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)
• Oppose - How can this even be proposed? --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:33, 10 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)

• This isn't supported by precedent. See Death of Aiyana Jones, Death of Jean Charles de Menezes, Death of Oluwashijibomi Lapite, Death of Somer Thompson, or Death of Vincent Chin. Here are all articles starting with "Death of," including redirects. Conversely, only three other article names begin with "Shooting of." --BDD (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good work! I wasn't aware of the tool Special:PrefixIndex. I'll reexamine the situation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:31, 10 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)

7 days have passed, more so since the first discussion started. I think the time has come to close this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK - again, I also see no particular reason to rush this decision as VQuakr said, but it is clear that we still have no consensus, and no consensus, as per policy cited above, means stay with the title that has been stable for a long time which is Shooting of Trayvon Martin at least for now. (And please note, this is not my preferred title, nor is it my second choice, so I am not pushing for what I want - I am just going with policy, which is no change.) The fact is there was no groundswell movement here asking for a title change in the first place - the subject was raised, people voiced their reasons for preferring one or another or for opposing one or another, and the resulting discussion showed that people didn't reach an agreement. But since this title has remained stable, I think we can move on, leaving it intact, and focus our energies on working on the article. Tvoz/talk 17:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems strange that this naming issue was not as obvious to all those other people as it was to me and those who agreed with me. I bet everyone is thinking the same thing. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say so. Tvoz/talk 00:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

7 Days have passed and input has fallen off. I strongly contest the finding of 'no consensus' mention from Tvoz. Several very important policy related matters and issues of precedent remain. One who is involved should not close this and the arguments should be weighed by someone uninvolved. Anything less would have issues of neutrality, either way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "close" it, Chris, I merely stated where it is apparent we have been for days - not agreeing. This is not the title I think would be best for the article, as I said, so I don't know how you figure a problem of "neutrality". Right, I don't agree with you or your pronouncement of what the "correct" title is, but neither did others - there was no agreement on any of the choices, so policy says we stay with the stable title we've had for a long time. I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn, nor do I see why this is being approached as some kind of major issue that must be adjudicated. Tvoz/talk 03:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that we aren't agreeing, it's that those who have opposed Death of Trayvon Martin (the title with most support at this point) have stopped debating. Just about every reason given for opposing that title has been rebutted in the survey above and there has been no attempt by anyone to counter those rebuttals. Instead the thread has turned woefully off topic and we aren't even discussing the original intent anymore. The only reason the title hasn't been changed at this point is because the topic is still in the news and people want to politicize the shooting. Plenty of reasons have been given why those titles violate wikipedia policy, but I have yet to hear anything remotely valid about why those reason are wrong and why this article sets a precedent for new naming criteria? Redredryder (talk) 04:13, 10 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)

Above link is 404'dGtwfan52 (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What link? The NYT one – Aerial view of points of interest – in the post immediately previous works fine. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:04, 9 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.[8] Skittles was put into Wikipedia Mar 25.[9]--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."[10] --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The importance of the purchase of the Skittles and tea is that it places him at the last place and time he was noted by anyone other than Zimmerman, and might provide evidence that he was walking home quickly in the rain as one might expect or wandering around suspiciously as Zimmerman said. This blog claims to know that the purchase was made and videotaped and the police have the footage. According to it the purchase occurred some time between 6:00pm and 6:30pm. Even if he left the store at the later time there is still a lot of time unaccounted for between then and 7:09 when Zimmerman called in: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_story_unravels_new_questions_about_trayvon_martins_final_hour.html#ixzz1rZhjl3Lh 70.233.148.166 (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Sanford police chief stated as fact in an interview that Martin was carrying Skittles and tea: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/a-look-at-what-happened-the-night-trayvon-martin-died/1223083 70.233.148.166 (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding and reminding us of that source, 70.233.148.166. -- Avanu (talk) 04:27, 10 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. [11] Here's National Review [12] And for records it sites [13] 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. [14] "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)

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)

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)

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)

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

And then we have to deal with THESE[16] 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.[17] --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." [18] 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. [19] It is also on most news sites and theGrio has a full copy. [20] Or you can look at the full article here too. [21] 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. [22] 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)

With all due respect, what we don't need is amateur sleuthing for information for this article, no matter how well-intentioned. We don't go about our writing of articles by stimulating sources to write stories that we can use in our articles - this is bizarrely inappropriate in my view. BobK correctly acknowledges the fact that original research is unacceptable, but the conclusion drawn about motivating a newspaper to write about something so that we can include it does not seem at all right to me. Tvoz/talk 03:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly then you would have issue with Wikipedia's editors asking to photograph people for a public domain photo for their Wikipedia article? This is a vabit different, but other editors research material by asking for records of articles and data, if it already exists then their is no problem, which it has a fair chance of existing. Newspapers keep archives, many not online, asking about it and seeing if they have it in their records and archives is not wrong. I doubt he is advising/coercing the newspaper to do a story so it can be included here, but instead see that if the paper had a piece (which may never have been printed or had) and point to the incident. Afterall wasn't this whole thing started by such a tip given to Al Sharpton who used it on his show and blasted it into the mainstream? The story already existed and the tip simply gave it the publicity push, Zimmerman's actions are probably recorded and just need to be dusted off. Also, do you realize how journalism works, people pointing about said material often provokes investigations which does quite often lead to confirmation of the story itself. This letter is big and it will not be avoided if it deals with catching the NAACP off-guard, as the writer of the letter has already given said material to papers. After all all Bob K31416 is asking for an inquiry, not to grease the media's wheels or motivate them in anyway shape or form, though I have material to believe it is already investigated in full and will come out soon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... First let me state that I am not going to attempt to talk any media source into publishing anything. I would look like a fool to try. Second, They wouldn't do it. I am simply going to make some calls of the local media, and ask about the "rumor". And from what I can tell at this point, that is exactly what it is... a rumor. Third, I personally don't give much validity to the "rumor"... not the rumor of the letter, that seems to be verified, but the "rumor" that George Zimmerman went around distributing flyers. I think that would have made big news by now... if true, it is juicy enough to make the news. Fourth... I am not going to edit the article. Just like my photos, I will report my findings here. More experienced editors and administrators can choose how to use it, or not use it at all. --Mt6617 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz, The newspaper would research and write about it if they thought it was newsworthy, as they would when anyone brings an idea for a story to them. I hadn't intended that Mt6617 do the "sleuthing". We couldn't use it anyhow because of WP:NOR, and who knows, it might be dangerous to go out in the neighborhood and do that. Hopefully, the newspaper would check their records or any witnesses they could find that confirms whether or not Zimmerman was involved in the protest and write a story about it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I understood what you meant, Bob, and just reiterated. "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." Chris, read it again - Bob is suggesting that asking the question might stimulate (I didn't say "talk into", Mt5516) the newspaper to report on a story that presumably we would then be able to quote. That is exactly what he said, and repeated, and what I am objecting to, although I think it was a good faith suggestion. And yes, I know how journalism works. As for photographs - I don't necessarily have a problem with people taking verifiable photos of people for articles, although I don't think it's a great practice unless (a) the image is of a well-known, recognizable person so that we have reason to be sure it is who it's supposed to be, or (b) for a less familiar subject, the photographer is a trusted contributor to Commons, with a history of verified and accurate contributions, so we have reason to believe the images are of who they are claimed to be. There are several such editors here with a proven track record, like David Shankbone, for example, who can be trusted to be providing images that are accurate portrayals. But I would oppose using any photograph that purported to be a scene of the crime, for example, unless it was independently verified to be so. I would be extremely skeptical of any such photo, in fact, especially if it were being used to promote a narrative on either side. Mt5516, I think you are trying to help, and I am not casting aspersions on you personally - but I think in a high-stakes article like this, with the wildly different interpretations of the same extremely limited actual facts and evidence available, we have to be overly vigilant about what we use as source material and how we obtain it. And I don't think it is ever appropriate for us to contact the media to find out what they have on their archives and get them to write stories. That's awfully close to doing the investigating ourselves, and that is not ok. Tvoz/talk 05:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Prior to seeing any of the above, I did make some calls this morning. Channel 13 (our local cable news), FOX, CBS, and the Orlando Sentinel. All basically said the same thing. They were aware of the letters, they were investigating the subject of the letters, and if there was something to report beyond the existence of the letters, they would. That's it. As for the photos I made on Saturday, it is evident that they are what they are described to be. --Mt6617 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mt, and again - I appreciate that you're trying to help here and contribute images and information to the article, and I was not saying anything otherwise. On a quick look, without commenting on any legality regarding private property that someone raised elsewhere, the photos you provided may be useful illustrations - I had not looked at them until now. I was and am talking about someone taking a picture of where the shooting happened, for example, about which I think we would have to proceed very carefully, as the facts are not crystal clear at all on the chain of events or exact locations. I was saying that photos could be used to promote one view of what happened, and we have to be very careful about that. Tvoz/talk 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tvoz. I did make a photo where the shooting took place. I DID NOT upload it as I am wanting to make sure of the legalities first. However I thought the photo of the entrance to the community, memorial, and the 7-11 would be helpful to the article. No real bias or opinions there, just kind of shows folks what all these places looked like.--Mt6617 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mt6617, re your comment "They were aware of the letters, they were investigating the subject of the letters, and if there was something to report beyond the existence of the letters, they would." — Thanks. That essentially satisfies my request. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:45, 9 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. [23]

— 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)

