Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

Registered Democrat

To avoid an edit war, I figured it'd be good to again bring up this issue, which doesn't appear to be clear one way or another in the various talk archives here, here, here, and here. I believe it is relevant due to the sheer fact it's reported in reliable sources and breaks the common stereotype of right-vs-left politics. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems ok to me to include this in the article if the sources support it. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The main problem is the sourcing. Basing it off of the WP:PRIMARY voter registration card is not going to be acceptable, nor are various blogs etc. I am not aware of any mainstream sources that have discussed this significantly. (a mere passing statement would not qualify IMO) - someone would have needed to write an article, or at least a meaty paragraph about this. Moreover, consensus (while not permanent, nor unanimous) had said that as his politics were unrelated to the shooting itself, and the fallout, that it was irrelevant to the article. The reverse-steroetype is interesting, but original research and conjecture, and interesting != notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the reference to his political affiliation. It is not relevant to why the shooting took place. This is a case about why Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman says it was self-defense. The defense team, nor the prosecution or any RS has indicated that his political affiliation had anything whatsoever to do with why he shot Martin. This shooting didn't happen because Zimmerman was a registered Democrat, and to imply that this shooting is somehow related to a left wing-right wing ideological/stereotypical argument is speculation and OR.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"This is a case about why Zimmerman shot Martin!"

Says who? This is a case about race, politics, crime and everything else that comes along with it. At the very least it's about an incident. Not the motives of one participant. Most observers think this story is about why Trayvon Martin did NOT call the police even though Zimmerman was on the phone with them non-stop. That is a very relevant and inconvenient truth. It must be added. 99.185.56.156 (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Says who?" The state attorney's office and Zimmerman's defense team, that's who. Sure, race, politics, crime and a slew of other issues have been raised throughout this entire incident, and are reported in the article, but when you strip all that away, you are left with the question of why did Zimmerman shoot Martin that night and the legality of his actions that night. I would disagree that "most observers" think this is about why Martin didn't call the police. I have seen more reliable sources reporting on why Zimmerman shot Martin, and was it self-defense. If you have some RS reporting on "most observers" think this story is about why Martin didn't call the police, please share them with us.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

withholding evidence

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/29/3422519/lawyer-zimmerman-prosecutor-withheld.html "A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after [Former prosecutor Wesley White] testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.

[] White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over." Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

clarify, apparently the employee didn't delete messages, he retrieved deleted messages (deleted by Martin presumably), and then did not turn them over. Ambiguous punctuation and grammar to the anti-rescue! Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you added this yet to the article? This is significant information that should be added. The judge has a hearing set for this issue (on the turning over of evidence) for next week. We can follow up with the outcome of the hearing.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Found this article about the former prosecutor who brought this information out, [1], it's dated from the first week of December of 2012, if this happened while he was still employed with the state, why did he wait six months to bring it forth?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Why did he wait six months to bring it forth" What difference does it make? That's a question a prosecution team would try to raise. Not someone part of a team trying to write a factual article about this incident. 99.185.56.156 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the May 29, 2013, Miami Herald article, "White first learned about the evidence through Kruidbos more than a month ago, he said." --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This should not be in this article. It is simply not relevant. Martin's deleted text messages have no relevant bearing the question of whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was lawful. A state employee broke procedure and is being disciplined, but that has no affect on the outcome of this case because the evidence in question will never be admitted in court.76.22.67.172 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Re "Martin's deleted text messages have no relevant bearing the question of whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was lawful." — They might be evidence that Martin is inclined toward violence and hence attacked Zimmerman, according to the defense. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Did Trayvon Martin Call the Police?

There is indisputable evidence that Trayvon Martin did not attempt to call the police, nor ask the person with whom he was chatting on his cell, to call the police on his behalf. OTOH, George Zimmerman was CONSTANTLY in contact with the authorities. In fact, it's Zimmerman's first (of several) calls to the police that (more or less) timestamps the official beginning of this incident.

The article suggests that the police are important to this story. For example, this (arguably irrelevant) information is included early, prominently, and cited profusely - "According to a police report, 'there is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter'"

How much MORE relevant is the contradistinction between Zimmerman's SIGNIFICANT interaction with the police (which has been HEAVILY critiqued)and Trayvon's apparent lack of interest in contacting them - despite having many opportunities.

To omit the fact that Trayvon did not even attempt to call the police is a serious oversight and needs to be corrected.

