts to put in all information that is well-sourced, whether it reflects negatively or positively on the individual. MiamiManny (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"I support efforts to put in all information that is well-sourced, whether it reflects negatively or positively on the individual." I second that emotion. I'd like to see Zimmerman's former arrest, Martin's suspensions, and several other facts (conspicuously missing) back into the article. I don't see their parents' occupations as relevant to what happened that night. Having said that, if someone heard a conspiracy theory about Zimmerman's dad involving himself in the investigation (which one of the attorneys has suggested) then the actual facts ought to be addressed in the article. We should mention that his father was a magistrate (or whatever the facts are) and that there is no evidence that he interfered, etc. This is different from what their grandparent's did for a living because no public figure (attorney (or blogger for that matter)) has accused either of their grandparent's of any involvement in any aspect of the event and its consequences. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That information does not reflect at all, it is completely irrelevant. If we can source what Zimmermans grandparents did, is that relevant to the article? Similarly with political affiliation. It has no reflection. There are no allegations that there were political motivations during the event, or in the handling of the investigation. No reliable or notable sources have made any commentary regarding his politics. We can probably find well sourced BILLIONS of facts. What high school did zimmerman go to, what middle school, etc. What is the relevance to the article? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up Zimmerman's grandparents? I did not mention grandparents. This is about basic information concerning Zimmerman's father who served as a magistrate for the State of Virgina. It's relevant because Zimmerman's dad has appeared as a guest on several national news and opinion shows to discuss the case and defend his son. It is also relevant because this case is a matter before the criminal justice system and his dad and mother were apparently both employed by the criminal justice system. A review of any blog or discussion group on the topic will show numerous comments that Zimmerman's dad was "a judge," usually accompanied by speculation that the dad may have influenced the police and/or prosecutor. Wiki readers should at least be informed that the dad was a magistrate and he worked for the State of Virginia.

As for political affiliation, there have been numerous politicians that have spoken out on the case, including President Obama. Because opinions have frequently fallen along partisan lines, it is relevant to know that Zimmerman is a Democrat. Also the Democratic Party affiliation is surprising to many because leaders in the Democratic party have called him a murderer and advocated for his arrest. It should be included and let the user decide his or her own opinion.

Again, why any wiki editor would want to err on the side of exclusion and censorship is beyond me. Wiki readers want to see a complete article on a given topic. I know, because I am one of them. MiamiManny (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a complete article on the topic the professions of the parents of zimmerman and martin have nothing to do with the topic. nor do the grandparents. There is a reason you did not mention the grandparents. They are not relevant. Nor are the parent's professions. the blogs are wrong, he was not a "judge", he was a "magistrate", and what happens on blogs and forums is not relevant to a wikipedia article. Find a reliable source making that same speculation, and you might have a point. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the magistrate info, which is sourced to CNN in the section above, should be included, but not the political affiliation. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, a magistrate is a judge - have you seen something out there that says otherwise for Virginia? I think that the fact that Zimmerman's father was a judge (and maybe that his mother worked in the court system) may indeed have relevance to the story as for the father's vouching for the son's story and being seen as credible, but obviously we would need proper sources not only stating that he was a magistrate but also making a connection between the job and the police and public perception of him, if such a connection exists, not our speculation. But I see no relevance to the political party affiliation of anyone connected to this case. Tvoz/talk 05:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz a magistrate is not judge. If you look at the organizational chart for Virginia courts on page 7 of http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/gd/gdinfo.pdf you will see that the magistrate system is separate and unique from all other Virginia court systems. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

You may be right in this instance, but your statement is incorrect: judges are magistrates but not all magistrates are judges. Shadowjams (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Magistrate System: Serving the Commonwealth through offices in all 32 judicial districts, the magistrate’s primary functions are to conduct probable cause hearings on complaints of criminal conduct brought by law enforcement or the general public and to determine whether an arrested person is eligible for bail. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/home.html68.3.103.157 (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

OK, I get it, in Virginia there's a more specific definition of magistrate (but it does sound pretty close to a judge). Again, of course we need reliable sources making the point, but reading the definition of what Zimmerman Sr's job was, certainly is, shall we say, eerie given the whole point about the lack of arrest being a question of whether there was probable cause. It does stretch believability that he expressed no opinion about it to law enforcement, but we'll have to wait and see. Tvoz/talk 07:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a Virginia attorney and I will tell you that a magistrate generally speaking decides whether to issue search and arrest warrants (the standard is usually probable cause, which is where the confusion may be coming from), and makes the initial determination, at the jail, of bail upon arrest, subject to an arraignment usually the next business morning. These are "hearings" in a certain sense, but usually they on warrant issuance only involve law enforcement and possibly a prosecutor (the defendant is not part of that process), and for bail at the jail only involve the arresting officer and the defendant and are not in any sort of courtroom, but are part of the processing of the arrest. I recall once, about 15 years ago, a magistrate held a hearing in one of my cases when there were cross-complaints by each side seeking to get the other arrested, but that's very unusual. Do not confuse a Virginia magistrate with a Federal magistrate judge, who actually holds hearings regularly and may even hold trials in minor cases. A magistrate in Virginia is not a judge in any usual sense of the word, although his function is considered judicial in nature. There's no right to counsel, though if an attorney shows up for his client at the jail, the magistrate will listen to him.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The passive observer says: Everyone please try to remember that what is notable enough to mentioned on Wikipedia is largely determined by what has been found notable enough for mention by mainstream news sources (i.e., what we can actually source). I see a lot of posts here that seem to forget and/or ignore that fact. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A good point to also remember is that notability is not the standard for what we include in an article. The news media has an entirely different goal from an encyclopedia. They live for advertising dollars, and don't mind trashing someone's reputation just to get a few more people to watch. We're supposed to have a better standard. So just because it gets mentioned a million times on the news, doesn't mean we need to follow the crowd. -- Avanu (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin's suspension (involving the traces of marijuana) would be relevant, as it directly affected as to why he was not in Miami that night. His past suspension (involving graffiti) though really have no bearing and should not be given any weight. The same goes for why Zimmerman's past should not be included. I know people want to draw the conclusion that he has a history of violence and therefore must have murdered Martin, but we can't draw that conclusion, at least not until more information comes out. And I know some editors are under the feeling that if we include something negative about one individual we must include something negative about the other, this is not what NPOV is about at all. We aren't taking sides if we include relevant and accurate information, no matter how damning it might be. Redredryder (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture POV problem

The pictures being used violate WP:NPOV. The one of Trayvon is black and white, with a somewhat blank stare and wearing a hoodie, while the one of Zimmerman is in color and he's smiling. Can someone try to locate more neutral images. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the hoodie picture is being used because it's "iconic". Whatzinaname (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Zimmerman one isn't neutral? Anyway, we're using the hoodie one for Martin, I thought, because the only other free one was of him when he was around 13...not really NPOV itself. I agree that a more "normal", recent Martin photo would be best. The hoodie picture, to me, is still problematic, even if it is "iconic".LedRush (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the way the images have changed -in a not so subtle way, the message is being presented that Martin is menacing and Zimmerman a smiling regular guy. That is POV. Tvoz/talk 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the photos of Martin are "free" at this point, we are using a fair use rationale for him no matter what, unless the family releases a photo to the public domain. If we can get consensus on a new pic, we can switch, but it will be tough to find one that satisfied everyone. Interestingly, both sides of the debate don't like the hoodie pic it seems, pro-martin people think its a blank stare, pro-zimmerman people think the "iconic"-ness is pov, and too young. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a link to some pictures of Trayvon Martin on Google: [18] Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• In a Mametesq way this issue has been reversed: the earliest photos of the two were a picture of a much younger smiling Martin and a menacing, mugshot photo of Zimmerman. That has been, at least according to the OP, reversed now. It'd be nice if we could have representative photos of each. Perhaps drivers license photos? I'm at a loss as to why those sorts of neutral pictures haven't been broadcast publicly. They also would have the secondary benefit of being copyright-free. Shadowjams (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be illegal to leak them I think, the DMV does not have any authority to release them, and Martin might not even have one, he just turned 17, and I think Florida is one of the states that highly restricts teen drivers. http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/teendriv.html Gaijin42 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "leaking" anything... I'm just surprised they haven't released them. They release mugshot photos and apparently police station videos... why is it so strange to release a passport or a driver's license photo. Are you sure there's a law in Florida prohibiting that? There may be, but I don't know for sure. I kind of doubt there is, but of course I could be wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a guess, but it is probably a privacy issue. If it was that easy to obtain them, any news organization could file a FOIA and get them.--Isaidnoway (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

