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 started with "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)
• Oppose - Current title is fine. No need to change. --soulscanner (talk) 02:44, 12 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. See discussion after my struck out Oppose in the Death of ... section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support No need to change. Title may not be prefect, but it gets the point across, and there is no consensus on a new name. --soulscanner (talk) 02:48, 12 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)

Glad to help. I wasn't aware of it myself a few days ago, but I figured there must be a tool like that, and Google came to the rescue. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Decent title. The fact that he was shot is evident in the article. Don't need to make it a reference in the articles title.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:41, 11 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)

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)

Most all of the cites refer to some headline on a story. Headline writers specialize in using abbreviations to stir up interest in the story. The only real reference to victim is the quote from Peoria County State's Attorney who refers to a person as a homicide victim. But careful analysis shows that he is just making a laundry list. I.e. homicide victims, burglary victims, etc. All of this begs the question, why is victim used in the first place? Why even say "victim". What purpose does it serve? The question answers itself.True Observer (talk) 20:29, 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)

It all depends on whether or not Martin was perpetrating the crime of assault when he was shot. Saying he was a victim means he was not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that calling Martin a victim implies he wasn't involved in criminal activity and if he was involved in criminal activity, it implies he is no longer a victim. Like I stated earlier, 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. In this instance, "victim" does not have a fixed salient legal meaning nor is one implied. We should not be making judgement calls as to whether criminal activity or the lack of is somehow a determining factor in describing someone who died as a direct result of a fatal gunshot, a victim.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see how you apply your notions to other situations. If a bank robber is in a shootout with police and is shot dead before he is about to kill hostages, would you call the bank robber a victim? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The victim/shooter shouldn't even be necessary in the info box (can anyone find a link to another article that does it like this?) if we have a clear and concise title for the article, which incidentally is what this topic is supposed to be about. Redredryder (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Every aspect of both the shooter and the victim will be looked at and analyzed as it relates to the evidence in this case," quote from state attorney Angela Corey.--Isaidnoway (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a good quote! Could you give the link to it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my eyelids were failing me when I found that, it came from CNN. And I do get what you're saying about that word, it is one of those generic words that has several different meanings, but my contention is that it depends on how you use the word. You have to look at the context of how it was used. The most common usage is describing someone who became a "victim of a crime". It also denotes someone who has been taken advantage of, "victim of a scam". It can also be used to describe someone who has died, regardless of the circumstances--like these, Martin was the "victim of a shooting". As far as your bank robber is concerned, if he engaged in a shootout with the police and was killed in that shootout, yeah, he too could be described as a "victim of a police shootout". I don't think that just because a person was involved in a criminal act and he was the perpretrator of that crime, that it necessarily excludes him from being called a victim if he dies as result of commiting that crime.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying that the bank robber is a victim of a police shootout implies he was shot without good cause, which is a misrepresentation of the situation. I think you're reaching on that and the bank robber should definitely not be referred to as a victim.

In the case of Trayvon Martin it's not clear and I think we have to go with the consensus of the articles, whatever that may be. Angela Corey's recent remark was probably made after she had decided to prosecute, so her referring to Martin as the victim would be consistent with a prosecutor's position as an advocate of Zimmerman's guilt. So I don't think we should side with the prosecution and refer to Martin as the victim, unless it can be shown that a consensus of RS's refer to him as the victim. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If I read your scenario right, a bank robber was holding hostages and was about to shoot one when he was engaged in a shootout with police which caused his death. I said he could be called a victim of a police shootout and you think that it implies he was shot without good cause? If you just take that phrase "victim of a police shootout", I might agree with you, but when you read the whole scenario, the context is clear that he was shot for good cause. This is my point--context. Same logic applies here, you have to look at the context in which it was used.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Closing the discussion

• Search of "Shooting of" (see [8]) shows that redirects cited in the move request owe to fame or political status of victims (JFK, Lennon. Martin Luther King). The majority of cases on Wikipedia of fatal shootings of lesser known people have no such such redirects:

-BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant,

-Shooting of Kayla Rolland,

-2009 shootings of Oakland police officers,

-Shooting of the Romanov family (probably should be "Execution"),

-Shooting of Hosie Miller,

-Fatal police shooting of Joseph Erin Hamley.

As such, the premise for moving this article is demonstrably false. Furthermore, since no consensus for a rename or redirect exists after a long discussion , I recommend closing the discussion and leaving the title as is. --soulscanner (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• The majority of cases of lesser known people that were shot to death are also titled with the prefix Death of.

*Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

*Death of John Ward

*Death of Kent Leppink

*Death of Victoria Snelgrove

*Death of Maxwell Itoya

*Death of Fadhel Al-Matrook

*Death of Ali Abdulhadi Mushaima

*Death of Donald P. Scott

*Death of Seyed Ali Mousavi

*Death of Neda Agha-Soltan

*Death of Jennifer Ann Crecente

*Death of Jamal al-Sharaabi

*Death of Harry Stanley

*Death of Asel Asleh

I'm sure I can find more if I look but I think I proved my point. And the argument regarding "fame" isn't a very good one because it forces people to make assumptions. Also, I wouldn't exactly say the Romanovs were lacking in fame or political power considering they were the ruling dynasty of Russia at the time. Redredryder (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Isn't it time to stop arguing about this and let it stand? We've been around and around, and have not come to an agreement. There is no hard and fast policy that insists we go by the number of other articles that have one or another title - the current, stable title, which was not my preference, fits the standards laid out about titles, so I think it's time to stop this and move on. There are many actual problems in the article that need attention, such as how to weed out material that is repetitive, out-of-date, and otherwise in need of improvement - we are wasting time and energy arguing about a title which is accurate and clear, if not everyone's concept of perfect, including mine. Continuing to argue it is getting to be disruptive, in my opinion. Please let it go - we can always revisit this sometime down the road. The fact is that now that there is a charge of murder, we could certainly be discussing whether that would be the more appropriate title. Do you want to have that conversation now? Tvoz/talk 07:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I could find more articles with "Shootings" in them, but what would that serve? It would nly confirm that either title is perfectly legitimate. I also agree that it may now be the time to change the same "Murder trial of George Zimmerman" or something like that. --soulscanner (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'd say we've shown that both titles are completely legitimate. That means there is no good reason to change it. I agree that belabouring the point when there is not clear consensus on moving the article really gets nowhere. WP:TITLECHANGES is clear: 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. . On this policy basis, I recommend closing the discussion. --soulscanner (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Six weeks is not a long time, especially when there has been various talk page discussion of what the title should be for a substantial fraction of that time. I agree though that it would be good to try and wrap this up. Dragons flight (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been wrapped up several times, but some people are not willing to accept anything other than Death of, the title they are sure is the "correct" one. I'll accept sticking with Shooting of for now, as I've said, to end this - but my next suggestion, not facetiously, will be Murder of Trayvon Martin. Murder charges have been filed, there are dozens of articles using this prefix (since that seems to be so important to some people), and that title is recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent - all five characteristics that are our goals in seeking a title. So what now? Continuing the conversation is ok with me, but I'll be talking about why Murder of is appropriate, and see where it goes now that the circumstances have changed, as we said a couple of weeks ago could happen. Or we can close this now, stick with the stable Shooting of a while longer, and re-visit this when some more time has passed. Tvoz/talk 23:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm appalled at how circular the reasoning is on this point. Trayvon was shot. Trayvon is dead. The event under discussion is The shooting death of Travyon Martin. To deny this is to deny an obvious impartial truth. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I tried for that one earlier. Tvoz/talk 04:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Murder of" is unacceptable until after a conviction - possibly even after that as there will likely be a lengthy appeals process that could change the ultimate resolution of the case. Additionally very few murder cases actually make it to trial, there are quite often plea bargins, and this one could easy go down to manslaughter. In any case, there is no finding of fact that a murder occurred, only a charge of such by the prosecutor. It is inherently obvious that we still do not have consensus for any particular change, so WP:STATUSQUO. I have doubts consensus will be able to be gained on a title change (to any title), until people get bored and move on from this article, which may be some time. I think there is wide support for a variety of titles, unfortunately there is also wide opposition to them as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of labeling it as such, this seems to be a matter of WP:DE. Consensus is not based on votes, numbers or anything like that. WP:VOTE is pretty clear on it. It is highly disruptive to procedure that the side with the strongest arguments have those arguments dismissed repeatedly on grounds of 'consensus' when said arguments have not been even replied to or even hinted that the argument could be wrong. WP:CONLIMITED may apply because, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" This applies to two arguments. The validity of the 'Death of' and the matter of WP:CRITERIA and WP:CONSENSUS especially given that, "Consensus arising from a rational discussion based on policy and common sense is the Wikipedia ideal." Discussion has taken place, but the arguments have never been countered and the matter has been sitting in limbo for more then a week. Only to be dismissed despite the editor of the opposing side never actually addressing the concerns related to the viewpoint which they still stand on, and instead trying to interpret a policy to keep the original despite arguments against it being the same as 'Shooting Death of' I am going to move that either discussion on the presented arguments takes place from the 'Shooting Death of' and 'Shooting of' side either state their case or we bring this to the dispute resolution board. Under WP:GAME this several matters are of concern which should be mentioned if it does go to DR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:58, 13 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.[9] Skittles was put into Wikipedia Mar 25.[10]--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."[11] --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)

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)

I would like to extend a proper Thank you for your efforts to contribute to this article above and beyond the "Call of duty" ;-) I too am bewildered by the "add a photo process" so I hope that you are assisted in your efforts. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! As they say "a picture is worth 1000 words". As for the photo of the scene, based on legal advice I have received, I will not be uploading it, at least for now. --Mt6617 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice job with the photos, Mt6617. I added one near the top of the article.Fletcher (talk) 22:19, 11 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)

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)

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. [12]

— 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)

If The Skittles and Iced tea have already been discussed ad infinitum where is THE PROOF THAT HE BOUGHT THEM THAT DAY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.103.157 (talk) 19:38, 10 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. [13], "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." [14] 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. [15] 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. [16] Even Tracy Martin made a statement that it wasn't Trayvon screaming for help, but changed that after hearing an enhancement. [17] 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. [18] 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. [19] 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. [20] "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. [21] From the transcript of the show she was not on the phone with 911 when the shot was made, yet states it anyways. [22] 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. [23] [24] Also the pops being plural is even clarified that more then one pop took place. [25] Others come from the examiner. Even the Huffington post opens citing that this witnesses testimony differs from other accounts. [26] 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[[27]], 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)

In a legal sense, the witness statements are facts. But not in a Wikipedia sense. Per the relevant policy at WP:BLPPRIMARY, witness statements should not be used to support a statement about a living person (and remember that WP:BLP is applied to recently deceased persons as well). We should be instead be citing reliable secondary sources that themselves analyze, summarize, and vet statements made by eyewitnesses. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not what's happening. We're not using sources on witness accounts to support a statement like "there was no blood on Zimmerman." We're using them to support what the witnesses witnessed. The two are entirely different. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:36, 11 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. [28] 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." [29] 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 [30] 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. [31] And the LI one. [32] 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. [33] 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)

The fact that media made up and reported false stories that armed neo-nazis were protesting in Sanford, Florida, is something that definitely deserves mention in the media bias section. Brad 655 (talk) 18:35, 11 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. [34] 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.[35] 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. [36]). 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. [37] 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)

I am allowed to express my concern and it is fair under policy to warn that continued attacks might push me to mediation cabal or somewhere else. I've made numerous comments about it and why I feel wronged. Also stating that you do not assume good faith on regards to another editor is another matter of WP:AGF. It is the same statement you made to attack me for bias. I won't be replying to this again, the talk page should not be loaded with this matter anymore.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're allowed to express concern about the credibility of a source(a link) but you're not allowed to express concern over the credibility of the content of a source(witness testimonies). My assumption of good faith falls completely under the WP:AGF. What you need to realize this is to continue reading beyond the title of the Wiki article. If you don't want to fill the talk page with "this" then please only focusing on conveying information rather using here as a forum and try to refute witness testimonies. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding just this comment, "You're allowed to express concern about the credibility of a source(a link) but you're not allowed to express concern over the credibility of the content of a source(witness testimonies)." — Could you give the excerpt from policy that supports this comment? Not to argue, just to see how you got this from policy. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

By its very definition, Us determining if a witnesses actual statement is factual or not is WP:OR. Beyond that, the witness statement (regardless of if it is accurate or not) is itself a fact. The witness 100% made that statement. Conflicting witness sattements is a problem inherent to witness statements. They are notoriously unreliable. ALL OF THEM. Us deciding that a particular one is so unreliable as to not warrant inclusion has no basis in policy. These are not random suppositions and pundit opinions. They are a direct witness. Their WP:PRIMARY sourceness is not replacable by any other method, and is the ultimate source of all WP:RS WP:SECONDARY sources for this entire article. @Chris - I respect your efforts, and your motive, but I fear you are not WP:HEARing us in this case, or think that we are not hearing you. We (the consensus) do hear you. We disagree. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bob K31416, I believe Gaijin42 explained it better then I ever could. Kudos to him. What I differentiated between was the source of the information on an incident and the information itself. The source is a new article, blog entry or a TV program. The information is a witness testimonies, police findings and so on. We can question the reliability of the first which is regularly done but we cannot question the reliability of the second. That's beyond what Wikipedia is for as Gaijin42 showed the relevant guidelines. I'd also like to add to that the WP:FORUM. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin gave a good explanation above, but missed a really important point. To quote him: "Us deciding that a particular one is so unreliable as to not warrant inclusion has no basis in policy." ACTUALLY, it does have a basis in policy if we are trying to maintain a neutral tone in the article. (WP:NPOV) We would love to include everything (except Wikipedia policy warns against that too (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), but if we include everything that has been brought up in this case it would be a smearfest all around (WP:NPOV). We are supposed to be building a "high-quality encyclopedia", not a gossip column filled with all the dirty laundry we can dig up. (WP:GOSSIP) So can we please get off the unfounded accusations of bias and back to actually paring the article back? (WP:SUMMARY) -- Avanu (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hate to reply after I said I wouldn't, but it is important. I am not refuting the witness statements or trying to remove them. I am trying to portray the mainstream critical response which has evidence against the claims made. I've given more then a dozen sources which state conflicting information. The actual program which aired the interview and following ones even state different genders of the witness from which our discussion started over. While my displaying of information might seem like OR the fact I've cited the interview itself, its analysis and a plethora of sources pointing out that the witness testimony has problems. I'll gladly re-display all the issues raised by many sources with that AC360 witness. It starts with getting the gender wrong and moves onto multiple shots and beyond. The sources challenge the verifiability of the statement, its not my original research. It is CNN, MSNBC, Fox, including AC360 program itself which did the interview. I'm not arguing removing said primary source, but adding opposing secondary source about the verification of the claims made by said primary source. I'm sure confirming multiple shots even after clarification when other sources confirm otherwise is not WP:OR. Noting the mainstream and confirmed facts to the verifiability of that statement appropriately is all I want. Seems fair under WP:NPOV. Again if anyone wants to continue this, I'll make a new discussion segment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You should have stopped at "hate to reply" as you're simply repeating the same failed arguments and denials. If you're gonna keep on trying to refute sources at least do so without pushing a certain POV so that we'd have more respect. After all it wasn't just a coincidence that you'd outright skip a discussion on the inconsistency of a witness favoring Zimmerman just after you accept it at face value. So, let's stop this masquarade, shall we? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a big misconception here regarding OR. The policy WP:NOR only applies to what goes into the article, not discussions on the Talk page. Please note the first sentence of WP:NOR.