Please add the following 'There is no indication that Trayvon Martin attempted to call the police during the entirety of this ordeal. 99.185.56.156 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we find a reliable source for that sentence? While it may be true that he didn't call police during the incident, we need a RS stating that. You and I might think that it is significant and relevant to contrast the difference between "Zimmerman's significant interaction" and "Martins lack of interest", but we need a RS that has reported on this contrast. Otherwise, it's just OR and speculation.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

agreed. This is an interesting argument, but we cannot make novel arguments that have not been raised by reliable sources. to some degree it makes sense. It is much easier to armchair quarterback an action that took place (Z's calls), and investigate every detail, vs make conjecture about something that didn't happen, and you can't ask the person why it didn't happen because they are dead - that's (sorry for the pun) a dead end story, so no journalist really is going to go there (n addition to it going against the grain of the established media narrative). Your counter example of "no indication TM was involved in a crime" is not parallel - 1) The police said it. 2) media have repeated and discussed it extensively. 3) it is crucial as a counter-factual - if TM HAD been involved in a serious crime, the case for SD would be open and shut (As the SD protections are strengthened against those committing various felonies - but since he was not (or at least there is no evidence evidence as to that) - Zimmerman must rely on other arguments. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud here, but this could be an interesting area for O'Mara to bring up at trial and explore, it's a decent argument to make and it's relevant too. If it's brought up at trial, it could easily be added.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Crump to be deposed

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/4/155250/1316/crimenews/Appeals-Court-Reverses-Zimmerman-Judge-Crump-to-Be-Deposed

"First, the fact that Crump represents Martin's family does not make him "an opposing counsel." As acknowledged by Crump in his affidavit, he was not acting as a lawyer for the State or the defendant, nor could his interview of Witness 8 be found to constitute trial preparation in the pending criminal case below."

"[A]ny deposition of Crump is to be limited to inquiry of circumstances surrounding the interview of Witness 8 and the contents of such interview. Defense counsel may not inquire into Crump's mental impressions regarding Witness 8, nor may counsel inquire as to the reasons why Crump conducted the interview in the manner in which he did. Additionally, we believe the work product privilege precludes defense counsel from making inquiry as to the reason(s) Crump attempted to locate Witness 8 and the methods employed to do so." Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Jury instructions

From the same article as above http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/4/155250/1316/crimenews/Appeals-Court-Reverses-Zimmerman-Judge-Crump-to-Be-Deposed

Also some interesting commentary from a recent Florida case that may have an impact on this trial (GZ will almost certainly get Self Defense jury instructions) "A trial court's decision to give or withhold a proposed jury instruction is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Vila v. State, 74 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). However, the trial court's discretion is more restricted in criminal proceedings "because a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support the theory and the theory is recognized as valid under Florida law." Id.

The trial court should not weigh the evidence when determining whether to give the requested instruction. Id.; see also Pope v. State, 458 So. 2d 327, 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (stating that "it is axiomatic that a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such an instruction, and the trial court may not weigh the evidence in determining whether the instruction is appropriate") (citing Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726, 732 (Fla. 1982)). The jury — not the trial judge — decides the weight of the evidence. Vila, 74 So. 3d at 1112. "The question of self-defense is one of fact, and is one for the jury to decide where the facts are disputed." Id.

Additionally, a defendant is not required to testify at trial to receive a jury instruction on self-defense. Sipple, 972 So. 2d at 915. A defendant's statements admitted into evidence at trial may be sufficient evidence for a self-defense instruction. Id. The cross-examination of State witnesses can also support a claim of self-defense. Id. at 916.

Finally, if a jury can reasonably infer from circumstantial evidence presented at trial that the defendant had the state of mind necessary for self-defense, then the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense. Johnson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any objection to a self-defense instruction to the jury. They will also be instructed on whether the prosecution proved the elements of the crime he was charged with beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds that the prosecution did not prove the elements of the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt, they could find him not guilty solely on that instruction alone and not even have to consider a self-defense theory/jury instruction.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

major hearing

• Frye hearing on admissibility of voice recognition (continues tomorrow), major testimony from FBI voice analysis guy, saying not reliable in this case
• some testimony regarding withholding evidence, judge says remaining hearing will be held after trial
• defense request for anonymous witnesses, objected by media, denied.

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/6/6/last_hearing_today_b.html Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

George Zimmerman was never appointed to the neighborhood watch in the appartment complex. http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/

Please change the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.172.2 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This has been addressed multiple times. There was an official watch program, administered by the local police department. That watch was not recognized by any national organization, true, but there is no requirement that watches do so - participation in the national programs is voluntary. Per your source "But registration with the USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch Program — which would have provided this training — is not a requirement for forming a group. We’ve got approximately 25,000 neighborhood watches registered now, and the neighborhood watches out there far exceed that number" Zimmerman was appointed/elected by the local watch group, and there are numerous sources to support this in the article already. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Juror E7

Is the controversy over juror e7 notable of inclusion as a point in the jury subsection?