FOIA would only apply to federal records, not state based driver's license records. But your find on the DPPA is good. Well done. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You write about a Point Of View problem, yet you refer to Trayvon Martin as "Trayvon" and George Zimmerman as "Zimmerman". Do you not find that a bit hypocritical? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Who knew? It's a federal law passed by congress, the DPPA act: The Drivers Privacy Protection Act requires all States to protect the privacy of personal information contained in an individual's motor vehicle record. This information includes the driver's name, address, phone number, Social Security Number, driver identification number, photograph, height, weight, gender, age, certain medical or disability information, and in some states, fingerprints. It does not include information concerning a driver's traffic violations, license status or accidents. Apparently it was passed because stalkers and junk mailer's were mining the data.--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• The article would benefit from a second Trayvon image. We'd prefer to only use one, but there are NPOV and BLP issues at stake here. A recent Trayvon image would inform readers about his age and size-- relevant to Zimmerman's defense. One image per page is a general guideline we made up-- but we shoudn't let a guideline trump good faith concerns over NPOV/BLP. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

nice article discussing media coverage, and media mistakes which may be useful for the relevant sections

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-media-20120401,0,1199315.story Gaijin42 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

LA Times moves stories to an archive after a while; biblio cite for above link: James Rainey, "Media gives ample coverage, little clarity to Trayvon Martin case", Los Angeles Times, 31 Mar 2012. might be useful later. --Naaman Brown (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

***Time for a Complete Rewrite***

Given all the new facts, it is time for a complete rewrite.

The article needs to be re-written so that the focus is on the harassment of George Zimmerman over defending himself rather on than the aggressor Trayvon Martin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.17.243 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well since your version sounds biased also, I think we won't do it in quite that way. -- Avanu (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR continuation

1RR is due to expire in the next 24 hours and semi-protection remains. Any thoughts on continuing both or expiring both? MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel strongly that we need semi-protection to continue indefinitely - that is, until the article stops attracting hordes of POV edits (like we can see a taste of here on Talk). It is hard enough to keep up with edits now, in terms of keeping it neutral and reflective of consensus decisions. Not quite as sure about 1RR - want to think about that and see what others think. Tvoz/talk 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

continue both, indefinitely. Way too many drop in anon ips (see previous rewrite request). And the 1rr is forcing some level of consensus building, or at least saving up of reverts for things people feel strongly for. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also encourage a continuation of both 1RR and semiprotection. MastCell ^Talk 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

 Extended another week. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on 1RR too. I think the semi-prot should be indefinite, but you can handle it as you like, Matt, if you don't mind sticking around and watching it. Tvoz/talk 05:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be placed for as long as people have free thought. Once all independent thinking has ended, then I don't see a reason for 1RR. I think we will be safe at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.53.11 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I must say the logic in this post is impeccable. Tvoz/talk 05:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

AGAINST - This article should be treated the same as other Wikipedia articles. Blocking and repeatedly restricting edits (e.g. 1RR) is a form of wikibullying. There is one editor here who has attempted to claim ownership of this article and who is resisting all efforts to improve it. The same editor repeatedly advocates for 1RR protection and bullies others using the 1RR restrictions. MiamiManny (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "Blocking and repeatedly restricting edits (e.g. 1RR) is a form of wikibullying." — I don't see it that way as long as it doesn't favor any POV, which it doesn't seem to in this case. I really appreciate MBisanz's intervention here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Re bullying by an article editor — I don't see how 1rr would lead to more bullying than 3rr. If anything, it seems there would be more bullying with 3rr. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

FOR an extension. I don't see how anyone could be owning the article if they're abiding by a 1RR restriction...--Львівське (говорити) 05:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Against further extension Considering the origin of why we have 1rr, further extension should be avoided. Aside from one instance there is no edit warring and 1RR is far more damaging in terms of editor support then it does to protect. Given the evidence, I say it is not fair and that the calls for 'indefinate' 1rr and others are completely out of line with Wikipedia's policy and it is an action that has little justification. The admin which put full protection on and reverted edits to his own edit warring was an abuse in accordance to those rules, 1RR was not placed due to proper reason but as a limiter in such a case, the editors involved are not even here. I wish that the matter wasn't decided so quickly in an hour and a half when there was no need to rush. Semi-protection is a different matter, which should also be addressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Even with the present 1RR, some editors have tried to edit war by requesting others to revert. At least 1RR slows them down.

I'm For the extension. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

For It's been effective in an article that has drawn a lot of people with diverse opinions. I think the 1 revert rule has kept things in check. Maybe for all of us. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh please. You recently reverted the article and repeated the damage done by Gaijin42. Your "sentence" made no sense and it ended with a comma. People can see the damage you did here: Diff. You obviously didn't even look to see the damage that Gaijin42 had committed before reflexively restoring his bad edit. I suspect Gaijin42 is gaming the system, whether through proxies or through sockpuppets, to perform his wikibullying. It is sad to see editors improperly attempt to assert ownership over an article and resist reasonable efforts to improve it. --MiamiManny (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your attitude and accusations only cement my feeling the 1RR ruling should stand. I can see from what you've written above you have an edit warring mentality and are aching for a fight. When I put back Gaijin's edit, I did so in a spirit of helpfulness. I made a mistake in how I did it (and it was easily fixed). Why would you get all bothered about someone trying to help? All in all, I guess it's better you do your fighting here rather than disrupt the article through the edit warring you have already been blocked for. Which is a perfect example of why the 1 revert rule needs to stay for now. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

'Comment Bob K31416: Give me a case where they were edit warring and not trying to act under WP:STATUSQUO by an editor who violated 1RR and despite warnings continued to? Anyone can 'edit war', but policy is pretty clear that asking it be discussed and going by previous consensus and going in line with the policy. It is more obvious that those editors are drawing attention to the changes and cannot act or be blocked themselves, it is not WP:MEAT either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The case I had in mind when I made my comment was in the archived section Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_4#edit_request.2C_remove_magistrate. After rereading it, the de facto result looks closer to gaining some consensus (3 editors) instead of an edit war. This useful pause from re-reverting to get others' approval would not have happened without the 1rr and there could have been more back and forth reverting by the editors in the dispute if there was 3RR.