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research."

This is repeated in more detail in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

"The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed."

So you see, the NOR policy pertains to the material that is added to articles, not to discussions on the Talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why we have WP:FORUM. The arguments brought up were not directly based on sources as well. They were made by comparing different articles due to doubt of a certain editor. Thus such arguments have relevance to the article or the talk page. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUM only applies to what goes into the article, not discussions on the Talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Where in there does it say it only applies to the article? Please read beyond the title of the article: "Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right about that small part of WP:FORUM that you put in bold font in your message, which discusses Talk page behavior. But it is my understanding that the talk page discussion you object to is about making an edit to the article, rather than a general discussion that is not about improving the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's both. I'm against arguing about making a case against what's being said in a source when the purpose of that source is not to evaluate but to convey a piece of information. I'm also against materializing these kinds of arguments in the article. So, I don't want to discuss if I feel there is a discrepancy in a witness testimony (I could dissect each one if you want somewhere else). I'm about simply portraying what the witnesses say in it's purest form without trying to dispute them. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's a case of adding an argument to an article that is not directly supported by the source, then that would be a violation of WP:NOR. Could you direct me to where that discussion is? And please be as specific as you can with your directions there. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, so if I do what you say I'll be keeping the "forum" discussion alive and Avanu will criticize me and if I don't you'll criticize me... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I should advise you that your response gives the impression that you're not being honest. I was eagerly interested in supporting you if what you said was true. Please note that AGF applies when there isn't meaningful evidence to the contrary. I suggest you give it another try and direct me precisely to the discussion you were referring to. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess AGF only applies to me, just like I guessed. Here you go: [38], [39], [40]. All these are trying to question a witness. Not the source of the information (a news portal or a blog) but the information itself. It's like if I started questioning the testimony given by the anonymous witness that's called John and point out that his testimony doesn't match with any of the 911 calls(there is only one male caller and it doesn't match what he says). When I addressed Chris's concerns about the reliability of an other witness and raised the issue of John's statement to see how he's gonna react (in my post 05:04, 9 April 2012), he simply ignored. That's the primary reason why I'm pushing this. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkLordSeth, Thanks for the links. I looked at the discussion related to the first one[41] and it went on and on so I decided to break and discuss it with you because maybe that would be enough. It looks like a discussion regarding the credibility of the information in a reliable source. Information from a reliable source is not guaranteed to be acceptable for an article and that is decided by consensus if there is disagreement about what should go in an article. That's what seemed to be happening but there didn't seem to be much focus. It wasn't so much forum behavior as a discussion that wasn't being productive and just went on and on. I can understand how you felt in that situation. All I can suggest in a situation like that is to propose a specific edit, or ask someone to propose a specific edit, then have the participants express where they stand on it, and let consensus determine what or what not to do. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I hear and find your points reasonable. I just want to make one point: Everyone is free to question the relevance of a "witness" but questioning the reliability of that witness is wrong. If I tried to use the witness source to reference a sentence like "Zimmerman had not blood" then you'd be right I shouldn't be able to do that. What we used it for was "Witness X says that Zimmerman had no blood." So, the source on witness testimony is reliable and the witness is relevant to this article, so we use it indiscriminately. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, as long as WP:NPOV isn't violated there's nothing that says that any info can't be kept out because editors think it is wrong. If there is disagreement about whether to include something in an article, then consensus would decide. You might want to check WP:NPOV carefully and use that for getting the info into the article, if you haven't already. It can be frustrating to know that you're right and not get what you want, but of course that's part of the give and take of being an editor. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkLordSeth, this may just be my opinion, but your constant cries of forum! forum! have been more offputting and sidetracking than anything else I've seen on this Talk page. You are correct that WP:FORUM applies to Talk pages, but could you agree to move on from this stridency you've been showing and just focus on communal collaboration? Besides WP:FORUM, we also have a behavioral guideline called Assume Good Faith and on the same page as WP:FORUM (which relates to content), we have WP:BATTLEGROUND (which relates to behavior). Just my two and half cents. -- Avanu (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are indeed of this opinion why did you continue arguing on the "forum" despite I expressed that I wanted to go back to adding information? You may of the opinion that I'm wrong but you continued the discussion as much as I did. It's rather one-sided to put all the weight on me. So, ask yourself first and then I can agree to move on. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How is the interview itself not a relevant source?! How is John King's transcipt and discussion not relevant in referring to the source and witness. I mean seriously, it even states from Tobin, "...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." Aside from Anderson Cooper's own asking for clarification on the pops the witness still uses language like this, "UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As I said, it was dark. But after the shots, obviously, someone -- the one man got up." Please tell me... independent of all other sources that question this witnesses statements on AC360 why responses even from their own network are unsuitable given that a mountain of evidence states that only one shot was fired. It is even questioned by Tobin who was there for the interview whether or not the witness even knew what was going on. It would be wrong and non-neutral cover up the contentious statements which fly in the face of reality by a witness who still gets blasted for their statements on the second interview by AC360 itself. How is any of this stringing together sources when AC360 itself discredits a number of the witnesses own assertions. Though the original transcript does it just fine if we want the specific response to that specific interview by that same show on that same night on the very statement that is still in this article. [42] Maria Clark stated"But the fact that George Zimmerman stood up, walked away with no apparent difficulty, no apparent bleeding, seems to fly in the face of the indications in the police report that he was -- that he said he was -- his nose was broken, his head was beaten in. Yes, there may have been some minor injuries due to the scuffle, but what's being described by this witness indicates it was no major struggle." What more can I possibly do to state that this witness when examined by the show has made statements a former LA DA and a criminal defense attorney make sobering points. Here's another one from the same show, "Well, first of all, Anderson, I want to tell you, it was a great direct examination by you, kudos to you. Second of all, this is precisely why prosecutors cringe. I bet you when you ask Marcia about this, this is a prosecutor's -- or should be a prosecutors' worst nightmare. There is so much fodder in there now for the defense to talk about, if he is indeed arrested, if Zimmerman is arrested, for them to play around with now, I can't even tell you." I cannot really get more specific then the very same show, the same night countering the witnesses statements! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So? Who said the transcript is not relevant? What are you trying to say using this transcript? Word it out. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The witness interviewed by AC360 also states the contradictions and paints this witness as 'this is a prosecutor's -- or should be a prosecutors' worst nightmare!' How more clear can I make it. Even AC360 doubts the credibility and use of this witnesses statements and they did the interview! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Give the quotes where the panel members, and not the witness as you incorrectly wrote, pointed out the discrepancies. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Already did. Under WP:CV I am not copying the whole show for you. A link is enough, a single quote is enough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to copy the whole show. I asked you to quote the places where the panel members are claiming that what the witness says is incorrect so that your point is clarified. So far I don't see a single reference to support it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:19, 11 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 with DocOfSoc. 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)

Alright, fair point. Shadowjams (talk) 20:53, 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)

Fair enough. I saw a lot of, what I interpreted as pure POV statements yesterday from many different editors and it was bothering me. I should have said what I said more tactfully. My point is only that we should check our instinct to editorialize on the subject. But what you say here is true too. Shadowjams (talk) 20:51, 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)

Apparently the website " The Real George Zimmerman" Is authentic. It still should not be included in article. Lawyers have dropped him and he has contacted the DA on his own. And the saga continues... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:27, 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)

I think the idea is good, but I would wait for the reasons given above. Easier to maintain if it is all in one place. -- Avanu (talk) 02:40, 11 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. [43] 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![44] 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)

That's interesting I didn't realize it was the same thing you used in support. Either way, I'm willing to go with whatever is decided, I may be against the 1RR in its current form, but if it provokes an edit war set I'd probably submit the case to arbitration myself. From before 1RR the matter of edit warring wasn't a problem either, so I just have faith it will be true after 1RR. My individual worry on 1RR is my own problem, but rules are rules and if I break it I could be fairly blocked, keeping 1RR and warning for first offenses is a bit of a stretch. Edit warring doesn't need 3RR either which is why Miamimanny who didn't break 1RR still got blocked for warring the same edits that warranted the first block. If 1RR stays in effect it should be as the rule exists, no extra leniency for first timers unless special circumstances warrant it with a warning instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:16, 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)

Ok, I've heard the above and made a request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#1RR_proposal_at_Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. MBisanz ^talk 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Missed this section - fwiw, I am still adamantly in favor of continuing semi-protection, and think 1RR has been working, so have no problem with it continuing. Tvoz/talk 22:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The 1RR seems to work fine and is probably needed till the case drops. I'm more concerned with people this talk page as a forum thread. What can we do about that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

M'Lord Seth, I'd like you to back up that claim with some real examples and if not, then please let it drop. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you ask something that I've already done it a couple of times? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

One idea is semi-protecting the talk page and creating an IP-only talk page for non-logged in editors to comment on. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's people with proper accounts that are turning it into a forum though. Maybe you could point me to a certain arbitration or mod notice section? I always get confused about how to deal with such cases. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably better just to remove or collapse sections by new editors that appear more forum-like than related to improvements to the article. Semi-protecting the talk page is a pretty extreme step that does not appear warranted here. VQuakr (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree that there is no need for protection on this talk page. Re collapsing forum-like discussions, TheDarkLordSeth can point out the ones he's concerned about to MBisanz who can decide if they are forum-like. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to LordSeth's incessant decrying of forum-ness, I went and searched for his explanations of real examples of this being a forum on the previous entries on this page. Maybe we have different definitions of what constitutes "forum", but looking at WP:FORUM for guidance tells me that 99% of what we're doing is dedicated to the purpose of discussing how to improve this article. Just because you don't agree with others' logic in these discussions doesn't mean you get to brand it a forum and shut down debate on an issue. -- Avanu (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can use {{Uw-chat1}}, {{Uw-chat2}}, {{Uw-chat3}}, {{Uw-chat4}}, and {{Uw-socialnetwork}} to counsel someone using this talk page as a forum. Also, anyone can use {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} to hide off-topic or archival text. If anyone objects or is not comfortable doing it themselves, they can find me to review the alleged off-topic content. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, collapsing off-topic or repetitive text here is overdue. It's used effectively at Talk: Barack Obama to keep the talk page focused on article improvement, and to make it easier to navigate around edit requests for the same edit over and over. Good suggestion MBisanz. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 05:49, 11 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)

BTW.... when I was there Saturday, there were kids, I would say 12 and under playing in the parking lot of the elementary school. Riding bikes etc. I thought that was surreal. I still can't fathom that the PD car[45] I saw that day has now been shot up. And yes.... it is the same car, or a car in the same place. Watched the news tonight. I may be wrong but I think that my observations are helpful here on the talk page. Sorry if I self-reflect too much. If you want me to stop, just ask "politely" --Mt6617 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just be careful not to express opinions that aren't useful for improving the article. I think we all are tempted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't have a problem with your last message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the media made up and reported false stories that armed neo-nazis were protesting in Sanford, Florida, is something that definitely deserves mention in the media bias section. Brad 655 (talk) 18:36, 11 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)

No, My Lord, I have the benefit of already having gone through a debate on Wikipedia on the day this guy's statement came out. I still believe in the conclusions that were reached on that day. We have too many 'armchair quarterbacks' in the media tossing in their opinions. If the article needs to be pared down more, so be it, but we have people watching video saying "I DON'T SEE INJURIES, GEORGE IS A LIAR" and then recanting two days later. We are NOT here to be a gossip column, we are here to present a neutral article and a well-researched article. -- Avanu (talk) 18:40, 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)

It is a statement of a witness who closely viewed the body. I would limit it to "no notable marks on Martin's hands, face or body other than the gunshot wound that killed him". I don't think his conclusion "the condition of Martin's body raises questions about Zimmerman's self-defense claim" should be mentioned. It's speculation. Another reasonable conclusion would support Zimmerman's self-defense claim. Also, I believe it should be included because we have discussed the physical condition of Zimmerman (e.g., abrasions, blood, etc.) in several sections as well. Intrepid (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How long did the mortician have the body, what is a reasonable amount of time one should have to examine a body in this case to have a reasonable opinion? What questions did the media ask him? Why did he come forward? How many victims of violent crime has he prepared for burial? etc etc etc We have no idea what sort of weight to give his statement? Is he a super expert or is he just shooting his mouth off? Like many aspects of this case, the media put the cart before the horse and acted irresponsibly. -- Avanu (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable questions. But we've included these statements and similar questions apply: "On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness said that she saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him." "A neighbor reportedly saw the bandages on Zimmerman less than 24 hours after the incident." "ABC later reported that it had 're-digitized' the video, and that this version showed "what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman's head." Intrepid (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

His statement should be included as a civilian, not as any special authority or expertise, therefore his training, time, experience, etc are irrelevant. Aditional to other commentors : because something is difficult to do well does not mean it should not be done. Especially when what makes it difficult is ourselves. He is an impartial witness, with direct access to the body, who made statements about what he saw, directly relevant to the crux of this case, that have been widely reported. I agree his opinions and analysis should not be included, but his raw description of the body should be, just as anyone elses would be. And as stated, we have included similar witness statements regarding how zimmerman's appearance/injuries were after. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And to be fair, anytime we have included anything that was later disputed or clarified, we have always put that in as well. If someone comes along and challenges his observations, that can be included.--Isaidnoway (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted, but of the two interviews we should should not just repeat the main 'no injuries'. HLN pointed out he could also not identify where the gunshot entry and exit point were. [46] While it is a valid statement this is also notable, "Richard Kurtz of Roy Mizell and Kurtz Funeral Home in Fort Lauderdale said there appeared to be a gunshot wound in Martin’s upper chest area, but he received the body after the autopsy was completed so it was difficult to tell whether he had other injuries. He also could not determine the bullet’s entry or exit point." The interview itself is here. [47] Though I do not know where HLN got that comment yet for the above note which aired nationwide. Here is another one from CBS. [48] He states that he did the final dressing and preparation, which would be after embalming. A good portion the interview is his personal opinions. He also states he is not a medical examiner. While it should be included, his own comment about not being a medical examiner should be cited at the least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For a significant story like this, it is amazing what is unknown:

1. When did the family claim the body? 2. When did the funeral director prepare the body? 3. When was the funeral? 4. Was an obituary published and if so where is it?

