Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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)
• Support - He was shot. He is dead. His was a shooting death. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:19, 15 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)

Criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang referred to the deceased in self-defense justifiable homicides as "victim offender" or VO for short. Victim does not necessarily imply innocence. --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:56, 14 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)

Chris, I respect you as an editor, but you have a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It is your opinion that other peoples arguments are not persuasive enough. That is a fine opinion to have, but it doesn't mean you win. There is no consensus. Including no consensus for keeping the current title. Your opinion that people did not make persuasive enough arguments is --- your opinion. This is clearly not WP:DE, unless "you didn't agree with me" qualifies. A very wide variety of people have agreed that we do not have consensus. A telling point is that people who do not agree with each other on practically any other point agree on the lack of consensus. THose same editors have expressed a variety of arguments about which titles they would prefer or think best meet policy. that is the very proof of no consensus' The people are all over the board. Take it to DR if you must, but I think you are the one playing the game here. Onus is on you to show that there is consensus for a change, not for us to show that there isn't consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the significance of having one title instead of the others? I may be missing something but is the difference in the titles sufficiently significant to make the effort to change? I don't ask these questions to argue; I'm just honestly wondering what I am missing with respect to significance. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A proper title should reflect the guidelines of WP:TITLE. Considering this more then just a shooting and has moved well past the point that any context of 'Shooting' allows and under said policy that 'Shooting Death of' not be its replacement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

♣ A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... -_- . ArishiaNishi (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A rose was referred to by name as 'Red Thorny Weed' it would still smell sweet, but just like Dandelion in Chinese literally translates to "flower that grows in public spaces by the riverside" it is far from romantic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, based on arguments made how do I have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, is for, "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input." If there is no concensus then this doesn't clearly apply, as I am calling for discussion or dispute resolution because the 'Death of' arguments have been ignored, not that I am trying to force a change. Not acting to try and repeatedly force WP:STATUSQUO would be actually WP:STONEWALL. Why am I the subject of such scrutiny, many editors attack me because of TheDarkLordSeth's comments and I am quite upset that despite said bias being utterly and completely false! I do not know why it continues to be a matter when my stance is over here or over there I get attacked on BOTH sides. You cannot have a bias on both sides because that's neutral. I've posted the RfC below. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris, Thanks for reminding me about the policy WP:TITLE. I read it carefully and it was very informative. I'd recommend that all the editors here read it over carefully. The policy didn't conclusively differentiate between the titles considered here. Considering the present status of this discussion, I think the second paragraph of the section Considering title changes is most apt. That policy suggests to me that the present title should be kept, the other titles should be redirected to the article, and editors should heed the following advice from that policy.

"Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:TITLE has WP:CRITERIA which directly refers to it. Though last I checked, I've done several hundred other edits unrelated to this page recently and another 300-500 expected edits in the next 48 hours. So I have plenty of other stuff on my plate, though I am largely taking a break from this page during the process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Drug test citation

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)

I don't really get the relevance of this to be honest. The fact that the suspect either needs to consent or they need to get a warrant hardly seems surprising to anyone with a basic understanding of the law (it occured to me early on and I don't even live in the US). This doesn't really directly address the criticism of the fact Zimmerman wasn't tested, as it's not stating it was impossible for for such a test to be carried out. It's unclear if they even asked (remember since he claimed self defence, unless he was actually on something he may have consented), and if they did and he denied it whether it was possible for them to get a warrant but they didn't. More relevant criticism would be whether it's normal or routine to test a suspect in a case like this, but this isn't addressed by the source. (Personally I suspect not, since there was no indication at the time usage of either by Zimmerman may have played a factor in his. Heck there's still no indication now. For this reason, they may not have been able to get a warrant. But the fact they needed a warrant if he didn't consent is still largely irrelevant if they didn't either try, or decided against trying because they didn't believe they could get a warrant.) To put it a different way, the question is 'should they have (or tried to have) him tested' and perhaps 'was it possible to have him tested' (the issue here being unless they actually tried, there's no way they could know for sure) not 'how easy was it for them to have him tested'? Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I scrolled past this before, but I don't believe the current citations from this edit are very good - one is a citation citing the first citation and the third is the guy's own website. Not very authoritative, honestly. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#cite_note-alcohol_drug_test-122 Is circular; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#cite_note-forensic_investigator-124 fails WP_A. I won't even get into the dubiousness of a retired Chicago cop being an authority on a Florida case, he was printed in the opinion pages of the Washington Times, which I think passes WP_A. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason it is relevant because when it was initially reported that he didn't take an alcohol/drug test, it was reported as questionable police conduct, the implication being that Zimmerman was just let go without one being administered because the cops were negligent. It was also reported early on, that his gun wasn't taken into evidence, his clothes weren't taken into evidence, he outweighed Martin by 100 pounds. All things we later found out not to be true. While we don't know whether or not if the police asked him to, they certainly didn't have the right to make him take one like the statement implies. He was never arrested and if he had been, they still would have had to have his permission or file an affidavit of probable cause. This statement is meant to inform the reader of those facts. A retired police officer is certainly an authority on procedures of alcohol/drug tests when one is under arrest or not under arrest, and it is clearly stated as his opinion. The International Business Times picked the story up from the Washington Times, so obviously they felt it was from a RS.--Isaidnoway (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge Investigation of the death of Trayvon Martin into Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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)
• Support - Yes, the subject isn't distinct enough to warrant a separate section. While certain sections may justify being broken out, this one is probably the least useful one to be separate. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Usual media hysteria influencing various Wikipedia editors. Merge all. In ten years, we will barely remember the participants. Event of the moment being treated as the "story of the century." Listening to tv too much. They are excused for trying to sell air time. We don't have that excuse! Student7 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Too much redundancy to justify duplicating information in this article. Should be merged. Yaf (talk) 05:36, 16 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.

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:[9]

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,[10] 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".[11] 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)

I just noticed that in the article there is a section Court proceedings which seems to be doing the job OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The moment the state attorney filed the affidavit, the prosecution began. Why would anyone argue this bit of minutia? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

American

In the section Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimmerman there is "the son of American Robert Zimmerman Sr, a former magistrate,[33] and Peruvian Gladys Zimmerman." AFAIK, all the people connected with the case are Americans. Any suggestions about what to do with this sentence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done yes, redundant. will correct. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll change Peruvian to Hispanic American since the source said Hispanic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an improvement, however, Robert Zimmerman is described by his occupation, and Gladys Zimmerman by her country of origin/ethnicity? Shouldn't she be described by her occupation as well, or just as her name? If editors think it's useful to include information about her Peruvian 'roots', then shouldn't we find a better source for that? [4]relevant quotes: "His mother is Latina." and "Why are they calling him white, wondered Paul Ebert, the Prince William County commonwealth’s attorney who knew Zimmerman’s mother, Gladys, from her days as an interpreter at the county courthouse. Zimmerman’s mother, Ebert knew, was Peruvian, and he thought of her as Hispanic." That is a bit thin for sourcing; that someone from who knows how long ago remembers her as Peruvian. Does it matter? George Zimmerman defines himself as Hispanic on his voter reg. Isn't that enough? [34] quotes on ethnicity are only about George. Sorry, long winded. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it was long winded, I thought it was useful wind. While we were discussing it, someone changed it to "Peruvian-born Gladys Zimmerman". That seems OK. At the beginning of the article, Zimmerman is called Hispanic American, so maybe that's enough as far as Hispanic is concerned. Peruvian-born implies where his hispanic background came from. I'm satisfied with what is in there now, or more precisely, what was in there the last time I looked. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic?

The reference[[12]] given does not say Zimmerman is Hispanic. <-- In fact, it's a dead link. (Fixed link) --> The title appears to imply that his race or nationality is not clear cut. The police report lists him as white, while other documents report him a Hispanic.

I suggest writing "Zimmerman, described by different sources as either Hispanic, White, or of mixed race ... " along with links to the appropriate sources.

Better yet why not exclude his race entirely? It is irrelevant to the controversy. If Zimmerman did racially profile Martin (which is at the core of the controversy), it doesn't make it better if he is Hispanic or worse if he is White. It's what you do, not what color you are, which is precisely what racial profilers forget.

In any case, any description referring to Zimmerman exclusively as White or Hispanic is WP:POV as it does not document all the significant views on the subject. --soulscanner (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to invoke Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY rule here. Just as Code Pink activist Midge Potts self-identifies as a woman, and thus that's how the article is written, Zimmerman has self-identified as Hispanic (e.g. that's the box he's checked on official forms), so that's how he should be described in this or any other article. 67.233.246.107 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman is Hispanic, he idenitified himself as Hispanic and so does his father. If we are going to exclude Zimmerman's ethnicity, in all fairness, we should exclude Martin's ethnicity too. But as I see it (and I am not alone in that) race does in fact play a large part in this case. Martin being black was the main reason people said the shooting was racially motivated, then when it turned out the shooter was not, in fact, a "white man", but in fact Hispanic, things became more complicated, apparantly. There are sufficient sources to claim Zimmerman as Hispanic, though. It should not be left out. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY doesn't refer to issues of self-identity, so it's a moot point here. WP:POV is the point. It states that significant points of view must be accounted for and presented in a neutral manner. The legitimate source [13] used to back-up that Zimmerman is exclusively Hispanic does no such thing. It cites that the police report indicates that Zimmerman is white, that it is possible to be both white and Hispanic, and that it is not a cut and dry issue. Hence omitting that some could legitimately see him as white would indicate that the police officer who arrested Zimmerman, for one, is marginal. But the police view here is pivotal, as there are accusations that the police treated Zimmerman differently than they would have if he were black, and that Zimmerman benefited from it by being released.

The article also fairly considers the view of right-wing commentators who want to present Zimmerman is Hispanic. Right-wing commentators have been clear: '“I’m actually happy that George Zimmerman is Hispanic so the usual white people are all guilty by virtue of their skin color stuff won’t work,” said a March 22 tweet by John Hawkins, who described himself as a professional blogger at Right Wing News.' Hence saying that Zimmerman is exclusively Hispanic could be seen as POV-Pushing to make blacks shut up.

The article further goes on to say that you can be both white and Hispanic: "Hispanic people can be black, white, Asian or mixed. Some 18 million Latinos checked the “some other race” category on their 2010 Census forms — which admonished in bold letters that Hispanic is not a race. So many Hispanics identified themselves as white, the overall number of white people in the United States increased."

So to conclude, firstly the Wikipedia article as it stands ignores important points of view in the intro while including others, failing NPOV standards. It is also factually innaccurate WP:AD because the given citation actually does not support what is in the article (or more importantly, what is excluded). --soulscanner (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Uniform Crime Report classifies most Hispanics into the "white" or "white Hispanic" category, see this DEA website or this, or FBI website. Official statistics and police reports are misleading. For example, if someone attacks a Hispanic for racial reasons, he becomes a Hispanic victim of a hate crime. However, if the same Hispanic commits a hate crime against a black, he is classified as a white perpetrator. Tobby72 (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have the father's source, saying: "My son (George Zimmerman) is Hispanic and grew up in a multiracial household". Whether or not the police has at some point described Mr. Zimmerman as white is not relevant, as both Zimmerman and other members of the Zimmerman family describe him as Hispanic, his mother is Peruvian and he votes as "Hispanic". That's enough ground to call him Hispanic, although he could also be (perhaps more neutral) described as simple "of mixed descent" or "multiracial" (without further specifying his exact ethnicity). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"MOS:IDENTITY doesn't refer to issues of self-identity, so it's a moot point here." Uh..... Better check it again: "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself." 67.233.243.137 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that GZ is Hispanic. He self-identifies as such and is identified by multiple RS as such. Whether he is "white" or "white Hispanic"or Peruvian-American or Peruvian(white)-Scottish or Mestizo is somethng that may require further elucidation and sourcing... but tha is a discussion for the body of the article, where his "race", actual and misidentified, is a crucial part of the story. But here is NO controversy that he is in fact Hispanic. RS say so, no RS denies it, and the police report is a RS for the fact that the report writer thought of him as white, but not for what he is, as the writer made no investigation into the question. Andyvphil (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How can someone be a "white Hispanic" when his mother is Peruvian and his father described the family as "multiracial"? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Peru is a country, not a race.--88.13.102.5 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right. But if your father is described as white and he describes the family as "multiracial", it is safe to assume that one of the parents is not, in fact, white. Other sources (included in the article) have described George Zimmerman as biracial. Since his father is described as a white American man, the non-white blood comes from his Peruvian mother. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