Regarding your comment about someone breaking the 1RR without penalty — Could you give the diffs on that and the corresponding discussion about it? Did anyone report it to MBisanz? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That one is not an edit war, but it was trying to act within previous concensus and without discussion back to WP:Statusquo. Which is actually proper under the policy. MiamiManny was the only one who broke 1RR and was blocked for 24 hours. It was in its own section because of MiamiManny's edits. Discussion is taking place and it seems wrong to try and push for indefinite 1RR or keep extending it when there is no valid argument on it. Rather then contribute or clean up issues I am largely avoiding editing because I don't want to accidentally cross 1RR or get stuck on someone's side for an 'edit war'. Furthermore I question that under the circumstances if 1RR is even proper here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How much would you like to bet discussion is happening BECAUSE of the 1RR limit placed on this article? I'm new to Wikipeida and have learned more about how things are/should be done and not done here because of the cooperation at this article. I really believe things here have been calm and cooperative as a direct result of the the 1RR restriction. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong about this, but it is not even listed at WP:General Sanctions where it should be and the case for it absent. This seems to be highly irregular. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1RR facilitates good editing practices on controversial topics. There is no deadline; it's more important for us to get material right than to get material up right away, so slowing down the pace of editing is not really a problem. 1RR encourages editors to make one (hopefully well-thought-out) addition per day rather than numerous reverts, and encourages the use of a bold-revert-discuss cycle, which is often the most productive approach to controversial content.

  I don't quite understand the argument against extending 1RR; it seems to have worked reasonably well so far in terms of avoiding edit-wars, as evidenced by the fact that only one block has been handed out and the article hasn't required full protection since the 1RR was instituted. That's pretty unusual, and impressive, for an article this current and controversial. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I disagree with that reasoning because of the circumstances which involved that admin and the issues which were involved. Your reasoning does not cover admin tools being used in a manner which according to some, were a violation of policy itself. While the 1RR came as a result, I doubt that as the process did not call for sanctions on an article that they expire properly and not be extended without justified reasons. Most of the current editors were not even involved during that time. Let it go back to semi-protection first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
    • As best I recall, the use of admin tools was reviewed and was felt to be appropriate (if you have diffs/links showing otherwise, I'd be happy to be corrected). In any case, I don't see how a process-based complaint about the original application of sanctions is relevant to a discussion of whether they should currently be continued. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The discussion took place and some felt strongly against his actions, it wasn't proper under the guidelines even with self-reporting of the issue due to his involvement in the article itself, it is supposed to be someone uninvolved and not currently edit warring- admin or not. Let's not discuss the matter here, its done and over with, the concern is whether or not 1RR is justified and just because X hasn't happened doesn't mean 1RR is the reason for it. The whole matter of 1RR is limited in scope and not just because something is 'controversial' it must have a protracted issue; and quite frankly it has not shown to be that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

big interview with zimmerman's new lawyer

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/george-zimmermans-new-attorney-hal-uhrig.php?page=2

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/george-zimmerman-hires-criminal-defense-attorney-hal-uhrig-drops-joe-oliver-in-trayvon-martin-case

also an interview with Trayvon's father.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/article_8719.shtml Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting articles. Shouldn't we include his lawyer's in the section People involved in the case now. They have really been out in the media lately, plenty of RS. The state attorney's are listed there. BTW, did you see in the wptv interview in the 4th. paragraph where it said "prosecutors' gathered at the state capitol to demand justice for Martin. You think that was a typo and should have said "protestors." If it really was "prosecutors", that would be a story in itself.--Isaidnoway (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Smaller Photos

I'm concerned about the pictures of Martin and Zimmerman having been made considerably smaller. Plus they now seem weirdly cramped in the spots they are located in. I personally think they should go back to the size they were before and would love to see what others think. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. I think they are the proper size and in the proper location. This is an encyclopedia not a blog. I do appreciate what you are saying, but look at it from the "encyclopedia view". --12.196.33.229 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put a lot of effort in making the pictures similar sizes appropriate for an encyclopedia. TY to above.

• At this time, after repeated attacks, we are relatively sure that Rollo is a sockpuppet of a banned user that follows me around and has since I was a newbie. She has been reported.:[19]. Doc talk 23:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Added George Zimmerman's attorneys to people involved in case

Pics, suggestions, improvements welcome.--Isaidnoway (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the section, or at least the wording "legal team", is a little premature. Zimmerman hasn't been charged with anything. Why are we creating a whole section to lawyers who aren't defending him yet? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman hired them to represent him in this incident and they have recently been all over the news defending him. Also for the same reason the state attorney's are listed and they haven't charged him yet.--Isaidnoway (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

They are certainly defending him, just not from charges. They are representing him in the media, advising him, and doing coordination and communication with law enforcement. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As usual, you are correct. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source with info on Sonner.[20]

Perhaps there should be a section on attorneys for the Martin family too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I was thinking the same thing about the family's attorneys and the parents as well. The parents are noticeably absent from this article, I see three brief mentions of them (1) pertaining to the missing persons report (2) mentioned in media coverage (3) listed as Trayvon's parents in his section. I think they are very relevant to this shooting as they were the ones who brought this into the national spotlight and have been quite vocal since then. I guess I was thinking to the future when this story is long gone from the national media, when reader's reference this article, shouldn't they know why/how this shooting became such a national event, it's not even mentioned in the lead, it just merely says the circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, shouldn't the reader know why. I wouldn't advocate to include every single statement they have made in the media, but a section explaining their diligence in seeking justice for their son, I think is warranted. Benjamin Crump could be listed with the other attorney's, he is involved in this case.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Biased info from Young Turks being forced into article

Since we still have the 1RR rule...

Editor Wickorama added the following:

However, in a separate recounting to the press of what George Zimmerman allegedly told him, his father, while saying that Trayvon saw the gun, does not mention a struggle for the gun. To the contrary, he says that after Trayvon saw the gun he made a death threat and continued beating his son, and at some point, his son "pulled his pistol and did what he did". REF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFsEoZQY_NE

A simple review of the material shows that this is not what the Young Turks even directly say in the video, and also the statement makes this appear to contradict information we have already included in the article, when it simply involves something not being stated, and ALSO when we are talking about hearsay information. This is a very tenuous line of material, and if it cannot follow its own source, and is merely synthesized material that cannot possibly be substantiated, it needs to go. I have used rollback on it once, but Wickorama very quickly re-added the material.

-- Avanu (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I would add that from what I can tell, The Young Turks clearly shows an anti-Zimmerman bias, and while I have seen and often respected the material that they produce, I cannot see how we can accept this as a sole source for any statement. One more thing, the source in question here was created March 29, 2012, which makes it over a week old, and we all know how quickly the various interpretations of the "facts" seem to change in this case. -- Avanu (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There seemed to be a WP:SYNTH problem there. If a RS compares them and draws conclusions, then it might be OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did your simple review of the material deal with what the "Young Turks" are saying? The video was referenced for the portion with video/audio of the father of George Zimmerman being interviewed. The Wikipedia text didn't reference a single statement by the "Young Turks". And the statement of his father does contradict the statement of his brother with respect to the gun. The father says Martin saw the gun and continued to beat Zimmerman who later drew the gun. The brother says Martin "attempted to disarm him". The father's retelling of what Zimmerman allegedly told him is no more hearsay than the brother's retelling of what Zimmerman allegedly told him. In summary, I quote the father - who is shown and speaks in the video - and you come back with "But that's not what the "Young Turks" said". ????

Both of the relatives are working the "self defense" angle. They both make a "you're gonna die" type comment from Martin, and claim it came after he saw the gun. Only one - the brother - talks about a struggle for the gun. The father does not talk about Martin trying to get the gun or any struggle with the gun and also says something to support that it never occured - he says that Martin saw the gun but continued to beat his son. And at some point his son "drew it and did what he did". This is not a minor contradiction. Whether or not there was a struggle for the gun is huge in Zimmerman justifying shooting Martin. If there was a struggle for the gun then self-defense as a defense is assured. And it is not a detail that is likely to be left out by George Zimmerman when talking to his father or his brother or a detail they would forget. The discrepancy between the two relatives raises the issue of are these "relative recollections" made up details, or real. One thing about claiming a struggle for the gun occurred is that the police may expect to see Martin's fingerprints on the gun and if they don't find them it looks like a lie. Reflecting on that may have changed the story.