It appears that the Martin family has selectively parceled out information. It is clear now that almost all of the original version was false, starting with leaving home during NBA half-time. The implication was that he was watching the game with his father when he left. We now know that was false, which makes everything about when he left and where he went pure speculation by the family.

The sad thing is that the media picked up the fake family story and has yet to retract any of it.

Of course, Wiki picks up the false story and reports it as sourced.

Truth, justice and the American way is reserved for Superman.True Observer (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention that Zimmerman is not an astronaut or that Martin is not a super model? Mentioning of Richard Kurtz as not being a medical examiner is quite redundant. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard Kurtz is the second best witness who saw Martin's body under proper lighting. His observations should be noted. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you know he is the second best witness? What is your source for that statement? -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He saw the body under proper lighting close-hand. The best witness to the body would be the guy who made the autopsy. Concerning the signs of a fight or injury on Martin's body Kurtz is the second best witness. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Since that didn't answer my question, I'll try and rephrase. What Reliable Secondary Source do you have that says the mortician is the second-best witness? You are assuming that if you shine a bright light on him that you are automatically a good witness. You've been implying above that some editors show bias in this, and so I'm asking you, other than your own synthesis and assumptions, what source do you have to back up the claim that he is the second best witness, or for that matter, a good witness at all? -- Avanu (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Now, you're just being unreasonable. Get your own vendetta out of this. I never claimed that he was the second best witness as a fact. I simply stated my opinion basing it on reason and logic. Why are you not directing the same questions towards others who questioned the credibility of other witnesses? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How do we know any of the witnesses are credible? How do we know if the cops are telling the truth? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The director did the final dressing after the body was already prepared. He did not prepare the body by his own statement. Giving what people know of embalming and how bruises form articles like this have made a point. [49] (Add note: I don't consider this a RS, but it has a POV which has been pushed by a minority) Isn't the blood drained from the body as well? The interviewee described himself as not being a medical examiner and that his perceptions are not necessary medical observations or fact. The 'dead bodies' don't bruise thing aside, the director could not even identify where Trayvon was shot which is an important point raised by the main stream media. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how long you need the body to be preserved as to whether the blood is drained or not. Generally, for a funeral that is going to be held relatively quick and then the deceased is buried shortly thereafter, you can inject the embalming fluid directly into the bloodstream to achieve preservation long enough for a funeral and burial. Embalming is fairly expensive, sometimes they just store the body in a refrigerated unit, which also would require funeral and burial pretty quick.--Isaidnoway (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So many details are unknown, but thanks for the clarification. Maybe that is why the bruise issue is mentioned. I've since found a source which says the damage is visible under special light even after embalming, but that it getting pretty far from the direct analysis of the reports. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I read about that special light as well. I see no relevance in this guys opinion, but I have no objection to it being included as just that--his opinion.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead bodies don't bruise. Live ones do. Trayvon was alive when he supposedly punched Zimmerman. We can't start using shady sources just because what they say are inconvenient to our POV. The people working a the funeral home wouldn't exactly know where the body was shot as the autopsy would create a huge Y shaped scar and that everything would already be stitched. For someone like a funeral home director who sees dead bodies on a regular basis it shouldn't be hard to spot bruises as he would need to cover them up as well. However, as it's been pointed out more than enough times. This talk page is not a forum thread. All that discussion is completely irrelevant. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The important note by that questionable source is that Trayvon wasn't alive long enough for the bruises to form as he was killed so quickly after the struggle began. Anything about what he would see, should see or would be capable of knowing is speculation and isn't proper for inclusion. We only have what sources go on. Also please stop going on about it being a forum,this is about relevant inclusion of material to the article and is justified. This discussion serves to improve the article and find whether or not the material from sources is a good addition to the article. Other editors should respond with their input on this matter if it is proper in the article, based on that response I might add it myself if others do not, or keep it out. Helps to prevent edit wars. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you prefer to use one speculation against an other? Because your link doesn't provide any facts. It doesn't factor in the strength of the punch, the physical condition of Martin, the time differences between the punch and the stopping of the heart and so on... This is a discussion you created to justify your own POV. The logic or sensibility of a witness statement is not your concern as a Wiki editor. THIS IS NOT A FORUM! Stop treating it like one. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't know why you think debate on inclusion of material is a "forum", but this is a common approach to gaining WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of the policies that we use to work here on Wikipedia. Second, for us to choose to include someone's statement who we KNOW can be perceived as an expert by laypeople without at least discussing it first is silly. Guy examines bodies on a daily basis... HE MUST KNOW STUFF I DON'T, says Joe Public. So if we indiscriminately add his statement, we add a bias that we need to address. Additionally, you said earlier he would be the 'second-best witness', yet such a claim is clearly 'original research', because we have no sources that support that statement. We also don't know how well trained he was for examining these sorts of things and we have no idea what procedures he followed. So we arrive at a problem... do we include information that may bias the reader and then counterbalance that with other information, or do we assume it isn't very biased and leave it to stand alone, or do we simply leave it out? These are fair questions to ask, and I wish you would stop reacting with such emotion when we are trying to really be conscientious and diligent about how this is written. People do turn to Wikipedia for information and so we carry a burden of doing things RIGHT, and the BLP policy is very strict about this. So please relax and just help, OK? -- Avanu (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, inclusion of material is not a forum but refutation of them are. That is what ChrisGualtieri tried to do. He didn't simply brought an article and wanted to add the information in it. He tried to refute a certain witness by trying to glue together a bunch of sources. When I did the same thing for a pro-Zimmerman witness to see how he's gonna react he simply ignored it.

Second, we're not here to spoon feed people. We're here to convey information not to explain it. So, we say that the funeral director said that he didn't see any bruises on Martin's body. Readers are free to read the whole article and find the contradicting findings from different sources themselves. So, yes. We indiscriminately add his statement as long as the source of the statement is reliable which is in this case a voice recording and a video interview.

Third, read what I wrote more carefully. What I pointed out about the funeral director is not relevant to what we need to it and I mentioned those points strictly to show that.

Fourth, don't misrepresent what I said. My reason for voicing my opinion that he is the second best witness when it comes to seeing the body of Trayvon Martin is to point the importance of putting his statement on the article. I never said anything about presenting him as the second best witness in the article or to adjust the way he's depicted in the article based on my opinion which is what ChrisGualtieri tried to do.

Lastly, we're not making a case for a jury. We're not supposed to evaluate and try to refute information that is on the article. We're simply supposed to summarize what available information tells individually. If there is a study or article from a reliable source showing discrepancies on witness accounts or similar issues then that can be added appropriately. But, we can't start adding arguments that we come up with. If that was the case I'd want to completely declare the witness "John" as completely nonreliable as there is no 911 call by him that he claims to make. I found out that myself. That's my own argument that no reliable sources pointed out.

So, no, I'm not reacting emotionally but rather exhaustively. You are carrying a burden to present information accurately and not to evaluate it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented." (WP:About) "Where differing views exist, they are presented objectively, without bias or undue weight." (WP:Wikipedia in brief). We must evaluate sources, it is in fact our duty to evaluate sources. We must present what is gained from a reliable source in an objective, neutral, and unbiased fashion. Not sure why we keep orbiting on this, but you can make a million arguments about why everything in all sources ought to be included, but I think the consensus view will be that it is not appropriate. -- Avanu (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't need to evaluate sources on what they say. Differing views based on sources should be represented, not the differing views of editors. You couldn't be any more wrong. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, it isn't about editor's views, it is about keeping a neutral tone and about avoiding undue material and bias. I think this point might be what keeps getting missed. -- Avanu (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not by me. You guys are trying to introduce an additional level of argumentation to explain the information to the reader. You can't do that if it's your own finding. Undue material and bias is trying to argue against a witness account that you find contradictory. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting pointless though. I want to go back to adding information. I believe every one is fine with adding the statement of the funeral director under witnesses? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, absolutely not. He is not a witness, and is unlikely to ever be called as one. He might have seen the body before burial, but that doesn't make him a reliable 'witness'. While we have been arguing this, I went and did searched on Google about ante-mortem, peri-mortem, and post-mortem bruising and how it is even sometimes difficult for a trained profession to interpret these things, and you want to put an untrained person's statements in as a 'witness'. He belongs in a different section, like I said, most likely media reactions because the media sought out his opinion. But it is irresponsible and biased to include it under witnesses unless you can show sources that give him some kind of medicial expertise that shows he can interpret bruising (or lack thereof). -- Avanu (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone who prepares a body for viewing at a funeral would obviously dress them, fix their hair, apply makeup to cover blemishes and any other wounds/abrasions that may have occured if it was a violent death. They would be expected to present the body in a manner that is suitable for a public viewing. But when this guy says stuff like "it didn't appear to me he was in a scuffle or any kind of fight" or "it just doesn't add up to me", he is clearly offering his opinion on the subject of Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him. This kind of bias does call into question his other statements on the condition of the body when he prepared it.--Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of the witness is completely irrelevant. None of us have the right to make judgment on that. As I said before, he could have claimed that Earth is flat and we wouldn't have the right to make a case against it as we wrote what the guy claimed. It's the "witness accounts" section not the "witness accounts and let's see if they make sense" section. He is an eye witness to the body. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

He shouldn't be defined as a 'witness'. That is the bias. If he is just average joe who's seen a lot of bodies in his time, why would we include his statement? Is he somehow notable? By including that he is a mortician, we add in a bias that he must know stuff, but you have no source that shows that. So either show that Richard Kurtz has medical knowledge here and is a notable source or leave him off as yet another armchair quarterback non-notable person who happened to see Trayvon Martin after death. Can you see why this is a biased addition? -- Avanu (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, he is not a witness. Witness is generally associated with someone who was directly related to a criminal investigation. This guy simply observed the body when it was delivered to his funeral home for preparation for a funeral. He didn't witness anything that was connected to the direct investigation of the shooting.--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is too much misrepresentation going on on your part. Questioning whether to label him as a witness or not is ok. Taking his level of expertise or lack of as a criteria for deciding if he's a witness or not is not ok. He's someone that saw the body of Trayvon Martin. He's a witness to that. Saying that he's a mortician does not introduce bias. If that's his work title then that's a fact. The sources show him to be the funeral director and I've always referred to him as such. There is no bias there. Whether he has medical knowledge or not is not relevant to the issue at all. I don't see why it is a bias addition but I'm starting see a bias in not adding it. He has something say about physical condition of Trayvon Martin after the incident. That makes him a notable witness hence a bunch of news portals wrote articles on him or did interviews with him. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway, that's a reasonable argument. At least you're arguing with the arguments. Where would you see his account fit? It doesn't fit in the media coverage section as that section mostly deals with the nature of coverage. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is also a bit disingenuous to disregard WHY they wanted to talk to him. His title gives an air of authority or expertise. Googling more on bruising, I found that the less fat you have, the less likely you are to bruise. Does the mortician consider things like this? Was he asked? Is he in any way trained to understand all this? We simply don't know. His statement introduces bias, whether you want to admit it or not. The question is, is it an acceptable level of bias? -- Avanu (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There you go. Perfect example of a FORUM post. None of what you is relevant even the tinniest bit. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lord Seth, I'm afraid I don't agree with your idea of what constitutes FORUM then. My comment immediately preceding your last one was very much on topic with debating your inclusion of the material. I didn't talk about my puppies at home or why I like Mac and Cheese, etc. So either produce a real example in line with WP:FORUM... you might actually go read it instead of just invoking it, e.g. "bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles", and since my discussion is entirely focused on the improvement of this article, you need to relax. -- Avanu (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your discussion is not focused on improving the article at all. You question whether his statement is correct and question the motive behind his statement. Two topics which has nothing to do with what he said at all. You're making a case against his reliability as a person instead of focusing on reporting on what he says and who he is. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not doing that. I am focused on WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, which I hope you take seriously as well. Just because you have something doesn't mean you indiscriminately include it. We have only gotten to this point of debating fat content and professional titles because you don't seem to want to acknowledge that some information contains inherent bias. As such, it is our DUTY to review it and add it carefully to our article. The sooner you make that acknowledgement, the sooner we can move on from this and onto better discussions. We've had essentially the same debate each time a new 'shocking' revelation happens. Again, please stop making accusations of 'forum' and start working on the article WITH everyone else. -- Avanu (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