A proposed title change between the current prefix 'Shooting of' and the proposed, 'Shooting Death of' and proposed 'Death of'. Discussion has taken place with a formal request for move having not yielded results after almost 2 weeks. I've made this Request for Comment to discuss this ongoing problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't 'Shooting Death of' just plain wrong in wikipedia terms? If we wanted that, surely it would be 'Shooting death of' Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:TITLE and WP:CRITERIA agree as well, but as I keep getting attacked for bias on any thing I say in this article, RfC is the best option to get some outside opinions on the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Nil Einne was referring to the lower case "d". A joke, I'm pretty sure. Tvoz/talk 05:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a joke. I think we need to be clear what we're discussing. At the moment, we have people discussing 'Shooting death' and 'Shooting Death' of as if they are the same thing when they're not. AFAIK, 'Shooting Death' is clearly wrong. 'Shooting death' should be what's discussed. If we do reach consensus on 'Shooting D/death', an admin seeing both being discussed may use discretion and move it to 'Shooting death' but there's no reason for us to create unnecessary work. Also an admin may legitimate query whether people's answer is based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines if they're supporting 'Shooting Death' (as opposed to 'Shooting death') which as I've said AFAIK is not supported in any way. Most of the previous discussion seems to have concentrated on 'Shooting death' (with the odd mention of 'Shooting Death') which I think we need to get back to. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Nil Einne - sorry for mischaracterizing. Happy to say I always lower cased it in these discussions myself - had we reached agreement on it, I do think fixing the orthography wouldn't have been too difficult. But we're not there. Tvoz/talk 04:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I really think "Shooting Death..." sounds awkward. It also sounds sensationalized. I hear the guy's voice from Unsolved Mysteries when I type it. I can see "Death of..." working, or I could see "Fatal Shooting of..." working. However, I think I most support leaving the current title over anything else. Zetrock (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it is an ongoing problem. People do this all the time at high profile articles. In the end, Wikipedia has a rule called "Ignore All Rules". I don't think we've done that. There are other articles named the same way ("Shooting of"). Its been pointed out that this isn't just about the event of that night, but the aftermath as well. After all, there was an incident pointed out above that a black man in a car at Taco Bell shot a white retarded man walking his dog. Similar type of event, yet it received very little media attention. So my suggestion is leave the title alone for now. There is no timer on how fast something has to happen on the title. Once things settle down, and maybe even after the trial or not is over, we can decide. I REALLY hope they don't end up dragging this out and it coming to be more of a media circus. We definitely will have to split the article then if that happens. -- Avanu (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think eventually we will see The Death of....be the final outcome, but I just don't see the urgency in changing it "right now". I think the media will probably lay off this story a little bit now too since his lawyer will have to be given time to get up to speed on this case. The Sandusky trial starts the first week of June, so the media will be obsessed with that case for awhile.--Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zetrock, both about sensationalism, and the title "Fatal Shooting of...." I think "Fatal Shooting of...." would be an appropriate change. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like "Shooting of" is the common option for such cases in Wiki: Shooting of the Romanov family, Shooting of Kayla Rolland, Shooting of Hosie Miller, Shooting of Tyler Cassidy ... I think the term "fatal" is unnecessary. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Zetrock and TheDarkLordSeth. Current title is good, not too vague, not too specific.Fletcher (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying Shooting of is the common option is completely false. Please see Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Closing_the_discussion. Redredryder (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to read in your link connected to frequency of the use of the term "Shooting of." Can you show me how what I said was false? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Easier links: Special:PrefixIndex/Death of versus Special:PrefixIndex/Shooting of and Special:PrefixIndex/Shooting Death of. The term 'Shooting of' is limited in scope and that should be noted in your own links. Kayla Rollands article is a mess. Hosie Miller is also a mess and he died 10 days after his shooting. Tyler Cassidy article is two sentences and probably should go up for WP:AFD. The Romanov family shootings were more of executions, but that article is at least better, but again the title choice is terrible. Titles should be made by following WP:TITLE and the specific criteria of WP:CRITERIA. Convention points to 'Death of Trayvon Martin'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

From WP:TITLE: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Good advice. While stimulating to those still participating in the Title discussion it begins to un-necessarily polarize us and will effect future collaboration efforts. The current title works. Readers will find it. Also from WP:TITLE: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."```Buster Seven Talk 16:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

By that argument 'Shooting Death of' is controversial and not concise. The current title is not accurate as it resulted in immediate death. To continue going against convention, policy and put up such a stalwart defense of it could easily apply to the opposite viewpoint if not more so on grounds of 'Shooting Death'. This is far more then a 'Shooting' and now that it going before the courts it is growing ever more erroneous to continue to label it otherwise. As for the current title; the subject is deceased, the title should properly reflect that. Also it is typically bad form to scold other editors with their choice of contributions. If your comment was directed at me, less then 1% of my edits correspond to the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

@ User:Chris...I'm not scolding anyone, least of all you. My comment was meant for any editor that would listen. Please don't hear "scold" when my intent is "collaborate". ```Buster Seven Talk 23:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any really clear precedent here. Looking at cases that can be said to be analogous to this one, I've seen name only (Emmett Till), shooting (Amadou Diallo shooting), shooting of..., death of (Death of Vincent Chin), murder of..., and I'm sure there are far more that I'm overlooking, too. There's no "shooting death of", though, as I think that obviously violates recommendations of concision. Realistically speaking, a person searching for information on this case is at bare minimum going to type in "Trayvon Martin" (or "Treyvon Martin", its common misspelling, which adds confusion and difficulty to the search). Why make it more difficult to find than that? Why not just use his name, period. The argument that the title must reflect the subject's status is a non-starter. When have titles ever reflected if someone was alive or dead? When has a title needed to tell the whole story? The purpose of the title is to make it easy to identify and find, and any more information than that is only necessary or important if the page needs to be distinguished from another page, such as if the name is common. If he was John Smith, then "The Shooting Death of John Smith (Florida)" might be a wise choice. But someone searching for information shouldn't have to get all that down in order to get the right page, or to create the right link when they're editing another Wikipedia article. The bottom line is that given that WP:TITLE calls for Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency, the title that most serves those functions is simply his name. Lengthier names to include shooting and/or death aren't concise, and aren't precise either given the growing scope of the case. Consistency isn't possible given the variety of different ways these things have been titled, though that means we have a small pool of patterns to choose from, with the name alone being the most basic and of a very common pattern that can be seen with many analogous cases.QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

For common misspellings and similar choices we use redirects. Trayvon Martin redirects to this page. The article space itself can have only one title and redirects cover the others as needed. That is how the 'Shooting of' largely redirects to 'Death of'. The article is hosted under the name 'Death of', but if you search that term it will bring you to the article anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] We have talked about this several times at length and reached no consensus, and no consensus means maintain the status quo of the stable title we've had for most of the life of this article - Shooting of - until circumstances change and there is something new to talk about. So I don't know why you've gone for an RfC now, but perhaps new blood here will help.

• Death of does not in any way indicate that this death was not an accident, not a suicide, not an old-age death, not an illness-caused death. Shooting of at least indicates that much.
• I would prefer Shooting death of, as I have said, because it both indicates that the victim is dead as well as shot. But Fatal shooting of, a new offer, is fine with me as well. Shooting death of or Fatal shooting of are not controversial - there is no sane person who argues that Trayvon Martin was not shot to death by George Zimmerman - Chris, I don't know what you mean regarding "controversial" and perhaps if you would explain that we'd have a better understanding of why you are so strongly urging the title Death of, so much so, that you are not willing to let it sit at no-consensus=leave it alone at Shooting of.
• The shooter is accused of murder, and Murder of may soon enough be seen as the most appropriate title, as is commonly used throughout the encyclopedia, but that's likely not going to be agreed to now.
• As for conciseness, I have yet to hear why a title that is one word longer than the current title is so wildly inconcise as to rule it out. One word.
• And I think DarkLord was saying above that Shooting of was most common for articles of this kind - articles about circumstances that are in some way similar to this one - not the numerical count you get with that prefix tool which also includes redirects so is quite misleading. In any case, a count is not the determining factor in choosing an article title.

So - although I do not think it is the best title, I think we should stay with Shooting of for now, unless we can get some traction with Fatal shooting of. This article exists because this unarmed teenager was shot to death - neither "shooting" nor "death" alone is enough, but if I have to choose only between those two, then I think it is the act of being shot that makes Trayvon Martin's story notable for the encyclopedia. And it has been stable, so no consensus still means no change. Tvoz/talk 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkLordSeth is wrong though. 'Shooting of' and 'Shooting Death of' are not conventional and definitely not the norm. A good comparison would be Death of Neda Agha-Soltan or Death of Linda Norgrove. Shooting does not equate with death. Remove two words for one. This article clearly means something to a lot of us and I really and honestly wish discussion could take place which compare and contrast on the other points. As we have a lull in the reporting, getting some key information up to par and maybe hit GA status is one thing I wish this page could achieve. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I simply searched for various title possibilities and got more results for "Shooting of ..." and I listed a few. It's not the most exhaustive or the most professional research but it's still something and to me it seems like the current title is the most commonly used option. I don't see how I'm wrong about that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the problem is that there are only five (5) articles with the prefix Shooting of. And a handful of redirects. See Special:PrefixIndex/Shooting of. A lot of these are stubs and/or not up to WP standards. There are also a few Shooting of articles with a proper name prefix that we can't easily search for (e.g. BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. However, there are many, many more articles with the prefix Death of and these include deaths by firearms. See Special:PrefixIndex/Death of. So to say that the prefix Shooting of would be the norm wouldn't exactly be true when evidence points to the prefix Death of. But regardless like True Observer mentions below, this title will most likely switch to George Zimmerman's name since the trial is going to be a circus. Anyway, hope that helped to clear some of the confusion. Redredryder (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But Chris, you also said that Shooting death of is "controversial" - in what way do you mean that? The implication is that you think it is not neutral, but I'm not sure that's what you meant - I do not see it as controversial at all, based on what the story is about. So then we're left with your concern that it is too long - but I know of no policy that allows 4 word titles and forbids 5 word titles. I think we are discussing this, and have been for a couple of weeks - but since your preference in title has not been accepted, you seem to think we're not discussing it. I agree that there are other parts of the article that need our attention more than the title - this is why we should just leave this be for a while and move on to some other things. As I've said over and over, I don't love Shooting of, but I can live with it, as we have lived with it since pretty much the beginning. If you would agree to table this conversation that's not going anywhere, I think we'd be better off. Which is what I said when at least 2, maybe 3, other rounds of this debate ended in no consensus as this one is heading. No consensus = no change. Chris, there really are other things that need work. Tvoz/talk 05:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And Redredryder - don't ignore Amadou Diallo shooting and Sean Bell shooting incident among others - both fairly analogous to this story, much more than, say, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales - a six-word title, I'd point out. Tvoz/talk 05:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This story is more about Zimmerman than Martin. Long term, the Zimmerman name will be attached to this story a lot more than Martin. who has already started to fade away. Whether its done now or later, the title will be "The Zimmerman Trial".True Observer (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I just don't like it: "Arguments about how articles should be named should reflect how subjects are called in sources and the other principal naming criteria specified at WP:TITLE and general naming guidelines like WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions." While it may be an essay it applies pretty well to the situation, and quite clearly this key point is being avoided. WP:TITLE and WP:CRITERIA. Those two are the important policies. It is detrimental to the conversation to say 'There are better things to do' and it is called WP:BACKLOG. WP:AFC is still severely backlogged, but I got tired after several hundred submissions. Vandalism backlog was low so I did assessments. Not sure why the fuss over my editing choices, but I've done more then my fair share today.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it's any consolation to anyone, at least we're in good company regarding the present title. Here's the title of a story that appeared in the NY Times about two weeks ago. The Events Leading to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin As an aside, I think this NY Times article has good NPOV and is very informative, especially the seven aerial view depictions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The NYT article was NPOV but only because they knew that they had better start to back pedal from their prior biased reporting because the public wasn't buying it. Interestingly, the history to this article shows a similar back peddling by the editors.True Observer (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment to all... Editors have similarities and differences: similarities make communication possible; differences make it necessary. Final comment to all...If you hear hoofbeats, don't think, "Zebras!" ```Buster Seven Talk 13:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

@Chris - your statement above is against your own argument. "Arguments about how articles should be named should reflect how subjects are called in sources". "Trayvon Martin Shooting" and "Shooting of Trayvon" have ~28M google hits "Death of Trayvon Martin" has 1.8M. The fact that Trayvon died is tragic, but not unexpected, since he was shot in the chest. It is the shooting, itself that is controversial and at issue. Was the shooting justified or not. Everyone dies. "Death of" tells you nothing. He could have died of old age. He could have been walking along with skittles and iced tea and had a heart attack. But he didn't. He was shot. There is no question that he was shot. It is completely uncontroversial as a fact. Leaving out shooting is leaving out the most important part of the story. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