• http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-props-juror_e7-no-conclusions-but-posted-on-kill-zimmerman-site/
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pro-trayvon-martin-man-george-zimmerman-jury-article-1.1370906
• http://www.630wpro.com/common/more.php?m=58&ts=1371079201&article=84310C95D3E011E286DEFEFDADE6840A&mode=2
• http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/12/Trayvon-Martin-Justice-Group-Member-Attempts-To-Join-George-Zimmerman-Jury

risking WP:FORUM but this guy is lucky he did not make it on the jury. He could have easily caused a mistrial, or made strong grounds for appeal, which in addition to any criminal/civil liability against himself, could have significantly undermined his own personal goals. Apparently he returned to the courthouse today, and was removed as a tresspasser

• https://twitter.com/JeffWeinerOS/status/345612905791750144
• http://www.clickorlando.com/news/deputies-escort-dismissed-george-zimmerman-juror-from-courthouse/-/1637132/20575140/-/oyd2jo/-/index.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In Omara's statement/q&a after the Friday jury selection, e7 was brought up, and Omara alleged that e7 was attempting to get in contact with the remaining potential jurors, and further alleged that the purpose was to tamper with the jury. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with mentioning it. After all, this is a unique process in which they are choosing jurors. We already mention the 500 people being summoned and the being sequestered and being identified by number only, and if RS are reporting on this guy, then it should be included. Did O'Mara offer any proof of him trying to contact other potential jurors?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A fairly in depth story on him and getting escorted out. Apparently ("according to authorities") after asking about how his post was identified, he attempted to walk to the jury holding room. http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/dismissed-juror-zimmerman-trial-returns-court-gets/nYLZ7/ Gaijin42 (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman Sr. new e-book

Robert Zimmerman Sr. released an e-book today on Amazon. [2] Zimmerman Sr. says in the book that because of Holder’s decision to investigate whether Martin’s death violated federal civil rights laws, the FBI did not have “adequate resources to investigate clearly identified potential terrorist [sic] in the Boston area.” Now, “tragically, we have suffered the consequences of Mr. Holder’s politically motivated decisions.” Is this worthy of a mention in the section for their family.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The book is worth briefly mentioning, but not the part about Holder, etc. Note that an unrepresentative part of the book might be selected and displayed in a news article with an agenda, so NPOV needs to be considered. Also, the Boston bombing is a digression. And a different article should be used as a reliable source instead, which simply states that the book has been published, for example http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/6/14/george_zimmerman_s_f.html . If a review of the book comes out that discusses it more generally, then that could be included as a reliable source, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it is only worth a brief mention. But it seems to me that the news article was reporting on an ebook published by a father with an agenda - Uncovering the Malicious Prosecution of My Son, George - instead of the other way around. Regardless, a mention that he has published an ebook is adequate, no details required.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

jury instructions

The 40 potential jurors were today read the jury instructions on reasonable doubt, and self defense. Omara wanted to read some, State objected, Judge read whole thing. Are these suitable for inclusion under a jury instructions subsection? (unreliable convenience links to what was read below)

• http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=99278&sid=24LQ&ext=RTF&lcl=p1c3s3-6-f.rtf&usr=JeffWeinerOS&doc=148995965&key=key-63khgc3urc67nvlpq0e
• http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rku5be

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think the whole text of the instructions is necessary, is it. Just a brief mention that the judge read them and that a self-defense instruction was included.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would think that, on a more general point, a link to the jury instructions be provided, if only so that readers of this article are aware of what the law is that the jury will have to apply. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml

--The Historian (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. An external link to the instructions would be a good idea.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

dead links

Does anyone have the back ups for the dead links on their computer? I checked a few and Archive did not catch them. I can personally vouch for some of the claims they cite because I've seen them, but that doesn't help people wanting to verify the claims. Also... is there any attempt to webcite and archive all the existing links in case of future 404? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a live link that could be added in which a PhD ranks the shooting in the top 10 instances where guns were used to defend people. --24.112.187.219 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman's father in Notes section - Edit Request

This is the first time I've been to this article, so as a fresh set of eyes, I would like to point out something that stood out as needing clarification. In the Notes section, it says Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is a Hispanic from Peru. Shouldn't it more accurately read Zimmerman's father is white, non-Hispanic, and his mother is a non-white Hispanic from Peru. You can be be both white and Hispanic, for example, Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bündchen, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, etc., so the line as presently written is not clear as to their races. Here is a photo of his parents in court. I will let regular editors here handle this. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are probably correct, but the issue is sourcing. We have sources saying mother his hispanic. We have sources saying dad is white. We do not have sources saying Dad is "not hispanic" (and finding such would be unlikely), and as you said there are certainly white hispanics - therefore we cannot due to WP:BLP put anything in regarding this absent sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Whats the point of the issues over his height?