We really don't have a section dealing with these kind of observations. If anything, it would have to be media coverage or aftermath. I don't think it would be completely out of the question to include it in the media coverage of this event, he was interviewed by CBS. My only concern is that his statements don't include his opinion about the shooting. I don't think it would be unreasonable to include a preface that CBS and other's in the media have sought out people to do interviews like this in the aftermath of this incident, maybe that would appease Avanu as well??--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant to the media coverage section. It talks about media screw ups and the nature of the coverage. Nor I see how telling people that the media sought out people to interview is relevant. We even have Zimmerman's brother's opinion on the subject of broken nose... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and Zimmerman's brother is another example of "not a witness". This is all media coverage / aftermath stuff, not stuff with a direct bearing on the event/case. -- Avanu (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to add it then it should be tagged with his own statement that he is not a medical examiner. Perhaps we have it under a statement section as the comments about the broken nose and others are well known and have circulated widely. One or two sentences at most, nothing more to give disproportionate coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Avanu about all these people being touted as witnessess or having something really important to say or what they observed when it has no direct relevance to the case. I saw another post of Avanu's that I agreed with, we really have two stories going on here and that is the case and the aftermath this case has created. Maybe it's time to start lumping these "other people" into the aftermath section and acknowledge the fact that this is a story in it's own right and that the media had a role in creating it.--Isaidnoway (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, the media circus is self-sustaining with these kinds of irrelevant to case, but puffed up as otherwise key information by the news. We have plenty of these errors which still shape public opinion despite it being opinion or speculation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of context missing from the funeral director's statement and observation that without, it is hard to know how to treat it. I am having trouble finding a source that says when Trayvon Martin was at the funeral home. This is important because the initial media dialog about the death was that Trayvon Martin was shot unprovoked. If Martin was at the funeral home before George Zimmerman's claims of being attacked first came out, I doubt that a funeral director, who was not part of the investigation, would look very carefully for offensive wounds on the hands. He would simply be trying to recall something that he did not pay specific attention to at the time. However, if it was after Zimmerman's claims of being attacked hit the news, I would imagine the funeral director would look more carefully out of his own curiosity. Until more is known about the context of the funeral director's contact with Martin, I think the statement should be set aside. Zetrock (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point, the earliest article I could find was from March 12th, where it states the funeral took place one week ago. That would make it around the 5th. The parents didn't make their first national appearance until March 8th, and the story didn't really take off until around the 12th. It was after that it was reported in the national media about Martin attacking Zimmerman. However, in an article from reuters, Tracy Martin admitted that on Wednesday, the day after receiving the news about his sons death, the police told him then that Trayvon had attacked Zimmerman. "Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him". So, Tracy Martin knew within days of the shooting and there is no way of knowing who he told at that time.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Request edit 4/10/12

The statement "While in custody at the police station, Zimmerman was not administered a drug or alcohol test." is not pertinent as Zimmerman was not placed under arrest so he was not required to submit to a drug or an alcohol test. "Except for DUIs, police cannot test suspects for drugs or alcohol, unless the accused demands or consents to it, or they get a warrant". Source: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2012/mar/20/trayvon-martin-case-and-legal-experts/ 68.3.103.157 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

At the very least, it should be included to balance out that statement. I wondered how long it was going to be before someone else realized that and reported on it. That statement does imply that the police were incompetent and ABC reported it under that guise. Zimmerman was never formally arrested or charged, so all the PD could do was "request" the test, which we will probably find out they did.--Isaidnoway (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but is there possibly a better source? The blog is not the Washington Times piece it is an opinion post on the communities section. Also he glances over the alleged word entirely for the racial epithet part. Other issues abound. A better source for the statement noting how it applies to Zimmerman would be ideal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is not the best source, I have actually been searching since ABC first put that statement out, to me it was just so glaringly obvious, I couldn't believe that nobody in the media didn't catch it either. I will keep searching.--Isaidnoway (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• The only RS I could find was this one. It quotes the Washington Times article, incidentally the author of that article is a retired Chicago police forensic investigator.--Isaidnoway (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In support of my argument to include his statement; WP:IRS Reliable sources may be...authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject [alcohol/drug testing/legality]. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...".

I would argue that a former Police Forensic Investigator would be knowledgeable about the legalities concerning administering alcohol/drug testing to a person who has not been formally arrested or charged.

In my searching, I also found this source quoting Sgt. Morgenstern from the SPD stating Zimmerman's clothes were recovered the night of the shooting.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Request edit 4/10/12

The statement "The lead homicide investigator reportedly said he did not believe it was self-defense" should be removed. There is no original source for this just a heavily biased MSNBC article that quotes Trayvon's mother. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Did the investigator made any statements refuting what Cheryl Brown says? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "just a heavily biased MSNBC article". Multiple sources document that the lead homicide detective wanted to arrest and charge Zimmerman, but was overruled by the state's attorney. They include: Washington Post, Telegraph, TIME, Miami Herald, UPI, ABC News, etc.

And they don't just quote Martin's mother. These sources quote the homicide detective, Chris Serino, who said he "was not at liberty to discuss the case, but felt encouraged by the new investigation into the shooting, and he was 'looking forward to the truth coming out.'" ([50]) MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, ABC, Washington Post and Reuters are all referenced as cites at the very end of that sentence, MSNBC is not the only reference listed to qualify that statement.--Isaidnoway (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am mixed on this one. It is very widely reported, however, I believe this is one of the things raised in the letter from MArtin's family, and which was responded to as false by the chief. I am concerned that the many sources are just repeating the mother's claim. I think we should keep it for now, but should really try and research where this claim ultimately comes from. We may need to adjust the statement to be "(The mother) has claimed that Soreno...." or some such. As far as I know there are no sources that claim to know this from a discussion with the police, or prosecutors, or soreno, or seeing the afadavit, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the sources I linked above. This statement is directly attributed to Serino, not to any member of the Martin family. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think those sources are as solid as you think. WP = "According to ABC". Telegraph = "According to Miami Herald", Time = Miami Herald. UPI = ABC, ABC = "multiple sources, state attorney no comment", Miami Herald = special prosecutor. So only Miami Herald actually sourced it to a named source. That may be enough, for reliability, but dont make the case that all those sources make it more reliable when they are just repeating each other. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the Miami Herald one it puts the claim quite well, but playing telephone seems to have left out the majority of the important claims regarding a synthesis by other reliable sources pointing to the Herald. "A Sanford Police incident report shows the case was categorized as “homicide/negligent manslaughter.”" and "Asked to confirm that the police recommended a manslaughter charge, special prosecutor Angela Corey said: “I don’t know about that, but as far as the process I can tell you that the police went to the state attorney with a capias request, meaning: ‘We’re through with our investigation and here it is for you.’ The state attorney impaneled a grand jury, but before anything else could be done, the governor stepped in and asked us to pick it up in mid-stream.”" Interesting, while it is taken up by the Martin family, no official comment asserting that fact has ever been made in those words. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

ABC News is considered a reliable source by this site's standards: "The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News... Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events."

The Telegraph is a reliable soruce by this site's standards: "Serino separately told MSNBC that he was not at liberty to discuss the case, but felt encouraged by the new investigation into the shooting, and he was 'looking forward to the truth coming out.'"

You need to explain why these otherwise reliable sources are suddenly unacceptable to you in this particular case. And note that anonymous sources are commonly used by reliable sources in reporting on these sorts of highly charged topics, going back at least as far as Woodward, Bernstein, and Deep Throat, and their use does not in any way suggest some sort of journalistic impropriety here. MastCell ^Talk 00:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misinterpret me MastCell, I am not saying the information should not be included, merely that we should accurately attribute it. I agree all of the above sources are reliable in general. However, the ones that are quoting each other are not lending any weight to the ones doing the original reporting. I am not sure that we should use the telegarph saying "abc said serino said". We should find the original ABC sources and use that. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've presented the original ABC source twice above, but here it is again: [51]. MastCell ^Talk 02:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gaijin. Though we cannot confirm what those sources to ABC it doesn't make them unreliable. I like the Miami Herald one as it identifies Corey as the source of forcomment and gives that specific quote on a specific matter where the ABC one said it was "no comment". The Miami Herald having directly spoken and received comment from Corey is the best representation of the events from the person in charge of the matter. The ABC source may be different, but the Miami Herald makes a specific quote by Corey and that she could not confirm it, but noted that a request for charges was made and that a primary source of the police report is for “homicide/negligent manslaughter.” Just being prudent not to merge the two statements as one. For example I'd use ABC's statement and back it up with the Herald confirming the police report labeling and a capias request. It would make for a stronger claim backed by separate sources in separate news agencies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2012

The statement of "...when Zimmerman began following him..." The dispatcher suggested he no longer follow him and Zimmerman agreed. Zimmerman shortly thereafter said he did not know where he was so he could not have been following him. Source: Zimmerman's 911 call. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

 Not done The conversation still occurred and Zimmerman was following him, even if he doesn't know where Martin went Zimmerman still had been following Martin. I fixed the first space on your request to fix the format. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Press conference

Press conference with Zimmerman's attorneys; Attorney's withdrawing as counsel due to no contact with them.--Isaidnoway (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin: Zimmerman attorneys withdraw, say they've lost contact with him: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-press-conference-20120410,0,6584708.story Intrepid (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Live Now: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-press-conference-041012,0,1667835.htmlstory Intrepid (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's already in the article in two places - under the subsection "George Zimmerman" and "George Zimmerman's attorneys", with a different citation. Should look at these sources and see if they add anything - thanks for posting them. Tvoz/talk 21:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Big development. PTSD comment from Uhrig cannot be proven medically, but Zimmerman's actions were unique and we will know soon about Zimmerman's actions. Corey also declined to speak to Zimmerman without counsel. That is important too. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed... it is a big development, and also shows the "personality" of Zimmerman. I "maybe" think, that it should "possibly" be included... and featured. How's that for crabbing! Seriously, being in the industry, I am confused over what he is doing. For the entertainment of just round-tabling, Zimmerman does not appear racist, but one arrogant individual. Sounds somewhat spoiled. Regardless, I would remove myself too if I was his attorney... I would run! Wow, what reckless behavior! And Chris is right, that Corey's office shut him down IS important! Just my 2 pence worth! --Mt6617 (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

PTSD etc Absolutely not to be included. His lawyers have never met him, and have no medical experience to diagnose anything. Zimmerman doing stupid things like talking without counsel may be important in the future, if he ends up saying something that fucks him, but until then I don't think its important enough Gaijin42 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Gijin, I see what you are saying. You are right... another let's wait and see where it goes. Thank you. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Teacher Fired

A Teacher was fired from what appears to be a private school for "possibly" encouraging students to raise funds for the Martin Family.[52] This is bound to come up here, so I thought I would go ahead and bring it to light. This is another case of "we don't know what happened", and possibly another case of "media excitement". First thoughts are that it may be good under the "Aftermath" section, but my opinion is we should leave it out till more facts come out. My 2 pence worth! What do you all think? --Mt6617 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how many "facts come out", this is not relevant for this article at all (Perhaps in a "Public response to the shooting of Trayvon Martin" article). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant. Although some may try to make something of it, it appears from the sources that she was fired for violating general rules that have are not specific to this case, namely encouraging activism in her students. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the aftermath section (e.g. Spike Lee's tweet), I think it is relevant and comes from a good source (Associated Press), but for now it seems relatively insignificant. However, if it grows sufficiently in importance to become significant, then it should be included. Let's wait for now and see what happens. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be relevant to the "aftermath" or to a separate article if things get to that point, but as with most of the things in this case, let's wait and see. -- Avanu (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• CBS News, Fox News, USA Today and a local Florida station have all picked this story up.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Investigation of the death of Trayvon Martin to this article

Template:Merge discussion As a content fork, this seems unnecessary. Length issues at Shooting of Trayvon Martin should be solved editorially; I think multiple encyclopedia articles on this topic is premature at best. More significantly, having multiple overlapping articles amplifies the WP:BLP problems and the overall difficulty of maintaining neutrality for such a contentious topic. For these reasons I propose that Investigation of the death of Trayvon Martin be merged into this article. VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - 100% agree that a merge is needd. I do think we might need a split at some point, but I also think that needs to be something arrived at by consensus here, since this is the primary article. -- Avanu (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support I was not aware this existed. It has some good points, but it should be merged to this one article. Improper to have two articles at this time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Right now we have no way to tell if the investigation will even be newsworthy in 10 years time. At this point in time that article should be merged with this one. Redredryder (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as child, rename? The SPD investigation has a much narrower focus. We need a a section/child just on the original SPD investigation prior Mar 22. May retitle initial investigation to make scope clear clear. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support One article. Things are about to change dramatically when the state attorney announces her decision, hopefully with a detailed rationale. I predict this will happen within 3 weeks. Intrepid (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support May require some sort of Timeline subarticle at some point, but for now it should be limited to one article to avoid the addition of too much superfluous information. ~Ttony21^{(talk, contribs)} 13:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support One article, where readers can reference all the comprehensive coverage related to all the aspects of both the case and the aftermath of the case.--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Too much duplication. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Too early to have separate articles. --Mt6617 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support No need to have two separate articles. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support I was not aware this was created despite consistent agreement to stick to one article at this point. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Well duh.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Only one article is needed. Dreammaker182 (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support No need for two articles on same subject. Recommend consensus be reached and discussed on main page before opening new forks. This will be helped by a project page. --soulscanner (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support No need for a second article. I agree with Soulscanner's and ChrisGualtieri's arguments. ArishiaNishi (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Merge advantageous per WP:SUMMARY and for avoidance of content forking. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is in the news now, but I really doubt it will have the sort of long-term notability required to justify two separate articles, which just makes finding relevant information more difficult anyway. --JonathonSimister (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Tally: 16 support merge, 1 oppose merge. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Readability

I just want to encourage people to revisit Wikipedia:Summary style. Readability suffers without it. IT might be time to start thinking designating a child article for the political aspect, which is of course summarized in the body of his main article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think that this article has matured to the point that any sort of split is a good idea. The proposed split title, Politics and the Trayvon Martin case, strikes me as very challenging from a WP:NPOV standpoint for a current event such as this, though not inherently non-neutral. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I got to this section via the tag on the article suggesting a new article "politics and the Trayvon Martin case." I disagree that politics is a major dimension in this case, and certainly not substantive enough for its own article. What would be the content of such an article? -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Stevertigo that politics is not significant in this case and would not support a whole article. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 23:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Zen and the art of Article Superstructure

There are three overlapping "stories" here so far:

1. The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident itself. What happened, who saw what, etc.
2. The Sanford Police handling of the case. How did they investigate, how did they reach their decision, etc.
3. The "National Conversation" about the case. Trayvon/Zimmerman as a political issue, protests, media coverage, ALEC, NRA, New Black Panthers, etc.