For completion, "Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin" has 380k hits. I assume some double-counting from the "death of" count above. I would support current title, or Shooting Death, as the most complete title, but not being overly long. "Fatal Shooting", which I could also support, has only 58k hits Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You cannot use Ggoogle results to search article contents versus title choice though. Also news articles are not the same as encyclopedia articles. However the terms 'Death Trayvon Martin' ('of' is typically omitted anyways) results in 243,000,000 hits. and 'Shooting Trayvon Martin' equals 40,200,000 hits. Google is not the best title research source or encyclopedia and carries little weight on what other people chose titles as. We should go with what Wikipedia title criteria. Though quite clearly the terms term with death is more then 5x popular with your google search. The reason your quoted section doesn't hold water because you search a string matching that, when it appears in the article as a regular sentence. Mainstream media typically doesn't refer to details and have a different title criteria then an encyclopedia. All that search shows is what we need redirects for. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:TITLE specifically says to refer to things as they are commonly refereed to in sources. Therefore, how the news articles refer to this event is valid as a criteria. Your search above is including any usage of related words, anywhere in proximity to each other, so I don't think that actually represents title (of the event) usage. For example, some o the results highlighted by that search include "Trayvon Martin, 17, died Feb. 26 ", "Trayvon Martin's race had less to do with his death than the fact that the neighborhood watch volunteer who killed him had a gun, Bill Cosby" (maybe we can get Bill Cosby to weigh in on the title? :) , "Less than one month after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in Florida, 22-year-old Rekia Boyd, who was unarmed, died". In any case, you have not answered the question posed to you several times by myself and Tvoz among others : How is Shooting controversial or POV, and how does "Death of" address the concern that his death was directly, caused by the shooting, and the shooting is the source of the controversy, the source of the court case, etc and therefore should be included in the title. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversial as in 'No Wikipedia article uses 'Shooting Death of' as its prefix'. Also even 'Fatal Shooting' is better, but yet then again let's several people want to put emphasis on the cause of death and not the complex situations which only ended in death and then attributing that manner of death before content is displayed. 'Death of' doesn't have to specifically state cause of death it is why the 'Death of' catagory contains deaths by 'Poisoning, suicide, accident, shooting, stabbings, overdose, burnings and more.' Putting emphasis on a single aspect of a complex situation or a matter does not change the facts of the case that Trayvon Martin is dead, but the situation resulting in his death is under huge controversy. Its not like it was JUST a shooting. Or JUST a 'Fatal Shooting'. The title should not hold importance on the manner of death when we have several reports of Martin beating up Zimmerman and screaming on 911 calls for 45 seconds before the shot. The shot may have ended it, but it was the not just that singular act and the title should not put emphasis on the manner of death, it should reflect the result of the entire incident. And that ended in death. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetically everything else happened the same way, and Martin didn't die. Would the outcry have been less? Probably. Would the charges be different? Sure (attempted, injury, etc). But the core of the case : (Did Zimmerman profile? Was Zimmerman justified at the moment of the shot?) are the same. Nothing is changed by the death, other than the severity of the repercussions (legal and social). I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you regarding the actual "facts" of the case, but from a wiki perspective, saying that "shooting" is not acceptable because there is a 911 call that might have a recording of Zimmerman on it yelling for help(which is highly contested), is clear POV. The shooting is the single most important thing in the case. Had zimmerman done exactly the same things, but not shot : Maybe he would be accused of profiling. Maybe (but also maybe not) he would be the clear victim of assault. Maybe he would be dead or severely injured (depending on the level of hypothetical assault). Martin would almost surely be alive. Zimmerman would not be charged with Murder, probably not charged with anything. (And hypothetically, Martin would instead be charged with something). Everything hinges on the shooting. It is the defining moment of the entire event. Change that single thing, and everything else is different. Change Martins death to wounded instead, and some things change, but not nearly as many. We do not know the actual reality. We do not know who is guilty (in a moral sense) of what. We will eventually know if Zimmerman is guilty (in a legal sense) of something. Our lack of knowledge of if the shooting was ultimatley justified or not does not change the fact that the shooting happened, and is the crux of the incident. If zimmerman is completely acquitted and declared factually innocent of all wrongdoing and that the shooting was completely justified - it was still a shooting. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, finally. That is what I suspected was behind the interest in getting away from any reference to the manner of death, and yes, it is POV. And I agree with your reasoning here, Gaijin, regarding what is at the core of the matter. Tvoz/talk 04:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a lot of hypothetical suggestions, it'd be more apt to have 'Shooting' if Martin lived rather then died. How about Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others which redirects to 2011 Tucson shooting? Not all titles are perfect on Wikipedia, but either way this goes just clarify the matter that it resulted in death. I'm opposed to 'Shooting Death' far more then 'Fatal Shooting' on word choice and I think everyone in agreement that 'Fatal Shooting' would be a better choice. Though again I'd stress the scope of the article to reduce the defining moment to a mere shooting when it can be further summarized and arguably better under WP:CRITERIA as 'Death of'. The fact we are in this stage and the discussion has finally brought up a counter point of 'Fatal Shooting' shows that 'Shooting Death' is awkward and unnatural wording, but I'd be more content with that wording because it better represents the situation... even if it isn't my ideal. 'I can live with that' comes to mind because it is at least a better term for a title article. Given that, I'd support 'Fatal Shooting' because it is better even if it has never been used [14]. I really don't care enough to debate this matter to death, because it can always be fixed later. With as many page views as this gets, the title is important as it is the first thing people see and we should at least have it be presentable. To sum up. I'll fight hard against 'Shooting Death', but be content with 'Fatal Shooting' over plain 'Shooting', but my ideal is 'Death'. I've made concessions here before, but I'd actually tag my name with support on 'Fatal Shooting' if it comes down between that and 'Shooting Death'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yay compromise! Im ok with the current title, and don't think a move is mandatory/urgent. But based on my reading of previous discussion, I think a consensus probably could be built for "Fatal shooting", and I would support that as well. Frankly I am surprised you can support one and not the other, because they seem almost identical to me. IN any case, lets see if we get any more responses to "Fatal shooting", and see if anyone raises a rukus. If anyone has a strong objection to "Fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin", here is the place to make your case. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

*Smiles at Gaijin* They are completely different in my eyes, they may state the same thing, but the word choice is very important to me. Though I do believe that consensus would easily form around 'Fatal Shooting' at this time. While I may be the most visible member of the 'Death' section, this is precisely the compromise I could get behind because it is natural and still properly reflects the manner of death which others want in. Just saying 'Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin' sounds so much better than 'Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Progress. I think I've already made my opinion clear on this so I won't bore everyone with my reasons again. (Take that as a "support".) Tvoz/talk 04:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is Roshomon all over again. Different parties have different points of view of the same event. Therefore, it can be referred to as (1) The Trayvon Martin Story or (2) The Trayvon Martin Incident ala "The Oxbow Incident". The Trayvon Martin Incident makes more sense because it involves an incident in time and all the rest has to do with what/how it happened and the aftermath. The death of one person in a country of hundreds of millions is meaningless (notwithstanding John Donne's Meditation) except for the fact that this death encapsulates cross currents and undercurrents of the culture that collided that fateful day. George Zimmerman is an equal protagonist in this story. As time goes by, he will play an increasingly larger role. Many stories now refer to "the event" as The Zimmerman Trial.True Observer (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Article still missing entire "other side"

Needs criticism of political and other assorted "activists" who are only involved in this case to further political careers or other agendas. Also missing Alan dershowitzs criticism of the prosecutor. This looks like another nifong/duke rape scandal going from his observation of the case thus far, that Corey's actions are also only political/career motivated and divorced of the facts of the case.68.115.53.79 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I added something re Dershowitz criticism of Zimmerman's former lawyers.[15] Regarding Dershowitz's criticism of the prosecutor, I saw some stuff but it wasn't clear that it was useful. Perhaps you could give here what addition you would want in that regard. Please note that I don't like to put in anyone's predictions about what will happen because this is an encyclopedia and predictions would eventually be meaningless when the actual event does or does not occur. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your definition of "useful"? something that would be found on some sort of leftist agitprop sweatshirt slogan? This whole page is gonna need quite a enema, it seems.Whatzinaname (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. You quote Dershowitz when he criticizes Zimmerman attorneys for violating the attorney client privilege. (This, of course, is an indirect dig on Zimmerman). But you don't think its necessary to quote him when he calls the prosecutor irresponsible and unethical. Not only that, he said she was politically posturing and gave a campaign speech. And you don't think is worth quoting from someone who is considered a foremost authority on criminal law?

The Dershowitz quotes are instructive of the media bias on this story. His criticism of the attorneys was picked up by thousands of news sources. But, his criticism of the prosecutor got picked up by only a few media outlets even though the quote was a lot more newsworthy.True Observer (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how criticism of Zimmerman's two former attorney's is an indirect "dig" on Zimmerman? That doesn't make sense to me. Zetrock (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dershowitz made a statement, which was fine. The media blew it up because it tied Zimmerman with unethical attorneys. It's very subtle but so was Goebbels.173.22.111.112 (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be asking ourselves if this is really that relevant or important to this article. Dershowitz was just one of many legal pundits who gave their opinion of Corey's announcement of the charges. I've seen all kind of legal experts in the media covering this case and offering their critique of everything from the 911 calls, witnessess, Zimmerman's resisting arrest charge, Martin's suspension, racial profiling, self-defense laws, you name it, they've covered it and had an expert standing by to tell us how this breaking news will affect this case. How do we determine the relevancy of those who are simply stating an opinion on a media driven case such as this. Is it how much covereage their remarks were given, the big name behind the one offering their opinion or those who make the wildest claims. Remember, it's just barely been fifty days and look at what the media has already turned this case into. We still got a long way to go and alot more opinions to listen to.--Isaidnoway (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think in general commentary that is negative towards the case (over-charging, posturing, etc) are relevant to the article. We have many sections discussion biases of the various participants, unless we are going to gut the article of all such sections (which would not make sense, since those biases are core to the various controversies) Not including notable accusations/discussion about the court is POV. Once past that hurdle, we have to select who in particular to include. Dershowitz is almost universally respected (note, not universally agreed with). I think his comments would be excellent for inclusion, unless someone can raise specific objection to his statements, or find someone significantly better. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you just answered my question. I'm not suggesting we ignore these talking heads or the media coverage altogether, since really they are the ones who made this case what it is and created these "various controversies" for the talking heads to talk about. Sooner or late though, we'll have to categorize the coverage into sections about the initial coverage, the trial coverage, since we know it will be televised, and the aftermath. I think Dershowitz is notable enough along with Geragos and Marcia Clark and a few others who the media regularly rely on for analysis of high-profile cases. I think the Martin family and Benjamin Crump should also be covered in the article a little more too.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like my message and edit were misunderstood by some people. Perhaps the negative respondents could give here what specific addition they would want in the article regarding Dershowitz, i.e. the exact wording. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of "posturing" going on in this discussion. However, other than Bob's, I don't see any references, links to articles, etc to look at. Wikipedia is not a blog where folks can put in their personal opinions, there must be references. Look, I am so conservative that I make George Bush look like a liberal, but I also respect that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and not a Facebook page. I agree with Bob, can you make exact quotes of what you think should be included, and include references? If not, this discussion should be closed. Thanks! --Mt6617 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(first draft, feel free to edit) (comma delimited description clauses of the people below are plagarized from the sources, and will need to be reworked)

Legal experts and commentators have suggested that it may be difficult for Zimmerman to get a fair trial, due to the media attention and tensions in this case. Mark Bedrow, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney's office, said "By deliberately doctoring the 911 calls in order to make it appear that Zimmerman was a racist in order to advance the racial component of the story, NBC perpetrated a fraud upon the American public to the great detriment of Zimmerman's ability to receive a fair trial". Alan Dershowitz said "For me, the major criteria of a fair trial is could a juror who voted to acquit feel safe back in his community, feel that he wouldn’t be hassled or criticized by community members."

Sean Hannity and Jeff Weiner, a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers who practices in Miami, have suggested that Zimmerman may have been overcharged, and that Manslaughter charges would have been more appropriate

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/can_george_zimmerman_get_a_fai.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/16/fair-trial-for-zimmerman-not-likely-on-home-turf-say-legal-experts/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/sean-hannity-george-zimmerman-overcharging_n_1420157.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gaijin42. Now its a matter of where to put it. As is, it's a little difficult to see which source goes with which statements, but I expect you can fix that easily.

Re 1st sentence "Legal experts..." — I think it's a good sentence. Which source says that? Where should it go?

Re 2nd sentence "Mark Bedrow..." — There's a section that already has NBC/9-1-1 criticism and this might replace something already there. The subject may have been given more than its share already.

Re 3rd sentence "Alan Dershowitz said..." — That's a good point. Find a place in the article for it. After the court proceedings are over, its presentation could be modified according to outcome.

Re 4th senence "Sean Hannity..." — Not sure if that is very significant, but if you can make it work, go for it.

Maybe the best thing to do is for you to make the edits as you see fit and we'll see what happens. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps we should split public/media reactions into two sections, one for reactions to the event itself, and one for reactions specifically regarding the case? (As there will likely be a massive flood of media and public reactions to court events as this case goes on, obviously only some of which may be viable inclusions in the article). re #2, I agree there is already wide coverage of this issue, however most of that is dealing with how sucky the news media is. This is specifically pointing out that it may have the effect of tainting the jury, which I think is important. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a few more, one about Dershowitz, Cheney Mason, and Zimmerman's attorney about overcharging and political posturing. [16][17][18] [19] I haven't seen any coverage on it yet, but from my understanding of Florida law, Zimmerman's attorney has to request the hearing on the SYG defense before or at the arraigment, unless the court grants further time.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

almost by definition it has to be before the arraignment, because you plea (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre etc) at the arraignment, and the arraignment is the formal beginning of the prosecution. Since Florida is immunity to even being prosecuted, and hass the self defense plea as the backup, it has to be before. Previously, I was almost thinking that that previous hearing, where the judge ruled there was probable cause, might have been the SYG immunity hearing, but the lack of significant coverage as to that makes me doubt it now. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I like several of the quotes from Dershowitz on MediaIte, but I think we should try and find a better source for it.