The person who reverted the information gave no specific guideline reason as to why several people stating Trayvon Martins height is not only relevant to the article, but why it is notable to the article at all. Why is this contentious? Obviously has no relevance to the article and looks like trivia.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Presumably, the bigger he was, the more scary and powerful he was. But it's really kind of funny to see all the different estimates and detail. The various estimates all seem pretty close together, and I'm sure every person reading the paragraph wonders why the article is so obsessed with his height and weight. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I didn't think it was relevant at all. I removed it but the editor who reinserted it stated that it was contentious and told me not to remove it again. Yet failed to say why it was contentious or why it's relevant to the article. JOJ ^Hutton 22:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues from the past.Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_9#Height_and_weight where tiny details matter are one thing, but who was bigger as a matter of dominance has been a big thing. Also it was in witness statements that the "bigger" one was the aggressor and beating up someone on the ground. Both claims of height and weight have been used to attribute Zimmerman pre-trial despite Trayvon Martin being taller and Zimmerman's weight being skewed as well. Media reports noted that Zimmerman was taller, weighed more and tied it to Zimmerman beating Martin before shooting him. I say move the matter to a note form for context, but do not remove valid material that is sourced without good reason. For over a year this material was highly contested and owed to its detail and specific wording as a response to the media characterization of the event and the vast numerous of attributes floating about used a leverage in a giant strawman for character assassination and rampant speculation to damn one party for the outcome. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There is good reason. Its irrelevant. not notable, and undue weight. I take offense to the accusation that you say I simply removed it "without good reason". If it was just stating how tall he was, that would be fine, but for crying out loud, the article states several "opinions" as to TM height. You suggesting that it is relevant for some "pre-trail" reason is moot. So just why again are all these versions in there? Just say how tall he is and move on, but the article is clearly making a bigger deal out of this single detail than it is.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not opinions, we have different records from different sources. And to remove Trayvon's without Zimmerman's would unbalance it. I'm not asking for much and I do not think the removal of the material without discussing it was particularly a good choice. So don't think I am attacking you; the material has been in here for over a year, and has been a subject of demonstrated controversy for which accuracy was required to resolve it. It was a big deal because those facts were abused by the media in the pre-trial and public outcry phase. The proper action is to move it to notes and provide context; not strip history without good reason. This is like that other Trayvon issue from Snopes.[3] I don't see why we don't have a note for that issue either considering it is a widely circulated assertion that Martin was a gangster and people to this day claim the photo is real and of "Trayvon Martin", but it is another and completely different "Trayvon Martin". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Pause for a question. What does it say about Zimmerman? I haven't seen that? If its the same guessing and opinions of Zimmerman's weight, it too is irrelevant. As far as not making a good choice. You need to read the guidelines, particularly WP:BOLD and WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. All of which are being followed. So its not a poor choice to be bold on Wikipedia. You reverted and now we are discussing. So lets keep the comments on the content and not on the editors involved.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two further comments: 1) The article not only has that paragraph of excessive detailed estimations of Martin's height and weight, but it also has Martin's height and weight repeated again in the infobox right next to it, and 2) There's also an excessive detailed paragraph about Zimmerman's height and weight. Apparently, Martin was about six feet tall and weighed about 150 pounds (which sounds very thin for a guy that tall), and Zimmerman was about 5'8" tall and weighed about 200 pounds at the time (and Zimmerman didn't eat much and his posture got a bit more hunkered down after all hell broke loose). That's enough. Further details can go in a footnote if necessary. So Martin was taller but Zimmerman outweighed him – time to move on. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with that. A footnote is fine. Mention of actual height and weight is fine (once), but this is excessively detailed to the point of nausea.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That's all that I ask for. Context and clarity. Though to be fair the variation in height is normal, but the official statements in the reports were widely differing. Much like Zimmerman's 250 lb weight was disputed and inaccurate at the time. People that get upset about this stuff easily... I'd word it as "Close variations in height for both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman have been reported by the family and official sources. The subject of this information varies in this article's sources." Then detail the sources briefly and move on. Optional is the drama in the media surrounding said assertions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The information was relevant and notable at the time of the shooting, and not only does Wikipedia provide reliably sourced information about the event that took place, it also provides a historical perspective of what was relevant and notable as reported by reliable sources at the time of the shooting. There was a lot of controversy at the time of the shooting surrounding the height and weight of both individuals involved in this event which was being widely reported on. If that controversy is not clearly explained in the article as to why there are so many varying measurements for these individuals, rather than deleting reliably sourced information, maybe we could try to explain it better for the reader.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