Explain sources like this then. [24], "Of all teams in the league, the Heat had the greatest responsibility to step up and be heard. They were Trayvon’s favorite and he was killed that late afternoon after leaving his house for a snack during half-time of the NBA All-Star game, which featured the Heat’s Big Three of LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh." The statement about him even leaving at the half-time was a lie, the game hadn't even started by the time he was dead. How is the POV? Which another source posted more about here, "The Heat were Trayvon's favorite team—he was watching several of them play in the NBA All-Star Game when he went out for a snack and didn't come home—which makes the team photo particularly meaningful. But in the NBA, the symbolism of this stance on this issue wearing this clothing item goes deeper. Because for the past six years, NBA players have been banned from wearing hoodies while at games, press conferences, and other league events." [25] We see cause and effect, the initial statements are wrong and the resulting show of support was based on something which is not true. There is no evidence Martin was watching the game, and their is plenty of evidence that the game wasn't even on let alone in half-time. So much outcry is associated with that false scenario. It would not be neutral to discuss how those 'facts' are wrong and still provoked a response before those wrongs were realized. Need I get into the 'two shots' which claimed Trayvon screaming for his life before Zimmerman shot him a second time? It galvanized support for something that never happened. That is worthy of note. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there should not be a section on this, however, a summarized version of this may be appropriate, especially in the media or media bias sections, saying that incorrect information was initially released/reported that needed to corrected, and perhaps listing the most crucial examples especially where those "facts" are crucial to the event or understanding. I personally think the NBA game or not is not that important, regardless of what MArtin was doing before, it wasn't anything illegal, and he had every right to be walking where he was. Why or when or what he was doing before is irrelevant. The only issues are if he was doing something suspicious at the actual time Zimmerman saw him, who initiated physical contact, and at the time of the shot was he a credible threat. As far as I am aware, none of the facts proved wrong directly address any of these three crucial items in the story. However, other issues like Zimmerman saying coon vs cold, etc should be well covered (and are). Gaijin42 (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry some how my post came after yours but didn't cause edit conflict, but I've included an example above in which the NBA made a show of support partly because of those statements and their response was a large and notable response from very notable people. Their actions were in part due to a statement which was false and impossible, how then is it not relevant to the public response in a historical context? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• More goodies. [26] Basically it sums up a good portion of what I already have made input on. Including Zimmerman's weight, his father's role in the matter. Also formal statements put that only one investigation is taking place into the matter of Martin's civil rights and not aspects of police negligance. Others point to Zimmerman's voice being confirmed by a neighbor on the 911 tape. [27] Even Tracy Martin made a statement that it wasn't Trayvon screaming for help, but changed that after hearing an enhancement. [28] Others have already been posted above. Seems fair that statements from Jesse Jackson saying Martin was shot in the back of the head is more notable then Spike Lee's twitter issue at least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A big problem with the facts disproven section, is that it is a big case of WP:RECENTISM Will any particular wrong fact be relevant to this article in a month, a year, etc? I think the general "lots of incorrect information about the case was initially reported" will definately hve long term notability, but as time goes on, people will largely remember the "correct" facts, and we do not need to reiterate specific wrong informaiton. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll keep it for later, but considering we have the media section about their manipulation is seems more then relevant to put that the iconic imagery of the incident is false. The issue of the NBA, killed on his porch and shot in the back of the head are all fairly important to how the case was sold on TV. Just like Zimmerman being 'white' the perceptions were drastically different from reality. I think that such a matter which carried on for a month or so which comprised up to 45% of air time on programs of national news agencies more then meets requirements. Also notability is temporary, no matter the length of time, but displaying and showing that response was given on false pretexts is a critical portion of the response and how it affected the nation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely think that there were lots of misreported facts is relevant and notable, and should be included in the media or media bias sections. I am just saying that I don't know that any particular fact is relevant to be called out, unless that "fact" significantly affects the analysis of the case. The NBA thing in particular is irrelevant, he could have been out for doing anything, or in a break from anything, and it really doesn't affect the story. Zimmermans race, weight, the pic of trayvon etc are more relevant as how the media was spinning the issue, and can go into the media bias section (most is there already). The coon vs cold flip is also relevant as part of the media spin/rush to judgement. Other things that are just the normal flow of additional information coming out, I dont think is relevant, as information will neccesarily be changing in any ongoing event. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd still contest that the NBA one isn't irrelevant as the wearing of hoodies was banned for 6 years before their show of support after the statement was made that Trayvon was killed, loved the team and was shot dead miles from the game itself. The hoodie show of support further ballooned and gave many more reports about it, yet the entire statement was false. Are not false statements which fuel such protests and galvanized public response more notable then Spike Lee's twitter issue? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 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. [29] 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)

Chris, you were right to remove "unarmed", for the reasons you gave. It is as prejudicial as showing Trayvon as an 11-year-old while showing George in a six-year-old mugshot. These subtleties are lost on some of our fellow editors, however. (I wonder if they'll join in the race riots when Corey makes the obvious determination—let's hope she has the cojones—that George's lethal self-defense was justifiable?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the show of support Kenatipo. To further point out my line of thought on the matter for Tvoz and Mastcell. The placement is where I disagree with it, not that it isn't important to the discussion. As for it being a POV issue, if you recall I am clearly not taking sides for I have been a strong supporter for neutral content and pushing back against the mudslinging on Martin and Zimmerman. Though it should be also fair to point out that a great number of sources have confirmed Martin to be well... less than squeaky clean. We have video of him referring fights, accounts of violence on a bus driver, violent comments and eyewitness, statements and physical evidence that a fight took place and Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him up. He may have been 'unarmed' but he was clearly not defenseless as the 'unarmed' usually equates to when introduced before it is necessary information in any context. Disagree with me if you want, but the second sentence shouldn't read "Trayvon Martin was an unarmed, 17-year-old African American male who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old Hispanic American community watch coordinator." It should read, "Trayvon Martin a 17-year-old African American male who was shot and killed during a fight with George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old Hispanic American community watch coordinator." At least it will state that their was a fight prior to the fatal shooting rather than just a shooting, which is misleading because it was not just a shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I share your high opinion of your own even-handedness, but such is life. Which reliable sources describe a history of violence on Martin's part? MastCell ^Talk 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Tvoz and MastCell, him being unarmed is a crucial part of the story. If he had been armed, there would be no controversy here, and we would not have even heard of this story. That doesn't mean he wasn't dangerous or that Zimmerman didn't have a self defense motive, but it is very significant. I could see putting it in a second sentence rather than in the primary description of Martin though. Regarding the criticism that pro-zimmerman info is getting added directly, I think part of that is the direction of the case. Early information/spin was pretty exclusively anti-zimmerman, and now the media is having to walk some of that back and present a more balanced approach. We should present that information where well sourced, but should not try to spin it as if Martin was a clear aggressor and that self defense is obvious (as some editors in the talk have suggested we do. ) If we hide all of the "exonerating" parts of the stories, that pretty much makes Zimmerman out to be a confirmed racist mall cop, and that is also not neutral. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have argued with Tvoz about this before and have since changed my mind and agree it should stay in the lead. It is well sourced and is actually one of the few undisputed facts of this case. I would agree with Chris about the placement of it though. I think it should be after the description of Trayvon--Martin was a 17 year old african-american male who was unarmed when he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman during a fight ... I think this placement makes it more relevant to the incident than to the description of Martin. It is an element of the incident, but shouldn't be used alone as an element in the description of Martin.--Isaidnoway (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm for that version actually, it gives both key details and doesn't conjure up the wrong image. It also does give note that it was more than a shooting, which I've been wanting to reinsert, but I wasn't that bold to do both at once, but I probably should have. Seeing as I expected it to be reverted and I was low on time, I could only write one response on my thoughts. I'm more incremental than a major changer. It does detail the incident better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it irrelevant who had a weapon? George didn't know if Trayvon had a weapon and Trayvon didn't know if George had a weapon. What's relevant is who the aggressor was and who was defending himself from grievous bodily harm or worse. The evidence so far points in one direction and it is contrary to what the mainstream media wanted to believe. Of course the article content will change, Tvoz, as more of the truth comes out. So be it! Chris, don't expect the liberals to give up "unarmed"; it's a crucial part of their belief (contradicted by the available evidence) that Trayvon was gunned down in cold blood like a mad dog. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be a loaded and hot-button word, but it is also true and I rather not make it about ideology or politics. I may be vocal but I am not against compromise and this is clearly something which deserves to be in the article, placement more than the word was questionable, the word itself is not so partisan in that suggestion and it is neutral. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris, if you don't stop using THEN when you mean THAN, I will use this 16oz. unopened can of Arizona Iced Tea to re-arrange your facial features. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo, your clear bias, and name-calling, are neither helpful nor civil. The article isn't changing because more "truth" has come out - not a shred of actual evidence has been released to support Zimmerman's story, no matter how many of his family and lawyers repeat it. When actual forensic evidence is presented, there will be more truth. And the presentation should be in a court of law, which is all that the "liberals" you enjoy deriding have been demanding. We're not trying the case here.Tvoz/talk 04:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your definition of evidence apparently excludes most of the facts of the case, or at least the critical ones since there's no grand jury finding yet. I think you both are displaying some clear signs of how you think this case should turn out... neither of which is helpful to this discussion. We report on each version of the story. The lead should summarize that version. The original point in this thread was whether the "unarmed" designation in the first sentence was misleading.

The most neutral approach is to leave that out of the first sentence, and instead include it as part of the descriptors of each version of events. Shadowjams (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can we get back to discussing the lead. It is looking kind of shabby and needs to be fixed. I will submit this to begin a dialogue for suggestions and improvements:

The fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman took place on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Trayvon Martin was a 17 year old Africam American teenager who was unarmed when he was fatally shot during a confrontation with George Zimmerman, a 28 year old Hispanic American, who was a community watch coordinator at the time of the shooting.

Martin was walking back to a home in a gated community where he was staying when Zimmerman began following him, while on the phone with the Sanford Police Department describing Martin's behavior as suspicious. Soon afterward, they engaged in a confrontation that ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin.