The court can decide in it's discretion to let Zimmerman plead and then file a motion to dismiss at a time to be set by the court. I think that is probably why the judge set the arraignment so far off, was to give his attorney a chance to get up to speed on the case, the probable cause hearing was just that and nothing else. Actually that affidavit she filed was pretty normal, prosecutors do it all the time, this one just happens to be high-profile. If the judge lets the trial go on, I see him reducing the charge and if he doesn't, lesser included offenses will be included in the jury instructions. Here's the link to the msnbc interview with Dershowitz [20]--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the vid. Based on that, I found a transcript http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47064490/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#.T42-kdm0Ao4 Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposesd paragraph ending "...Zimmerman may have been overcharged, and that Manslaughter charges would have been more appropriate" omits the sources that suggest that Z should not have been charged at all, since he, in their view (and mine, I'll admit), apparently had a valid self-defense claim. This was, after all, the position of the original SA, and Dershowitz's statement, in the end, is that nothing in the Affadavit is inconsistent with self-defense. Just saying this thread of judgement should be included as well. Andyvphil (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to include Sean Hannity's opinion on legal matters - he is in no way a legal expert and his evaluation of what charges should or should not have been brought are just the opinions of a layman, and one with a known political bias. If we include legal experts' opinions on legal matters, we should only use those of respected legal commentators, and even then we ought to consider whether they are just talking heads providing content for news shows, or if they actually have access to evidence and the prosecutors' case. (Which, at present, of course none of them do.) Hannity, Sharpton, and all points in between can be quoted for any relevant and notable comments they made regarding the social and political implications of this case, perhaps, but not for legal opinions. Tvoz/talk 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request remove wolfinger pic (done)

Since Norm Wolfinger is no longer involved I think his photo should be removed. Is this resonable?--Mt6617 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

What was the final decision on this? It appeared to be overwhelmingly supported.--Mt6617 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think so too, but we should let it sit out the full 7 days (one day more) just to avoid wiki-lawyer issues, but WP:SNOW would be valid in this case imo. Someone has to do the tough work of deciding what to merge though. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As for meging being difficult, I'm not so sure, as much of it is repetive. But once it is decided to merge, I will be happy to make examples, templates, etc here on the talk page, and then a more experienced editor could make the actual changes.--Mt6617 (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to assist as well. Merging of the information and fixing it up is essential before we try to get this article rated properly. Even repetitive segments being discounted doesn't mean the wording is worse then this article so those sections must be checked carefully still. I'd say the merging of information should take 1 or 2 weeks and several discussions on major segments should take place during the merging process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead investigator?

"The lead homicide investigator reportedly said he did not believe it was self-defense" ...this statement isn't supported by the citation; the article in the citation says a witness alleges an investigator said this. Is there a better citation? If not, the statement needs to be changed. I was looking for a better one but cannot find one. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The citation should be pointing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#cite_note-DailyNews-Serino-55 instead. Could someone with permissions fix this? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the direct quote from the article Brown alleged that the lead investigator "told me this was not self-defense," how does this not support the statement in the article?--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Semantics. "Reportedly" and "allegedly" are not equivalent. The former arguably implies an editorial process, the latter questions substantiation. So I've rewritten it to identify the source. Andyvphil (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It was fine like it was, but your version works as well.--Isaidnoway (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

About George Zimmerman

I know this will probably be rejected as "irrelevant", but I'd like to point out that Zimmerman was charged for "domestic violence" and "resisting officer" in 2005 and 2006.
link : http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer
http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-and-his-history-violence-sanford-florida-details
http://current.com/community/93716665_george-zimmerman-had-felony-assault-on-police-officer-charge-in-05-2-domestic-assaults.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.2.245.114 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:BLPCRIME no conviction, no inclusion as it is not directly relevant or notable itself to Wikipedia. Same is true for Martin's pot connection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

About Trayvon Martin

Character in both cases of Martin and Zimmerman should be admissible as long as it is not "alleged" or hearsay. Speaking of that, Is there an accounting for reasons behind Trayvon's 10 day suspension from school?Rcodella (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Character being defined as largely negative in the media despite evidence to the contrary, Wikipedia must be neutral and mudslinging does not help in characterizing them properly. As a matter of WP:COATRACK 2 of the suspensions are not listed, but the last was due to an empty pot bag and pipe. It is not directly related to the case, but it is 3 or 4 'hops' of information which used to be in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Categories too few?

The article is only showing 3 categories. Somehow I thought it would be more. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Add or suggest some? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Added 2 from Duke lacrosse case. Could have added 2 more, but refrained . --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wendy Dorival's Comments

I see the following paragraph as reflecting a non-neutral WP:POV and think it should be removed:

"Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival told The Miami Herald she met Zimmerman in September 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation. Dorival stated she gave a warning in regard to vigilante behavior at that meeting: "I said, 'If it's someone you don't recognize, call us. We'll figure it out. Observe from a safe location.' There's even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don't know how many more times I can repeat it."[44]Emeraldflames (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It should stay. Zimmmerman is repeatedly refereed to as the community watch captain. If he was acting in that capacity at that time, then those instructions should be well known to him and are certainly relevant. If he was acting as a private citizen, then those instructions are again directed to him as a community member, and he would have been aware of them (as indicated by his presence at that meeting). Neutral POV does not mean we remove any information which could be disparaging to a person, it means we shouldn't be pushing a pov. This particular fact does not look good for Zimmerman, it is not bias to report it. In the instance of this fact (not necessarily the overall incident or case) "Reality has a well known liberal bias". Gaijin42 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with anything but "There's even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don't know how many more times I can repeat it." Basically, the implication is that Zimmerman was being a vigilante- or that is what Wendy's statements imply. I don't think the last two statements would ever be in an encyclopedia- just a newspaper. I think it can be weeded down to just the facts and not Wendy's 'exasperated' undertone, reflected in the last two statements. Second, we don't know whether he was being a vigilante or not. That is very much in question. That begs the question. She is not in a place to know what happened that night- or whether Zimmerman was being a vigilante. So why include her comments on it? It would be like citing the faculty member that suspended Martin saying "I told Trayvon over and over to not [act suspicious]." Emeraldflames (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We are expected to believe she remembers what she said 6 months ago? Most people can't remember what they had for lunch the previous day. Another spin she is giving is that she met Zimmerman. When you give a talk to a group, you don't normally say you met the members of the group.173.22.111.112 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

1) he is the watch captain/coordinator. She likely had much more significant and direct communication with him relative to the others. Therefore easier to remember 2) She has convenient mnemonic devices in the presentation, and perhaps even an established script/spiel that she uses regularly for such presentations. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone that has been in a leadership position of a Neighborhood Watch group or a Community Policing group is aware that they were "On Duty" at all times. The minute they stepped out of the house, for any reason, they were watching and/or policing. Whenever they looked out the window, they were looking for something unusual. Most neighborhood policing groups come into being because of a criminal problem or situation: robberies, lottering, gang presence, sexual assaults, purse snatchings and the like. There may be specific times and locations for a co-ordinated group patrol but the designated chief of the concerned citizenry is always doing his "job" as Street Master. Always. Not just at certain times. Regarding Ms Dorival and the community watch presentation, it would be normal for Mr Zimmerman, as a leader in the effort to protect his neighborhood, to approach the speaker and introduce himself. As Gaijin remarks...Her presentation may be formal in which case it would be similar for each presentation and easy to remember. Furthermore there may have been only a few people at the meeting, which is not uncommon, and Zimmerman's presence was easily brought to mind. As to whether he was acting as a vigilante: once he ignored the directions of the 9-1-1 call taker, he placed himself "outside the law' and acted to suppress crime. He became a vigilante by definition. Ms. Dorivals warnings against "taking the law into your own hands" seem to fit the situation that happened that night. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This leads up to my point. The point that you take as fact, is actually in dispute. We don't know whether he continued to follow Martin after he was advised it wasn't necessary. And neither does Wendy. Emeraldflames (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wendy's statement has nothing to do with instructions from the police on the phone. It is the general policy of the police (per dorival's presentation) that the watch is not supposed to follow suspects, or take action on their own under any scenario. The police dispatcher repeating that instruction only reinforces that. Indeed we do not know what zimmerman did after that point, but we do know that he admitted to following to start with. That initial following, prior to the police instruction, is already in contradiction to the instruction from Dorival. That said, those policies do not carry any legal weight, and he did not break a law by following Martin (although he might possibly have weakened his self defense claim) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You made a nice point until your wild assertion that Zimmerman placed himself outside the law.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I have no objection to this word being struck, I would have preferred that I had been allowed to do it myself.--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Its not a wild assertion. Zimmerman continued to follow Martin in spite of being told not to. He acted beyond the scope of what an officer of the law had told him to do. A neighborhood watch person is not a peace officer. Somewhere I remember reading that a Sanford police official (it may have been Ms. Dorival) came to the Retreat to explain the guidelines of community "eyes and ears". One of those guidelines was, most assuredly, "Do NOT arm yourself". For these two reasons, I think he was outside the law and he shifted from being watchdog to being a vigilante. But thats just my pov. I dont support including, or even hinting it, in the article. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Being that it is your POV is what makes it an assertion. We'll just have to agree to disagree about what the law allowed Zimmerman to do. The prosecutor and defense attorney can present their theories of what happened to a court of law.--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So you won't mind striking "wild"? ```Buster Seven Talk 16:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the last two sentences "supports" and strongly "hints" that Wendy believed Zimmerman acted as a vigilante- a fact that is in dispute. She was not there that night, and so her implied opinion/speculation is not relevant. Emeraldflames (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman has no legal obligation to follow a 911 dispatchers orders. It does not carry the rule of law. This was cited in the article and that fact should still be reflected, the comment occurred during the time frame before information came out about Martin's attack on Zimmerman, something which even we do not know. According to Zimmerman's actions, 911 call and consider that Zimmerman made no intention to follow Martin when the call had ended. Given this information while he may have followed initially, by the end of the call he had forsaken 'pursuit' or 'following' and would leave it up to the police who were soon to arrive. It was during this period in which the event occurred, but as Zimmerman did not continue to pursue he did in fact comply with the 911 dispatcher and made comments about it. The quote is used out of context and without information to assume vigilantism despite evidence to the contrary, such a strong statement should be neutral as information has changed and appearances are deceiving. This was done after Tracy Martin's previous two accounts of the incident were dis-proven and updated with the current version of events... which still changes when asked about it. There is no proof that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante, its hearsay and speculation from early on with little evidence to back up the claim from the facts and statements given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The fact that a person is dead gives credence to calling Zimmerman a vigalante: credence to Ms Dorival and any editor here that wishes to consider him as such. If she, in fact, presented guidance and instruction to the Stanford citizens (who then chose Zimmerman as the co-ordinator) it is certainly relevant that he did not abide by those instructions. It could be argued that by facilitating his neighborhood watch group Zimmerman gave up his right to bear his registered weapon since he would be placing himself and fellow citizens in harms way. Do you really think Zimmerman stopped looking for Martin after Martin ran and Zimmerman lost sight of him.? Zimmerman was going to return to his truck and be on his merry way?``Buster Seven Talk 17:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You and other editors are certainly free to consider him a vigilante if you so choose. The way I understood her instructions, it was pertaining to when a person was acting as a community watchperson. It is stated in the article that Zimmerman was on a personal errand, going to the store. He was under no obligation to follow Ms. Dorival's instructions while he was on a personal errand and he was within his legal right to carry his weapon while going to the store.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutley he had the right to be armed, and was on a personal issue. That said, when he began following them, he starts being "bound" by the expectations of every citicizen in regards to the proper behavior when dealing with a suspect, as instructed by the police previously. Zimmermans capacity as the watch captain strengthens this issue, bucause he was doubly aware of what the expectations were. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@Chris : You are correct he was not under any legal obligation, and did not break the law. But he was acting outside the bounds of expected and specifically instructed behavior for the watch, and as the watch captain he should particularly aware of those standards and instructions. Part of the defense around zimmerman was people saying he was doing his job as a member of the watch to report martin, and he was protecting the community by following him, and then eventually protecting himself at the time of the shot. If he was acting outside the bounds of his role, then some of the "moral protection" from his actions of following Martin he gets by acting "in the line of duty" goes away. That of course does not imply a murder or that the actual shot wasn't self defense. But if we list him as a watch captain (which we do) which implies his actions were at some level taken as "in the line of duty" (which it does), then the information about what those expectations and instructions are is absolutely relevant.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

To avoid WP:OR issues, here are several RS making either the "in the line of duty" arguments, and other sources bringing up the issues I raised above.