That's what my eye sees, do others see otherwise? :) . --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I see one story with several aspects to it. :-) These three topics you mention are all closely interrelated; spinning out new articles (if that is what you are suggesting) would be a mistake in my opinion, creating potential for content forking, unnecessary duplication of information, and reader confusion as to where to find information about the case. Fletcher (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I see one event with two stories about that event. Your first two examples are actually intertwined because they both are directly related to the case itself. The third example, the national dialogue was created because of the events that flowed out of the case. I think it is also fair (actually more than fair) to say that the media had a hand in creating both of these stories, more so with the national dialogue, because of their inherent desire to boost their ratings, even if it includes interviewing the dog who pissed on the fire-hydrant outside the gated-community where this took place. Having said that, I think it is important that readers be able to reference both the case and the aftermath of the case in one place.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Every good story has 7 parts: setting, characters, action, dialogue, a crisis point, a resolution and a moral. The crisis sometimes happens at the end, but modern police dramas put the crisis at the beginning, with the action building to a resolution. We are in the middle of act 2: so far this article has a setting, a crisis point, characters, and lots of dialogue and action. The second crisis point comes when Zimmerman is arested & tried (or not). The resolution is probably months away, and there may never be a single moral or lesson. Our job on this page is to stay up with the action and not write the conclusion before it happens.--DeknMike (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR continued

After a discussion at WP:AN#1RR_proposal_at_Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin, 1RR has been extended through June 15, with the addition of a requirement to warn a violator to self-revert before blocking them. As usual, feel free to find me or report to another administrator if you notice a violation. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 16:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Anonymous eyewitness on AC360

Making a new section for this as the discussion is long winded to the point that I do not expect other editors to wade through it. Currently the section on the AC360 witness is paraphrased with non-neutrality and I seek to correct this. For records the witness has been cited as making two interviews on AC360. March 29th and April 6th. Transcripts for March 29th. [53] Transcripts for April 6th. [54] While issue of gender has been brought up, AC360 never attributed gender on John King it does mention 'he' as shown in this transcript [55] This coupled with the voice as identify as male on transcripts and other media account for the 'she and he' gender differences. Moving right along, I think it is fair that AC360s critical analysis of the witness, highlighting a specific point would be a fair reflection. Clark, a former prosecutor made this observation "...the fact that George Zimmerman stood up, walked away with no apparent difficulty, no apparent bleeding seems to fly in the face of the indications in the police report that he was -- that he said his nose was broken, his head was beaten in. Yes, there may have been some minor injuries due to the scuffle, but what's being described by this witness indicates that it was no major struggle." This also deals with the witnesses repeated claims of 'pops' and even restating after clarification 'shots' as reported in other media. These statements are run in hundreds of papers in news articles nationally. We have a duty properly reflect the witnesses statements as analyzed by them. [56] 'An anonymous witness saw two men on top of each other on the ground, heard yelling and then two loud pops the night George Zimmerman shot teenager Trayvon Martin, the person told CNN's Anderson Cooper Thursday night.' and 'The person saw no blood.' Gothamist. [57] Even without the issue of the 'shots' being disproved the 'no blood' claims are in many papers. Here's another.[58] The major statement of 'no blood' goes with the video of Zimmerman at the police station the day before, even though in the time since its release the enhancement shows otherwise with the police reports. The statement is questioned directly by AC360 and one describes this interview as "...this is a prosecutor's -- or should be a prosecutors' worst nightmare. There is so much fodder in there now for the defense to talk about, if he is indeed arrested, if Zimmerman is arrested, for them to play around with now, I can't even tell you. I mean I can -- you could spend 45 minutes with this witness and use it to your advantage if you're defending Zimmerman." from Mark Geragos on AC360 that night. All I ask is that the valid concerns raised with the witness statements be summarized in brief like this: 'Due to the the witness's statements which contradict police reports the interview was described as 'a prosecutor's -- or should be a prosecutors' worst nightmare' from Mark Geragos on AC360.' The April 7th interview yields other important pieces of her assertion that on police. Which was examined by Zimmerman's 'legal advisors/attorneys' Sonner and Uhrig.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A constructive way for you to help us understand your point is for you to provide an example of how you wanna see that whole portion of the witness section. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I added your gender difference concern. The reason I didn't add it the first time was because I was not sure about the wording and didn't receive any suggestions whatsoever. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let's distinguish between concerns raised in reliable independent sources and concerns raised by individual Wikipedia editors. The former potentially belong in the article. The latter do not. We seem to be constantly blurring the line between the two, though. It's not good enough to cherry-pick details from a reliable source and put them together to editorially support a personal viewpoint (see WP:SYN); the sources have to specifically draw the conclusions in question. We're supposed to accurately reflect the content of reliable sources, not use them as scaffolding for our personal narratives.

Secondly, it's a bit dicey to "blame" the witnesses for contradicting the police report, and to insinuate that this discrepancy undermines the witness' credibility. Some witnesses have indicated that the police "corrected" the witness' original statements or prompted them to give specific descriptions. Presumably, if we take on the role of editorially casting doubt on the credibility of these accounts, we should present both sides... again assuming that reliable independent sources actually make these points. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with the show which ran the interview itself stating in its own discussion the issues with this witness's statements? If we are going to argue about sources, the same source which released the interview and discussed it seems fair to make an actual comment upon it. As the the justification of that comment it is supported by experts. WP:BLPPRIMARY states we should use reliable secondary sources, this passes the three part test and directly relating to the statement. While the statement is primary, neutral discussion on this point is lacking as the clear counter to the blood claim is currently not evenly at all argued by the opposing side which makes valid and substantial points within this article. Independent analysis (not my analysis) from a reliable source representing a significant viewpoint is required for neutrality. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is neutrality? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking because I'm trying to understand how putting the statement of a witness in a section with the purpose of doing just that becomes non-neutral. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Though it is clearly the entirety of WP:BALANCE. The statement is not even following WP:PRIMARY and is paraphrased to improperly push a singular POV. Issues concerning the matter fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY. Which is why correctly attributing it is important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything inaccurate about the way witness statement is paraphrased? NPOV doesn't mean we need to ignore facts or try to counter them to make an article neutral. If we did the article would look like a garbage bin. You're also looking at the WP:BLPPRIMARY incorrectly. We're not making factual statements about the case and then support it with what the witness says. We're making factual statements about what the witness says. I think you're missing that point big time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Prosecutor: News conference to be held in Trayvon Martin case within next few days

On the local evening news they reported that the Prosecutor handling the Trayvon Martin case would have a news conference in the next 72 hours. Last night they reported that she would have a decision whether to prosecute Zimmerman then. This article[59] does not appear to imply a decision will be announced. So we wait and see. Sure hope she does not do it on Friday the 13th! Again, I am sure this will come up, but I do not think it is worthy of inclusion right now. Obviously whatever the result of the news conference is will be.--Mt6617 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it will be an important update to the case. Under WP:CRYSTALBALL we should not allude to future events with a timetable or hasn't happened. Remember the Grand Jury which never happened, this interview too could change time table or not happen, even if it is likely, let's not report it before it takes place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman's attorneys

Should we just take a wait and see approach on this section. They did announce they were no longer representing him. Ex-attorneys, Former-attorneys...or leave as is for now. I think we should take a wait and see approach, or at least wait until Corey makes her announcement.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I just made a small grammar change from a time-sensitive part. There is one remaining time-sensitive part to eventually fix ("He has an office"). Otherwise the section is now not time-sensitive and their withdrawal from the case is properly taken into account, so I suggest leaving it as is. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember reports showing that they were never Zimmerman's attorney's to begin with. Zimmerman also supposedly declared that they are merely counseling him. Anyone has an article on that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

it's on page 2 of http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/zimmermans-ex-attorneys-say-former-client-in-trayvon-martin-case-is-stressed-and-isolated/2012/04/11/gIQA2m5s9S_story_1.html --DeknMike (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fox and other reports state that they cannot legally represent someone who is not in touch with them. [60] This is why the discrepancy exists, they claim to be his lawyers, but Zimmerman has never met with them and that brings up the legal perspective of it. Same for Corey if she questioned him without counsel, which she didn't according to statements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe we should consider doing something with his former lawyers and identifying his new one, he's already gave a press conference, and I'm sure that we'll be seing more of him in the coming days.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post reports Zimmerman will be arrested

"Florida special prosecutor plans to announce as early as this afternoon that she is charging George Zimmerman in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ --Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

CNN reporting Angela Corey press conference at approx. 7:30 pm EST.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Washington Post Reporting 6:00 pm EST today. Intrepid (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

When the statement is made it will be made, let's wait till after confirmation before inserting it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/11/attorneys-for-george-zimmerman-whos-at-center-trayvon-martin-shooting-case-say/ +

NBC: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/11/11144255-nbc-george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-case?lite

USAToday (AP): http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/04/report-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-case/1?csp=breakingnews Intrepid (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fox news quotes Washington time, it is a mirroring and not an independent statement they reported. NBC claims the same thing as the Washington Post but does not confirm, but seems to independently verify it with amazingly quick timing. Though this is interesting from the ABC one, "But because Angela Corey, the special prosecutor appointed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott to re-examine the case, previously announced that she wouldn't take the case to a grand jury, first-degree murder is not an option." I still advise against not rushing everything into the article the moment word gets out, but if this is true it may warrant (based on the charges) why that specific and often called for charge cannot be made. Pending confirmation from other sources and legal experts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Great timing. Even she wants her 15 minutes in the spot light.True Observer (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously we have no idea what she is going to say, so it is a must that we wait this out.--Isaidnoway (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

We could report that an announcement is expected, but I think we need to remember wiki is an encyclopedia not a newspaper and I agree we should wait for the official announcement. Intrepid (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, does not need to be included yet. Especially since we are 2 hours from hopefully the entire story. It does not even say what she plans on charging him with. --Mt6617 (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman has turned himself in to law enforcement and is in custody in Florida, according to CNN legal analyst Mark Nejame. Zimmerman also has a new attorney, Mark O'Mara, according to Nejame.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/11/prosecutor-to-announce-decision-on-zimmerman/?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.markomaralaw.com/Attorney-Profile/Mark-M-O-mara.shtml?tw_p=twt

--Isaidnoway (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

False media reports of armed neo-nazis in Sanford, Florida.

The fact that the media would manufacture and report false information about armed neo-Nazis in Sanford, Florida, is something that should be mentioned in the media bias section of this article. Sources:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2012/04/08/ny-daily-news-other-sites-publish-false-neo-nazis-patrolling-sanford-st

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/regret-the-error/169445/media-repeat-but-dont-check-claims-of-armed-neo-nazis-where-trayvon-martin-was-killed/

Brad 655 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned that previously is still being repeated even with ABC asserting they are patrolling Sanford when the real statement was avoided almost entirely. Does anyone object to moving this segment up to the other one and collapsing as it has been discussed before? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Do it and there are couple of others that could use collapsing as well.--Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No objection here, in fact I think it is a good move. --Mt6617 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point I know I sound like a broken record, but Newsbusters is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Poynter is fine. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's debatable, especially given how many different times the so-called "reliable" sources have been wrong in this incident (such as ABC's false claim that the video showed there was no bruising, and NBC's editing of the 911 recording to make it look like Zimmerman, and not the 911 dispatcher, was the first one to raise the issue of Martin's race). In cases like this, it's the "fringe" media, such as Newsbusters, that is being truly reliable. Brad 655 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This article from the New York Times reports that Newsbusters was the first source to point out that NBC has edited the 911 tape. So, according to the New York Times, at least in this one case, Newsbusters is a more reliable source than NBC: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/ Brad 655 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This opinion piece, while itself not a reliable source, contains links to many reliable sources showing many different examples of how the media has changed its story on quite a few things regarding this incident:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-i-called-george-zimmerman-a-murderer-and-why-i-was-wrong/?singlepage=true

Brad 655 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Reports of Crying For Help

In the 'Phone Recordings' section of the main article, it reads "Zimmerman told police at the scene that he had cried out for help." The source links to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/justice-department-investigation-is-sought-in-florida-teenagers-shooting-death.html

No mention of what is written on the main page can be found in this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.49.46 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for reporting the error. Source Corrected. Intrepid (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's Arrest

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was arrested and faces a charge of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press Wednesday, April 11, 2012 The official with knowledge of the case says that the charge against George Zimmerman was announced at a news conference by special prosecutor Angela Corey at 6 p.m. EDT. The official says the 28-year-old Sanford man is in custody in Florida but wouldn't say where. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Corey is a prosecutor, not a judge. Also, please remember the talk pages are for discussion about the article, not to debate the subject of the article.Fletcher (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Removed comment per: "This is not a forum for general discussion of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. Any such comments may be removed or refactored." — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too harsh. I just wonder what evidence she has that leads her to believe that George Z's act was "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent". --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Evil Intent" thing is somewhat misleading. Based on my quick research of Florida law, Manslaughter is doing something stupid without considering if it may kill someone. 2nd degree murder is intentionally doing something you know might kill them. So shooting certainly qualifies under that distinction. 1st degree requires the actual intent to kill.

The key word there is intentionally. That is a hard element to prove.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think its going to be easy to prove he intentionally pulled the trigger. He probably already said so to the police. prima facie, he did it. The question is will he successfully be able to claim self defense. showing he wasn't reasonably in fear of death/injury is the thing that is going to be hard to prove. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that he pulled the trigger, they have to prove his 'state of mind' when he pulled it. That's what intent means in a murder charge, and if he asks for an evidentiary hearing on self-defense, he'll have a better chance of proving it in the hearing than he would in the trial, different burden of proof for the evidentiary hearing, less stringent.--Isaidnoway (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a place to debate what or why she charged him with one charge vs another. The FACT is that he has been charged, and arrested for Murder in the 2nd Degree. --Mt6617 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I think a discussion is important so that editors understand the law in Florida as it applies to this case. This is going to come up in the future as we publish new developments. Intrepid (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I decided to pull the relevant statutes real quick and put them in one spot. Murder 2 in FL is intentional or reckless but does not have to be premeditated or with malice. Depending on whether Zimmerman is found to be the aggressor or not, there are two different self defense statutes. If he is an aggressor, Z will have to show that he either was unable to retreat or that he made every reasonable effort to retreat before using deadly force. If Martin is the aggressor, than the self defense claim does not necessitate that Z retreated. FS 782.04(2) - Murder

"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

FS 776.012 - Use of force in defense of person

"A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony..."