When Sanford Police arrived on the scene, Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in self-defense, because Martin had punched him in the face and began beating him. Zimmerman was handcuffed and taken into custody and transported to the Sanford Police Department where he was questioned further by detectives. Zimmerman was eventually released without formal charges being filed against him.--Isaidnoway (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you describe what improvements you made to get the above version and how they improve the lead? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph retains the term 'unarmed', and moves it where it is an element of the incident as opposed to being used alone as an element of a description. Confrontation has also been added which is supported in the body of the article.

The second paragraph has just basically been re-worded to provide clarity. Allegedly was left out, because Zimmerman actually did describe his behavior as suspicious which is supported by his call to police.

The third paragraph adds Zimmerman's assertion that he was attacked by Martin which is also supported in the body of the article. Zimmerman being handcuffed and transported and questioned and released are all supported in the body of the article as well.

This lead is consistent with WP:LEAD and everything stated is presented in a NPOV and presents a balanced overview of what is contained in the body of the article. On a further note, it would be impossible to include everything, but I think this is a good start.--Isaidnoway (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's just the text of the present version for comparison, with changes discussed below and indicated by strikeouts or underline for additions.

---

The fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman took place on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old African American male who was unarmed. George Zimmerman was a 28-year-old Hispanic American community watch coordinator.

Martin was walking back to a home in a private gated community where he was staying when Zimmerman, while contacting the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's allegedly suspicious behavior, began following him. Soon afterward, there was a confrontation that ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin, who was unarmed.

Zimmerman told police who arrived on the scene that the shooting was self-defense. Responding officers handcuffed Zimmerman and took him into custody but they did not formally arrest him, saying they did not find evidence to contradict his assertion of self-defense. While in custody at the police station, Zimmerman was not administered a drug or alcohol test. The lead homicide investigator reportedly said he did not believe it was self-defense and he wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, but the state attorney's office said there was insufficient evidence for a conviction.

The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, including Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct triggered public demands for Zimmerman's arrest.

---

The first paragraph of your proposed version is a line longer than the present version because it repeats information. Regarding your suggestion of putting "unarmed" with the incident — that can be done in the present version by moving it from the first paragraph to the second paragraph, which I have done in the above. Before we go on, is that an acceptable way of treating your concern about "unarmed"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph should not contain the descriptive words of "private" or "allegedly". None of the references cited in the lead use those words. It is described as a "gated community" in all the references and Zimmerman's call to police is described as "reported suspicious behavior" or "described suspicious behavior". Those two words seem to be a conclusion reached by an editor and should be excluded.

The 3rd paragraph should mention Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was because of Martin attacking him. This has been widely reported on and is a major issue in this story. It could be re-worded, instead of the way I wrote it, to say instead, that "Zimmerman claimed self-defense because Martin had attacked him". I think Serino and the blood and alcohol test should be excluded from this paragraph as well. Serino should be moved to the 4th paragraph.

I would like to see some input from other editors as to the placement of "unarmed" in the lead. My view is that it should be in the first paragraph.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Would a good compromise be "reported as unarmed"? --Mt6617 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think so. "reported as" reads to me as if there was some level of doubt involved. He WAS unarmed. This is (one of of the few) objective facts we have in the case. nobody alleges anything else. That does not mean he did not attack Zimmerman, but he was unarmed. I think it should be in the first paragraph. We can also include Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him, but I think it should be seperate from the introduction to the shooting. "Zimmerman followed, they had an interaction, zimerman shot him" These are objective facts. "Zimmerman claims that the interaction started when Martin attacked him" - important, but should be stated separately as it is just a claim, and not a known fact. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him and his claim of self-defense should be in the lead. It is a fact that RS have reported on both of these claims and both claims are covered extensively in the body of the article. WP:LEAD allows for "prominent controversies" to be included in the lead and "Martin attacking Zimmerman" and "Zimmerman's self-defense claim" are both convtroversies that have been reported on by RS.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, I agree his claims belong in the lead. I am just saying it shouldnt be mingled with the objective facts. "Zimmerman followed martin, the interacted, zimmerman shot. Zimmerman claimed Martin attacked him, and he shot in self defense" This keeps clarity between what is objective fact, and what is just a claim. We should be clear not to confuse the two by merging them (even though that might flow better from a prose standpoint). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Another term to consider besides claim would be alleged. "Zimmerman has asserted he shot in self-defense because Martin allegedly attacked him". This clarifies that neither statement is a fact (asserted and claimed are both synonyms of alleged).--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:19, 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)

The similarity you talk about is only suspicious if you have a bias from the start. This eye witness ad Mary Cutcher were closest to the scene. It's only logical that their testimonies are similar. That is expected and not doubted. If your doubt had any sense in it then any witness testimony that comes after the first one is to be doubted. That has no logic or sense in it. This new witness is not new to the cops as well. She's new to the media. A lot of things are inconsistent with the police reports. In more than one account cops prove themselves to be incompetent. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with TheDarkLordSeth. Anderson Cooper interviewed both of them, and Mary Cutcher has been up front about her identity from the beginning. I have said this before, but apparently it's not getting through: When someone speaks on condition of anonymity - and in this case is interviewed on camera, but with voice and face disguised - it is not the case that the reporter and/or segment producer do not know who they are interviewing. They know, just like Woodward and Bernstein knew who Deep Throat was, but the interview is only granted if they agree not to reveal the person's identity. I do not believe that Cooper and his team, who interviewed Cutcher, would have aired a second interview with Cutcher in disguise and pretend it's a new person, which is what you are implying. The testimony of the new witness is similar to Cutcher's and that is suspicious? How about considering that two witnesses have come forward having observed the same thing? We're not here to investigate, we're here to present the story according to the reliable sources who do the investigating. Tvoz/talk 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkLordSeth Can you prove it your statement. That's my question. Back up your statements with sources of that fact. Clearly the eye witness was not 'closest' to the scene for they could not see while others could and identify the individuals. 'John's statement places him directly at the scene itself. Two other witnesses see it firsthand as well. Mary Cutcher's statement, to police and media, are different. Both statements have impossibilities in them including that she never the incident. What I would like to see if your basis that this witness is tied to a statement from the police reports to back it up. For Mary Cutcher's statements are the only one to which formal refutation has been released about the consistency and impossibility of her statement. The identity of this witness is not known and therefore we cannot make a statement which assumes an identity without proof. Though only one known witness when on AC360 and only two known witnesses give the same account because they were there together that night. Mary Cutcher and Selma Mora. Could this second witness be Selma Mora? Here is an article about it. [30] Also note... we don't have a section on Selma Mora, but she has been involved with making statements to media with Cutcher. We should have her statements listed under 'witness' too. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to turn into Perry Mason and dissect every reliably sourced assertion on the basis of personal skepticism. That's an abuse of our role as editors. Also, your skeptical-private-investigator act arises only when material reflects negatively on Zimmerman. Curiously, when material reflects negatively on Martin, you repeat it immediately and uncritically, no matter how poorly sourced or unsourced (see one thread above). MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, it is our role as conscientious editors to carefully review the sources, ESPECIALLY in this case, since 90% of the mainstream media ran off without their brains in their heads. There has been rampant bias in our sources and so it takes this kind of careful attention to actually sort out the wheat from the chaff. -- Avanu (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Can you prove it your statement" "that she never the incidnt" ? I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

Mary Cutcher witnessed the scene looking directly from her kitchen. According to their testimony, she and her roommates were the first to talk with Zimmerman. We don't know where John was. He supposedly talked to Zimmerman while they were fighting. Yet, Zimmerman does not mention someone seeing the fight and talking to him. Also, this is the most important part, this John guy supposedly called 911 but there is only one 911 call where the caller is male. He does not talk about talking to them and he says that he's not going out. So, where is this guy that made a non-existent 911 call that you're relying on? Your suspicion about not knowing the identity of witnesses does not make sense at all as the only people we know the identity of are Mary Cutcher and her roommate.

We don't have a section for Mora because her's is tied to Cutcher.

Can you tell us why you're suspicious about this anonymous witness account yet you have no problem with this John guy? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer to that last question is obvious. Tvoz/talk 05:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Mary Cutcher witnessed the scene looking directly from her kitchen" NOT TRUE. The 911 call has her mainly hiding out and at one point she finally says she might go upstairs to see, but she didn't want to look and kept telling her roommate to lock the door. She's contradicted herself in testimony and I get the impression that she will believe whatever her heart wants her to believe. She isn't a credible witness, based on what we have seen and heard so far, and furthermore she was not an eye-witness, but possibly an ear-witness, however, she didn't seem that interested in actually witnessing as much as freaking out. -- Avanu (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed in this interview that Ashleigh Banfield mentioned another resident with a 10-year-old boy? But she sounds like she is referring to the 13-year-old boy with the dog, but I don't know if this entire interview is a reliable source for the shooting itself, via Wikipedia definitions. It might end up being a reliable source for media bias. -- Avanu (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That cutcher lady is absolutely psychotic. She says "she doesn't believe it was self defense" -- yet she saw nothing. She described the voice as being that of a "little boy" and kept describing the over 600 foot tall 160+ pound teenager as such. She has lied several times in her interviews. Say the first time she saw zimmerman he was pjnning trayvon down with his knees, then in the next interview that when she first saw zimmerman he was walking around near the body, but not touching it. Total fruitcake.68.115.51.198 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