First, just because its cited does not make it notable. I can cite that the Queen takes a shit every day at noon, but its not notable, even if someone pushing a POV will say that it shows that she is consistent. Getting back on track, all the article needs to cover is the actual height and weight, =not all the discrepancies. Whatever the controversy was, usually only in the minds of just a few POV pushers, it doesn't seem to be an issue anymore. I'm not pushing a POV, just the facts. And if it needs to be explained, then its probably not relevant to begin with.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please watch the tone; you are casting aspirations with this "POV Pushers" and you refer to me rather negatively and do not understand my edit summary. As Isaidnoway mentioned there was a lot of controversy at the time and this article reads like it did back in July of 2012. Yes there are issues with it, but BRD - we discuss, and am a bit concerned about the tone of your argument. I've asked that for historical and clarity purposes; we bring this to a note form and not remove it wholesale. Of the 360 something references in this article, a good number have different height/weight. Almost everything in the case has been misrepresented at some point. We've even had Jesse Jackson saying Trayvon Martin was shot in the back of the head.[4] The article needs to be updated, but height/weight was important because many early sources used this to describe how Zimmerman was beating up Trayvon before shooting him. Everything was connected and given the archives and the edit history of the article; please AGF that this is not "POV-pushers". Its been present for over a year, and with reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Not accusing anyone particularly of POV pushing, but your argument is that TMs height balances GZs weight. Each is its own POV because each is trying to say something about the other. I say they are both pointless. Its giving way too much space to something that has no meaning at all to the case. It "may" have been a story a year ago, but its not an issue at all now, and just because its been in the article for a year, isn't justification that its still notable. Sometimes recent events tend to be seen as a much larger issue than they do as time passes. Time has passed. Its no longer an issue.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree on some aspects and disagree on others. I've removed the section from the text by noting it and have tinkered a bit on the media response, much was fueled by Mother Jones and Wagist contributing to different camps - both of which had completely incorrect details and speculations that created the firestorm of controversy. The firestorm surrounding such information and speculation is the reason why it got national and international attention. Call it what you will; context is important for historical scope. Does it need to be that dense, no. Rather than removal, fixing and clarifying the problem is the best solution. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that it's no longer an issue, but the point is - it was an issue at the time of the shooting and was widely reported on, making it notable. Now that some context has been provided with the recent edit (note) explaining why there was varying measurements, the historical perspective of the controversy is clarified.

Switching to another topic, should Martin be the only one with an infobox in his bio section. It looks a little lopsided and undue weight to provide one for Martin and not Zimmerman. There was a short discussion about the infobox at the time it was added to the article, but no one really commented about it. Any opinions or suggestions??-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. Damienivan (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre (Lack of?) Organization of This Article

The level of complexity of this article makes it impossible for me to comment with authority as to what the "proper" way to organize it is. However, as a layperson and occasional Wikipedia article editor, I can say that the way this article is organized is:

• Unclear
• Necessitated far too much reading on my part to understand what was going on (in other words, doesn't follow the "inverted pyramid" structure you would find in a well written newspaper article).
• From the get-go, has a borderline obsession with the specifics of race, without actually explaining the relevant greater issues.
• But most importantly follows a convoluted chronology of the reporting of events, as opposed to a chronology of the events themselves or (as mentioned above) a simple inverted pyramid of the generalized facts of the case.

I had to read about 4758 words before "Witness 8" was even mentioned! Until then, the entire account is essentially from Zimmerman's point of view! How is that even remotely a neutral POV? If we wanted to make a separate page about the chronology of the reporting of this case, we could make another section or another page. But IMHO, this article, in its current state, is fairly misleading and is huge chore to read.