Here is the original youtube video of the father interview without any "Young Turks" to confuse you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSEa5yPDWY8 Wickorama (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That being said, I would think it better to allow the MSM to make the connection (if there is one to be made) and then us report on it once RS are available, assuming there is consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the advantage of reporting only what the brother said with respect to a "struggle for the gun" which is contradicted by the father who doesn't mention a struggle for the gun an in fact says that at some point his son "drew the gun"? Wickorama (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, they were struggling, and Trayvon uttered a death threat ('you have a gun, you're gonna die' or something like that). I think debating whether there was a struggle for a gun is splitting hairs - there was a struggle, trayvon saw the gun and wanted to kill zimmerman...whether he fought for the gun or eluded to it in his threat isn't a huge differentiating factor IMO --Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a huge factor and not even close to splitting hairs. If someone is grabbing for your gun, you have reason to believe they are gonna use it to kill you and can claim self-defense. If someone is punching you - in between two rows of townhouses at 7:15PM with people walking their dogs nearby and with the police on the way - you don't have reason to believe they are going to kill you. All you can claim is that you were gonna get a bad beating (which could still fall under Stand Your Ground but would have a chance of being disputed). And the suggestion that Martin saw a holstered handgun and ignored it is quite implausible. They want a viewing of the gun to be in the story since they think it adds credibility to their claim of a death threat (and if saying "I'm gonna kill you" or something similar in a fist fight by a teenage boy is a death threat, then there would be a lot of teenage boys in jail for attempted murder). But if there are no fingerprints on the gun of Martin a claim of a struggle for the gun is going to be tough to make. Wickorama (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Then take them both out. But don't add in material that implies that Zimmerman was lying unless it is something that is clearly a massive difference in the stories. "Robert said Trayvon, "continued to beat George, and at some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did." That quote doesn't say that there wasn't a struggle for the gun, and in fact it doesn't even say he shot Martin. The elder Zimmerman doesn't state things in specific terms, he is euphemizing, possibly because he doesn't want to emotionally deal with the idea that his son shot someone. But in any event, he doesn't contradict what the brother said, the idea that this is a contradiction comes from The Young Turks, who are simply synthesizing a conflict where none exists. Your statement is not found in the original video and is simply an opinion of The Young Turks, but it isn't in line with NPOV or BLP. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said Avanu. This is a fast-changing story, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper or tabloid, it is an encyclopedia of confirmed information.--DeknMike (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The father's interview doesn't imply that George Zimmerman was lying. It implies that HIS BROTHER was lying. As I pointed out befoer, the statements of George Zimmerman's brother have made it into a section on George Zimmerman's story which should only be what George Zimmerman has said. Wickorama (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is there even material associated with TYT in this article. They hardly match the requirements for being considered an unbiased reliable source. 67.233.245.93 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. Why is the Young Turks even being considered. They are clearly NOT a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. If they are going to be allowed, there is an entire boatload of other "sources" that could be used.--12.196.33.229 (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the "Young Turks" references. Their video was the first that comes up with a youtube search of "George Zimmerman father". Their video was linked for the portion where George Zimmerman's father was being interviewed. As I pointed out above the original video of the interview with Zimmerman's father is also on youtube and can be the reference. Wickorama (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no RS anywhere that gives credence to Trayvon saying he was going to kill Z. The article this is drawn from says Trayvon said ""I'm gonna kill you" or something similar ! Talk about Weasel words. This should not even be included! Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There has been mainstream coverage that's reported similar wording to that. I'm not sure how you say with a straight face that it hasn't been reported. You, obviously, seem to disagree that that is accurate... how you would know better is surprising, but it's been widely reported. I have no idea about this website that's the subject of this thread, but you can't possibly be serious when you say that this is not reliably sourced (fix your link by the way). Shadowjams (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It should go into the statement section because we cannot determine whether or not that was ever said or if it was even those words. Other sources have reported it, but it still is more of a 'he said' kind of thing. Something along the lines of 'It's coming right for us' as a 'legal' protection against shooting endangered or forbidden animals. As it cannot be confirmed, it could be 'justification' and without verification I would not put it in the 'event' section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

reuters reporting additional details on NBC editing of 911 call

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/06/us-usa-crime-martin-nbc-idUSBRE83502B20120406

Also:

Brian Stelter, "NBC Fires Producer of Misleading Zimmerman Tape", New York Times, 6 Apr 2012.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-tape_n_1409405.html

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/

--Naaman Brown (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You should live here

Today in Sanford and surrounding communities ALL vacations were cancelled for police officers and fire fighters. Does someone know something we don't? The talk among us locals is they are going to announce next week that no charges will be filed against George Zimmerman. There are folks that are REALLY scared. I have gone through several hurricanes here, and I compare it to that. Waiting for the storm that you know is coming. Some of my neighbors are actually planning to take a early vacation and leave the area. I was in Southern California during the Rodney King riots, lived in Corona, and don't want to go through that again. What is the relevance of putting this here? What does it have to do with the article? Well... remember this.... as you sit at your home or office in comfort and security, remember there are many good people, totally unrelated to the event who could be seriously affected by it's outcome. Including what you publish. I have a feeling this situation is going to speed up after the Easter Holiday, be very careful in how you write this article. Be responsible. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

From the Martin Family legal advisers:

“People have the right to express their complaints and their feelings however they feel is best,’’ he says. “We don’t want any problems, of course, but we also know that you have to demand what you want, and have to make those demands known. That’s the only way people listen, and the only way anything gets done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And then we have to deal with THESE[22] hateful people!--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sanford Mayor Jeff Triplett said on Thursday that the city’s emergency management team has met regularly with the U.S Department of Justice to construct a plan. Officials said extra police officers and fire department officials are on standby. Neighboring agencies have also been asked to assist, if needed.

Why? I want to make sure everyone here knows what they are dealing with. This is REAL life for many of us.... Not a game, not an edit war. It goes far beyond your computer! Publish the truth, be factual, BE RESPONSIBLE!--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely invite you to be a registered user in Wikipedia and participate in the writing of this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not take an active role in it, we also try to present the information entirely neutral and not at all like the media. Though yes, registering would help and allow you to edit the main article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite, but I am a bit nervous about giving out too much information about myself. I do realize that the majority 99% try to be neutral and accurate, and I appreciate that. I was not accusing anyone of anything different, just to be very careful next week. I do NOT know anything, it is just a "feeling" that many of us locals have. Thank you again for the invite and your professional approach. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

important comment about information about yourself You are actually giving away more information about yourself, than you would with an account. With your IP, someone could conceivably track you down via your ISP with that information, or by hacking your computer to reveal information. Using an account requires you to provide no information about your identity, and would hide your IP on all edits from that point forward (Your already made edits showing your IP, I am not sure there is much you can do about, but you could ask an admin to do something possibly. I am not sure if there is anything) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a society where blacks are in fact profiled and in fact locked up more than their fair share. This is something that our society needs to address in order to avoid the perception and reality of the races being treated unfairly. Whether it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that is created by people acting out the way they are treated, or simply a conflict between cultures, we need to address it and make ours a 'more perfect union'. These moments where the unfairness is highlighted and people's passions are inflamed should make us rise to the occasion and pledge to do better and demand better. There will always be those who make their living exploiting this, folks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, but at the core, there is a real problem that is not just imagined. If people riot and tear down the society around them, hopefully we will look at one another still as brothers, not letting those who divide conquer us, but letting this be a sad lesson that we still have work to do before we are a shining example of humanity's best traits, and not yet another example of our basest ones. To our future. -- Avanu (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