MastCell do not attack me or bring to question my neutrality when I've quite clearly taken unpopular sides on both individuals. Though I will post some to your talk page citing that I've acted largely for both. As for John's statements, they line up, but he didn't see the entire event and while they make sense is not wonderful alone. Avanu, thank you for pointing it out as well, that specifically mentions part of why her statement was officially labeled as inconsistant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] We are not supposed to be deciding who is a credible witness and who is not, Avanu, nor is it our job to separate the wheat from the chaff, as if we had some way to know which is which. Our opinions are irrelevant. We are neither the journalists nor the jury. And MastCell's observation is quite apt - seems to be the "anti-Zimmerman" information that gets the third degree, while the "pro-Zimmerman" is accepted without question. That is POV and it is out of control. Tvoz/talk 05:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I see how some editors are making stuff up and using inconsistent arguments to support their doubt and trust on certain testimonies. There are to be ignored from now on. Anyone else who wants to talk about adding or editing witness section please open a new thread. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For anyone who doubts my neutrality I have some diffs for you and will gladly post them to your talk pages if you doubt it. As my word is not enough it seems. As for the statement, we have clear points that contradict it, said contradictions come from a reliable source and are valid for their own reasons. If she is not a credible witness because of X, Y and Z make direct arguments that prove that then X, Y and Z deserve to be included next to said statement. Especially from the law enforcement officials which Mary Cutcher made accusations against. For this case I specifically noted the errors in the two statements from a reliable source against another reliable source, only when scrutinized did I mention the similarity and then had to defend my observation when blasted for neutrality. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

We should include all witness statements, including those that conflict with other witness statements, or other observations of the incident. We are not in a position to know objective fact, and the reader may make their own analysis of the reliability of the statements. We can also certainly include where a witness has made multiple statements and contradicted themselves saying "On the clas they said X. In a later interview they said Y". We must be careful not to do any SYTH/OR about which statement is "true" or more reliably. The anonymity of that witness statement is nt relevant to inclusion or not, although we can mention that they spoke anonymously. We could add an introductory statement saying that witness testimony has a history of being unreliable [sources] and that some of the witness statements contradict each other, but we must be careful not to cast doubt on, or support, any particular witness statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

We are in a position to skew bias in the article and since it is our DUTY to avoid that, unlike what is being suggested by some above, we MUST review sources and due to the biased nature of almost all of our sources, again, I say, we must separate wheat from chaff. You might try and take some hyperenlightened mindset that nothing must be left out, but again Wikipedia guidelines say this is to a be SUMMARY, not an exhaustive reconstruction of events. One would hope that editors (PLURAL) are capable of using logic, and since we (AGAIN PLURAL) can tell the difference between biased information and not, and when our sources say that one witness has inconsistent statements and it appears on the face of it to be inconsistent, we can use that, but if we have another article paying homage to that same witness we can toss it out as bias. It is ALWAYS about sources, but they must be RELIABLE, and that consists of a three part test. To Tvoz specifically, perhaps the reason it appears that one side is getting more of a shakedown is because the majority of our sources for this article have proven themselves unreliable when it comes to bias. So, generally speaking, we can count on articles to favor Trayvon Martin and disparage George Zimmerman. Not all articles, of course, but MOST. So what you might consider POV is probably just additional and warranted editorial oversight. -- Avanu (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you are grossly misinterpreting what reliable sources says. Us making decisions about the reliability of witness statements, taken by 911 calls and reporters is clear obvious original research. We can certainly report their inconsistencies (internal and external), but deciding they should not be included at all because you some unreliable is a clear violation. We are not reporting what they say as a fact (which is what the three part test is saying). We are reporting the fact of their opinion/statement. There is a very big difference there. There is zero doubt that they have said what they said. As long as we are clear to say that it is what they said, and not make it seem as if they are speaking a "known truth", there is no reliability issue. This is the very core of a witness statement/testimony. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear about what I mean. I don't mean that we start deciding EVERYTHING on our own judgement, but I think the goal should be reasonable care to produce a neutral article, and including just any stray statement is a bit irresponsible. We do have reliable sources for all of this, and so we have to decide, do we include Trayvon Martin's past transgressions.. do we report George Zimmerman's? One article I read mentioned three terrible things George had done... the third was speeding. Tell me that isn't bias. Same goes for Trayvon. We have to be consistent, and we have to figure out how to craft a decent article using crappy sources. -- Avanu (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we do not have to report everything the media reports, some things are irrelevant. Witness statements (even possibly unreliable) do not fall into that category. Hypothetically, that witness statemet could have been the only witness statement, with nobody contradicting it. Clearly relevant. The fact that there are additional statements, some which contradict, does not diminish its relevancy (although it may diminish its reliability). However, its reliability is not up for us to decide. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is our decision. It is our duty. We must use RELIABLE sources. Not unreliable, not questionable, but reliable sources. Now is it reliable to quote the 'witness' verbatim? In a sense, yes. But we use reliable, secondary sources when possible. Primary sources, like the witness himself or herself, are not really what we are after, but logic and primary sources can give insight into our secondary sources. I think we're really almost on the same page, but somehow keep saying things in a way that we miss one another. We have a DUTY to ensure that our sources are reliable, that the article is neutral in tone, and that it is encyclopedic in nature. These things require us to exercise editorial control. -- Avanu (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your logic is flawless, when applied to facts. A witness statement, who was a direct listener/observer of the incident, who was (probably) one of the 911 calls, is direclty relevant to the case. Her testimony itself may be unreliable (each may judge for themselves), but it would be a huge POV decision for us to make that decision. This is not some random pundit, commentor, or speculation. Yes she is a primary source, but that criticism applies to all of the witness statements. If you want to make a move to delete them all, then that would at least not be POV. All witnesses made statements, either to 911 or to the media. All witnesses were reported by the media. Us picking and choosing which ones are more reliable is a clear violation of WP:OR. If you want to fall back on WP:PRIMARY you can, but then move to delete them all, not just the one you personally dont find reliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

All the witness statements should be included without editorial commentary or anything else. The accounts are pieces of evidence that will be used by both the State and the defense in the eventual trial. They should not be presented as truth of what happened, but in what was said by the witnesses. As in almost all criminal cases, some evidence contradicts other evidence. It is for the court to decide which is fact and which is untrustworthy. As an article written prior to a judicial decision, and in the interest of neutrality, I think that all the statements should be presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.67.172 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Some people seem to want to play the jury. Our job is not to refute but to simply represent information. All witness accounts are to be added in this article without anyone trying to refute them. This is not a forum. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright I hate do to this. I'm going to bring this up again since I've done more checking into it. Though I am wrong about Mary Cutcher or Selma being behind this, but the source lines up with Caller #4. I just thought it was strange when viewed out of because the actual show itself transcripts and wording described the March 29th interview with a MALE. Not a 'She'. From John King. [31] "We're tracking two breaking stories tonight. The only known eyewitness to the Trayvon Martin shooting speaks to our Anderson Cooper. You will hear his description of exactly what he saw." The UK guardian also stated 'he'. It seems strange that the show refers to the anonymous source as a 'he' even in discussion. It is still a major mistake, but it is correctly 'she'. Though it not Mary Cutcher or her roommate with that statement. Let's go through the caller list by list. The second interview also says 'popping' and refers to the dispatcher as male. Says she put the phone up to the screen to let him hear it.

1. Woman speaking with female dispatcher. Says 'gunshots' but only one shot is heard in background.
2. Woman speaking with female dispatcher.
3. Woman speaking with female dispatcher.
4. Woman speaking with male dispatcher. Was looking out her deck. Described as 'popping noise'. When asked about who made noise, she doesn't know. Heard bang. Shot already happened by time call started. Mentioned opening the window to let dispatcher hear. Event already concluded. Doesn't identify by race only 'man'. Begins crying. Lasts for 14:32.
5. Woman speaking with male dispatcher. Thinks someone has been shot. Was told to call 911. This is Mary Cutcher's call.
6. Male speaking to female dispatcher.
7. Woman speaking with male dispatcher turned phone to her brother. Saw nothing heard shot. Confirmed screaming before shot.