Damienivan (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

when did Wikipedia become an online newspaper?Whatzinaname (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

When exactly did I say that Wikipedia was an online newspaper? Damienivan (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

you complained that the wiki did not follow the flow of a newspaper article. That's just great btw, only the lede is supposed to follow something of that nature. the rest of the article is how best represent the information related to it, and since 95% of this "story" was about the media's coverage of the event and the information/disinformation they fed to the masses, you gt the focus being on the media's presentation. Whatzinaname (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't. I went out of my way to use "newspaper article style" as an example of what I thought would be a way to structure things. I never said that style was appropriate to this page. Forgive me if that was unclear, but frankly, if your reading is as ...uh... sloppy as your writing, it's not surprising to me that you missed that point. Regardless, I'll see if I can clarify what I wrote. Also, no, the inverted-pyramid structure does not only apply to the lead/lede. That's why articles frequently end on quotes that aren't terribly exciting. Damienivan (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the lead not acceptable for background? Fix it yourself! Yes, much can be improved, but I do not think there is a neutrality issue, but I'll do some clean up on the issue above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough — the lead isn't bad, however the main point I was making was regarding the body of the article. The article is still a chronology of the reporting of the incident, not a chronology of the incident itself; and I don't think it would be wise for me to dismantle the whole thing before I mentioned my objections first (not to mention the fact that I don't want to put in a bunch of work just to have it deleted). Isn't that the whole point of Talk? Damienivan (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This article has been very controversial, and editors of all stripes have worked quite diligently to achieve a consensus. While there is always room for improvement, beware wholesale changes, particularly when the article is receiving heightened visibility due to the ongoing trial. Is there any particular issue which you think is so egregious it must be immediately rectified? Wikipedia has no deadline in general, and at this particular moment in time, I would suggest that that guideline be given even greater leeway, as many of the pov questions will shortly be resolved (2 weeks?). If not guilty, then zimmerman's pov should be maintained as the dominant pov. If guilty, then the state's pov should become dominant. i think there is lots of stuff in the "reactions/aftermath" section in particular that smack of recentism, and can be culled completely. There is probably also even more content that is more relevant to the case article than the event article, but again, I think we should wait until things resolve a bit more . There are rumors/predictions flying of riots if an acquittal comes, which would certainly wipe out the importance of many of the earlier "aftermath" items such as spike lee tweeting etc. Simple re-ogranization of existing material is of course much less controversial, so I think we can be more liberal there. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race nor am I really taking a side in the trial, although from what I've seen so far, its looking better for one side than the other right now. My purpose was to help fix some of the blatant violations of Wikipedias policies and guidelines. My single edit to this article was an attempt to do so, but I was informed of the fact that the article is contentious and that I shouldn't edit it with discussing. Funny, I thought Wikipedia was suppose to be an open format that encouraged bold edits. Unfortunately when events tend to be fresh in the media, the Wikipedia article tends to get different sorts of people, some good, some not so good, attempting to push certain POVs on the "reader". I see that both sides have done so here. Its frustrating for the truly neutral editors who are just trying to create a policy written article, to see all the infighting that always happens in these situations. I guess we'll just have to wait it out. Eventually the traffic dies down, the story becomes less fresh and POV pushers stop editing on a regular basis, usually moving on the next hot button topic. Thats usually when the article begins to take on a truly neutral stance. Looking forward to that day.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not incorrect. However, almost every important part of this article has been subject to WP:BRD already, with consensus established. Therefore when editors come in without knowledge of those previous discussions, it can cause strife. However, certainly you do not need permission to do anything - I was merely giving a suggestion to be careful. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on your characterization of the "blatant violations of WP polices and guidelines". Could you also elaborate on the POV being pushed in this article. Slinging around accusations that a WP article is not compliant with policies and guidelines and that a particular POV is being pushed without citing examples is not really a valid argument on how to improve the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please elaborate on them. I may have some mere 400 edits to this talk page about past discussions from over a year ago, but the BRD matter is something that was extremely covered for almost every single aspect. While I disagreed with both Gaijin and Isaidnoway in multiple areas of the page, their arguments were stronger and better than my own. Throughout this article's history you will find many disagreements and many contentious issues raised, but the careful balance of POV has been maintained. This page has had a lot of drama and one editor slung "bias" claims at me and made a huge fuss. It is a sensitive page for non-content reasons as well, but the goal is to build an encyclopedia. My personal belief on matters have not changed in a year on certain information, but I did not have the stronger argument and a need was demonstrated for information about race, height, weight and even the type of infobox and the definitions within said infobox. It was I who removed the mugshot of Zimmerman. It was I who pushed to remove the marijuana matter. Almost every aspect of the article has been discussed in the archives; often many times over. Wholesale changes would be akin to going back to the Muhammad article and removing all the pictures. No one expects any editor to read the archives before making any edit, but when a big issue is struck that is why BRD requires discussion and context. Its not about ownership or POV at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the organization of the info in the past was influenced mainly by the info organization of the news media. In other words, the news media essentially determined what was relevant and significant. As we are in the era of the trial (or more precisely the prosecution's presentation of its case) I think that the activities in the trial are having an impact on what seems relevant and significant and how the info should be organized. I think that may be one reason why criticism of the article organization is occurring now, instead of earlier in the development of this article. Another reason may be that the trial's publicity has brought editors to this article who weren't previously active here. Anyhow, perhaps after the trial is over for awhile, a better perspective can be had about how to organize the material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