• http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/03/22/ac-george-zimmerman-friend-taffe.cnn
• http://www.gazette.net/article/20120417/NEWS/704179990/1077/neighborhood-watch-groups-reflect-on-practices-after-teen-s-fatal&template=gazette
• http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-16/news/bs-ed-zimmerman-letter-20120416_1_neighborhood-gated-community-captain

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the important part though, was he following Martin when he was allegedly attacked? People can make mistakes of judgement and Zimmerman did follow Martin as referred to on the tape. After being told not to follow he does stop and loses sight of Martin, but by the time the call ends he has no idea where Martin is and will go to meet up with the police. Unless he decides to follow Martin (who he can't see) the attack diagrams show Zimmerman was going back towards his vehicle. While he may have followed at one point, if Martin was the aggressor after Zimmerman broke off it does not change the ultimate question of self-defense. The last source is obviously not a Reliable Source as it is clearly an opinion. He was not under any circumstances patrolling. This is the differences between the fact and fiction of this case. Just like the armed neo-nazi's patrolling Sanford, this is largely fabricated from a misunderstanding. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have any actual evidence as to Zimmerman turning around and going the other way (other than some people giving hearsay repeating zimmerman). There are no known locations further towards the martin home that can be specifically identified as Zimmerman having gotten that far, and then turning around to return to the location of the eventual altercation. If you think there are such sources, I would def. be interested in seeing them. You are absolutely correct following or not does not impact self defense. (The completely unknown "who started it" does though). However, this event is not just about the shooting. A good portion of the criticism against zimmerman has been the "profiling" aspect. Had Zimmerman been acting entirely within the bounds as a watch captain, then some decent portion of that criticism might be able to be deflected. Him acting outside of those bounds puts him back into "random civilian" mode, undeserving of the protection of his role as watch captain (and possibly even more culpable, just like we treat cops who break the rules). I have made this argument before, that there are several loosely related "justifications" in play. Being suspicious, calling the cops, following, interacting, and ultimately shooting. there are different criteria for evaluating the correctness (or not) of his actions at each decision (which were obviously all quick and not discreet actions at the time likely) Things are mingled a lot, but I think we must be clear that some things could condemn Zimmerman as far as profiling is concerned (making him possibly a jerk, but probably not a criminal), without impacting at all his justification (or not) for self defense. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about a lot of interesting things, but few of them are directly relevant to whether the *last two* sentences (not the first few) of Wendy's quote should be included. The first few I agree are relevant- the last two are essentially Wendy's implication that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman was instructed on two occasions (presentation, phone call) not to follow. If he followed anyway (which we know he did after the first warning, may have done after the second warning) then that indicates a level of poor judgement in regards to acceptable behavior that could directly reflect on his decision about if it was appropriate to shoot. A accusation/allegation of vigilantism (in the eyes of an official, who was specifically providing training on avoiding vigilantism, given directly to Zimmerman) is certainly relevant towards that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't reflect the facts of the case. There is nothing stating he cannot follow Martin by law. His statement to police has not changed, he said he was attacked. We have screaming for 45 seconds on tape which several witnesses including Zimmerman's own testimony and police reports that show Zimmerman was on the ground as Martin attacked him. DeeDee even made a statement to police that Trayvon Martin confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around. While Zimmerman did not display textbook behavior there is more then mere conduct from a civilian and duty, Zimmerman is not a officer and is unable to function in that capacity, the fact he is on tape asserting he cannot find Martin and is going to meet up with the police is counter to the assumption he was following Martin. How can he follow what he cannot see? Testimony from a/the 'girlfriend' point to Martin starting it and Martin did confront Zimmerman. Then it the matter falls on Martin whether or not he started the fight, if Martin did then Zimmerman's conduct is moot because Martin not Zimmerman engaged in a physical struggle and the testimony from DeeDee matches Zimmerman's statement. If anything those facts are more important then the opinion of Dorival who has reason to save face and take a hardline stance independent of the facts which came out after the statement was made. Its like Tracey Martin's statement that Zimmerman shot Martin on the porch of the house. Or the one in which Jesse Jackson said Martin was shot in the back of the head. While it may have been said, putting disproven fact or opinion before official records is not neutral. Keep the first sentences, leave out condemning personal opinion pointing towards vigilantism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether she is an official or not, she was not there that night (and presumably not a part of the investigating team). So, why include her speculation that he was acting as a vigilante? She can talk about what she told him, but her speculation/opinion should not be included. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Losing track of Martin is very different from going in the other direction. It is just as likely he continued to move in the direction of last known motion as it is that he turned around. We have no evidence either way, but we do know that he started by following. I don't believe the girldfriend's testimony gives any evidence towards martin starting it - please provide a source for that if you think it does, because it would certainly be relevant. You are right that Zimmerman was not an official, he was a citizen. The citizens were specifically instructed not to follow, and to let the police handle it. (Again that does not impact the self defense claim). Who is screaming on the phone is up for debate, and imo we will never get a satisfactory answer as to who it was, its use as an argument by either side is highly suspect. You are explicitly making the assumption that martin started it, and the only evidence we have towards that is Zimmermans testimony, which as the accused is obviously to be taken with a grain of salt. The incorrect statements by others are non-sequeitor in this discussion. Dorival's statements are backed up by the published presentation given to the watch, and were made at a time prior to the arrest (when for the most part the public position of the police was that it was self defense, so she had no reason to be spinning her statements in a way that contradicts the position of the force). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Her first few statements are backed up by the published presentation given to the watch, and were made at a time prior to the arrest. The last two statements- essentially "Zimmerman is a vigilante!" are NOT backed up by anything. They are simply her opinion- probably based on media accounts. Second, whether or not she had a *reason* to spin her statements, the fact remains she spun her statements- about circumstances she has no expertise or any special knowledge of. Her expertise and value ends when she finishes explaining what was taught at the presentation. The "there is even a.." and the "I don't know how many times I.." stuff implies things that exceed her authority/expertise. The *only* reason to include the last two sentences is simply to demonstrate her 'exasperation' at her belief that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section had been edited down too severely, with the result that it was slanted toward a recounting of Zimmerman's claims about what happened, and not giving a balanced presentation of the story as has been widely reported. Removing widely reported details such as where Martin was going, and the widely reported and confirmed fact (one of the few confirmed facts, from the 911 call) that Zimmerman was following Martin is POV and not acceptable for the lead section which is supposed to be able to pretty much stand alone as a summary of the article. We give more than enough voice to Zimmerman's account of what happened, several places in the article, including in the lead, but we are not going to tell only his recounting of what he claims happened. The sources don't, and we don't. And just undoing an edit that was explained - without giving any explanation - is not the way we do things here. The facts that I reinstated have long been in the lead, are cited by dozens if not hundreds of sources, and removing them has, as I said in my edit summary, slanted the lead. Our job is to accurately reflect what sources say, not to replace their journalistic and editorial judgments with ones that we like better. Tvoz/talk 08:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Zimmerman's account can't be balanced with Martin's is the unfortunate consequence of Martin's being unable to give his account, since he is dead. We shouldn't just include speculation in the name of balance. There are many other citable FACTS (not speculation by media) that can be included, such as Martin's recent ciminal behavior (stealing from lockers at school, drug possession, assault of the bus driver) that has more merit and place in the lead, since it is verifiable, than mere speculation.ProfJustice (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We are not doing that, we are including well-sourced material. And see below about being in violation of 1RR. Tvoz/talk 08:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin's Intentions

Unfortunately, Martin is not here to tell us where he was going. Maybe he was going to his father's house. Maybe he was scoping out houses in the neighborhood to rob. Maybe he was patroling the neighborhood for suspicious individuals. The point is that it is not possible for anyone except him to know where he was going when he was shot. Any statement on this is purely speculation and therefore doesn't belong in the article, and certainly not in the lead. An article this contentious should avoid such speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs)

Collapsing this into the section immediately above which is where the discussion about your edit was started. The material you reverted twice is well-sourced and has long been in the lead in one way or another - please address the points made there regarding how we decide what to include. Zimmerman's statements are not facts, they are merely his claims. Where Martin was going is widely reported and not considered to be in contention, and we go with sources. Also, you're in violation of the 1 revert rule that is clearly stated on the top of the edit screen - you were supposed to come here and discuss, not come here and discuss while reverting back to the text you want. Please undo your last revert and the content can be discussed here, as my edit summary advised. Tvoz/talk 08:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Last revert undone awaiting discussion. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Zimmerman's statements are just that. We should not assume his statements are factually correct, only that it's a fact he said it (which we hear him state e.g. in the 911 call). I understand you can cite RS for where Martin was going, that isn't my point, and it isn't the ONLY criterion for inclusion. My point is that it is obviously speculation, perhaps likely correct, but speculation nonetheless and therefore doesn't belong in the lead. Is it really even relevant? So what where he was going. So what if he was out for a stroll. It really doesn't have a bearing on the events. Visiting his girlfriend, going to his mother's, looking for frogs in the rain, I don't see why it should matter, so why should such speculation be included. Stay focused now, that was direct question. Discussion should be dialectic so try not to just repeat what you already stated, I addressed that point already. And on the reverts, you are guilty of violating the 1 revert rule there also, so please stop with the Gotcha. Let's discuss the issues. I'm here to do that, not get into a revert war. And on a side note, and I know this is off-topic with regard to the article, we all know some would like to use this incident to stir up racial violence and the media has a financial interest in creating and sustaining controversies. But an issue like this is too important to use as a proxy battle for something else. Yes, Martin wasn't perfect and yes, it's possible Zimmerman was overzealous. But a young man is dead and another man's fate hangs in the balance. I think the vast majority of Americans feel the way you and I do Tvoz. If Zimmerman was the aggressor and wasn't acting in self-defense, then he deserves to pay for his crimes. I hope it is possible to discover the objective facts in the case so justice can be served - whatever that outcome may entail. ProfJustice (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

if you were to describe this situation to a completely uninformed listener, as concisely and as neutrally as possible : Martin was walking. Zimmerman saw him. Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. Called the cops. Followed him. They fought/interacted/dont know details. Some witnesses, but inconclusive and conflicting (detail does not belong in lead). Zimmerman shot. Later claimed it was self defense. He was initially not arrested. Outrage. Racial tensions. He has been arrested and charged.

Those are all objective facts. (Zimmerman's claim is a fact, not necessarily that it actually was SD). That is pretty much what our lead should be. It describes the case without passing any judgements and provides the basic understanding needed to read the detailed stuff that comes below. To put more in the lead opens up the door to a lot of pov (which particular witness or opinion or facts you include in the lead past that are going to be pushing one side or the other) Gaijin42 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree exactly. Let's keep it as concise and factual as possible. Controversial statements, even from RS, should be excluded from the lead (at this point anyway). To wit, I suggest again removing the irrelevant (and controversial) claim he was walking to the father's girlfriend's/fiance's condo/house, here or there - who house he was staying at - it's all irrelevant. People should not get shot for no reason regardless of where they are walking, that's a peripheral issue (i.e. whether he "belonged" there or not) and doesn't merit inclusion in the lead. No to mention how cumbersome the sentence structure is atm. I had simplified it with much better and more concise wording, for those who might care see my version a couple of edits ago before Tvoz's edit. This isn't about telling one side or the other aor both sides, it's about stating the basic, known facts as simply as possible. ProfJustice (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point re: his belonging there. But, I think his reason for being there is mentioned in order to counter the fact that it was/is a "gated community" implying restricted controlled entry (when in fact it has many not-so-secret un-restricted entry points). ```Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But it's a point of contention and doesn't belong in the lead. Again, the purpose is not to "tell both sides", we don't need to justify his being there - we need to state the most critical facts of the case as clearly and concisely as possible. ProfJustice (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

According to your logic, the whole lead would have to be gutted, because it is filled with controversial statements from RS. Was Zimmerman hispanic or white? Was Martin walking to a house he was staying at or just walking around? Was Martin's appearance and behavior suspicious or not? Did Martin attack him or not? Was it self-defense or not? Was Zimmerman bleeding from wounds or not? Was there evidence to contradict his assertion of self-defense or not? In lieu of all the other controversies surrounding this shooting, I see no relevant reason not to include where he was walking to.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it would not. Zimmerman's race whatever it may be is a verifiable fact. We don't know where Martin was going, because he never got there, maybe he didn't even know. No one is saying his behavior was suspicious, we are only say that's what Zimmerman stated to the 911 operator (a verifiable fact). We don't know who attacked who, so that doesn't belong in the lead either. We don't know if it was SD, either, so that should not be stated in the lead (Zimmerman's CLAIM it was SD should however, again - that is a verifiable fact). I think I just covered all the points you raised. ProfJustice (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We can mention that he was staying at his father's fiancee's home in the gated community, which serves the same purpose as far as saying he had the right to be there, inside the gated community. I am in agreement that his destination, and where he was traveling from, are not relevant to the lead, as it really did not affect Zimmerman's perception. Later in the body, I believe that the common story (backed up by some evidence) that he was walking from 7-11 to his home is very relevant as it can be used to evaluate Zimmerman's perception that he was up to no good. Some of the other facts (races involved) I think are 1) easy/short to include 2) facts, not really controversial (excepting zimmerman being hispanic vs multiracial vs white hispanic), 3) directly relevant to the controversy as its obviously a racially tinged issueGaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion. It is much less speculative/controversial as a point of fact and will serve the purpose stated in favor of inclusion. Let's keep it short in the lead though, since it is not really that important vis-a-vis the basic facts of the case. Can someone else do the edit? I already tried it a couple of times, only to be reverted. ProfJustice (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing that any of it should be excluded, including his race. I don't see where Martin was walking to as that big of a controversial statement. The whole circumstances surrounding the shooting are controversial, and where he was walking to is just one little slice of it. The case is not going to pivot on where he was walking to.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Which is one of the reasons it doesn't need to be in the lead.ProfJustice (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where Martin was intending on going. He had been to the 7-11 and he was at his dad's housing complex about 1 block from his house. Giant huge enormous... DUH... he was going home. Maybe he didn't want to head straight home, wanting to talk to his girlfriend, who knows... but more than obvious, he was heading back to his dad's apartment. Sure you can't know his every thought and maybe he stopped because he thought he saw a striking and rare crucifix ground beetle, but unless he decided at that very moment to run away to the circus or join a car theft ring, he was just in the process of heading home. Have you ever been 17 years old and acted in a way that might be considered goofy or suspicious by an older person? I don't care if this is in the lead or not, but overanalyzing it to the point of absurdity is frankly... absurd. -- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much of it is going on here, but a couple of things matter. The 7-11 and NBA halftime statement was wrong and yet it still exists despite half of it being disproven, no evidence of the 7-11 has been 'public', but there is some assumption to believe 'DeeDee's statements are a liability for the prosecution in that regard. Especially since DeeDee made a statement about Martin not going to run and going to confront Zimmerman and the fact he was with 70 (ft or m I forget which) from the house. Martin's intent should not be dissected in the lead, but we have evidence that clearly points to his intent and actually confronting Zimmerman and not the other way around. A big matter in court, but should be done delicately here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

1. How long is a person a fiancee? The relationship is variously described as girlfriend and fiancee. After 4 years, she cannot be called fiancee unless there is a scheduled date.