Caller 4 is the one on our article labeled as '9-1-1 call; distraught caller'. It seems caller #4 is the same person as the AC360 show. Has some leading questions and also mentions that the lead investigator told this witness that the person screaming was alive. Strangely the interviewer went to great lengths with leading questions about why the police did not require her to show the scene of the fight. During that same time the crime scene investigation is taking place. How common is it to risk contamination by having a witness come to the scene in which the body is still there? Still issues of what she stated versus the call line up and other parts don't line up. Points that say they were talking to the dispatcher when the gun went off. Also stating that they were screaming, but on the 911 call only a person (not persons) screaming 'help'. Also she said she didn't hear any words, but yet she heard the confrontation? She said she doesn't know what was going on in the 911 calls. Which is odd since the interview she says she knew what was going on. Even more odd is that she said she called when she saw the two men on the ground, but according to records and her comment wouldn't the gunshot have gone off during the call? Even more odd that the caller which has the gunshot is a woman talking to woman dispatcher. Making it either a call that wasn't released or caller 4 (only other woman speaking to a male dispatcher of unknown identity). So her own statement on AC360 is not accurate about the time she called or that she was talking to the dispatcher when the shot occurred. Draw your own conclusions, but both interviews have information that is misleading or wrong even about something like when they called 911. If critical response to those facts from RS exists it should be included. Afterall, it is a valid concern that directly contradicts the interview and its flow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just so we are clear and Newsbusters was cited for the previous mis-editing of the 911 call which brought that story to Fox news is also the same one to report this issue as well. [32] From the transcript of the show she was not on the phone with 911 when the shot was made, yet states it anyways. [33] Only one caller was on the phone when the shot occurred and it isn't the same gender dispatcher and the statement from that caller is clearly different. Other sources report the same thing, but I don't want to bludgeon the matter to death on why this interview (and the previous one) are unreliable and contain impossibilities. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As been said before you're in no position to judge the credibility of a witness. Your focus on questioning witnesses favoring Trayvon while taking any witness that favors Zimmerman is quite telling about your motive and bias. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm neutral and I don't like you attacking me. Facts are facts, but a reliable source has already made the connection. I'm not questioning the witnesses statements because I have a bias, but because clear impossibilities exist within said testimony. That is unless the police are with holding 911 calls which has the same wording as caller 4. There is no reason to believe that any calls are being withheld at this time and given the similarities it is not an unusual deduction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong on many accounts regarding the reliability of the witnesses and the way you question them and ignore others show a clear sign of bias. However, this is completely irrelevant. Your job is not to evaluate witness testimonies. This is not a forum. If you're so enthusiastic about making incorrect biased arguments on this issue I can point you to a few forums. Your job is to convey information and that information in this issue is what the witnesses say. An eye witness could claim that the world is flat and you'd have no right to try to refute that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If a witness says the world is flat and evidence exists against it then that makes that witness's testimony unreliable, right? Same applies here. The fact that a reliable source has pointed out issues with the interviews between one another is already evident that this same witness has changed her testimony and account in the time frame. I think it only fair to note the credibility of the interview's two statements as such. While we cannot directly prove and I am missing a source to state AC360's interviewer is our 'distraught caller' the similiarities are too great to ignore. Though it takes time to review it properly, 2 days.. during a holiday weekend is not a long stretch of time for a proper response. Give it time and I'm sure it will get more attention. Also...this is the last time I will be attacked for 'bias' before I take action. I've done as much for Zimmerman as Martin... actually more for Martin's side if you want to get touchy. My diffs proved I've been attacked for bias on both sides when no such bias exists. I am critical of many things, but biased I am not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand why you're wrong and this is getting frustrated. You have no right to be critical about anything here other than whether references used are used properly. Your job is to convey what the witnesses say, not if what they say is reliable or not. I don't care what kind of arguments you have. This is not a page for your personal article. It's a page for revealed information on the case. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a 'job' its what I do for fun. Also its more then just about 'references', wikipedia is more complex in nature. Also said information which I am pointing out has already been revealed information about said interview. Only when attacked for bias did I take a deeper look, but last I checked I am not opting for its inclusion under WP:SYNTH, because I need a source that states it. I am not frustrated and do not treat this as a forum, I may be more active on the talk page, but only because I value the input of other editors and want to discuss my own points to their discussions to prevent edit warring. Notice I haven't edited that section and discuss it even now, despite the clear inaccuracies and impossibilities reported, or even on the matter of the gender swapping. Making any statements that go against WP:AGF is one of the matters which I take seriously. Do not attack an editor who has sources to back their argument with 'bias' when the arguments put forth are valid, those arguments and not me, should be scrutinized. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You neither had sources that backed up your claims nor you had consistent arguments on the case. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter. Your own point of view is not relevant to the article. Whether you do it through consensus or personal action doesn't matter as well. You've tried to influence people's opinion when those opinions didn't matter to begin with. You've been told that whether the witness testimonies are accurate or not didn't matter couple of times. That didn't stop you from questioning their testimonies. Neither this talk page nor the article itself is a forum. Please act accordingly. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've cited sources. While I am not inserting my personal opinion into the article it well established that when discussions take place that a persuasive argument should be used to make a strong case for why said material should be included. I don't HAVE to make the arguement here before I do it, but quite seriously, that AC360 Cooper interview has plenty of concerns from sources. It is even questioned by the discussion afterward on the program itself. [34] [35] Also the pops being plural is even clarified that more then one pop took place. [36] Others come from the examiner. Even the Huffington post opens citing that this witnesses testimony differs from other accounts. [37] So has Bill O'Reilly among many others. I think that it is disputed should be noted, if not for the inaccuries in the interviews alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, this is not a forum. The credibility of a witness is not a subject of the section. You're even repeating the same addressed arguments. I can't really take your posts in good faith if you can't even argue properly. You're clearly not applying the same standards to all witness accounts as well. Watching Fox News clearly won't help. Your job is to convey the information on what the witness accounts say. That's why the titles is called "Witness Accounts." The article is made to convey information and not make a case for the court. The information that you claim that contradicts eye witness accounts are mentioned on their relevant sections of the article. So, let's keep our own opinions out of this and simply convey the information. I'm not gonna repeat myself again. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris, come on. When it comes to reliable sources for factual, WP:BLP-related material, the Media Research Center doesn't qualify. Neither does Newsbusters (a subproject of the MRC), nor Examiner.com, nor Bill O'Reilly. Yet you've cited all of those sources in your last post, and you keep repeating claims about Martin's past without citing any sources at all. But then you set an extremely high bar for sources which reflect negatively on Zimmerman.

The bottom line is that we need to stop treating this talk page like a blog. It's exhausting and frustrating to see this talkpage constantly used as a platform for editors' personal viewpoints (backed by patently unencyclopedic sources), when we should be looking for the best available reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines the term) and conveying their content. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Then explain to me why a good chunk of material in this article is still here given its sourcing? It is more complex then RS, yes or no? Take Newsbusters with the NBC 911 call broke the story and it was picked up by Fox News. Clearly their statement was reliable, accurate and provoked response to its decision. We have specific noted in the article about the role of these unreliable sources. 'Also on March 8, The Huffington Post, The Young Turks, and TheGrio.com...' Even citing the Huffington Post editor for his role in breaking the case. Dozens of sources here are 'unreliable' by your dismissal. WP:IRS and WP:NPOV gives lead to balance when supported by fact. While it doesn't change what was said, it is still a considerable response from other reliable sources as recognition of their view point. NBC (Reliable Source) did the 911 editing, Newsbusters (Questionable Source) analyzed it, Fox News (Reliable Source) cited the matter from Newsbusters (Verification of a Questionable Sources claims) and it became national news. While a single questionable source may be limited in use, it doesn't discount its material entirely. Even the show on Anderson Cooper for April 7th took aim at the anonymous witnesses statement about the police as being well... unreasonable for short. What then do you call that? A good essay on the matter is Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat, another is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Further going on to WP:V and WP:Balance considering that the same source for the interview also had a counter to a comment which was presented in said interview and is inexplicably absent. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's ironic that you would link to those Wiki links. You're arguing for making a case for any witness that seems doubtful to you. We're arguing for accurate portrayal of what the witness testimonies is. That's what the section is for. It's not a section made to refute the witness testimonies. I don't think you're getting that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's try a different approach, I'll use an example from CNN citing AC360's interview with commentary. To avoid additional conflict I'll go with the same network and cite two important pieces. One by the Tobin who was involved personally and the other from the witness's own account.

1. According to the interview on CNN's John King[[38]], Jeffery Tobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst states, "What I learned is that this is going to be a tough witness at trial because this person doesn't have a really clear view of precisely what happened, who was the aggressor, and this person heard someone yelling help. But I don't think this person knows in particular whether it was -- which one of the two people it was. So again, that's an important piece of evidence that, if this person knew, would be important." You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should express this assertion?
2. The witness as labeled in the transcript from the same source states: "UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As I said, it was dark. But after the shots, obviously, someone -- the one man got up, and it was kind of like that period of him -- I can't say I actually watched him get up, but maybe only within like a couple seconds or so, then he was walking towards where I was watching. And I could see him a little bit clearer and see that it was a Hispanic man, and he was -- he didn't appear hurt or anything else. He just kind of seemed very -- I guess -- very worried or whatever, walked like on the sidewalk at that point, and put his hand up to his forehead. And then another man came out with a flashlight. " The witness did not identify Zimmerman by name and this clearly states 'shots' again. How do you find that this evidence is not noted, independent of my other sources. I find it wrong that Zimmerman is given by name when it was never stated and the contentious 'shots' has been removed.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Witness Statements" and "Speculation and criticism regarding the reliability of the witness statements" are two separate issues. If the latter section is deemed important and relevant, then add it as a separate section (I'm not saying it should be, just to be clear). However, the witness statements themselves should stand alone, complete and unadulterated by editorialism. The wtiness statements should not be used to create a narrative of the events of that night; the witness statements should simply be here because they were the statements made by eyewitnesses. If speculation and criticism is to be added as a separate section, then that should have its own discussion separate from this.Zetrock (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with that is WP:STRUCTURE. Separating them would serve to create that very hierarchy of fact in which later disputes would be segregated outside of the narrative in which they would be relevant. Essentially we'd have a section for witness accounts then a section on 'speculation and criticism' which would inappropriately push a counter argument not after the relevant material is brought up, but after various unrelated statements and accounts. It would also not be neutral to do so. It'd be better to have each statement in its own subsection and relevant response immediately following. Which is similar to the conglomeration we have now.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In a legal sense, the witness statements are facts. Credibility and truthfulness are separate. I think separating each witness account into its own mini-section is probably a good idea, as the purpose of providing them here should not be to create a cohesive narrative out of the statements collectively, but to just provide the plain facts. If each account was separate, I could see having credibility issues following each account. However, doing so and preserving an objective and neutral view may be difficult. I'm not convinced it wouldn't be better to leave it as it is, or to separate each account, but to let the reader do their own synthesis by reading the accounts.Zetrock (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No grand jury

CNN is reporting that state attorney Angela Corey issued a statement that a grand jury will not be convened. She will make the decision on whether to charge or not. No timeline on when she will make the decision.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. [39] Big development. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good addition as I think her decision is going to be a HUGE issue. Personally, I think she has made a very serious mistake (if she clears Zimmerman) This decision however makes me think that she will not clear him. --Mt6617 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can see a few ways to interpret her decision. 1) She thinks he definately should be charged - unlikely since she could just announce she was charging him. 2) She thinks he definately should not be charged - possible, but she would probably say so, but could be afraid of reaction 3) (most likely imo) she thinks a grand jury could not be impartial at this point and would be driven more by respective biases (which would be a real issue for a real jury too. In any case, I would not be suprised to see renewed/increased protest as a result of her decision. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Covered all the bases, didn't you? Here's another interpretation to consider, if she charges it could be viewed as a political statement against the ambiguous language in the SYG statute and she could let the judge and/or appellate court make the tough call in this case, it doesn't appear that case law is on her side.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Or it might mean nothing at all. "Corey previously told CNN she has never used a grand jury to decide on charges in a justifiable homicide case." [40] It sounds like this is business as usual for this type of case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetrock (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right. We shouldn't be speculating about what her decision means, it could lead to a wall of text (like above devoted to just one witness).--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

protest shuts down sanford police station

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-civil-disobedience-20120409,0,2396968.story

seems significant enough to me for a one or two line inclusion in the aftermath section Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so as there are going to be all sorts of protests depending how events play out. I don't think you want to include them all. And you will have to if you open that door. --Mt6617 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I def agree that not all protests are notable, but one shutting down the police station involved? On the other hand, its only 6 people. Ill let it sit unadded and see if it develops, or what others think. With the other news of the grand jury being canceled, I think the protest could grow. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the folks around here that are demanding an arrest feel that the Grand Jury being cancelled is a good sign.