From the top of this page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't be a jerkimpolite. -- Avanu (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's remember, no personal attacks and civility. In fairness to Avanu, 20 minutes after the above message, Avanu posted a message on my talk page that seemed conciliatory and agreeable to following the talk page guideline.[23] --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As Gaijin noted your IP is traceable... even Wikipedia has a link to it so anyone can see where you are. City... town... that sort of thing, but IPs do not identify people, but you should register if that makes you uncomfortable. If threats are made against you then action may be taken, but I doubt that has or will occur. Avanu... WP:SOAP. I think improptu speeches of non-neutrality on such a topic is best avoided, but it doesn't even make sense in this section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't non-neutral unless you read it with your eyes closed, but whatever. -- Avanu (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What are specific things you believe to be presented in a non-neutral way?Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

First and foremost, neutrality has been something I've clearly fought for in every exchange in this article, if you actually read what I wrote above in full, you can clearly see that it candidly acknowledges the problem, yet expresses the idea that we are more than capable of dealing with it. The IP editor is expressing a fear about the future, based on a very real concern that people will respond with violence. Any realistic editor on Wikipedia knows that the dignity with which we treat *any* article is based on the idea that our words here make a difference. A non-neutral statement would be one that either plays up the 'race divide' or ignores it. My statement above is more of a visionary comment that hopes to give people like our IP editor some degree of understanding of how we arrived here and how we move forward, and if they are in the middle of this as they say, this is a very real situation, not just a concept. My suggestion is that we deal with one another with respect and start by fully understanding the responsibilities that we have to one another, not simply reaching for the first pigeonholing policy we think we can find to slam another editor. Here's hoping for a more perfect union and a more perfect encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not slam you, but WP:SOAP is relevant. The tone and word choice are clearly taking not helping as Bob K31416 mentioned. It wasn't even about the case and was just about 'racism is destructive and that people are so cruel and hopefully they will recognize their wrongs and become better human beings.' Then you call him a jerk and say that I must have my eyes closed if I don't agree with you. Perhaps you and I disagree with the DoJ but to accuse that african americans are locked up unfairly as a matter of racism is a claim which carrys a heavy burden of proof. Last I read, from official DoJ, "Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders. In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites. In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites." [24] While this is one specific note, it does show the differences, on both offending and victims then against 'whites'. Hard to say its racism when there is 7 to 1 ratio for homicide, not even going to get into the ratio of population. Its more complex then a question of race as you put it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely complicated. -- Avanu (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You did not point out any information (or lack thereof) that you think we are presenting in a non-neutral way. "We should be responsible" is true, yet completely worthless , since we all have different opinions about what that means. If you see flaws, comment on the specifically so that they can be addressed, or at least we can discuss why they are the way they are. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. As you can see, I am using my registered name. If possibly one of the Admins can do something about the ips, I would appreciate it. --Mt6617 (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange emphasis on shooter's mixed ethnic descent

While obviously verifiable as a fact in and of itself, I don't see any justification for the very prominent emphasis on the shooter's not-entirely-white ethnic background. The relative prominence assigned to this particular factoid needs to be explained in the article. Why would the shooter's ethnic background matter? And don't tell me "it's obvious". It's not. --87.79.228.226 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If it does not matter then tell me why the ethnicity of Trayvon Martin matters? He is specifically described as an African American teenager. His race matters. After all the accusations of racism, so does Zimmerman's. And I wouldn't describe a half-white Hispanic as not-entirely-white, btw. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're either supremely naive or willfully ignorant if you think race doesn't factor into this. The entire impetus behind the fact this is national news is driven by race-based politics. Whether right or wrong, it's incredibly race based. The fact that the story started out as 'white shoots black' in the media is notable in an of itself. That the real story is more complicated, only makes it more relevant. I'm not sure what universe you're living in where that fact is apparently irrelevant. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin's race has been highlighted in most if not all news reports. The accusations of an alleged racist background to the shooting are quite at the front of the entire news reporting. By contrast, Zimmerman's racial background is entirely irrelevant for everyone but those who would like to paint this (no pun intended) as not being a racial thing at all. So you believe that Zimmerman's race matters. Does the overall news coverage back you up on that? Nope, not at all. It's just your personal opinion against the sum total of news coverage on this event. Just saying. The current version is highly biased in that it implies a high relevance of Zimmerman's race as opposed to say his calling Martin "coon" (which is not mentioned in the lead). Anyway, I don't like debating racists and racist apologists. Zimmerman's race is given far too prominent a status, and that's it. --87.79.228.226 (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

He didn't say "coon". I think that's been disproven here. I'm also not sure how "Zimmerman's racial background is entirely irrelevant for everyone but those who would like to paint this ... as not being a racial thing". His race (ethnicity, actually, but no one nowadays seems to comprehend the difference between the words "Hispanic" and "mestizo") has been the subject of great media coverage and the explicit cause behind much of the (highly publicised) social activism surrounding this case, thus it is included. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been dis-proven, but it is a theory because enhancement can go one way or the other and it was not very clear. Though it is from experts and it is the best available right now. 87.79.228.226 please don't refer to other editors as racists and racist apologists; we try to keep things neutral and fair. A great deal of smearing and attacking has taken place by the media, much of it disproven or allegations found too weak to stand. I'd like to use the case from the German papers which refer to Zimmerman as Jewish rather then Catholic. The media will say anything it seems, and plenty of retractions or errors have not been commented on despite a good deal of misinformation being generated. They even reported Zimmerman fired two shots, not one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2012

Please consider adding a list of persons responding publically with racist beliefs (racists), racial bias, or actions indicative of race hatred. As a nation, we need to be honest about racists, and call them out appropriately. Some examples may be:

Racist Beliefs (Racists): Al Sharpton Jesse Jackson Young Turks Martin King III

Racial Bias: Eric Holder Barack Obama NBC

Race Hatred: Six juveniles (ages 11 to 17) beat and kicked 78-year-old Dallas Watts in East Toledo, Ohio. Spike Lee New Black Panther Party

C0mm3nt3r123 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• No. Quite simplely, WP:BLP to call people/anyone racist and categorize them in a way which vilifies them for their statements or beliefs. For the attack on Dallas Watts it must be given confirmation as a hate crime before we can label it as such. It has to be legally recognized as such, no media speculation or opinion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also, please note that information added to articles must be verifiable using only reliable sources that have been published. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

SPD removes docs from its website

The Sanford PD has removed most of the documents related to the shooting from its website, at the request of the FL State Attorney (Corey). --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/removed-pdfs-and-nbc-producers --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tampa Bay Times article was very interesting. They did an excellent job of compiling that information about similar cases to Martin's and the outcome of those cases. Something worth consideration on inclusion to this article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Things are shaping up as I expected. Notice from Wagist seems to have helped spur the removal. The entire details of the calls, conversations and analysis is actually surprisingly well done. The phone records that point to the 7:04 call are actually big on the legal team because of DeeDee's testimony is therefore inconsistent with a single call and given the times we know the events could not have been played out a second time. It must be clarified, but it appears that DeeDee's testimony is incorrect about what happened and the order it happened in. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

DeeDee? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What? Its a fake name... I'm hoping at least, but its what the media refers to here as, but the name is not released by the Martin family lawyer. She was on the phone with Trayvon right before the shooting. Her testimony is already here on the article, but not under the name DeeDee. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had not read any connection to the girlfriend and the name DeeDee. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman purportedly assisted Sherman Ware