2. The first report of Trayvon's phone call referred yo his talking to a girlfriend. All of a sudden, she becomes the girlfriend. Strange that she does not appear on his Facebook Page or Twitter account.

3. Trayvon was not staying at his father's fiancee's home. He was visiting there. In fact this was his first night. There is a big difference between staying and visiting. Staying implies that he had been among his neighbors. Visiting implies that you are a stranger. Trayvon was a stranger to the neighborhood.True Observer (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he was going straight to his father's girlfriend's/fiancee's whatever, the point is that it's an assumption. Maybe he was scoping out houses to bulgarize. I don't know and neither did GZ and neither does anyone else. Maybe he was a "stranger" to the neighborhood, maybe he was there a dozen times and knew half the residents. We don't need this type of speculation in the article at this point, and definitely not in the lead - no of it is particularly relevant to getting shot!ProfJustice (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@True Observer. Asking someone..."Where do you stay?" is the same as asking, "Where do you live?" ```Buster Seven Talk 17:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the point he was making. ProfJustice (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@TrueObserver : 1) we have no idea when the engagement happened. He could have proposed last month, and have no date set. This is complete speculation, and further completely irrelevant. Trying to poke holes in a part of the story that is not relevant is really pointless. 2) Not everyone lists relationships on facebook, or makes such information public. or they could have been not exclusive. In any case, again it serves no purpose. If it was just a friend that happens to be female, or whatever their relationship is, it does not impact her statements. 3) this point is slightly true, in that he was unknown. however being unknown is not cause for suspicion. I doubt zimmerman is "on sight" familiar with every resident of the entire community, especially considering they lived on opposite sides. I certainly dont know all of the poeple that live in my own building, let alone my own complex/community. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

← Reliable sources - hundreds of them - say that he was walking to his father's fiancee's house. He was 70 feet from it - as Avanu says, this is not rocket science: it is a reasonable conclusion - drawn not by us, who have no business drawing conclusions which is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - but drawn by the many, many, many journalists who have written and spoken about this.

Are there legitimate reliable sources that claim otherwise? This is not a controversial point in a neutral presentation - he was staying at her house and walking home. We no longer say in the lead that he had gone to the 7-11, or anything about the NBA, or about the well-reported iced tea and Skittles - but I am not aware of any reliable sourcing that says anything other than that he was obviously walking home, whether he was "looking around" or not. Leaving that point out gives more credence to Zimmerman's unsubstantiated claims than to the basic facts of the case that are not in contention other than by Zimmerman's supporters. And the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and stand alone as a brief statement of what it says. A short description of the event, as described across the board of reliable sources, needs to include that he was walking to that townhouse.

A similar argument can be made about including that Zimmerman was following Martin - by his own recorded comments to the police operator - Zimmerman does not deny now that he was following Martin when he made the call - it's in the call transcript and reported all over the place by hundreds of reliable sources. His dispute is whether he continued to follow him, and I had not added that to the lead. He was following Martin while he made the call. Fact, and relevant fact, since he had been instructed, on tape and reported everywhere, "We don't need you to do that", which somehow has also disappeared from the lead.

Martin was going to that townhouse, Zimmerman spotted him, thought he was suspicious, called the police while he was following him. Subsequently (without our saying exactly what happened next because the other eyewitness is dead) there was a confrontation, and Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. That is what my edit said, and that is what is supported by so many sources that it is ridiculously POV to take it out. Tvoz/talk 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems we have a concensus, with Tvoz as a holdout, on removing the controversial and irrelevant material, such as where Martin MAY have been heading. Most editors who have weighted in on the matter agree this is not verifiable or important. It is clear an editor or two is devoted to "tell Martin's side" of the story here, but that is not what this article is about. A number of reasoned remarks have explained why this is the case. Although a vocal and emphatic minority adamantly disagrees, there have been no new arguements made in favor of inclusion. We have the RS argument, but there is considerable controversial information that meets that standard. Every other argument in favor seems to be based on a pro Martin POV. I think Gaijin42's point-by-point summary above is the most concise, accurate and supportable. No one has voiced a problem with any of the points he made, so I think we need to stop allowing one or two editors to dominate that content, especially after they have admitted the primary reason for inclusion is to support one side (TM) and discount the other (GZ) - it isn't about sides here, it's about facts. ProfJustice (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, this discussion is still going on, as is obvious to anyone who has been working here for more than one day. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur that no consensus has been achieved. Stratifying editors into majority vs minority positions, Trayvon vs George, responders vs watchers, is troubling. This article has had a life since the sad incident happened. Editors have come and gone, watched from the sidelines and participated. Some editors have taken upon themselves a lead position in discussions, in article editing, protecting the article and Wikipedias guidelines and rules, etc. They are to be commended. While differences existed and editors "beefed" at each other a sense of collaboration was present. Much eloquence has come forth and veteran editors, pro-Z and pro-M, have shown what it takes to achieve respect. But I sense that a shift into a more aggresive "in your face" editing style is on the horizon. Speaking for myself, my lack of involvement in a thread should not be interpreted as lack of interest or an unwillingness to voice a problem or used to sway a consensus one way or the other. I respect the abilities of some editors to stay on topic and express themselves in a clear logical way (much better than I can). Conversely, I disrespect the abilities of some ediotrs to lead us off thread topic and into the cornfield. To be clear, I am not taling about the Professor. The fact that I dont interject a "That's Right!" or "That's B.S." doesnt mean I dont agree (or dis-agree). My silence should not be construed as disinterest or support. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything in life is based on a calculation of probabilities based on one's personal experience:

1. Odds of someone not carrying ID as a 17 year old: 5% 2. Odds of someone not mentioning their girlfriend on Facebook: 1% 3. Odds on a 17 year old interested in basketball not being at home for the NBA All Star game which had famous local players and was being televised from Tampa for the first time in 20 years: 5%. 4. Odds on the same teenager out and about being up to no good: ?%. 5. Odds on Zimmerman, who is waiting for the police to arrive, to commit a crime: 1%

It seems that everything to do with Trayvon Martin and his activities is abnormal.True Observer (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a blog - please take your personal opinions about this somewhere else. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not a place to air our own analyses of who is normal or abnormal in this matter, and distractions like this are disruptive. Tvoz/talk 22:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I find TO's remarks a bit odd, and don't agree with his conclusion (and I'm sure you are feeling frustration defending an untenable position) I don't think personal attacks are warranted. Take a deep breath, his remarks will carry the weight they deserve based on their merit, no need to run people off. I'm sure he didn't mean for his "distractions" to "disrupt" you. ProfJustice (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in accord with TVOZ on this. You are doing ridiculous speculation. Since you can't get a drivers license in Florida until 18, #1 seems quite reasonable. I know many people who dont list their girlfriend on facebook. The game hadn't started yet so it is entirely valid that he was out and about. #4 nobody knows. #5 I dont think anyone is suggesting Zimmerman went out to intentionally commit a crime. Nonetheless he may have done so if he was not justified in self defense at the time of the shot, which is what the trial will decide. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the discussions here would be more efficient and productive if excerpts from reliable sources were used in the comments. For example, the following excerpt from source 10 at the end of the relevant paragraph can be used to support the statement that Martin was returning to his father's fiancee's home. The excerpt first gives what the article says is a misconception and then what it says is the correct version.

"Trayvon had no business walking through the gated community where he was shot and should not have been out at 3 a.m.

Trayvon was where he was supposed to be. He and his father were visiting his father's fiancée, who lives in the gated community. Trayvon had walked to a 7-Eleven and was returning to her townhouse shortly after 7:15 p.m. when he was shot. He was not out at 3 a.m."

If there is another reliable source that contradicts this, or suggests it is uncertain what Martin was doing at the time, then give the excerpt here and consider putting that info into the article too for NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your citation would be good except for the simple fact that the author doesn't tell us where he got the information. The author also salts it with the 3:00 A.M. comment when he knows that everyone knows he died around 7:30 P.M. By now it is universally accepted that this information was made up by the family when the story started to gain traction. The media picked it up and it became sourced because the media published the made up story. They might have gotten away with it, except for the NBA game part which could be verified. Because the NBA game timing was questioned, then everything else started to fall apart. They had to admit that the father wasn't even home when he left.True Observer (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is accurate, but it certainly sound controversial. In fact, it sounds controverted. The reality is we don't and can't know why/where Martin was going (except for Tvoz, she KNOWS - for a FACT he was headed to that condo, as she said above, LOL - forgive me Tvoz, I'm not trying to disrupt you ;). But we've been over this ground and now we are both repeating ourselves. RS isn't the ONLY standard for inclusion in the lead (we can't include all the speculation in the lead no matter how many RS restate it), and exonerating Martin (or Zimmerman) CERTAINLY isn't. What other reasons have been given? ProfJustice (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this to me. I didn't say that I KNOW the truth of what happened. I said that I have not seen any reliable sources that dispute the idea that he was headed home, and that our job is to give a cogent presentation of what reliable sources report on the story, and to give an overview of what the article is about - and that is not to give undue weight to one side of the story. I've asked for examples of reliable sources that dispute where most - or all - sources say Martin was going. And actually reliable sources are foundational for all parts of all articles, not just the lead. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Martin was going to that townhouse" - see above. ProfJustice (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

see WP:NPA - "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack." ProfJustice (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not have objective facts that Martin was going from 7-11 to home. We do have evidence that he was at 7-11, and it is an entirely reasonable conclusion to say he was going home since he was directly on that path. However, for completion we could qualify the statement by saying "reportedly" or some such. Those that are objecting strongly to this information are trying to twist this into being an issue when it is not. IF he was or wasnt coming from 7-11, and was or was not going hoe, it has no effect on the case, but is the extremely widely reported, and entirely logical background of the case and there is no reason not to include it. (That said I dont object to it not being in the lead, but only occuring in the shooting detail, just due to having the lead be as consise as possible. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Concise is fine as a general goal, but it's not the most important consideration, and I only added a short phrase, which did not seriously affect the conciseness of the section. The lead needs to accurately reflect the article content, and taking this out gives undue weight to Zimmerman's claims and sort shrift to what the sources overwhelmingly agree on. We're not supposed to be the ones making the determination of whether. their sources are accurate. BobK asked above, as I did earlier, are there reliable sources that say he was not going back to that townhouse? Is there any such evidence reported? Is it not the case that this is the story that the preponderance of reliable sources tell? Please bring forward contradictory sources to examine, or we should go with what we have. Not our opinions. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. The most critical analysis I've found so far of Martin and Zimmerman's movements is the Wagist map that's already been cited here. Here are a couple of relevant quotes, 1) "Martin is initially reported as hanging out near the clubhouse, looking at houses and acting suspiciously." 2) "After a few minutes, Trayvon seems to have walked north, back up the sidewalk to confront Zimmerman" and 3) "their altercation took place, when Martin apparently doubled back to confront Zimmerman."

According to this account, the altercation took place was Martin was heading north, away from where Martin's father was staying. ProfJustice (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"entirely reasonable conclusion", I agree. And we're all comfortable accepting that as the standard now for inclusion - as opposed to verifiable facts. Because we have RSes all over the place on these "reasonable conclusions" and I would like to know what our standard is going to be here, so when I start to include reasonable conclusions (according to whom, btw?) I'm clear I'm meeting the standard. I'd consider that carefully before promulgating that + an RS as the standard for inclusion in the lead. ProfJustice (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not our entirely reasonable conclusion, the entirely reasonable conclusion made by the journalists who reported on it in multiple reliable sources. Tvoz/talk 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for his being at the 7-11? If he was at the 7-11, he would be on tape and the store would have made a mint by now. That tape would be priceless.True Observer (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a completely RS, but http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_story_unravels_new_questions_about_trayvon_martins_final_hour.html#ixzz1rXQBFYTQ "But a video does exist. The public relations director of 7-Eleven told me that, according to the company's manager of security, a store camera captured an African-American male (she wouldn't commit to "young") purchasing a bag of Skittles and a can of tea (she wouldn't say that it was "Arizona" tea). The hard disk with the video was removed after the story broke, and it has been subpoenaed by investigators for the state and/or county. The company has not made it available to the media. The public relations director could not specify the exact time of the purchase but said it was between 6:00 and 6:30." Presumably this will come out during the trial. That does leave a nice lag of time between the time of the purchase and the time of the incident, but there is 0 evidence that he was doing anything wrong in between. (Perhaps Zimmerman will elaborate on "suspicious behavior" if he takes the stand.) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gets aggravating having to search and dig again for answers that have already been given in the Talk page before, but here is another source of that from WESH TV in Orlando http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html

A corporate spokeswoman for 7-Eleven said on Thursday they have a video secured at corporate headquarters showing Martin the night he was killed.

An executive with 7-Eleven viewed the tape and can confirm: "he observed an African American male in a hoodie purchase Skittles and an iced tea between 6 and 6:30 that evening."