The folks that feel he does not need to be arrested agree that it is a sign that they are going to arrest Zimmerman.

Both sides cannot belive that she would make a decision to not arrest on her own.--Mt6617 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the man on the street update :) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It would seem perfectly cogent to have a section called "Protests, activism, and vigilantism"--or whatever--which looked at those activities since the event. The foot power has been an obvious element of the story. The rallies, the protests, and so on. We even heard of the neo-nazi skinheads who said they were doing patrols (with their guns) in white communities in the area. All that seems rather notable. Especially that last thing. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The neo-nazi thing appears to be pretty much made up. Maybe a nazi org said they were going to or something. Nobody has yet to report seeing a patrol, taking a picture of a patrol, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

All I ever found what this article [41] Did not see anything on Saturday. In fact the whole community was quiet and going about it's business. Other than the memorial I photographed, there were no signs of anything going on.--Mt6617 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. One must exercise much more caution than usual in evaluating news on this topic.

Until something happens this is just pomp and bluster. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I went into the "Famous 7-11" everyone was calm and, well... just normal. A variety of races in there. No one seemed angry at each other. In fact I picked up a couple of Carmel Cadbury eggs (mmmmm lol) and an African American lady behind me in line said "Now you have done it, I did not see those till you got them!" We laughed about how anything good is bad for your health. While she was checking out, I asked the clerk about people asking questions, and she said every day folks ask questions, but no one has been rude or ugly. I originally was worried about this week, but I think cooler and more civil heads are going to prevail. Locally anyways. --Mt6617 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For anyone wanting find out what happened. One from NB and it points to LI. [42] And the LI one. [43] Tracing how this and other word circulates from a blog post in The Miami New Times to Little Green Footballs and Mediaite, Huffington Post and Daily Beast. Even getting to NY Daily News before Fark, Gawker, The Blaze, Drudge has and the NY Post too. Amazing amount of work done to stop the firestorm of the false, but this goes to show that even blogs do a better job then 'reliable sources' when it comes to fact checking. Here's a link to the NY Post one. [44] If this continues, could we possibly use it as a mention for the media issue? Even 'reliable sources' clearly are not immune to this material spreading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What you point out is exactly why the definition of a "reliable source" is in three parts. For some reason, many editors forget that and just see "BIG NAME NEWS" and think that is sufficient to grant 'reliable source' status to something. In fact, many of those BIG NAME NEWS companies are less reliable because of major conflicts of interest, either through direct relationships or simply a conflict because they want to get ratings and advertising revenue. They are definitely not just altruistic seekers of truth, and in many cases they take a side. I do think the Wikipedia rule against Blogs being used as sources is a bit silly, since anything can take the form of a blog, so what exactly differentiates a blog from another type of website? Anyway, you made good points. -- Avanu (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually questionable sources can be used for limited purposes. A blanket refusal is unwise, but it usually serves to keep the amount of contentious material down. Still interesting, but I doubt that this source would ever make it into the article on 'RS' issues even though it did do the fact checking and monitored and tracked its spread. It is like Newsbusters breaking the NBC 911, its not on there despite it being the original source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all blogs are prohibited. From WP:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs,

"Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process. Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Real George Zimmerman website

Seems Zimmerman has opened a website soliciting donations through paypay, according to MSNBC.

"Attorneys confirmed to NBC News that the site, which domain records show was created Sunday, is real and is authorized by Zimmerman himself. It solicits donations through PayPal with a promise that "any funds provided are used only for living expenses and legal defense, in lieu of my forced inability to maintain employment."--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11104813-george-zimmerman-takes-to-web-to-raise-money-for-legal-costs-lawyers-confirm?lite

http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com ---Isaidnoway (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? 503 errors all the time, doubt its too many hits given the counter. Anyways it is without anything worth including, even the website itself should not be linked or mentioned at this time. Justice for Trayvon collected $20k+ mil+ so far and we don't link to that either. [45] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That hit counter can't be right. It's possible it's under a DDoS attack or just an overwhelming server load, who knows.--Львівське (говорити) 23:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me awhile to get on it. Not really anything there. The only two pages I accessed were his "What's my race page" which lists him as "brethren to all mankind" and his contact form. I'm sure it won't be up too long. Definetely not worth mentioning. BTW, that's not 20 mil, it's 20 grand.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and good catch, sorry about the mistake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I sure hope that is not anyone's "real" website. Cheaply done.... one of those "Website Tonight" deals. I know of his Attorney, and he is high powered. I doubt he would have approved of anything like this. --Mt6617 (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

WOW!!! George is in Scottsdale AZ.[46] Maybe he is there with Casey!!! What a news flash! EDIT: Sorry... just a little humor to lighten the mood!--Mt6617 (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know at least part of your comment was a joke, but to be clear, the details on that domain are hidden. You are just seeing the GoDaddy domain registrar's address.

I know... I hope no one thought I was serious! --Mt6617 (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange strange article

I've noticed 3 things about this article: 1.It is completely in favor of George Zimmerman 2.It is not protected 3.There seems to be no mention of relevant facts,like Zimmerman's record of violent crime I think most of wikipedia's editors, being libertarians, are leaning this towards zimmerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.243.100 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

1. You have not read the article. 2. It is protected because of vandals, most trying to post unreliable information supporting Zimmerman. 3. There is also no mention of Martin's past. 4. Please don't "act" like a troll. --Mt6617 (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

209.129.243.100, how is the article "completely in favor of George Zimmerman"? And what is "Zimmerman's record of violent crime"? Can you cite specific examples? Additionally, how is each of these examples relevant to the shooting event? These are the questions we ask for both 'sides' of this article. Please think things through and answer my questions above, if you like. -- Avanu (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is "in favor of George Zimmerman" because the most prolific editors here make little pretense of neutrality. Zimmerman's "record of violent crime" consists of an arrest for resisting a police officer (a charge which was dismissed through pre-trial diversion when Zimmerman agreed to enter alcohol counseling) and an allegation of domestic violence from an ex-partner (Zimmerman countered with allegations of violence against his ex-partner, and mutual restraining orders were issued). Sources: L.A. Times, Palm Beach Post, Reuters, etc. Whether these previous allegations of violent behavior are relevant to this current act of violence is arguable.

OK, now your turn, since you're apparently taking a strong stand in favor of representing "both sides". ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) has repeatedly stated that Martin had a history of violence (e.g. [47]). I've asked him to cite specific sources in support, but he's ignored me so far. Maybe you could buttonhole him for an answer, in the interest of even-handedness. MastCell ^Talk 03:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell, Have you or anyone else raised any of these neutrality issues at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

First its pro-Martin and now its 'pro-Zimmerman' labeling. I've already given out a great many diffs and spent a good amount of time showing why their accusation is hurtful, wrong and demeaning. I do not even have to post in a topic to get dragged into the discussion about my so called bias. Yet it was me who stood against the drug possession matter, the unnecessary negative psuedo bios and even got attacked for it pretty bad. Same for the suspensions. The guy wanted me blocked/banned for keeping that irrelevant matter off this page... and it has stayed off because that matter is irrelevant, not that I was POV pushing a pro-Martin matter. Though it does help that those sources, while they do exist, are something I clearly did not push for inclusion and I've taken a stance against some of them. I should not have to defend myself at every turn because my argument disagrees with another editors POV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, I can't tell if you are being serious or not. It sounds like you are unhappy that we didn't include the two incidents about George, but then it sounds like you think ChrisGualtieri is mistaken for wanting those included ?? Just not sure what your point is. -- Avanu (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm bothered by some editor's certainty about some things and other editor's allegations of bias. I'm especially bothered about some of the recent comments on this talk page. I'd expect a topic like this to bring a lot of "new" editors who display strange familiarity with wikipedia, as well as a handfull of true new editors. And then, a sorting of veteran editors. I'm surprised though, that there's so much polarization among the groups that know better.

And so, saying that, I'm concerned with some of the comments in this thread. MastCell is a long-term wiki editor and administrator. But his allegations of bias are becoming too personal. There's clearly some strong feelings here. Mastcell has not, as far as I know, used any admin functions thus far in dealing with this topic. That is a good thing. But I think we all need to be reminded that this is a contentious political issue, and these are exactly the sorts of issues we should remain the most neutral about. That is, we fall back on our policies. We report what reliable sources say, and we do so as faithfully and as unbiased as possible.