FS 776.041 - Use of force by aggressor

"The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

--Zetrock (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zetrock.

And here is the "Stand Your Ground Law":

§ 776.013(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

§ 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Intrepid (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Another aspect of this case that editor's may be interested in is that: Judges [the trial judge] is required to make a determination whenever a defendant files a motion to dismiss when they are relying on the Stand Your Ground statute, this determination is made prior to the trial taking place. If the judge grants a motion to dismiss, the defendant goes free. If the motion is denied, the mere filing of the motion will preserve it for any appeal in the future, and it does not exclude the defendant from still asserting self-defense at the trial.

At the hearing the burden of proof lies with the defendant, not the prosecution. The defendant must demonstrate by a preponderane of the evidence of their qualifications for immunity under the statute. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of the evidence. Therefore, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnessess with hazy testimony. The trial judge may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.

Preponderance of the evidence has a lower threshold than beyond a reasonable doubt. This ruling comes from the Fifth District Court of Appeals of Florida, 2008 (governing Sanford, Florida) and the Florida Supreme Court, 2010.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Point Isaidnoway. See § 776.032 above. Intrepid (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

When I was researching about a week or so ago, I never thought to read up on 2nd. degree, I just assumed....anyway, I'm glad to see all of this info posted in one place.--Isaidnoway (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not an RS, but a blog discussion the pre-trial immunity self defense, vs pleading self defense at trial. Links to WP:PRIMARY Miami court opinion of ongoing self defense case where judge denied immunity motion pre-trial because defendant did not meet preponderance of the evidence, but talks about the standard being different at trial. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/12/194725/132 Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A Proposal... please read and comment

Obviously today's events changes many things. The debate about the term "victim". Is George Zimmerman just a "shooter" now? etc, etc, etc. It would seem to me that the article may need some revisions, as he is no longer a "participant" but now charged with the crime of murder 2nd.

Here is my proposal... So that the article remains accurate, readable, and makes sense, we propose what changes should be made here on the talk page, and allow MBisanz to "construct" the article. If MBisanz is too busy or occupied, another administrator(s) could assist. I am new, but am in fear of seeing an article explode into a debate. --Mt6617 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, at this point Zimmerman is officially "The accused", "the defendant", etc at least, but I think anything beyond that will need to wait until resolution of the trial. So far I do not think we need to go into full protection mode (which is what your suggestion essentially is). Now that charges have been made, a lot of speculation/personal opinion is no longer relevant, as there are official terms and processes which can be used to label things. However, we do certainly need to keep in mind innocent until proven guilty. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Until the court case is finalized we won't know for a fact if Zimmerman is guilty or not. Anyone know how the court will label Zimmerman and Trayvon throughout the process? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman is a defendant now that he has been arrested and charged. The court will call Trayvon victim, deceased, and during the trial, the prosecutor will call him by his first name.--Isaidnoway (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The current use of shooter and deceased works fine I guess. I can't think of any word that does justice to both. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

True, they both are factually acurate, but you can probably expect a discussion at some point.--Isaidnoway (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

the alleged perpetrator; the accused; the shooter; the alleged assailant; all are used during trials --soulscanner (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Alleged perpetrator would not be used, as it is not an allegation that he did it, he did do it, its just a matter of if he was justified or not. I do not know if they would use perpetrator in this case tho, as that does somewhat diminish presumption of innocense. On the other hand, prosecutors are working from the assumption of guilt, so they might even call him full on murderer etc as a method of trying to convince the jury. We should certainly not use that though, and should probably stick to the terms used by the court itself, and not the prosecution/defense. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, an administrator in MBisanz's position would not be involved in forming the content of the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Right-o. I don't want to edit the content and haven't actually read the article in weeks. Also, I'm not the best writer, so asking me to form the article would be a bad idea. Further, the edit velocity (93 edits in the last 24 hours), does not seem so high or disorganized as to warrant a full lockdown of the article. Please let me know though if anyone sees edit-warring. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay... thanks, and my apologies to everyone. Like I said, I'm new. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Documents

• http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/angela.corey.speech.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/66rCEmQfT
• http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/zimmerman.charges.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/66rCDb6WN

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

NBC said The Today Show edited the 911 tape to save time. But that doesn't explain why the print version was also edited.

NBC's "error" seems to be much worse than what NBC's explanation has been: Source: http://www.lesjones.com/2012/04/07/nbc-fires-editor-for-altering-zimmerman-911-call-when-will-msnbc-fire-the-writer-who-did-the-same/ Brad 655 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why we have to be careful with some so-called "reliable sources".--JOJ ^Hutton 01:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It means we have to take into account updates, and try to look at as many documents as possible so we can find contradictions or clarifications. I did research on a book, and I found that the book reviews mention areas which the reviewers believed may be murky WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

NBC Miami claims they were sent only the modified audio, and that is what they built their text from. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again :(

Similar or not?[61] I am sure it is going to come up here at some point, so we may as well start figuring it out.--Mt6617 (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Incredible. Certainly similar. Summary: In Phoenix, a man shot and killed a mentally disabled man at a Taco Bell when he thought he was being threatened with a pipe. The pipe was not found and it was reported that he was only threatened with a fist and a dog leash attached to a yellow lab. The shooter has not been arrested yet per Arizona's Stand Your Ground Law. Intrepid (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually followed this link, and appreciate the info, but this isn't supposed to be a forum for similar topics.--soulscanner (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, from WP:NOR.

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Since the source does not mention the Trayvon Martin case, it is not directly related to the topic of this Wikipedia article. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask for it to be incldued in the article, in fact I don't think it should. I brought it up because it is similar, someone is going to try and make a court case about here on the talk page, and we can be prepared for that when it occurs. Simple at that. --Mt6617 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

zimmerman flyers

Here appear to be copies of the flyers used by zimmerman during the Ware case. These are likely from that same anonymous source that sent the letter to the DOJ. . Probably not reliable for inclusion referencing/backing anything, but might be worthy of an external link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/87840105/Zimmerman-Letter-to-Sanford-Churches Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good find, here is a link to the Sanford City Commission and their agendas and minutes of their meetings. The only meetings in January, 2011 were on the 3rd, 10th. and 24th. So this must have been a special meeting called.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/right/audio-citycommission.html --Isaidnoway (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the info, but this isn't the place to discuss it. --soulscanner (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Soulscanner, what's your point... if it is some cry of WP:FORUM, please move on. They are attempting to determine reliability of a source that says Zimmerman handed out these flyers supporting a man who had been attacked by a Sanford police officer's son. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. This belongs in the section above. Feel free to remove the above post. --soulscanner (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture caption — east entrance (dubious)

The picture in the section Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Zimmerman.27s_role_in_the_neighborhood_watch looks like the north entrance, not the east entrance. The north entrance is at the bottom of the Retreat at Twin Lakes as pictured in the Aerial view of points of interest. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I took the photo, and you are correct, it is the North Entrance. --Mt6617 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mt6617 and BobK. I'm the culprit that changed it to East entrance, for the following reasons: when I look at the aerial view of the complex, I see a small black line across the east entrance (which to me indicates a physical gate) which I don't see when I look at the north entrance. Also, I remember reading that even though it's called a gated community, the "gates" at the main (presumably the north) entrance are "electronic". I'd appreciate your comments. Do both entrances have black metal gates, then? --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. My apologies. I took a closer look and can see the gates open at the north entrance (in the Google sidewalk view). Sorry for the disruption! --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

phone call

Has the phone call between Trayvon and his girlfriend been released? If not, is there any possibility that it will be released?129.2.129.220 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Their conversation was made in a private call. Hence, unless the CIA has been investigating Trayvon Martin or his girlfriend the phone was never recorded. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

New Zimmerman Photo

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zimmerman,_George_-_Seminole_County_Mug.jpg

-- Avanu (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of this photo to the article per WP:MUG. Zimmerman has not been convicted of a crime, so use of a mugshot photo when other headshots are available is not neutral. VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)VQuakr just removed the above image, citing WP:MUG. My feeling is that this really doesn't look like a mug shot. Reading WP:MUG, it refers to putting someone in a false or disparaging light. How does this photo do that? He isn't wearing orange, like the widely used photo in the media. He's simply wearing a plain type shirt. Also, it doesn't make him look like he's smiling in our alternative photo, where he kind of appears to be gleeful about shooting someone. This photo has a neutral tone to it, and although it is a booking photo, I don't see that it appears to be overly biased as an image itself. -- Avanu (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point that this specific photo does not bear many of the common "looks like a mugshot" traits. It certainly is a more recent photo, which is a plus as well. I will go ahead and self revert the removal since there is no obvious pressing BLP issue here, though I would like to hear the thoughts of some other editors on this topic. VQuakr (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a very neutral picture of Zimmerman without any problem.

There were new pictures of Martin that were on CNN that show him to be older and different than the picture that is currently in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I think it's the most symathetic one I've seen yet. --soulscanner (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the "mug" photo, it presents a neutral image of the person. WWGB (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, better photo. But if anyone watched Zimmerman being taken to jail he still is a stocky, if not "Beefy Man. Anyone else watch it.? He still looks like he outweighed Trayvon by at least 50 lbs. On the other hand. Trayvon was 3-4 inches taller. Just an FYI. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the best photo I have seen so far, appears neutral as well. Doc, you also have to factor in Zimmerman's height as well when looking at his weight. The average weight for his height is in the range of 160-180.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So say we all. Thank you very much for the new image. Best image of subject by far to date. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have concerns with WP:MUG still. As it is not a clearly negative mugshot with the previous guilty look and prison oranges, could we maybe have this move to a third opinion group for discussion. It is still a mugshot, but I do not believe it is that bad. Just want to adhere to policy. Al Capone has a mugshot as his main picture. It may be the 'best we got', but isn't there one from a court appearance or something going to be floating around where Zimmerman is presentable and not linked to a mugshot. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion Question

Here is the Capias[62]. Should it be included in the article, placed in the link section?--Mt6617 (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

External links section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I found a place for it in the main text of the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, was not sure where to place it. --Mt6617 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Murder trial of George Zimmerman

WP:BOLD I know, but I think this is what will be getting most of the attention from now on. --soulscanner (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is premature to title a section "Trial." There is no indication that there will ever be a trial, and an article should not predict the future course of events. A more accurate title at this point would be "Prosecution of..." -Zetrock (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Trial is permature. Changed header. --soulscanner (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In a news conference, the Special Prosecuter Corey said that bringing charges against Zimmerman was NOT politically motivated, which, to those of us who have been following the case, is obviously a blatant lie. Does anybody know the particulars of how her office works internally, who gives directives (whether stated or implied) to pursue certain cases, etc.? Did the political manouvres go all the way up to the Governor's office? I assume she thinks this is the Big Case that's going to get her national attention to allow her to pursue her political ambitions. This case is so screwed up that now it looks like they're going to lynch George Zimmerman. It's certainly revealing a lot about the machinations in our criminal justice system. Oops, I think I started editorializing. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems that everyone is. Feel free to remove your post if you are so inclined. It looks to me that the politics came in when the son of a judge wasn't even charged and the self-defense claim accepted simply on Zimmerman's word. --soulscanner (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a "preponderence of the evidence" (a relatively low legal standard) at a pretrial hearing that Zimmerman acted in self defense to prevent the case from going to trial. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Could go either way. The fact that he stalked then pursued a fleeing man after being told not to by the police will give any judge a dim view of that defense. Judges don't like when someone disregards instructions from the police. On the other hand, his father is a judge. If the judge is a friend of the family, who knows what they'll decide. --soulscanner (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

He is a magistrate, not a judge. And in a case this visible, if he did have a relationship, he would certainly recuse himself, because any connection will certainly come out in the media, and get him recalled/impeached. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I totally disagree with this bold assertion that a prosecution has already started in this case. Zimmerman has not even had his "first appearance" before a judge. After he makes a first appearance, the judge will read the charges to him and advise him on his right to counsel and determine whether a bond should be granted or not. Then an arraignment will follow where he is allowed to plead guilty or not guilty. Zimmerman is then entitled to a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine whether the case will even go forward. None of this has even happened and yet you assume that a prosecution will take place.

It is important to remember that in our justice system, even when someone is arrested and charged, they are still afforded the presumption of innocence. Saying that a prosecution has already started is totally bias against Zimmerman and should be removed.--Isaidnoway (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

He absolutely has a presumption of innocence, but facts are not prejudicial. He is charged, he is under arrest. That is prosecution. The prosecutor made the decision to charge him. The trial has not started yet. WP:PERP and WP:BLP protections do apply, but at this point I think WP:WELLKNOWN overrides, based on the amount of coverage this case is getting. We should absolutely be careful not to indicate guilt, but trying to say repeating the facts is prejudicial means the entire article should be deleted. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that has happened in this case so far is that the state attorney has filed information before a judge who determined that probable cause existed to issue a warrant for his arrest and he be charged, he has since been arrested and is in custody. Zimmerman has not even been officially called before a court and been officially informed of the offense charged in the information and asked to enter a plea. He is also entitled to file a motion to dismiss and request an evidentiary hearing to be conducted to determine whether the case should even proceed. A preliminary hearing has not even been conducted to determine if there is probable cause to bound him over for a trial. Even RS are just reporting he has been charged with 2nd degree murder. We should follow the process that Zimmerman is allowed through the legal system and report it as such. At this point in the case, the defendant [Zimmerman] is still awaiting prosecution.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support revrting the section title back to investigation, and create a new section called "Charges" or some such, and move the few lines we have down into that. see Jesus C. Gonzalez for a similar article that I broke down into the various sections of how the case evolved. (Although in that case, there was not the public notice as much, so the case itself was the source of all the info. In this instance we do have a lot of non case related info, and doing the same level of case detail as the Jesus article may be unbalanced. (Although I could see a fork with that level of info, if notability stays high) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support this approach as well. That was a good example you provided and that is what I meant when I said we should just "follow the process". The way you broke down the Gonzalez case into individual sections to describe what happened during that case would be warranted in this case as well, since we are now into legal proceedings. Good call.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am bit confused by the above, however if you are speaking of adding a section to the article covering the arrest and prosecution of George Zimmerman, then I think it should be added. An appropriate title may be Charges, Arrest, and Prosecution Procedure of George Zimmerman . And then only list VERIFIED facts about the same. Such as comments made by the State Attorney, comments by GZ's Attorney, maybe a sub-section on Florida Law, first appearance, arraignment, bond, etc. A time line like someone has done for the main article may be helpful. BTW, I like the timeline... done well. --Mt6617 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of prosecute:[63]

1. Law

a. To initiate civil or criminal court action against.

b. To seek to obtain or enforce by legal action.