According to a letter mailed from an anonymous source identifying as a 'Zimmerman family member' the actions of Zimmerman which assisted in organizing action against Collison in the Sherman Ware case. It states that Zimmerman helped organize the City Hall meeting and distribute flyers and spread the word to the community. [25] It is also on most news sites and theGrio has a full copy. [26] Or you can look at the full article here too. [27] It is not yet independently confirmed, but if true should go directly to countering the allegations of racism. If it is confirmed this will entirely dismantle the allegations of racism by proving his past actions were exemplary and helped right the previous incident. This could signal the end of the 'racism' issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of this is already added into the defense of zimmerman section, but it could be expanded with additional refs. probably all based on the anon letter right now. I tried to do a historical search, looking for articles at the time of the ware incident, but was unable to find anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking through past documents, this one is pretty funny. [28] Its a must read. If we can cite Zimmerman's action against this guy, it gives credit to his actions because of this previous incident. Still trying to find a source that Zimmerman was involved. Media will probably dig it up, but if doesn't I might try harder. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple of links related to the Ware incident, one from youtube, one from a 2011 article, one from a local TV station from 2010, they don't tie Zimmerman to any of it, but some of those sites have archives you can search. Chris, you I both know that this wasn't racially motivated, but with Sharpton and others, and those who blindly follow them, I don't see this as ending the racism issue. After reading that Tampa Bay Times article, Angela Corey has a tough call to make.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gs4-SIqVP0 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-01-25/news/os-homeless-man-attacked-20110125_1_sanford-bar-medical-bills-homeless-man http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Justin%20Collison http://www.wesh.com/r/26315994/detail.html

Nothing so far, but this kind of material would have to be from records most likely obtained in person or confirmed through questioning. City Hall keeps many records, but we are looking for a single specific one and the news will be all over it. Probably by Monday/Tuesday we will have the info. Holiday weekend and all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I researched the local newspapers in that area, found nothing about a petition, they covered the other aspects of it though. I also researched the city commission agenda and meetings from that time, the only meetings in January were on the 3rd, 10th, 24th, I read the minutes of those meetings and no mention is made of a petition there either. The letter says it was the 8th, so you may be right in that someone will have to specifically remember this taking place.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The aerial map of the area has South at the top

It does. I'm not sure it's a big problem. It is labeled, and it makes sense a bit, because it puts the more interesting things all together on the left side of the image. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos I took today that may be helpful to the article

I made some photos today of different points of interests that may be helpful. Overview of the complex, the memorial outside the gates, the location of the shooting, and the 7-11. They are free to use, and I want to upload them here so the more experienced editors can choose which if any of the photos would be appropriate. But.... I can't figure out how. Any suggestions?--Mt6617 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I "think" I may have figured it out.... hope I'm not doing it wrong.--Mt6617 (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/91/Overview_of_complex_with_memorial.jpeg/800px-Overview_of_complex_with_memorial.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trayvon_Martin_Memorial.jpeg#file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Memorial_with_PD_car.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Entrance.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Store_Overview.jpeg

I have some photos of the area where the shooting took place. However since it is private property, I am not sure about the legalities. Perhaps one of the adminstrators can advise. All the other photos above, I was on public property.--Mt6617 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Were you on public property when you took the pictures of the area where the shooting occurred? If Yes, you can publish the photos. If not, were you lawfully on private property (e.g., an invited guest of one of the owners) when you took the pictures of the area where the shooting occurred? If Yes, you can publish the photos. If not, were you trespassing on private property when you took the pictures of the area where the shooting occurred? If yes, you still can publish the photos - however you could technically be charged with trespassing. Seek the advice of an attorney. Note: The pictures of the area where the shooting occurred should not contain a private area or person where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., a person inside their house, backyard, etc.). There is a lot of information about this on the internet but this is a good summary: http://www.andrewkantor.com/legalrights/Legal_Rights_of_Photographers.pdf Oh, and here is the Wikipedia article on the subject: Photography and the law

Intrepid-NY (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You confirmed what I thought. I was there at the invitation of a "resident" renter of unit owned by someone else. The HOA did not give me permission to be there. The photo does not show any personal information of the neighbors. However, I will research it prior to uploading it to the commons. However, all the others I was standing on public property. --Mt6617 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't need permission from the HOA. You only need to be a guest of a resident which makes your presence lawful. Intrepid-NY (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it relevant to copyright whether the photographer was present lawfully? -- Avanu (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not, he was just inquiring about the legality of the method in which he took the photos. Intrepid (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2012

I request adding details about Trayvon Martin's school suspensions. It is unbiased objective fact, related to the overall matter - explains why Trayvon was there, and let's reader make a better judgment about the possible character, motives, and behavior of both parties. Source is The Miami Herald: http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/03/26/trayvon-martin-had-multiple-school-suspensions

 Not done Join the discussion below. Pol430 talk to me 22:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin was suspended from school at the time of the incident.

Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in October in an incident in which he was found in possession of women's jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a "burglary tool". On Oct. 21 staffers monitoring a security camera at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School spotted Trayvon and two other students writing "W.T.F.," on a hallway locker, according to schools police. The security employee, who knew Trayvon, confronted the teen and looked through his bag for the graffiti marker.

Trayvon's backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described the screwdriver as a burglary tool. Trayvon was asked if the jewelry, which was mostly women's rings and earrings, belonged to his family or a girlfriend. "Martin replied it's not mine. A friend gave it to me," according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation."Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti," according to the report prepared by Miami-Dade Schools Police.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one, in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it, the boy's family's attorney has confirmed. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a "marijuana pipe."

AndrewKalinovsky (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done

Hasn't this been discussed and re-discussed to death? It has no bearing on the incident and Trayvon was not arrested. If Trayvon's misadventures are added then George Zimmerman's not so "Squeaky-clean" incidents will need to be also included. I thought this had become a moot point. Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If we are going to have an article on Martin's suspension(s), then we need to include a similar article on George's transgressions. And yes I purposely flipped the first names and last names on purpose. We, as editors have to get in the proper mindset. HOWEVER, I still agree with DocOfSoc on this particular issue. Publish the past on one, you need to publish the past on the other.--Mt6617 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think what can be reliably sourced about both of their pasts ought to be published. Some people may not find it relevant, but others do. I'm still not sure why the information has been excluded, since there are multiple reliable sources, and there has not been a consensus to omit the information. It just seems like several people are just dead-set against including it and that's that. Emeraldflames (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

there are no wikipedia issues with including the suspensions, per se, the issue is more with the wikipedia editors who don't like certain facts. Due to BLP zimmerman's included past history has a higher level of scrutiny. While I don't care if his arrest/conviction is included ATM I couldn't argue with someone suggesting it doesn't belong because of BLP. If his past history involved firearms or somesuch it would be relevant enoughWhatzinaname (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a conviction it falls under WP:OR to try and take one instance and put in relation to another. 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." Though it is unrelated to the incident as the details do not paint Zimmerman as violent (by charges) or that they were involved with the current incident. Proper to note for a Zimmerman bio, but probably not as a correlation to that event and the current one. For all intents and purposes, the details about that 2005 incident has so many different accounts and opinions mixed in that the 'truth' so that it cannot be verified with approximate detail. Unrelated incidents should not be tied to an article, but should be noted with care on the bio. Zimmerman seems to be notable enough for a bio given the coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Suspension — Martin's last suspension may be relevant because it explains how he could be in central Florida, the night before he would normally be in school in southern Florida. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I previously wanted the detail included, but done carefully so as not to violate BLP or BDP, because what he was suspended for is not as important as that he was with his father because of the suspension and his father wanted to spend time with him, talking about it. I had the source which summarized it in a single sentence in a nice manner, but it came with the Trayvon Martin was a drug dealer right around the same time the pipe was mentioned. It wasn't just the empty pot bag, it was the pot pipe itself, and both details were being pushed heavily. Seemed to fall under WP:COATRACK when people start listing all his suspensions in the past year and what they were for... opted just to take a harder stance for the sake of avoiding the mudslinging. The last suspension should be no more then one or two sentences and coincide with Tracy Martin's statement about the nature of his visit. Just like I moved to remove the issues where 'Tracy Martin' previous statements were false and keep the current account and not label Tracy as a liar in the process, it is sensitive and marginally relevant to the situation. Its like a mechanical failure in a car that prevents the airbag from deploying during an accident, the source of the error is noted, but not to the level of detail about who installed that part and when. Relevancy should reasonably stop two or three stops from the incident. The other suspensions clearly are irrelevant to the current one, but the last makes the cut because of cause and effect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to keep it brief. There's always the source available if the reader wants more details about what the suspension was for. Also, I note that none of the reliable sources have connected the marijuana with Zimmerman's comment that Martin may have been on drugs, so we shouldn't mention it for the purpose of implying that either, according to WP:SYNTH. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Precisely, some unreliable sources have made that statement, but even still it is speculation and until a toxicology report is released the matter will be unknown...possibly even afterwards. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

EDITORS... Tell me what you need!