We all come into these issues with our own personal viewpoints. But as editors, and certainly as admins, it's essential that objectivity is the key. While admins are certainly able to have opinions about articles and topics like this, those views are outside of their admin abilities. The goal here is to make the best encyclopedia we can. Shadowjams (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The kind of information being proposed for addition in this section is currently ahead of its time (not in terms of improvement, but rather in the sequence of events). Wikipedia is not a court of law, and we are not to judge either character based on their past actions. However, once (and only if) this information is used during the trial, then shall it become relevant to include in the article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

MastCell has not abused his powers as an admin and I respect his views as an editor, I did not know he had issue and asked me on his talk page rather than mine for clarification on that matter which I will gladly do so now. Also to disprove the allegation of my bias and clarify the situation, it was I who pushed against the 2005 and domestic allegation under WP:BLPCRIME for it was without conviction. The 2005 incident was first for shoving an officer, charge lowered to non-violent resisting and was dismissed. It is not a finding of the court of guilt and is unrelated to the current issue so until it becomes relevant (i.e. court) it should stay off this page. Same for that 'domestic abuse' which both accused each other and the judge didn't find or take action in that situation, but no legal mandate was taken only the words from the judge stating they should stay away from each other. Typically domestic abuse results in arrests and charges... yet these were absent and never reported or brought forth. On the other side of the fence I've pushed back against the inclusion of the 3 suspensions of Martin, the last, while questionable is sensitive is relevant by cause and effect. I've also tried to keep the allegations of Martin's drug issue off this article for the same reason as BLPCRIME, for he wasn't arrested he was suspended and not found guilty of a crime in a court of law. The previous suspensions were irrelevant and I was attacked by an editor wanting me blocked because of my stance on why those two other suspensions were not relevant. My so called bias is best countered by this segment of discussion where I am clearly 'pro-Martin' to some, but yet my assertations are by policy and not POV pushing. [48] I just wish that fellow editors realized the attempts to discredit my views as bias pushing and POV are hurtful, but the last one said they didn't care about it. And I do not want action taken against these various editors otherwise I would have done so, but I am considering mediation cabal if it continues. The specific attacks made against me are numerous, continuing and unjustified. Mastcell's own post of that 'diff' is actually misrepresenting my stance and actions which is wrong for I have been against the very inclusion of material he is claiming I want in. I can provide diffs and those unreliable, but primary sources report from Trayvon's twitter and youtube accounts which were used to paint Martin in that light across the internet and got mainstream attention. If I was really biased for Zimmerman it would be unthinkable to endure such attacks while I repeat that I go by policy, even getting attacked for invoking the 'holy rule book' by one editor. My history in this article has gone from being attacked on one side to being attacked on the other despite a slow and steady discussion rooted in policy and always skeptical of negative smear. At least 15 diffs show my distaste for the reporting of various sources with yellow journalism. It has been my critical view to many things in this article which I have been attacked for rather then the source and verification of the material. In a section above with the Neo-nazi's in Sanford I was against the inclusion the first time it came up, then the second dismissed it again, when I dug for sources the entire history of that story came up on a blog and only after tracing its path do I ask that (if it continues) a section on it might be worth noting in the future. Again, there is no axe to grind or bias this way or that way, I have taken many attacks in my desire for neutrality, calm and fact checking. Even defending myself yields comments like this, "You just prove that you're inconsistent even about your bias." I don't get an apology, only further attacks. Some try to dismiss and discredit my view regardless of the stance, that much is clear.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we please leave "I have a black friend so I'm not a racist" type of arguments on the door? You do not apply the same standards to every witness. Somehow pro-Zimmerman ones are taken at face value, even though they contain major discrepencies, but pushed your suspicion on pro-Martin ones and ignore to address any point against your suspicion. That's a fact. I don't care how you argued in favor of Martin before. It's not a forum anyway. Your views are irrelevant to the article. Another fact is that your suspicion is completely irrelevant. How concrete your arguments are or how well sourced and backed they are is completely irrelevant. You're here to convey information and not to evaluate it. You violate Wikipedia rules by treating the talk page as a forum and if you continue I might need to report your actions if they become so disruptive. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Go on... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My Lord Seth, many of the arguments being made in the public eye on this case are not about the event, but about perception of it. This article is about two things. First, we have a shooting. Second, we have a media firestorm. We still have a duty to uphold a neutral tone, and putting these two things together in one article requires a different level of oversight than just saying "this or that is well sourced". We have to apply discretion to what we include and exclude. Neither Zimmerman-side nor Martin-side comments are 'taken at face value', but we are all reviewing things with a careful eye. It is possible that what you say is a Pro-Zimmerman tilt is due to the fact that a majority of media outlets were being unreasonably biased in their coverage and this required a more careful eye on things. From what I can tell, the editors here are trying very hard to maintain a responsible and neutral article. Now stop with the threats of 'I'm gonna tell on you', and get with us on making this a great article. -- Avanu (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not the case though. Trying to refute information in an article is not the job of Wiki editors. Should I make a case about factual holes in the statement given by "John" person? No. It's not our job to question and try to make a case against witness accounts that we see doubtful. Our job is to convey information on what the people who are relevant to the case said. So far, I've seen a religious struggle to refute pro-Martin witnesses to the extent of ignoring obvious holes in the story of the other side. Both are irrelevant what we need to do here. You apparent bias is also further proven by the fact that you're telling me to stop "threatening" with "tell on" while you were completely silent when ChrisGualtieri made the same threat. I can't assume good faith on your part if you make it that obvious. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Article name should be "The shooting death of Trayvon Martin"

Current name is not precise enough. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a pretty lengthy debate about this already. See further up the 'talk' page. If it is going to be altered for that reason, it should be to "The fatal shooting of..." because "shooting death" sounds awkward and clumsy. However, I think it is fine the way it is. The title does not need to tell the whole story, and the very first paragraph of the entry makes it clear that Martin died following the shooting.Zetrock (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As Zetrock says, there was a lengthy debate about this and consensus is the current name for now. I understand your point, but we've had similar namings for other shooting-death incidents too. This is more a manual of style issue than it is an ideological one. For example, 2011 Tucson shooting, and Fort Hood Shooting. For most school shootings we seem to use the term "massacre", see, e.g., Virginia Tech massacre, Columbine High School massacre, and Dunblane school massacre. As a general rule, we tend to call things what they are rather than what their consequences were. In other words, we call the bombings bombings (even though people die) (e.g. 2008 Danish embassy bombing in Islamabad), or don't (e.g. 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt), and more general attacks "attacks" (September 11 attacks), and shootings "shootings". The school articles are a bit of an exception. Shadowjams (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Must we argue this again? It hasn't even been reviewed and closed by a third party. Despite wide policy support of 'Death of' in both argument and individual views I think the current title is not one to stay as it has been questionable for so long now. Also in one on one cases, 'Death of' is the norm for shootings, not 'Shooting of' as in the case of public icons, private citizens, military figures and even assassinations. Like Death of Osama bin Laden is not Shooting of Osama bin Laden. Convention is 'Death of' not 'Shooting of' where the participant dies.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to read the entire talk page. When will the name be changed to "Death of...."? Also, I see that some biased editor is determined to keep introducing problematic NPOV bias into the main info box. As of the time I am leaving this comment, the info box states: George Zimmerman (shooter); Trayvon Martin (victim). The net effect of using this term, in conjunction with the misleading title, is to represent Martin as a "victim" of a "shooting." It is important to indicate that Martin died; however, identifying Martin a "victim" of a "shooting" is not appropriate when there is not yet sufficient evidence to know with a reasonable certainty Martin was a victim. In addition to supporting a title change, I propose this language be used in the info box: George Zimmerman (shooter); Trayvon Martin (decedent). 72.37.249.60 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a problem with 'victim'. From all accounts, even George himself considers Trayvon a victim, despite his statement that he had to act in self-defense, his family and friends all say the same thing. They tell us that George is deeply emotional over the shooting. So who claims Trayvon Martin is not a victim, whether it is merely a victim of circumstance or of being too young or anything else? -- Avanu (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Referring to Martin as a victim is completely appropiate and not biased. It is no different than saying someone was a "victim of an automobile accident" or a "victim of an airplane crash". Considering that Zimmerman has admitted to shooting Martin, that is sufficient evidence to know with a reasonable certainty that Martin is indeed a victim of that shooting.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin would only be a victim if he didn't initiate an assault on Zimmerman and if Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense. What actually happened according to the evidence remains to be determined by the State Attorney or court. Saying that Martin is a victim seems biased because it asserts that he is innocent of any criminal assault, which hasn't been determined. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

When a kid darts out into the street and is run over, he is never referred to as a victim. "Victim of being run over"? Victim requires proof of innocence. We do not have that here. There is conjecture but no proof of innocense.True Observer (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A victim does not imply a crime. It is a sysnonym for "the subject of an unfortunate incident/event/disease"

• accidental drowning victim
• car accident victim
• car accident victim
• accidental shooting victim
• accidental fall victim
• self defense shooting victim -trayvon -zimmerman
• accidental poisoning victim
• fire victim
• disease victim
• cancer victim

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In each of the above examples, the person is assumed to be innocent of wrongdoing. A "victim of fate".True Observer (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As a follow up, Whitney Houston died of accidental or intentional overdose or drowning and yet is never referred to as a victim. The best that can be said is she was a victim of her lifestyle. (implies that she was innocent).

Also, why the effort to contort the English Language. Since when do people go out of their way to refer to all of the above as "victims"? You do not see such usage in either written or spoken English. A person dies or is injured in an auto accident. When was the last time you heard anyone refer to such a person as a victim of an auto accident? True Observer (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

double check *self defense shooting victim -trayvon -zimmerman then, which is direclty analagous to this situation, and shows that the dead person is quite often refered to as a victim even when the shooter claims self defense. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The context in which victim is used in describing Martin's death in this instance (one who is harmed or killed by another) does not imply that any criminal activity was involved with either party in this shooting. Regardless of whether criminal activity is involved in a shooting or not, the person who dies as a result of that shooting is still a victim. In this instance, "victim" does not have a fixed salient legal meaning nor is one implied.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Add Zimmerman's website to this article.

George Zimmerman created a website, basically asking for donations and to provide a small presence of himself on the internet. I believe this website is directly related to this particular article and should be added. Also, seeing as how he updates it himself, some information can be used on this article as well. Again, very related and highly notable (quoted by FOX News).