blatant POV pushing and will not be tolerated

The fact that we have sworn testimony from witness 8/jeantel specifically indicating trayvon martin used a racial slur directed toward zimmerman is more relevant to wikipedia than 99% ofthe other speculative and fantasy racism found in the rest of the "allegation" of racism sections. If you can provide some evidence how anything else is even equally relevant in that entire section be my guest. As it is, it's nothing more than blatant political POV push trying to keep out the racist comments of Trayvon. 68.115.53.79 (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Witness #8, Rachel Jeantel, testified to what Martin said to her over the phone in a conversation the night of the shooting. She did not testify that it was an "alleged race issue" or that is was "allegations against Martin". To the contrary, she testified that words like "cracker" and "nigger" which Martin said, are not offensive to her. When questioned about it again on a recross exam, she testified again that people in her community refer to white people as "cracker", and use the word "nigger", and this is non-offensive normal behavior. Additionally, she stated that she didn't consider the term "cracker" to be racial and also testified that she didn't know if Martin used those words regularly. Her testimony never indicated or even implied that it was an "alleged race issue" nor did she testify that it was an "allegation against Martin".

I understand what you are trying to convey here, but you are not putting her testimony into the proper context. She is not the one who alleged the terms she said Martin used were racial. The defense team is the one that chose to pursue that line of questioning about whether the terms Martin used were racial. The defense team is the one who made the allegations against Martin, and her, for that matter. But she never wavered in her testimony that those terms were not offensive to her.

There have been many media outlets that have highlighted that portion of the defense's line of questioning, and her answer's, and offered their opinions on what it may or may not have meant.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

the fact she thinks that cracker is not racist and not offensive is not even remotely relevant. How many things do we delete on this wiki page because "george doesn't think so and so or say so and so, so we are just gonna delete it". SHE IS NOT TRAYVON MARTIN. She is also not part of "trayvon's community". You have supplied not a shred of an argument supporting non-inclusion. 68.115.53.79 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No. We are not going to add inflection or assert that which cannot be proven as "fact". At most, we would need third-party sources claiming that and we would have to cite it as "opinion" and provide context at minimum. The media is dramatic and biased for these issues; Wikipedia should not parrot such accusations blindly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but your logic for creating this sub-section with a single quote from Jeantel's testimony is that Martin made a racial comment, so therefore, it is an allegation against himself? I am not disputing that she testified to what Martin called Zimmerman, but she is not the one who alleged that the term Martin used to describe Zimmerman was a racial slur, defense attorney Don West did. Like I stated above, I get what you are trying to convey, but put it in the proper context. Here's what I believe you are trying to convey and is put in the proper context:

During the trial of Zimmerman, Rachel Jeantel testifed that while on the phone with Martin on the night of the shooting, Martin described Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker". On cross examination of Jeantel, defense attorney Don West questioned her about the term (cracker) Martin used to describe Zimmerman, alleging that it was a racial slur. Jeantel testified that she did not believe it was a racial slur and that it was not offensive to her.'

Your edit doesn't even say who made the allegation against Martin. You've created a sub-section titled Allegations against Martin, but you fail to provide the reader with who is making the allegation. You can't just insert one line out of her testimony without putting it in the proper context. If you want to create a sub-section about Allegations against Martin, then you need to clarify exactly who is making the allegation against him, and it certainly wasn't Rachel Jeantel making that allegation, it was Don West.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Coming into this late, but all of the sworn testimony in the trial refers to racial bias on part of Martin, not on the part of Zimmerman. I think its odd that the article only has subheadings regarding Zimmerman and the police. There should at least be a bullet about Martin given whats come out in court. 68.50.245.173 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

jeantel made the allegation that trayvon called george a cracker, that's "the allegation". We don't know if martin ever said that, or if martin did say it if it was in a racist mindset. You can only tell the facts and let the reader discern what they think.04:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