So there's a hopefully reliable source. The article doesn't have a byline, but the reporting sounds reasonable. -- Avanu (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html#ixzz1sZ2ld4BO

This story is starting to take the Duke Lacrosse route. As more information comes in, Zimmerman is being viewed in an ever more favorable light. The deference being shown to his side in the court proceedings is just another reflection. Wiki editors and others who took a knee jerk position are now fighting a rear guard action to try to save face. It has gotten so bad, Google is no longer referencing Wiki for this story.173.22.111.112 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin's Intentions — break 1

Here's an excerpt from page 2 of a NY Times article regarding the reason for Martin to be returning home.

"That night, for example, while his father and Ms. Green were out having dinner in Orlando, Trayvon asked Chad, Ms. Green’s son, if he wanted anything from the store.

Skittles, the younger boy said.

A Wary Community

The teenager with candy entered the Retreat at Twin Lakes, either passing the front gate or taking a not-so-secret shortcut."

Here's another excerpt from page 6 of the same NY Times article which gives another reason for Martin to be heading home: to watch the NBA All-Star game, which was about to begin.

"Less than half an hour after Trayvon Martin died face down in gated grass, a privileged crowd of 17,000 rose to their feet at the N.B.A. All-Star game in Orlando, 20 miles to the south, to sing the national anthem."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now tell us: Why did the family originally put out that he left during half-time? Why are they being wishy-washy about the store he went to. Do you know the age of the girlfriend's son? No one else does either. Only he would know if the conversation took place. When do you suppose the family asked him? NYT did a good job weaving the story around the facts afterhand.True Observer (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunday, Feb. 26, 2012 — "• 2012 NBA All-Star Game presented by Kia Motors, 7:30 p.m. (7:37 p.m. tip) | TNT"[21] --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They were mistaken. They were not there and did not know for sure. The boy is 14. There are multiple photos and interviews with him available on the net. Why does this matter? There is not even a shred of evidence, or an accusation that anything illegal happened involving Martin. Even if hypothetically Martin was on a rape and murder spree instead of 7-11, at the time zimmmerman saw him, he was just walking. Hypothetically in some suspicious manner or something (that only Zimmerman would be able to say specifically, which he has not done so far) - but again, this is in no way impacted by the 711, by the NBA game, etc. You seem to be under a mistaken impression that to vindicate Zimmerman you must crucify Martin, and by casting doubt on small details you can unravel a great conspiracy. That is not true. Zimmerman might be acquitted - while at the same time Martin was not behaving badly in any way prior to their interaction. Theoretically Zimmerman could even be acquitted if fully started the interaction and Martin just reacted poorly to being confronted (which would be an entirely reasonable thing to do if you were just walking home and someone starts hassling you) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They weren't mistaken. They made it up because, as you say, they weren't there. Which leads to the next logical question, what else is made up? Another point is that the media ran with their story and none of them have retracted any of it. They have started to fudge, like referring to Convenience Store instead of 7-Eleven. You cannot go through life without using logic. What possible reason is there for the 7-11 not to identify Martin if he was there. This would not exactly be a state secret. Apparently they said African American but wouldn't say whether it was a younger one. Trayvon Martin did not have ID on him. That is why he was a John Doe at the morgue. The obvious question is why? Next question is, what kind of person does not carry ID? The answer to that is obvious. Someone who doesn't want to be ID'd easily.True Observer (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of things made up. "My son never followed Trayvon" - information which could only be gotten from Zimmerman. Because that information is wrong, should we assume he (and therefore Zimmerman) are lying and not include any of their statements? YOU CANNOT GET A DRIVERS LICENSE IN FLORIDA UNTIL 18. SOMEONE WHO IS NOT 18 IS THE KIND OF PERSON THAT DOESN'T CARRY ID. Saying convenience store instead of 7-11 is not fudging, its not repeating the same detail in the 500000 stories that have been written. Several links quoting 7-11 management have been linked here recently attesting to the security video existing. But again, if it was some other store, how does that affect the case? Stop trolling. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@Editor:TO...a simplier less judgmental reason is that he doesnt didnt drive or have a state Id, he didnt have any crerdit cards or bank debit cards, he didnt have or need a wallet. He was a kid. He probably had his house key on a chain around his neck. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you BobK and Gaijin. You've captured it well. And again, where are the sources disputing this? Tvoz/talk 06:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They are in the archive now. Though this clear POV blog sums up a LOT of the points. [22] "Which takes us to the interview with Craig Rivera and Brandy Green. We discover during that interview where the “skittle story” came from. Well, maybe. According to the 14-year-old son of Ms. Green he asked Trayvon to get him the candy when Trayvon said he was going to the store. We discover that Brandy Green and Tracy Martin (Girlfriend and Dad) were in downtown Orlando at a restaurant and the boys were home alone. Other ones point to the 'DeeDee' not calling the cops herself after the phone alleged goes dead after Martin confronts Zimmerman. Some POV against Zimmerman from ABC, but with DeeDee on the phone saying Martin spoke to Zimmerman first. Video [23] and text. [24]Wagist combines the info to show evidence that Martin doubled back and could have easily made it home from the time he noticed Zimmerman. [25] Comments like this though are false yet they are the 'story' still, "Zimmerman killed Martin as Martin walked back to his father's fiance's home after stepping out to buy snacks during the NBA All-Star Game." Records show that Martin not Zimmerman started the confrontation and those records and analysis may not be entirely true, but it should still be reflected in the article. As both stories have conflicting accounts of what happened. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should we include records and analysis that may not be true"? This circular drive to make the victim responsible for his own death is obvious. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Rush,Mark Levin and Sean Hannity have had the most insightful comments on this case and I think their analysis needs to be included. Since they reach a larger daily audience than ABC/NBC/CNN/NYTimes COMBINED, I think it is important to include these RS as some of the primary sources of information, especially in the lead... take a breath Tvoz, I'm kidding. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. We need to be conservative and include mostly undisputed facts here, especially since this is a dynamic situation and much more information is bound to come out. This is the best way to avoid WP:BLP and credibility issues from the start, not throw up everything I agree with that I can RS and see what sticks. Again, RS is a criterion for inclusion, not the ONLY consideration/justification that needs to be be evaluated - not all RSes are all the reliable and we should have higher standards here, not lower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that Wagist article is jumping to conclusions with no evidence really. From C to F (on their map) is "towards the back entrance". There is no evidence either Martin or Zimmerman actually went to E. Doubling back is pure conjecture. Its just as possible he hid because he was scared somewhere in the vicinity of F. The only evidence they have towards a doubling back is the length of time between the end of the call, and the alteraction. but they have no actual knowledge of zimmerman's specific location at the end of the call. The conjecture about Martin which is backed up by some level of evidence, there is evidence for the security video at 7-11, trayvon did have skittles and tea. This conjecture about martin is not really a pivot for the case. it just provides some background and lead in. IF that conjecture is completely wrong, it really does not affect anything in the case. The type of conjecture you are discussing DOES directly impact the case, and there is no evidence showing that any particular conjecture is more accurate. There are a lot of unknowns about what happened in those missing minutes (although by some timelines it is a very short amount of time - which is why we should be careful with the timelines ). There is 0 evidence as to what happened in those missing minutes, except for Zimmermans testimony (which is covered in Zimmerman's account). What happened in those crucial minutes will pretty much drive the outcome of the case, and we should only be including highly verifiable information in that section. For all editors here, anywhere something is not completely backed up and is conjecture (either on our part or the part of the media) I think if we are objecting to the information (particularly if it is media conjecture) we need to answer the question "what is the impact if this information is wrong". If that impact is minor, and that is the best information we have, there is very little harm in including it. If the impact is major, we need to be extremely careful about including it, particularly when it is conjecture not based on any hard evidence. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that this discussion on "Martin walking to the home where he was staying" was still ongoing and a consensus had not been reached as to whether to include it or not. I disagree with the lead being changed (apparently it was, I reverted it) until a consensus has been reached by allowing editors to voice their support or opposition. It is simply not that controversial and no RS have been produced to dispute that he indeed was "walking back to the home where he was staying". I support this information being included in the lead.--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

BusterSeven, it should be included. Also WP:Truth points to this. Under WP:V, "n. Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." This is a major opposing viewpoint which has gotten more air time on a considerable section of the minority... i.e. conservatives. They cite this Wagist as their counter to the mainstream (often tagging it as 'liberal') media and using their own facts with a different interpretation. Quite frankly they make a good point, and we have DeeDee on record confirming that Martin was the one who initated conversation and that Martin was not going to run away, even when he was so close to the house. This 'Martin doubled back' may not be exactly what happened, but the other version here is no more 'truth' then this one. Frankly, the comments from DeeDee are absent because they destroy the perception of Martin being hunted down. Its on tape, its on records, Martin after being told to run home refused to and yet Zimmerman who is argued to have followed to keep Martin in eyesight had just confirmed he was going to go wait for the police and was returning to his vehicle. Martin doubled back as Zimmerman was heading back and there the incident occurred. That is what the view is and it is supported, it would be wrong to avoid Martin's intention to not run away as we clearly have testimony to. Martin would not run away. He did not listen to DeeDee and that is all we can truly say about Martin's intent. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is the proposed change -

"While on a private errand Zimmerman saw Martin walking inside the gated community. Martin was returning to his father's fiancée's townhouse where he had been staying. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department"

vs

"While on a private errand Zimmerman saw Martin walking inside the gated community. Martin was in the community visiting his father. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department"

The second is more concise and avoids a couple of the issues (girlfriend vs fiancee, where he was going, "staying" - which some might take as living vs visiting), while still illustrating WHY Martin was in the community. This is a compromise position I am proposing to resolve this dispute, not my preferred version. ProfJustice (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The second one is worse.

• "Visiting his father" sounds like he hadn't been in the townhouse that day and was going by himself to visit his father that night.
• Stay is the proper word. See definition at [26]: "2. To remain or sojourn as a guest or lodger"

Except that *1. To continue to be in a place or condition: stay home; stay calm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's consistent with the situation too.

• "return" is correct according to RS's — If you dispute this, give links to sources and relevant excerpts that support your position.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I support the first version as there is nothing controversial about it. Common sense, logic and RS indicate that Martin was returning to the townhouse where he was staying, and had left earlier to go to the store.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I also support the first version. Martin was not visiting his father, he was with his father (as an additional houseguest you might say). While I still feel Zimmerman was on duty 24/7, I won't belabor the point (re:on a personal errand). ```Buster Seven Talk 19:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use 'stay' as it brings up sense of that it was his home, it was not his home. 'He was visiting his father at-' should be the term. If the father lives at his fiancee's house then the father lives at that townhouse. No need to make it more confusing. Staying implies a level of familiarity when used with 'house or home' versus 'staying at a motel' which implies it is not your own home, but using it solely for lodging purposes. While we 'stay at a hotel' we don't 'stay at your father's fiancee's town house'. Visiting is a temporary matter where as staying implies a since of permanence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Using the word stay does not imply a sense of permanent residency, Q: "Where you going this weekend?" A: I'm staying at my dad's girlfriend's house." Q: "Are you living there?" A: "No, I'm just staying for a couple of weeks." People use the word "live" or "reside" when talking about a permanent residence. You can "stay" anywhere; motel, friends house, grandparents house, campground, etc. This word is being over analyzed and it really isn't that controversial, Martin was staying with his father at the fiancee's townhouse.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] I support the first version - staying at his father's house means exactly the opposite of permanent residence - that would be living. Nor does it suggest it was his home, or have anything to do with familiarity at all. Do you "stay" at your home Chris? There is nothing whatsoever controversial or unsourced about the first version - he was returning to the fiancees house where he was staying - he wasn't just arriving for the first time, which "visiting" might imply. This is unnecessary parsing. Tvoz/talk 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Many people say, e.g. "I stay on bond street" to mean that is their permanent residence. It doesn't mean the opposite of live. And visit doesn't mean you aren't there yet. "I'm visiting my aunt" doesn't mean you haven't made it to her house yet, it means a temporary stay. ProfJustice (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have heard stay used as slang for living here too. I have also heard sick used as slang for cool or awesome. Generally though, we don't use the slang definition of a word for an encycopedic reference. I find it interesting that you equate visiting to a "temporary stay", but yet you are opposed to using the word "stay" when Martin was doing just that, he was temporarily "staying" with his dad at this townhouse.--Isaidnoway (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it is normally preceeded by a modifier (temporary) proves the point. Otherwise, it would be redundant. ProfJustice (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Street people would say so, but people who can afford to live in a building don't (if they use brobber [sic] English).TMCk (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Request edit 4/19/12

This statement in the first portion of the article is incorrect: "The state attorney's office was responsible for the initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, over the objection of the lead homicide investigator who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter"

Quote: Some news agencies have reported that Sanford's lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger's office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.

Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists "manslaughter" as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.

Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense.