The website is here: http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/ LogicalCreator (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is covered in a discussion above. I'm honestly not sure it's legitimately his or not. The design is c. 15 years out of date, and just doesn't look like a professionally put-together thing, which is something his lawyer(s) likely would have insisted upon. I'm not sure any reliable sources have definitively established it as his yet or not. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see absolutely no point in adding this to the article. It is not relevant. I personally find it offensive. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How does your finding it offensive factor into the question at all? Your comments on this talk page make it quite clear what your opinion is... but that has nothing to do with the policy decisions regarding this article. I've seen you make a bunch of comments on here that are similar to this, and for someone that's been on the Wiki as long as you have, you should know better. You're right, until a reliable source refers to it, and its verified, it absolutely should not be included. If both of those things happen, then perhaps we can discuss whether or not it will be. But that you find it "offensive", presumably because you've decided who's right and wrong in this matter, that's irrelevant. Shadowjams (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Unless we're going to add any of the many "charge George Zimmerman for murder" sites that are circulating, in which case WP:UNDUE would seem to require us to give both equal coverage. Regardless, it's best that we stay as neutral as possible and keep external links to mainstream news sources and any relevant primary data (the 911 call, police reports, future indictments, etc.). Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if George is going stir crazy a bit, not having much else to do and perhaps he just created this for some way to have an outlet or something. -- Avanu (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How is your opinion of his mental status at all relevant to improving the article? Shadowjams (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume that you asked that question with the shared goal of improving the encyclopedia and not as a snipey comment.. see how that works? But don't you think that taking a moment to understand how people act is relevant to a deeper understanding of anything? As my fellow editors pointed out above, the quality of this website is terrible, and so any reasonable person might question the value of a site like this. In seeking an answer, the previous thought occured to me. You might not have a use for that thought, but I tend to think that comraderie and friendly discussion among editors is helpful rather than detrimental to the work we do. So, in the future, when you feel the need to ask a question that might seem pointed.... try using the editor's talk page instead. :) -- Avanu (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

NBC News reports a website to cover Z's legal fees. The above site looks bogus. Apparently the site is not set up yet but will be : "www.zimmermandefense.com" . It still doesn't belong in the article.

@Shadowjams, I made One comment that was not appropriate, which I struck out. The bogus ad was so poorly done and so wah wah , that it was offensive. You have no idea who I am or what I stand for. Any contributions I have made to the actual article are totally neutral. As an editor far more experienced than I , you know that we should extend mutual respect to editors. Namaste. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree a reference to the authenticated Zimmerman web site needs to be integrated into the article, without giving it undue weight. The difference between Zimmerman's site and the sites calling for his arrest is that the information on Zimmerman's site comes from Zimmerman himself, not biased third parties.

At this time, the article includes a lot of quotes and information provided by the Martin family and the Martin family lawyer. For this reason, it is important that the responses Zimmerman has now given to the public via his web site be added to the article as well as to balance the Martin family's comments.

The first sentence of the third paragraph in the lead would be a good place to link the authenticated Zimmerman web site.

"When police arrived on the scene, Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in self-defense because Martin had attacked him. Zimmerman reiterated his claim of self-defense on his {link to Zimmermen Web site}.

72.37.249.60 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to "reiterate" a statement by Zimmerman that is already referenced by a RS. Could you be more specific about the quotes and information provided by the Martin family and the Martin family lawyers, which is not properly sourced.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Create a new article for reactions

There are a lot of reactions to this story and maybe we should think about creating a separate section for the reactions, allegations of bias and official statements.VR _talk 12:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the consensus was that one article is sufficient as it changes daily. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 13:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with DocofSoc. Previous attempt to split was opposed recently. The section has been scaled back and the split removed. While the page is still long, reactions and official statements are not worthy of their own article yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR inquiry

1RR will expire on April 13 and semi-protection will remain. I will not be extending 1RR, but am considering opening a discussion on WP:AN to codify a WP:General Sanction to that effect. Before I go through the hassle of such a request, I wanted to see what the current editors of the article thought regarding how 1RR has worked and if a request should be made to continue it. MBisanz ^talk 14:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that the default state of article editing needs to be in place at least for a time. In an ideal sense, this is supposed to be the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit', and we've held it hostage against that goal. Let it lapse for a day at least, see the results and then act based on that. Let's not just keep restrictions in place without continued cause. -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Still against extending 1RR as per previous discussion here and on your talk page. Currently I am supporting semi-protection at this time and may suggest a trial removal of semi-protection some time after 1RR lapses. If things go well I might make the request on April 18th or April 20th. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it has worked well and resulted in discussion instead of edit warring. The article is in a heated stage of the controversy and I think the 1rr should remain until that heated stage is over. That may come when the news coverage eventually goes away. There is currently a lull in the news coverage which I expect will increase considerably when the State Attorney decides whether or not to prosecute.

Here's an excerpt of the main part of the 1RR for this article.

"If you have had an edit or change or yours removed and re-added it and it has been removed again, you may not re-add it or you will be blocked without further warning."

How about extending and modifying it to give a warning for first time offenders? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A counter to that is that the talk page is 'bloggy' or 'forum-like' by some other editors. Discussion is a good thing, but some editors have expressed that too much discussion is taking place. 1RR is not a 'common' restriction on article and a special section for pages under that restriction are listed at WP:GENERAL SANCTIONS and this article doesn't compare to the histories those. Few are 1RR, but those that are protected have good reason to be. Even still before it would be extended the case should be brought forth which it should lapse in the during the discussion time. Typically because these sanctions come from ArbCom or the community it should still have the formal request made, this 1RR was from a complex previous issue and was not an ArbCom decision from what I've read. If I am wrong, please correct me though, I didn't follow up with the Drmies matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There may be some " 'bloggy' or 'forum-like' " behavior but I don't see the connection with 1RR. It seems like a normal amount that controversial articles with 3RR would have, maybe even less.

Could you give any specific examples that show that the 1RR has had an adverse effect on the development of this article? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is subjective, its like saying 1RR has a positive effect on the development of the article. I cannot prove 1RR has a negative effect on development, but I can argue about the justification of extending 1RR without merit and that without that merit the other policies of Wikipedia are for openness. Though I'll bite and offer this. [49] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that in some cases it's very difficult to get specific examples even if you're right. Thanks for offering that example. Actually, I used that link myself in a response to you as evidence of the benefit of the 1RR![50] May I add that I am sensitive to a worry that you expressed previously that you could be blocked by inadvertently violating 1RR. That's why I mentioned in a previous message that first time offenders should be warned. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the 1RR should be allowed to lapse and only reinstated if it is warranted. On a personal note, it is a pleasure to work on this article with editor's who are clearly an asset to the community of WP. Thank you--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My vote is that it has worked well, and given the political climate should remain in effect. Other's can do what I am doing and that is to post their thoughts, photos, resources, etc, and let the more experienced editors determine if they should be included. Based on what I have seen, they are doing an excellent job (although I think some of my photos are worthy hint hint -lol) --Mt6617 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

additions for afterman section?

• 6 shots fired at empty police cruiser in retreat at twin lakes
• Emergency operations set at level 2, the same as before a hurricane
• Mayor describes sanford as "tinderbox"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-cruiser-shot-trayvon-martin-neighborhood/story?id=16103091#.T4Rexdm0A0l Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is not too important and while the shots probably are related to the Trayvon Martin incident there is no suspect and few details. Same was true for the hacking of that road advisory sign up in Michigan. I hesitate to put every 'event' into this article; we've had other 'events' which were less then clear cut. 78 year old man beat up by 6 juveniles had the same tag, but was unrelated to the case. We are even missing the celebrity who posted the real address and phone of the Zimmerman family despite that incident being more notable then this one. Still interesting, but not relevant for an encyclopedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are certainly a lot of hings going on around the country that could be plausibly linked to the incident, and I agree they should not be included unless particularly notable. However things going on inside sanford (and particularly twin lakes) I think have some level of "inherent relevance". btw, I dont think that the points 2 & 3 above (emergency level, tinderbox) are directly related to the shots fired. In any case, I think the second two at least would be relevant in the aftermath. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I did not address those two other points. I do believe the Mayor's comment is notable and should be included given the weeks long tensions gripping the county. It should be added, but this section is a synthesis, "ABC News has learned that the emergency operation centers of three counties have been activated at Level II, the same level of preparedness used ahead of a hurricane. " While it is directly followed by the quote, three counties is not the same jurisdiction the mayor would have control over, but it could nuanced to attribute to tensions as a whole. Also the same article has this line, "A group of armed neo-Nazis from the National Socialist Movement have descended upon the town, touting their intention to patrol the town to protect whites against a race riot." See the section above about that comments origin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm that is the same PD car that I photographed Saturday and included earlier. It was actually sitting across the street from the complex in the right-a-way for the elementary school. I thought the neo-nazi movement had been proven to be made up? --Mt6617 (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been, I thikn Chris' point was that we should take what this article says with a grain of salt, since they arent doing s much fact checking as we might hopebased on their inclusion of that incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Funeral Director Richard Kurtz

I could not find any mention of the funeral director Richard Kurtz findings on the body of Trayvon Martin. This doesn't fall on the witness section so I'm not sure where to put it exactly. Any ideas? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You might put it under media coverage. The funeral director wasn't stated as having the same qualifications or experience as a medical examiner, nor did he conduct an autopsy, and as such, won't necessarily have the same level of credibility. So, his statements are interesting, but not official in any sense. -- Avanu (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential bias? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say he is more of a witness rather than media. Certainly he is not an expert/medical witness, and his statement is not an "official statement" but he did have direct observation of the body, shortly after the time of death. I think we should be careful not to give his statement any additional weight due to his position as a mortician, but think of him just like a random person who was able to closely observe the body. If a random joe had discovered the body shortly after the shooting, surely their description would be relevant and included as a witness. 18:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)