Please explain how this is OR/Synth, " Numerous official reports have been released which accounts for the differing physical descriptions in sources cited in this article. Martin's physical appearance, size and weight were originally contested and used by the media to advance speculation prior to the arrest of Zimmerman and trial evidence." The information is summarized in the following sentences. Also the numerous instances in the article show this. We got Mother Jones and Wagist which used these, including comments from the defense lawyer Benjamin Crump to advance the information. The original material actually still online and viewable from the RSes as well. [5] You can call this OR/SYNTH, but it most certainly is not. We still have sources in this article that make numerous comments about height and weight; readers have every right to get clarification. With lines like:

“Trayvon had a bag of Skittles,’’ Fulton’s attorney, Ben Crump, told Lauer. “(Zimmerman) had a nine millimeter gun. He was almost 80 pounds more weight than Trayvon Martin. This is a situation where when you…listen to those 911 tapes and the three witnesses, everyone in America is asking, when are they going to arrest Zimmerman for killing this kid in cold blood?’’

Wikipedia editors should not engage in creating OR or synthing sources, but this is an example of an accusation that is patently false. We have many major blogs using this information to advance their POV often times citing these actual articles as Mother Jones did.[6] Concerns about height and weight were more prevalent and long lasting than Jesse Jackson's quickly silenced claim that Martin was shot in the back of the head by Zimmerman. Much of the firestorm surrounding the case came from a combination of "armed vs unarmed", "white vs black", "man vs boy", "big vs small" analogies. Considering the images used in the media, the differences were so inappropriate that it galvanized public outcry into a political weapon. The Martin's weight was listed as 140 pounds in many sources early on, including the Daily Beast, Examiner and others. The two original articles on the weight difference for Zimmerman being 250 pounds have been 404ed and are not on Archive.org it seems. Though just about everything has been disputed in this case.[7] Because of the blacklist I can't link to the Anderson Cooper response on Mediaite, but it has a video of CNN’s Anderson Cooper speaking with Mary Cutcher, Selma Mora Lamilla account of the events. Take out the last little bit if you want; but its not OR or synth; numerous journalists have pushed this and parroted Crump and other lines without independent verification to push speculation instead of official facts. Mostly, because such "facts" were not forth-coming from the police and the widespread reports of a coverup. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

From the beginning of WP:SYNTH,

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Here are the sentences in question,

"Numerous official reports have been released which accounts for the differing physical descriptions in sources cited in this article. Martin's physical appearance, size and weight were originally contested and used by the media to advance speculation prior to the arrest of Zimmerman and trial evidence."

The first sentence isn't even true. The second sentence is your opinion. In any case, could you give a source and excerpt from the source that explicitly states these conclusions? The excerpts don't have to be exactly the same wording as your conclusions, just words that state essentially the same conclusions. Be careful not to give multiple excerpts that each don't state your conclusions, but are used by you to form your own conclusion or opinion, since that would be SYNTH.--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And you misunderstand the meaning. It is commonsense that the different measurements exist; we cite them. The sources provide that. We have numerous sources which state different ones, we have 360+ sources. We have 7 sources for four different height/weight measurements for Martin alone. Secondly, the range which appears has been 140 - 180 lb in the media, thanks to the Sentinel 404ing, I cannot provide anything better then blogs which reference it for that original 140 figure. My biggest issue with your "removal" is that you expect a RS to say "the sky is blue" in this case; because even given 7 sources for Martin's weight and numerous more exist for Zimmerman, you want a cite stating this conclusion before you'll allow it in the article? That is outrageous and sad, because my summary of plain fact that sentence #1 is perfectly acceptable. Please read WP:SYNTHNOT, it is because such variation in official statements and my summary of those lines, that sentence #1 is a summary.

#2 is more difficult, but with context of Crump advancing weight issue early in the case, much of it was referenced in ABC, AC360 and other media outlets including blogs like Wagist and Mother Jones which advanced a strong POV. So reword it if you want or leave it out till I find a better wording. Sentence 1 definitely should be re-included to summarize the obvious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I carefully considered your response and I stand by my previous message. You'll need to get consensus before adding those sentences. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What kind of consensus building response is that? The first sentence unquestionably should be re-added as it summarizes accurate information. The only issue is synth by OR, not summarizing that which is already given. I'm trying to simplify the disagreement as much as possible so you can respond to it and explain your opposition, but you will not engage in the discussion now? The information is explicitly stated about the different official accounts of height and weight (on both sides for that matter); this is not OR, this is summarizing the next lines so proper condensing can take place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Map Error

The posted map is incorrect: the sidewalk in the common area between the row facing twin tress and the row facing retreat view circle is a "T" and the cross bar of the "T" goes to retreat vie circle. Good start, needs improvement. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is, but I'm not sure if it should stay or go until corrected. Any thoughts?--JOJ ^Hutton 14:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)