I looks like that is what's happening now, so a section title "Prosecution of George Zimmerman" would be OK from that consideration. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I just think it is premature to call this a prosecution when Zimmerman has not even been afforded the due course of law provided to defendants by appearing before a competent court of jurisdiction and having the charges officially presented to him. Even the state attorney must follow the due course of law to begin an official and legal prosecution against a defendant. So far, she has only established there was probable cause for an arrest. As far as whether she can proceed to prosecute him on the charge has yet to be determined by a court of law. I think we should let the court's do their job and we should follow the process from their standpoint.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that the prosecution started when Corey formally charged him,[64] according to the definition in my previous message. If the court decides that it shouldn't go to trial, then that's when the prosecution ends. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:VICTIM. Let's not complicate the matter and go off the deep end. I'd still opt for 'Death of Trayvon Martin' as the case will relate to the 'Death of Trayvon Martin' and even with a charges of 2nd degree murder. Much like the Casey Anthony case where the charge of murder didn't stick. For neutrality we should keep neutrality and not respond to the charges. This article is as much about what happened and its results then about a trial which hasn't even begun. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support 'Death of Trayvon Martin' for the section title and then just follow the process and let the court's do their job and then include the RS information that flows out of that process. Calling it a murder trial or prosecution seems a little premature.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Most importantly because there is no trial yet. It is a pre-trial hearing to find whether or not a case can be brought forth at all. The burden of proof to assert Zimmerman's ill-will and intentions are great while the defense only has to have a preponderance of self-defense. This is far from a trial point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Gaijin42 presented a really good example in Jesus C. Gonzalez up above in how to proceed. We have to follow the court's direction and maintain a NPOV.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I was putting for article title, rather then section. Agreed with Gaijin. Didn't mean to confuse, my placement was poor.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there are two discussions going on here: one for the article title and one for a section title. I was just commenting on the one regarding having a section of the article titled "Prosecution of George Zimmerman", which I thought was OK. It looks like the original message that started this section was regarding the article title. In that case I don't think "Prosecution" etc for the article title would be appropriate at this stage. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My position is that I do not support the "section" title of prosecution at this time. It is premature and I didn't see a consensus reached on this title, but rather a bold assertion that this is what the section should be called.--Isaidnoway (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarified above, restating here. I support Gaijin's suggestion. Anything to prevent incorrectly attributing the current legal stance in the current legal phase. Prosecution should come if it goes to trial and then when the Prosecution lays out their arguments. Same would go for Defense. As we are not yet on that point. 'Charges' or something neutral must be chosen. Article title should be 'Death of Trayvon Martin' under convention as discussed previously. Sorry for my earlier confusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not premature to label this as a prosecution. The prosecutor filed charges. That means Zimmerman is being prosecuted. It does not mean he will be prosecuted, he already is. If the charges were tossed during the arriagnment, that does not mean Zimmerman was not prosecuted, it just means the prosecution ended when the charges were tossed during the arraignment. 95% of cases never make it to trial and that absolutely does not mean that the defendants were not prosecuted; it means the cases were plead out or tossed before trial. If you are implying that there is a colloquial meaning of prosecution that might be misleading to a layperson reader, I guess there is an argument for that. But in terms of accuracy of the language, prosecution is absolutely the correct term for the current procedural posture and not a premature label. Zetrock (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The accuracy of the language is not in dispute as to when the prosecution starts and ends. Prosecution is also often used to refer to the state attorney and is generally considered referenced when the state presents their case against a defendant at trial. At the time when the section was titled "the prosecution of Zimmerman", there was one sentence that stated he had been arrested and was in custody and the accompanying paragraphs in the section stated that he had not been charged and there was no grounds to arrest him and a grand jury would be convened, etc. all dated material that did not support the section title. I understand the editors intention, but in this instance, it was premature for that title.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An alternative to using a section title with the word "prosecution" would be using the title of the legal case that is specified in the formal charges, "State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman".[65] The section would start with the formal charges. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion worth considering. Although I think it will probably end up being the final title when all is said and done in this case, either way, I would support it.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Someone should probably add to the main article the pronunciation of Treyvon's name. It is /treɪˈvɔːn/ tray-VAWN, not /ˈtreɪvən/ TREY-vən.

 Done — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike Tyson says suprised Zimmerman not shot/dragged from home yet

Interview before prosecution, and probably not notable/important enough, but I thought I would link it for completion. Could fit in with the spike lee etc calls for vigilantism etc.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/mike-tyson-sex-drugs-trayvon-martin-222803402.html Gaijin42 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not using a forum ,I made a clear suggestion of where the information might be useful in the article. If you disagree, feel free to make a comment, but don't take unilateral action. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "probably not notable/important enough" — Sounds like you're saying it shouldn't be in the article, so I think that may have prompted the "not a forum" action by another editor. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The WP:FORUM thing is more about 'i like puppies' or 'ooh did you guys see this. Zim's a bad man' rather then actually looking at material and asking whether or not it could be included. As the source is a blog and Mike Tyson may be notable, but is he not involved in the case and his comments are not suitable. Just because a notable person makes a statement about something else doesn't mean it should be put in just because we can attribute it. If Mike Tyson likes pie we shouldn't put a bit on the article on pies saying 'Mike Tyson likes this pie!'. Same applies here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel it should be added. Mike Tyson is a notable individual. We included statements by other notable individuals. It is definitely part of the "aftermath". Now... saying that I have not checked the link, and assume it is accurate as no one is debating that. However, if is an accurate, reliable, source... it should be included. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In no way should this be included. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not TMZ (website). Redredryder (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think if this is presented properly, it could potentially be included. If you look at the totality of Tyson's quote, you see a much more diverse statement than just "Zim should have been shot". As with many other people involved in this case, Tyson has mixed feelings. On one hand, he expresses a regret that it happened, and he acknowledges that he wasn't a witness to it, so he can't say for sure what happened. At the same time, Tyson recognizes that the United States, while being an example to the world, still has laws that would embarrass even the least civilized nations. He acknowledges peacegful methods of protest, and then off the cuff, his more base and vengeful insticts kick in for a moment as he suggests we simply shoot or drag him to death. In one interview, Tyson expresses a complexity of emotions and reactions that span nearly the breadth of the entire crowd of spectators. As I say, presented along with other similar material, and supporting sources, this could show how conflicted some people are between a desire be become civil while still a savage lies within us. And that, my fellow editors, would be a neutral tone and be acceptable for this article. -- Avanu (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike Tyson is a unique individual with his own personal demons inside him, and his comments can't be expected to represent the feelings of any group in general. Any conclusion by editors in that regard that they would like to imply by putting the Tyson info in the article would be OR. In other words, you'd need another reason for putting it in. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Many famous people have made many comments about this case, yet it seems that the ones that stay quoted in the article are the outrageous ones that are anti-Zimmerman. Where is Bill Cosby's reasoned comment about gun violence, for example? Al Sharpton's calls for justice but only via non-violent protest? This is exactly the problem I've mentioned before - a concerted effort to present the people who supported the Martin family's quest for an arrest in the most negative light, and the responsible voices among them practically invisible in the article, while any controversial attacks on Zimmerman were highlighted. Mike Tyson's comments are not notable, nor are Louis Farraquan's. The Spike Lee matter is marginal to include, but at least it did get some coverage - I am not convinced that it has staying power however. The Black Panther story also got some coverage, largely because the Zimmerman family talked about it - but does it continue to be significant? Not clear. We have to think about what in this section, and in the article overall, has lasting significance, not the flash-in-the-pan, sensational, one-sided news of the day. Tvoz/talk 08:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The quotes on the Martin side have been strong, under neutrality we should have some for support of Zimmerman, but they do not come from such figures of similar public note. Obama and Sharpton are about as important as you can get, anything in support of Zimmerman has been kept down because of the earlier ties that anyone supporting Zimmerman is a racist. While Obama was blasted for is comments by many people and Jesse Jackson said Zimmerman shot Martin in the back of the head, these kinds of comments are steps away from the importance. Almost all shows of support on Zimmerman have been on the basis of the evidence and not on basis of going free, we just don't have material which points to that in the mainstream media. It may be unbalanced, but there is not much to raise the opposing view with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing status

If Zimmerman is successfully arraigned, he will be one of the most notable/most-covered defendants since OJ Simpson. If that happens, we should _try_ to create a fair bio of the person as a person, rather than cover him exclusively in this article. That's going to be a big challenge, but George Michael Zimmerman is going to be needed, me thinks. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. Aside from all the race / ethnicity stuff, I've seen very little discussion of his background and history. Unless we have sources that discuss his life beyond the scope of this event, it doesn't make sense to be writing a biography that is distinct from what appears here. Dragons flight (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I admit it's difficult-- I just wish there was a good biography on him available on his life as a whole, rather than just this incident. I want to read such an article and wish it already existed. Difficulty not in doubt-- I'm not touching it, but I wish it was there.--HectorMoffet (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, a bio article for Trayvon Martin should be considered since there was a bio article for Nicole Brown Simpson in the OJ case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERP , WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E says we pretty much should not have a stand-alone article about him. Making a fair article would be almost impossible, as he had 0 notability before, and every story on him from here on is going to be in the context of the shooting/case. Both OJ and Nicole were already notable prior to the murder, and are not a good example to follow in this case for this reason. Perhaps Sirhan Sirhan, or Lee Harvey Oswald or something would be a better one, since they were themselves unknown until the event (although obviously their targets are super famous). In any case, I think standalone articles would need to require someone doing in-depth biographical research and publishing major works, not just news articles. Maybe that will happen, but IMO if books are written about this case, its going to be more about the aftermath/context of race rather than the actual participants. Certainly things could change in the future, but right now there is nowhere near the WP:RS available to correctly do such an article Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "Both OJ and Nicole were already notable prior to the murder" — I don't know whether that is true regarding Nicole, but it certainly isn't true about the other person who was murdered in the case, Ronald Goldman, who was clearly not notable before he was murdered. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think an argument could be made that when Nicole married O.J. she became notable because of that fact and was covered in the media more than what she would have been (zero) before she married him. In Zimmerman's case, he is notable for this shooting only as far as I am aware.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "In Zimmerman's case, he is notable for this shooting only as far as I am aware." — That doesn't seem to matter since, for example there is an article on John Hinckley, Jr. that corresponds to the shooter, and as I mentioned before there is an article on Ron Goldman, a person who was killed in the OJ case. Both John Hinckley, Jr. and Ron Goldman were definitely not notable before their respective events. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the analog here is Bernhard Goetz, a NYC subway shooter who alleged self defense, was tried for attempted murder and found non guilty of those charges. He is biography worthy. --17:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I was only commenting on Zimmerman's notability before the shooting, I agree with you on the other people you listed, there are plenty of readers out there who are interested in reading biographies about people that became notable because of a crime they were accused of or committed. I read one on Timothy McVeigh. I am not opposed to a bio on Zimmerman.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good analog. Note : that article is not just a biography, it is very similar to this artcile, covering all aspects, reaction, trial, etc. So its primarily a naming difference. Perhaps if Zimmerman had shot several kids, this article would be called George Zimmerman, or shooting at the retreat, or something since you wouldnt make "shooting of X, Y, and Z". In any case, Goetz does not have a bio article, and an event article. I too am not opposed to a bio article, but I think sourcing one is going to be very hard unless its just a small stubGaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

From the clearing out of the psuedo bios we have more then enough to cover childhood through adulthood. We have sources which point to activism and could give 4-5 good paragraphs of neutral commentary even without his 2005 arrest or other incident with his ex. While the majority will fall on allegations of his injuries and statements made on behalf of his family for the Trayvon Martin case I still think we could push for an article on Zimmerman. This court matter will bring up a lot more, but it will take many months before all the examination and info helps paint Zimmerman's past best. Its just more work and more potential mess given that he is on the border of 1E and his own article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. The arraignment is still six weeks away, after all. By that time, we'll know quite a lot about him. BLP exists to protect living persons, and we're not doing him any favors by only covering 1 event in his life. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Then what about a bio article on Trayvon Martin? His life has ended, he's become extremely notable, and there is precedent in the bio article of one of the persons killed in the OJ case, Ronald Goldman, who wasn't notable before he was killed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting that this case has received as much attention as the OJ trial is, in my opinion, silliness. Neither Zimmerman nor Martin are so well covered at this point that they exceed the definition of a BLP1E. Incidentally, the Ron Goldman article is pretty borderline too with respect to notability and depth of coverage. VQuakr (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

About a bio of Trayvon Martin, I don't think so, Bob. In cases like this, of a crime by a previously unknown person on a previously unknown person, I think you'll find that the victim's bio is usually subsumed into the crime article - as in Murder of Meredith Kercher, Murder of Laci Peterson, Murder of Kitty Genovese. Those articles would also generally have a significant section about the perpetrator, and only when it becomes too long or unwieldy would we go for a sub-article with more detail and a summary in the main article. But what's happened here is Zimmerman's bio section has been truncated. I think we should first try to flesh out the Zimmerman bio section here and see if it eventually needs to be forked off into a separate article with a summary section here, rather than starting out by writing a separate bio. Seems premature to me. And I agree with VQuakr that the Ron Goldman article is borderline. Tvoz/talk 07:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not rebuild the psuedo bios in the article. Keep it as userpage offshoot and then we can view and comment on it without inserting a lot of material into the Zimmerman side. We'd end up having Martin get his own psuedo-bio back and almost all of that is negative smear. Let's do this where it isn't on the article space for all to see, no works in progress if the conclusion is only to rip it out and put it in an article on Zimmerman himself. Doubt we will even have enough to warrant his own article right now. A start-class or low B class is the best I can see, and most of it related to this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of events

Is it really proper to include this in the article, specifically at this time? The timeline of events does not even sync up with other timelines made and I am under a strong belief that the actual night in question should be extremely cautious about attributing time stamps and timing. It is improper to have two times for Zimmerman's police call when we have police on scene by that time. Either we do this in accordance to the police records released with full time stamps or we dismiss the events of the night in question until the full information is released. With all the 911 calls, details are important and we have a duty to present information backed by the best sources possible. Other events should be linked with references to sources as well for the timeline. Many errors are present. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the concept of a timeline is fine, but certainly any inaccuracies should be corrected, and things should be sourced, preferably on each item vs just us referencing a published timeline. (Or super-preferably both!) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A timeline is good but every single line or sentence should be references. The 7:20 references doesn't seem to work as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that jumped out at me. As Martin was dead by that time. We have two options, go for the primary sources for the times and assume they are correct in regards to the incident or keep the event of the night in question out until we know we have the right information. Under WP:V I'd go with 'assume they are right' as we have multiple calls and direct information tying call records to the second on all but DeeDee. Then comes the more complex matter of do we want to have a special section for the calls and the reports in chronological as it happened or is that too much WP:Synth even if the timestamps and call logs already sync it on an individual, but not for all at once, level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman had first hearing

[65]Not much happened. Bond/bail was not discussed, arraignment will be on May 29th 2012, and both sides asked for the documents to be sealed. Judge granted the motion. That was it.