I live here, and am willing to secure anything you need to improve this article. Yes... I am an editor, but because I am so close to the region where this happened, I would rather be your gopher. I have a friend who has a Cessna, and we are going up Tuesday to take some aerial photographs of the area. What else do you need? You have a wikipedian on the ground so to speak. So let me know. List them here. --Mt6617 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested, you might check with your local newspaper whether anyone is looking into the story about how Zimmerman helped organize a protest when a police officer's son was not arrested for the beating of a black homeless man, Sherman Ware. There's something about this in the article Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Defense_of_Zimmerman.27s_character but it would be better if there was confirmation from other than Zimmerman's family. Although your findings couldn't be put in the article because of WP:NOR, your inquiry with the newspaper might motivate them to investigate or look in their records and write an article in their newspaper. Again, only if you're interested, think it's worthwhile, and really want to do it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I will start checking. --Mt6617 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath section

The last reference to an alleged assault in retaliation for the shooting needs to be either revised or excised, based on a follow-up article and quotes from the police relating to the incident. http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2012/04/07/Toledo-police-Man-s-account-of-assault-may-be-exaggerated.html.137.111.13.167 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this information.--Isaidnoway (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Skittles and Iced Tea

Once again some has decided to post the unsubstantiated rumor that Trayvon went to convenience store where he bought a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona Iced Tea. There is no reference of anyone seeing him buy these items and there is no reference where a source states that he went out to buy these items. We don't know what time he left his dad's girlfriends house or what he actually went to do. We have vague references of his father stating he only had permission to go to the store but we do not know what time the father went to dinner with his girlfriend. If Zimmerman did see him around 111 Retreat View Circle, as said in the initial seconds of his 911 call, it is not close to any entrances to the gated community. In fact, it is well away from the gates in the community. Please check your bias before you change the article and refrain from putting in unsubstantiated information. The Grand Jury is now only a few days away and we will end up getting FACTS eventually. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC) AndyB

The Skittles and Iced tea have already been discussed ad infinitum

AND You may want to actually read the article.:

• D.A. Corey has stated that her office, rather than a grand jury, will decide whether to press charges against Zimmerman. [29]

— DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad formatting. Here is the link. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's 2 am here. Fix it please :-D — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Don't format as a ref next time. :) Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

TYVM! I know better, just too tired, Appreciate you. Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Media Coverage

This part seems highly N:POV and contains no citations, etc. Seems like opinion by the writer: "Part of the rush to judgement by the media may be attributed to misleading photos of Martin and Zimmerman in the press. Martin's photo was three years old, while Zimmerman's was seven years old. Martin's photo showed what looked like a baby-faced boy, while Zimmerman's photo was a police mug shot close up. By the time of the incident, Martin had grown to six feet and 140 pounds, and was significantly taller than Zimmerman's 5 foot nine inches. Zimmerman was considerable slimmer than the 7 year old photo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.158.145 (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed, as it's unsourced and slightly POV-ish-sounding. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in fairness, you should leave it, and it is very easy to source, because they are admitting that is what they did, and other sources are pointing it out as well. Just find the sources, they're not that hard. Every editor here saw it in progress, so the idea that we shouldn't be calling the media out on being ratings whores is pointedly obtuse. -- Avanu (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it deserved to be removed. It was poorly written, unsourced, and potentially controversial. I don't necessarily disagree with the point that was being made, but it was just very POV. A better way to include that part of the discussion would be to name some individuals or websites that saw it that way, providing attribution of the viewpoint to them. If you can do that, then by all means, do it. I haven't the time to do it now, but as long as it's done well, I don't have a problem with it. The way it was, it sounded like speculation as to what may have caused the "rush to judgement". Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am wondering if you realize that a neutral point of view doesn't mean that you have to have an article with nothing 'mean' in it. Sometimes the most neutral thing you can do is simply tell it like it is. Hiding stuff to present a bland image or exaggerating stuff to make someone look worse is definitely wrong, but no matter what, if someone does something wrong and you report it honestly, then you're probably writing a neutral statement. And considering how inconsistent our sources are on this point, sometimes you cannot take them word for word, but have to bridge the gap. -- Avanu (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've read WP:NPOV before, so I know exactly what it means. Your mention of bridging "the gap" carries a slight smell of synthesis with it to me, by the way, though I'm not about to start an argument about that or accuse you of anything. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't agree with the phrasing "rush to judgement"; I wouldn't characterized the media as rushing toward anything but the smell of blood and ratings. They each took various biases with them, of course, but the bottom line is sensationalism and viewers, not a diligent search for truth.

SOURCE:

• http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-is-media-biased-against-george-zimmerman/
• http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/135475/the_trayvon_martin_george_zimmerman
• http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/03/trayvon-martin-race-hustlers-and-media-bias-on-the-glazov-gang/
• and many more.....

-- Avanu (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Go ahead and add a mention of those sources in whatever wording you think would be appropriate. Be bold. Though I might remind you that anything sourced to opinion pieces MUST be phrased in a way that attributes those opinions ONLY to those who wrote the article. It cannot present their views as objective fact or speculate as to their truth (or lack thereof). :) Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually there were better sources for this which are still present in the article, like the associated press with the photo matter. It was poorly written, but still valid. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

True, and the AP source is definitely much better for that sort of thing than primary sources like the ones above. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

This article is poorly formatted (as a whole). I think we should strive to put it in order while awaiting the release of new information. It's really difficult for users to read this as a whole, as it seems the facts presented are motivated by bias. Let's try to find common ground to make the article clean. Just my 2 cents..

Twillisjr (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Add to Cutcher's testimony, at start

After the shot, Mary Cutcher called the police to report a black man standing over the other man (which would have been impossible)

(see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017887566_trayvonmartinfacts02.html )

That source also points to the claim that Wolfinger did not go to the scene as allegations have put it, by definitively stating no one from the office 'i.e. Wolfinger' went to the scene it is thus impossible that Wolfinger was present at the scene of the crime. Also it points to an issue with this article as a whole, "The conclusions that are drawn from the basic information is that George Zimmerman shoots a 17-year-old kid with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea can. And you know, those are facts: George Zimmerman did shoot Trayvon Martin, and Trayvon Martin did have a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea. The fact that he had a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea does not have anything to do with the facts of why George Zimmerman thought he needed to use deadly force." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing about that call is that it sounds like Mary Cutcher is on the phone and unable to see the scene and is being relayed information from Selma Mora who is standing in a spot where she can see the scene.It is possible that Selma didn't understand the question properly, and it is also possible she thought Zimmerman looked black to her.My impression from Mary's demeanor on the call is that she didn't want to see anything and kept telling her friend Selma to come inside and to lock the doors, etc. She sounds understandably emotional, but not like a reliable eyewitness, since she kept being so hesitant to look and demanding that others come hide as well. -- Avanu (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we don't have a reliable source for the Skittles and Iced Tea, but as you point out, it is unlikely to relate to the use of deadly force. I wouldn't categorically say it had nothing to do with it, I think Trayvon might have seen George's weapon, and at one point during George's call to police, he mentions the kid reached for something in his waistband, which might have been Skittles. A lot of preconceptions might have been forming between the two before they actually had the final confrontation, but there's not really any way to be sure of Trayvon's state of mind, and we have only George's statements to go on for his side of things. -- Avanu (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Mary Cutcher made the sworn statement, her own words depict that she saw a black man standing over another man after the gunshot. She also claimed that their was no fighting before the shooting. Both of these are clearly impossible. Even the tapes themselves prove Mary Cutcher's testimony and interview outright impossible due to the screaming and yelling which persists for 45 seconds after the 911 call begins. The 'inconsistant' labeling of her statements and interview is valid and proper. It would be wrong to sugarcoat those impossibilities which utterly destroy the credibility of her interview and public statements. Actually the source for the skittles and ice tea were reported as being on his person from the reports, so yes... just like how much money he had on him, it from a reliable source. Irrelevant, but sadly how the event is recognized by the public. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are we even giving her account of the incident so much detail? Keep the first sentence which pretty much summarizes her account and then the statement from the police. The paragraph devoted to her seems oddly apportioned.--Isaidnoway (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Section for alleged 'facts' disproven?