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency#

Press release: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/press_releases/Release22.pdf 68.3.103.157 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Interesting article, good find. I hadn't read that before. Could be used to counter that point of other news agencies reporting that he filed an affidavit. I would like to see some other editor's input on this before removing it though. I think it should be included as a rebutal to that statement, The Orlando Sentinel and this reporter, Rene Stutzman has reported on this case extensively.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We have had issues with this statement before. Some of the sources are ultimately sourcing that to the letter from Martin's mother. Some sources however do claim to have that straight from Serino or the special prosecutors. I think there is enough doubt around it that we should at least qualify the statement by saying "Reportedly" or something to that effect, and perhaps adding a counter statement such as the quote above. This is however too much detail for the lead, and so perhaps the claim should be removed from the lead and only discussed in detail below. After all, the fact is he was not arrested at that time. The particular justifications, machinations, etc are not relevant to understanding the case at the level included in the lead), without all of the additional details that cannot go into the lead. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Added interview with Orlando Sentinel and Corey's statement to Miami Herald, but didn't change anything in the lead. Maybe someone else could take a look at the lead, it is sourced.--Isaidnoway (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoodie Photo

Should be included since that is what Martin was wearing and it has become a touchstone. It has become a major issue related to this case, it was released by his parents, widely published. It is being seen on T-shirts and posters and has become the iconic image for this case. It should be included.ProfJustice (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The "hoodie image" is a symbol for the movement that came out of the incident but not representative as a bio image. If there where images of Zimmerman carrying a gun we wouldn't use it that way either. Although we could use a pic of a demonstration where they hold up signs with the image in question (I mean more visible than in the one we have now).TMCk (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would fine, in fact, preferred to use a photo of Zimmerman from the night of the incident - it is elucidating. And that photo of Martin we are use now sucks! The crop is bad, he has a strange look on his face and you can see his "grill" (which some may find, well, thuggish for lack of a better word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, was the hoodie foto retouched before it was used on protest placards? I thought I saw another one on this talk page, or a link to it, that wasn't retouched. Would anyone be able to produce a link to the unretouched foto? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the other picture was taken of one of the signs at a rally and was therefore of poor quality. As for the one in question here, it seems to be one that was released by the family to the public just like the one we are using for some time now.TMCk (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Clean Keeper that while it is a symbolic photo, it is not appropriate to place as a biography photo next to Zimmerman. We need better pictures of Trayvon Martin that just look normal instead of the little kid or the gangsta thug type ones. -- Avanu (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Avanu and TMCK. While the picture was 'iconic' it changes the perception of reality just like the young red hollister t-shirt photo. The doe-like stare of Trayvon Martin was part of the campaign in the media, much like the 'million-hoodie march' didn't actually have a million people, but was campaigning for 200k more votes on the Change.org petition. It is not neutral to put pictures that unfairly portray the individual. Positive or negative spin. Its from the same people that called Trayvon Martin similiar to Jesus Christ. That kind of association is not exactly... neutral. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal criticism of indictment

This article summarizes legal criticism of the indictment by six legal analysts including Jeralyn Merritt and Alan Dershowitz. Could source material such as Merritt's blog posts be the basis for a section on criticism of the indictment? Cygdrive (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Criticism of the indictment should be mentioned. Intrepid (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Criticism of the news is what pundits do. Blog discussions about early-stage documents in the trial do not belong in this, a summary article. Maybe a mention in the 'Public response' section.--DeknMike (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree. Criticism of the indictment does not require a seperate section. Or any mention at all. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A reminder for myself and anyone interested

This talk page begins with:

```Buster Seven Talk 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering that 99% of the discussion here is on target and in keeping with that, I don't see a need to have you post it again. -- Avanu (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

99% is a bit high. I posted it because I estimate about 72.5%. And because I would bet that 99% of the editors here have not seen it since late February. Its just a reminder. But, if you don't see a need and don't sense the drift into adversarial lawyerly positioning, No problem. Maybe other editors do. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between acting like a lawyer and discussion on matters of material, neutrality and balance. Some of us here have articles in the newspapers about our previous actions to keep Wikipedia running well and keep things in order. Others of us are treated as experts. I do not expect this is a Phoenix Wright kind of matter where we shout, 'OBJECTION!' every time something comes up. We should discuss every aspect of this article and how it relates to the policy, even if it does seem to be a bit closer to a legal aspect. Like choosing which quotes to use, someone of great legal background and experience versus a tv personality. Which one shapes opinion more? Which one knows more? These are two very different matters and every sentence in this article should be subject to scrutiny. It will if we try to get this up to GA status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I just sensed a drift of editors from collaborators into adversaries. Thats all. No lecture intended...no specific editor in mind. Just doing what I can to keep us focussed on our prime responsibility...our reader. This article and talk is much visited (and discussed elsewhere). I'm sure we've all heard the meme..."Don't trust what you read on Wikipedia." I know its a crap comment but I hear it often. We all spend alot of time here..and probably will spend even more when the trial starts. Let's all work to use this article as a vehicle to improve the trust level of the general public. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

New Pics

ABC News released a photo taken by of the first witnesses to arrive, and was the first to talk to Mr Zimmerman after the shooting. Although he heard but didn't see the scuffle, his picture is the earliest in the time sequence released. (Here's the picture with blood on his head.)--DeknMike (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Doubt we can use this in the article though. I recommend citing it as further proof Zimmerman was hurt and to counter the 'no apparent injuries' with clear proof of the contrary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

With this proof of injuries, why would you keep a reference to no apparent injuries?True Observer (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the RS that had a link to the picture.[27] Here's the excerpt.

"His surprising testimony came the same day that ABC News exclusively obtained a photograph showing the bloodied back of Zimmerman's head, which was apparently taken three minutes after he shot and killed Martin. The photo could give credence to Zimmerman's claim that Martin had bashed his head against the concrete as Zimmerman fought for his life.

Click here to view the image. Warning: graphic content."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You could keep it as 'reports of "no apparent injuries".--DeknMike (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's becoming clear that "no apparent injuries" is simply false and shouldn't be in the article, except possibly in the section Media coverage, as an example of incorrect information that has been reported. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bob, we knew that eventually this was going to happen when the media was first reporting on things as "apparent" "reportedely" etc. We should remove it. The media coverage section for this type of incorrect information is a good suggestion.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite partial to a foot note section specifically showing this major point was false and has been countered by ABC (after Newsbusters got it no less) and this proof is the best evidence to witness his injuries. While we knew it was going to happen the lash back on this page is was just out of line, even though we had piles of evidence proving Zimmerman's injuries. Pushback on police reports and other official statements. Now I know I'll be accused of 'bias' again, but I was right about this weeks ago. Same with 'goons' and other matters. The media wants Zimmerman to rot for this, but the story keeps going further and further on self-defense in accordance with the law. Martin's actions that lead to his own death may not be highly reported, but typically when you won't run from someone who is following you and you seek a confrontation and have several eyewitnesses claiming Martin (Mary Cutcher and #4 have lack of sight as reported on AC360 in their own interviews) was attacking Zimmerman. The police, 'John', Zimmerman all give the same account and the injuries back up the story. Burden has always been verifiability not truth, it changes and clarifies a little more each week, but the trend points to the situation being vastly different then how it was reported. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the points you raised, it is totally unfair to say that Martin's actions lead to his death. There were two people involved in this incident and either one of them could have chosen a different course of action that would have resulted in one being alive and one being not charged with murder.--Isaidnoway (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Source needed - Zimmerman cell phone call - transcript

"Other reviewers of the call have offered alternate interpretations of what was said, but the transcript of the call states that the word in question is "unintelligible".[94][95]" Neither of those sources/articles mention a transcript of the call. The word 'transcript' isn't used in either article, unless I missed something. If I'm right, we need to add a link to the 'transcript' source. (yeah, I'm starting to doubt my reading comprehension, sorry. Plz check my work ^^) ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's 911 Call Doctored by NBC Producer

Sources:

http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2012/04/fired-nbc-producer-who-made-fake.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nbc-fires-producer-who-doctored-tape-of-zimmerman-911-call/

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120407/george-zimmerman-911-call-nbc-fires-producer-ove

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324402/20120405/nbc-apology-911-call-trayvon-martin-zimmerman.htm

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/nbc-fires-producer-responsible-for-edited-911-call.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.245.233.158 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's History

Zimmerman's past arrest and situation with his ex-girlfriend was front and center in the legal proceeding today. These two facts remain conspicuously absent of mention from this article. I think some mention should be made of it- as well as Martin's past history of 'suspicious' behavior (bag of jewelry, "burglary tool"), etc. I can see why one would want to exclude one if you exclude the other, but I think the answer is to include them both. Anyway, there really ought to be a mention of the incidents that were discussed in court today. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I previously took the strongest stance against both of these, but it seems that if they are coming up in court this is a characterization matter. Not all characterizations are valid or proper. Under policy for WP:BLPCRIME the fact there was no conviction on either end and no formal decision reached is pretty much apparent. We should not include them as they are not related to the matter and it is just pushing back and forth. Just doesn't seem the time to go all mudslinging when we keep the other positives out as well. WP:COATRACK anyone? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a matter of mudslinging- but of at least acknowledging the existence of these incidents in some way for the people who want to have a complete understanding of the situation (for example, people who watched the hearing on T.V. today might go to Wikipedia to 'get the facts' on the incidents referred to by the prosecution). Wikipedia, to me, is where you go to "get the facts" on everything that is out there. That, to me, is what makes it great. I just hate to see things that are often mentioned in the news or often brought up in popular discussions not even be mentioned by Wikipedia. It seems like we could devote a sentence or two to these topics. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they were front and center today, they were mentioned and testimony was given and questions asked, but the Judge said the incidents had no effect on his decision on whether or not to grant bail. I think his decision to not consider them today possibly reflects on how he will rule when the prosecutor tries to enter it into the trial. I thought the state investigator was more compelling and revealed more information about the case than anything else. He testified (on the record), that he didn't know who started the fight, and he used the word "profiled" in the affidavit to describe Zimmerman's reaction to seeing Martin in the gated community the night of the shooting based on "no facts." I think the incidents should only be included if they become relevant at the trial (if there is one)--Isaidnoway (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, it opens the door to including the reportedly recent bad behavior of Martin, e.g. the pot smoking, breaking into lockers, stealing jewlery, assault on bus driver...etc. I think this is predujcial and basically irrelevant to the events of that night, although I'm sure it will be brought up in the trial as well. Some of it is speculation to a degree and I've stated my stance that RS is not, in and of itself, sufficient justification for inclusion. Think about it, do the editors of the World Book or Britannica include everything that is published in the newspaper/magazine/TV? No, they scrutinize it and publish what they consider to be the most reliable and factual, and therein lies the value and thereupon rests their credibility. A conservative approach in what we include will best server Wikipedia. We would like it to be where readers turn for facts - leave the speculations and gossip to the yellows and rags. ProfJustice (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Emeraldflames on this. Zimmerman's attorney discussed previous accusations of violent acts on Zimmerman's part, for which the police were involved, and for which his attorney said he had to attend anger management classes. This is not speculation or gossip at all. We should consider that to not include this, properly sourced, is to leave out a relevant fact about his past - relevant because he now is accused of the violent act of murder. At this point, the information available makes no accusation of acts by Martin on the night of February 26 that have any connection to any reason he had some high school suspensions. (Let's remember that there was no police involvement that has been brought forth, which would mean that there were no crimes committed - just infractions of school rules. Those of us who can remember high school no doubt know the difference between being arrested and being suspended from school.) I am reasonably sure that if he had been found with burglary tools on his dead body, or a bag of weed in his pocket instead of a bag of candy, we'd know that by now - so if there are reliable sources saying that, by all means post them here on talk. Until and unless a connection is made in reliable sources, Martin's background (significantly overstated in the previous comment, by the way) is not relevant. No door is opened - one thing has nothing to do with the other. Now that Zimmerman's attorney has made public statements about Zimmerman's past, we can't claim they are speculation and gossip, so that argument against inclusion does not hold water. Tvoz/talk 23:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to Zimmerman. Assault on the bus driver has as much bearing as assault on a police officer, as do the bulgary charges. It's a false dichotomy. Both go to background and behavior/character. Plenty of RS on those things regarding Martin. If anything, we can include the info about Martin, but must exclude anything about Zimmerman (regardless of RS) that doesn't comport stritcly with BLP - which is probably the strictest standard on WP. ProfJustice (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Trayvon out with the Girlfriend's son?

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At the Hearing one Prosecution witness testified that he saw 2 people running towards the Girlfriend's house. Was the 2nd person the Girlfriend's 14 year old son? It's possible because a 14 year old would not stay at home if the 17 year old was going somewhere.True Observer (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Get a reliable source and we can then consider putting what is in the reliable source into the article. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair Use photos of Zimmerman's injuries?

The last time I tried to add a Fair Use photo of something discussed in the text (the baby-faced photo) the outcome was that mine was reverted and the hoodie photo was permanently removed for the article. So I'm a bit reluctant to mention this, because it'll probably just mean the end of some other photo, but just for the sake of auto-quixoticism let's try this one for size: should we include Fair Use photos for the cellphone picture taken 3 minutes after the call, and for the one from the police station video surveillance. See http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html at 2:04, though better sources may exist for each.

Despite warnings of "graphic photos" and discussion of it as a major injury, I should note that these look like two tiny little scalp abrasions, as someone so hairless could get from even the shortest slide against concrete. They may well be evidence he was tackled, but to me they don't look like any indication that "his head was bashed against the sidewalk repeatedly while he was fighting for his life", as some seem to be saying. But that's OR - the only way to give the reader a fair chance to decide unbiased, is to let him see the actual pictures for himself. Wnt (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted fotos are accessible through the articles that are linked. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone at wikipedia cares about your feigned expertise, Doctor Quincy. This wikipage sure doesn't68.115.53.79 (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)