News conference afterwards Z's attorney stated he would ask for a bond hearing later. --Mt6617 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually that article sums up the legal expert view quite well and we should have this under analysis of the charges. Also comments like this, "Many attorneys said they had expected the prosecutor to opt for the lesser charge of manslaughter. The most severe homicide charge, first-degree murder, is subject to the death penalty in Florida and requires premeditation — something all sides agreed was not present in this case." and "O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, said his client would plead not guilty and invoke Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law, which gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight." And the key segment, "Legal experts said Corey chose a tough route with the murder charge... The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself [Shortened]. Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial." Very important because if they successful assert this no trial will be held. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to include legal analysis by "experts", I think you will probably get some pushback from other editors on this. I personally don't oppose it, if the statements by those providing the analysis are credited by name.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have with experts is 1) do we know they are actually experts, what is the vetting. 2) You can find an expert for any opinion you want to spin. So I am not sure any particular expert is ripe for inclusion. How do we select which experts to include? In a discussion above, OJ was brought up. or another example Michael Jacksons trials. Surely two of the most analysized, pundit covered, expert opinion laden events out there. What inclusion do those experts have on the respective articles? (pretty much none) Prior to charges, I would give more weight to such experts, as theoretically that could be all we will ever get. Now we are guaranteed some sort of official answer, with legal reasoning from the judges, and I think we should just wait for that.

I would be less opposed to experts describing what the laws are, and what hurdles need to be overcome by one side or the other, especially if those experts are not presenting a point of view of which outcome they think is likely, etc. The specific statements above I think would qualify under that criteria.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman looked a very sympathetic, unmenacing figure at the hearing. He looked hispanic. There is bound to be resentment in the hispanic community. Also, it is now clear that Zimmerman's prior booking photo was doctored by stretching out his face.True Observer (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal commentary from experts has long been noted on the basis of charges. Also brief proper analysis of a not yet concluded trial would not be wrong. Give both sides and leave it at that, proper weight on the analysis from the most prominent on each side. We can decide the individuals, but I'd go with the former DA's comments. Look at Death of Caylee Anthony which is not a particularly great article, but still discusses the charges with a legal perspective from sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs)

• Prosecutors submit affidavit saying Zimmerman confronted Martin
• Judge found probable cause for the charge
• Next court date May 29
• records sealed
• Circuit Court Judge Jessica Recksiedler assigned
• No bond (or even bond hearing) at this time

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-12/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-charged-jail-20120412_1_face-murder-charges-today-show-accident Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, it did say in that affadavit that Zimmerman said "these fucking punks", so we now have a legal conclusion as to what was said on that tape.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The State's affadavit is not a "legal conclusion." The interpretation of the 911 recordings is a question of fact, not a question of law, and as such will be decided by the finder of fact (most likely a jury). Until then, it is the State's interpretation. Zetrock (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

However, it is a fact that the State has interpreted the audio that way, and it would be relevant and non-prejudicial to put it into the article so long as it is labeled as the State's interptretation and not as a conclusion. Zetrock (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I combined two similar topics into one. My original "Today's Hearing" and the recent "Zimmermans First Hearing" as they are identical subjects. I then deleted my original "Today's Hearing".--Mt6617 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the affidavit is not a legal conclusion. Legal conclusions will be decided by the trier of the facts, the judge more than likely, not the jury.--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite right. Questions of law will be decided by the judge which will be his/her conclusions of law (aka legal conclusions). Questions of fact will be determined by the trier of fact which, if there is a jury, will be the jury. Those findings are factual conclusions, not legal conclusions. The only reason the judge would make a finding of fact is if this ends up being a bench trial and the judge acts as both the trier of law and the trier of fact. The first question in this case is if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial, and that is a question of law. What the evidence means and the weight each piece of evidence is given will be a question of fact for the jury (or bench trial judge). Zetrock (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Would speculation by the defense attorney be a safe addition? I found an article that quoted O'Mara (Zimmerman's attorney) that Zimmerman is likely to depend on "Stand your Ground" Law to request dismissal of proceedings. I'm not sure about adding it because it does remain speculation, even though it is from someone directly involved in the case. Darter9000 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In that context, yes. If you are adding, "O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, has stated that the defense will depend on the "Stand Your Ground" Law..." or something to that extent, then it is not speculation. It is a fact that O'Mara said that. Simply stating that Zimmerman will be using the SYG Law would be speculation though. Zetrock (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Inline links suppressed

I just suppressed several inline links in the Timeline section as they are frowned upon. Please do refs properly or don't do them at all. Hector, is that you? --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Some Interesting Reading: Avoid Embedded Links and Avoid Inline External Links

By the way, the above links are an example of an inline links. However, they're not external since they link to a Wikipedia article in this case. Of course, these types of links are fine in talk, just usually not in Wikipedia Articles (unless they link to another Wikipedia Article).

Intrepid (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm here, how can I help?

I received this message on my talk page:

Zimmerman arrest and hearing An editor said they lived in the area of the incident. Was that you? And if so, are you WP's eyes and ears at upcoming hearings etc.? Well done! ```Buster Seven Talk 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As we are NOT reporters, I was a bit taken back, but if the community thinks it will be helpful, I will attend what hearings I can. I can see some problems as I would think many of these will not be open to the public, and if it is... like the Anthony case, I'm not standing in line. SORRY! But will do what I can.

I CAN make more photos to improve the article. Exterior shot of the Sanford Police Department, the Detention center, etc.

Will be happy to comply to any "reasonable" requests, but I ain't standing in line! --Mt6617 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally... if you have any requests... make them here on the talk page, not on my talk page. I want approval from the community. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos are wonderful, but I think Buster Seven might have overstepped a reasonable request to ask you to attend hearings and so forth (unless you want to take photos). As you say, we need to be careful not to become primary sources, and while your impressions of things are definitely unique and would be newsworthy (and might be useful contributions to Wikinews) at Wikipedia, we're relegated to secondary sources. But your enthusiasm is definitely wonderful. Thanks for being here. -- Avanu (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That is what I thought. Didn't think we were reporters. Will be more than happy to make photos. If folks will make a list of desired photos, I will do what I can. Would an exterior photo of the Sanford Police Department, and the Detention Center be helpful? We were going up Tuesday to make an aerial shot of the complex, but work got in the way. We may do it this weekend. Just make your wishlist, and I will try my hardest to comply. --Mt6617 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)--Mt6617 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Headers

THe Wiki standard is that Headings are hierarchical. The article's title uses a level 1 heading, so you should start with level 2 heading (==Heading==) and follow it with lower levels: ===Subheading===, ====Subsubheading====, and so forth. I corrected the headers once before, but since many of these are new, may I correct them again with out violating the 1RR rule? As this changes daily I will be happy to keep doing this with agreement of the major editor contributors here. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 06:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Just the new headers were incorrect format and I have corrected those. I also changed "Aftermath" which denotes an ending and since we have just begun, I substituted the more appropriate adjective "Repercussions." — DocOfSoc • Talk • 06:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman cell phone call to police

This section says the call was made at approximately 7:00pm. The timeline says it was made at 7:11pm. Seems like this section can also use 7:11pm. Is there some reason for the timeline to have 7:11 and this section to say approximately 7:00pm?? Also, the Huffington Post lists the phone call as starting at 7:09pm: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-cops-botched-investigation_n_1409277.html

The other thing is that the reference for the 7:11pm, is a USAToday article which appears to show the Zimmerman call starting at 7:11pm and ending at 7:13pm, which is inaccurate since the call went four minutes 5 seconds, and calls into question their data and aligns more with a 7:09 start time as reported by the Huffington Post (see above). User:Wickorama (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of events

The timeline of events shows a 4 minute 5 second phone call starting at 7:11pm and ending at 7:13 pm. I believe the reference used - USAToday - incorrectly places the start of the call at 7:11pm. Huffington Post has it at 7:09pm which matches an end of 7:13pm. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-cops-botched-investigation_n_1409277.html Wickorama (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

According to many sources the timing of the call by records is 7:09.34 seconds, pulling directly from the call connection. 7:11 and 7:20 is wrong. Hate to point to Wagist, but it displays the primary document showing the time stamps and is proper. [66]ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Bail Hearing

Zimmerman's attorney announced that a bail hearing will be held next Friday, April 20. I Added the relevant info and source under the Pre-trial section. Intrepid (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request, George Zimmerman Section

Change:

"At the time of the shooting, he was working toward an associate degree in Criminal Justice at Seminole State College.[41]"

To:

"At the time of the shooting, he was working toward an Associate in Arts degree in a general studies program, according to Seminole State College." Reference

Reasons: 1) Current assertion is not substantiated in the sourced article. 2) An RS is available with different information (AA in general studies not Criminal Justice) that states that that information was obtained from the school itself. 3) Avoids appearance of POV ---> vigilantism. ArishiaNishi (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reference to the degree in "Criminal Justice". Not sure where that came from, I'd say change it now. -- Avanu (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The original source has also removed mention of an "associate degree in Criminal Justice". Go ahead with your edit with the new source. Intrepid (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Corrected. Thank you for pointing it out. I also removed the initial portion about the criminal justice course which is not a police academy or formal course on policing. Daily Beast source was internally broken on their reference and the second says, "Sheriff’s spokeswoman Heather Smith stressed that the program is simply an educational tool designed to engage citizens and teach them about policing. “It’s not a training academy. Participants are not issued any type of sheriff’s equipment or deputization,” Smith said.[67] It is improper to label it otherwise when a source counters it, from the same source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit needed

Under "Court Proceedings," it reads: "Zimmerman was taken into custody on April 11, 2012 to await trial for second degree murder in the Florida courts."

This is not supported by the source provided. There is no way we can predict that the case will reach trial, nor should we. Consider changing to: "On April 11, 2012, Zimmerman was formally charged with second degree murder and taken into custody." Zetrock (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed additional photos of Martin

I've removed the second and third photos of Martin, they are unnecessary and they are not CC released. I do not see the particular need to have 3 photos of the subject scattered throughout the page. We already have issues with too many photos (Norm Wolfinger for one). Under WP:IUP we should not have 3 photos of Martin in the article. Also WP:F. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:IRELEV I've removed Chief Bill Lee's photo. As it is unnecessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The hoodie photo was widely used in protests, making it specifically relevant. The "baby-faced" photo was the object of media coverage. Seriously though, these photos are "(C) Media handout" or something like that - if one person here can actually contact the right person associated with the family, I'm sure we could have them all for Commons at full resolution. Probably someone should... Wnt (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact we already have a picture of Martin. The hoodie photo is not a key photo and was not the main photo used during the initial breaking of the story and while it was used in a few protests was not the only photo used. I doubt when we have the subject of the photo that we need to have the photo carried by some people in a protest. WP:IRELEV applies to it, just like Chief Bill Lee. The only protest upon which it was used was the 'Million Hoodie March' which by all accounts was misleading as according to NPR. "ADLER: It was called the Million Hoodie March, but that was not the number at the gathering. It was a call for a million signatures by the end of the night on a petition calling for the shooter's arrest. There were apparently 800,000 signatures before the rally began." [68] So the claim about it being 'widely used in protests' doesn't hold up because it wasn't widely used in protests or as an icon. Even on the media where it had the widest reporting the young photo of Martin in the Hollister t-shirt was more important, and at least that one would back up the media spin section, however I do not think it has substantial importance for that picture to be included either. If we were to apply the same detail Zimmerman's 2005 mugshot would be used as it was used in protests too, and it was the main picture of Zimmerman prior to the charges in which the new mugshot was now used. Even if they were CC or public it would be a violation of WP:BALANCE.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Phone transcript

In the shooting section there is a full transcript of Zimmerman's call included in a collapsed tab. Since this appears to be public domain information I think it would be better to have it transwikied to WikiSource, rather than including the whole transcript of the call in this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's subsequent movements

I came to this article to understand something that is not here: what were Zimmerman's movements in the last few weeks in response to national attention to this incident? From what I've read in the newspapers, (1) his lawyers complained that he had been unreachable to them since Sunday 8 April, & that they had never met him in person; (2) reports that he had an interview with Glen Beck despite his lawyers' advice not to; (3) his appearance a few days ago when he turned himself in. Not trying to bash Zimmerman, just trying to understand this part of the story -- which has been mangled in news reports. -- llywrch (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

He was in hiding, likely in fear of his life. There are no sources available detailing where he was specifically. Now that he is in custody, some of that may come out, but probably not as it is not super relevant. As he was able to turn himself in quickly, he obviously stayed in the area. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits, Changes, and Formatting

Whoever is responsible for the recent changes in the article did a good job IMHO. The article is easier to read, flows, and is more accurate. Thank you. --Mt6617 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Aerial Photo

Found and old non-CC photo of the complex that I edited. I realize it is crude, but I will put it out there to you to use or not. Note, the photo is several years old, you will note that some of the buildings along the main street and behind the clubhouse are under construction.--Mt6617 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ratl2.jpg