A great many 'facts' of this case that were largely reported have since been found to be false, yet so gripping were these images they brought to mind that it should only be fair that some form of record be given to their use to spur public opinion and outcry. Statements like he was killed during the NBA half-time or that he was killed on his porch by Zimmerman, or that he Zimmerman fired two shots. Just like the issue of race many of those facts and issues provoked a response, but were fabrications touted as fact. Further reports have disproven and cited the errors for a great many of them, but we have lost the reasons why public outcry was so great. Now with some time from the incident and the misreporting, I think we should consider making reference to such false allegations which became imagery for the 'Justice for Trayvon' protests. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am personally not opposed to the idea but I am somewhat hesitant. If reliable sources can be found for all these disproven facts then you could add such a section. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have all these dis-proven facts, some scattered within the current article which serves to needlessly complicate the situation with 'this was said. But this proves otherwise'. The NBA game didn't even start by the time Martin was dead. How could he have left at half-time? The family reported three statements which differed and were all untrue about Martin's absence. Others like the audio tape editing we have covered here, but its just how should we go about doing so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

POV. Tvoz/talk 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Unarmed in the lead

I just removed the unarmed portion and the source which actually isn't even about Trayvon Martin in the first place. Its for Ideas for 27-28 March according. [30] I'm being WP:BOLD by removing the 'unarmed' portion because its placement and use creates a POV issue. It was before his age or the incident in question. Given the nature of the lead, it doesn't seem proper to list what by many accounts was the aggressor of the situation with 'attacked' it should be equally improper to list Martin as 'unarmed' before even identifying himself. Unarmed and armed might be appropriate in a different case, but not like the way it was in the lead. It makes a lasting impression to Martin's 'innocence' or 'threat' despite the complexity of the situation and that by several accounts Martin was the aggressor and attacked Zimmerman. A great deal of misinformation circulates, but painting Trayvon as unarmed further reduces the situation to 'unarmed shot by armed... after a fight which has screaming and yelling in a struggle confirmed by multiple eyewitnesses that the unarmed was attacking the armed.' It discounts Martin's to be a threat when compared to Zimmerman who is immediately painted as armed and more of a threat. So much so that the difference between Martin being unarmed comes before his age, race or even the description of the incident itself? Seems POV-pushing and its why I removed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I utterly disagree with this unilateral removal of "unarmed" which can be sourced to hundreds of sources - no one, not the police or Zimmerman's attorneys or family members - no one - has disputed that Trayvon Martin was unarmed and George Zimmerman armed - this has nothing to do with any "misinformation" in this case, and it does not address justification or responsibility. The lead has been carefully crafted and refined by many editors over the last few weeks and it has said "unarmed", correctly, throughout. This is not the place to exercise a "bold" edit like that without any discussion at all. I am therefore reverting it now and will add additional, better sourcing later tonight. It is far too central to this story to go in and remove "unarmed" from the lead, which as you know is supposed to be able to stand alone as a brief rendition of what is notable about the rest of the article - a short version of the story. To leave out "unarmed" is egregiously POV. I said a couple of days ago that I was concerned that this article was bit by bit being turned into a biased piece- biased in favor of Zimmerman's story, which I remind you is at present only his self-serving description of events, and this only reinforces my concern. The fact is an unarmed person was shot by an armed, unidentified, non-law enforcement, person: whether or not there was a "struggle", the person who came with the gun is the person who` shot and killed the unarmed person. These are the undisputed facts. "Unarmed" is completely necessary in the lead and I strongly object to it being "boldly" removed. Tvoz/talk 00:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz that the fact that Martin was unarmed is a key element of the incident and thus deserves mention in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Separately, I share her concern about the direction this article is heading - every pro-Zimmerman angle is immediately promoted here and prominently inserted into the article. Meanwhile, any sourced material with the potential to reflect negatively on Zimmerman is subjected to the amateur-Perry-Mason treatment and removed, amid lamentations about the horribly biased mainstream media. I don't think it's healthy to spend all of your on-wiki time litigating this article, but the article and talkpage seem to be increasingly dominated by editors who do exactly that. MastCell ^Talk 01:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I also see the lead seems to have been further degraded in the last day or so - I will go over it later tonight. Enough is enough. Tvoz/talk 01:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous eyewitness on AC360

This section has several errors which I think should be discussed, but I won't delete the newest addition right now.

On March 30, 2012, an eyewitness said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him. She later appeared in CNN AC360, giving more details on her account. She points out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. The whole time she witnessed the incident the scuffling happened on the grass. She says that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top, and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.

First of all... the gender changes. How can it be a he in one source and then a she in the other? This testimony also was refuted because a single gunshot is confirmed which is contrary to the statement made. This also seems to be the same as Mary Cutcher's statement. Even if it is anonymous this 'witness' changes gender, has misinformation dropped from the previous statement and repeats the statements from Mary Cutcher who was on AC360. It seems to be a duplication with some errors in the reports. If they are different, then gender still changes in the reporting, which is a grievous error from the sourcing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

While I made the edit someone else submitted an edit so I missed the gender part. I fixed that. First of all, the gender is indeed different in different links. Guardian talks of a male while in the video of the interview refers to the person as a female. I kinda favored CNN source over Guardian as they had an actual interview with the person. Second, the witness explicitly mentions that she haven't heard a gun shot before so that the second pop might be an echo. Thus, her statement is not refuted. Third, credibility of the witness is not necessarily threatened by a former news agencies report on it. If CNN referred to her as a male before that interview then your argument would make sense. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw this interview, they identified her as a female, but disguised her voice, it did sound like a mans voice. She also said it was pretty dark out, so she really couldn't see anything and when she offered to show the police the scene of the crime, they declined, and then they interviewed her lawyer. Why does a witness need a lawyer?--Isaidnoway (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The person's silhouette seemed like that of a female with fluffy long hair. The voice was altered so you wouldn't be able to determine whether it's a man or a woman. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the interview with the anonymous witness: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/video-eyewitness-to-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-speaks-out/?iref=obinsite Her story conflicts with the statement from "John" reported by Fox in the wiki article. Both accounts are now included in the article. Intrepid (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the link I used in the article as well. I want to have a paragraph for each known witness to make it look much more clear on whose saying what. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I just have suspicions about the identity of this witness... since it seems like Mary Cutcher's testimony. Her statements has been shown to be inconsistent with police reports, other eyewitnesses after the formal statement from the police. This testimony is the same as Mary Cutcher's with a few differences. Anonymous or otherwise both have been on AC360 and no other witness has known to be. Can't prove it, but does anyone else see the similarity? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)