Talk:Trayvon Martin

---

There’s something rotten on this talk page

Something very shady, and in clear violation of Wikipedia’s Creative Commons license is going on here. Lukeno94 violated CC with his heavy-handed, political censorship of a discussion page, since as far as he’s concerned, anyone whose politics he hates is a “troll.”

According to this talk page, except for one “troll,” there’s been radio silence for two months, on an article that just two months ago, had to be locked down, due to “edit warring.” I find that inconceivable.

I am aware that some people at WP have the ability to not only revert edits, but send them down the memory hole without a trace, in violation of WP’s CC license. (I realize that some edits may legally be disappearable, for reasons of libel or national security, but I’m talking here about cases of pure political hatred.) I suspect that they are doing just that on this page.24.90.126.68 (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Whether or not you find it conceivable, there has been no wholesale removal of any content from this page or its corresponding article. Lukeno94 was correct in removing a comment from this page which has little to nothing to do with the content of this article and, if it belongs anywhere, belongs at African American, not here. Since you have restored it, I have replied to the comment above. By the way, in the future, please add comments beginning a new section at the bottom of any Talk page. Editors rarely look for newly added discussions in the middle of a page. General Ization ^Talk 11:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Uh, there is absolutely no way my actions violated the CC license; that has to be one of the whackiest claims I've ever seen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

When reading the opening line of the article, I noticed it describes Martin as a "17 year old". It does not seem like the correct way to reference him, even though the most publicized event of his life occurred when he was 17. Thoughts? Mfribbs ^Talk 19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

More accurately, the lead describes Martin as a "17-year-old African American", where "17-year-old" is an adjective phrase. Could you explain why you think this is an incorrect way to refer to Martin? General Ization ^Talk 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because this article is billed as a biography, not a second recount of the incident, and his whole life did not occur while he was 17. If his age at death is necessary in the opening paragraph, it might be better stated as "who was fatally shot at the age of 17" or some variation thereof. 2600:1006:B112:31C6:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see the logic in that, although it should be borne in mind that Martin is only notable because of the events that occurred when he was 17, hence the weight given to those events in his biography here. The article is semi-protected; this means that Mfribbs is free to make any changes to the lead which they feel improve the article (see WP:BRD), although IPs currently cannot (though they can propose a specific change to the wording here on the Talk page). General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% certain, but doesn't including the age in the lead violate the MOS? Regardless, I'm inclined to agree with Mfribbs and the IP here; the current wording is not fantastic, particularly since this is an article on the person, not the incident. It feels to me like the age is being used to push the anti-Zimmerman stance in a subtle way. Personally, I think the lead is pretty poor; the reference locations make it look like only two portions are referenced, and that someone just decided to cite everything related to the topic; the bit about where he was born and his schooling does violate the MOS (if I remember correctly), and the lead is too detailed even aside from that (no need to mention where he was buried in the lead, the social media thing is trivia and barely belongs in the article at all, much less in the lead). Quite frankly, the entire article is a little too detailed (far too much trivia related to his social media stuff, for example), although nowhere near as much as the lead is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Zimmerman wasn't told to not follow Martin

I have removed the obvious lie, "(despite being told not to do so)", which was repeated thousands of times on blogs, especially in the first half of 2012 and probably later as well. The comment alluded to the conversation between Zimmerman and the 911 dispatcher: The dispatcher actually said something like "We don't need you to do that [follow him]". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin Aside from actually being publicly exposed by the 911 transcript even in early 2012, the 911 operator was not a law-enforcement official, and she didn't have the authority to 'order' Zimmerman to do (or not do) anything. Frysay (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And I have restored this fact that is sourceable to Zimmerman's own statement to the authorities, among others. The "never was told to not follow" is a fringe myth found in unreliable sources. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is laughable that you (Tarc) refer to what Zimmerman was told as being "this is a popular fringe meme found on fringe websites, but in reality, even Zimmerman himself noted in his statement that he was told not to follow". Your duplication of the word 'fringe' shows that you are nervous about the truth. Quite the contrary, the actual 'fringe myth' was the claim early on blogs (and even the news media) that claimed 'Zimmerman was told not to follow [Trayvon Martin].' The transcript of the 911 call proves what was actually said, and has done so since little more than 1-2 weeks after the incident itself. The illegitimate motivation for people originally misrepresenting the conversion as having told Zimmerman to NOT follow Martin was the need to claim that Zimmerman had done something wrong. As for your claim that Zimmerman himself admitted something to the contrary, first I note that you don't cite a specific quotation showing this to be true. (Even if it were false; you could quote numerous news report repeating the media falsity in the first few weeks; you should be able to cite Zimmerman's ostensible 'admission', too.) Second, Zimmerman's recollection of what the 911 operator actually said could easily have been befuddled by being distracted by being involved in the incident itself. He only heard the statement once (in person), and he may very well have heard the alternate lie hundreds of times on news media and websites. Faced with such a blatant misrepresentation frequently repeated, it would not be at all surprising if Zimmerman himself began to doubt his (true) recollection, and might have believed the falsity he repeatedly heard. There is also no guarantee that Zimmerman actually heard all of the words uttered by the 911 operator: Cell phones are notoriously difficult to understand at times. Frysay (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not engage with single-purpose IP editors, sorry. Tarc (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by a "single-purpose IP editor". My login had apparently just logged out, so I have logged in again. Frysay (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• The police department's official website had a question and answer section on it before. They answered this question saying the 911 operator said they didn't need him to follow, not that he shouldn't, and the 911 operator was not a police officer and couldn't order anyone to do anything. Dream Focus 01:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Are you following him?"
• "Yeah"
• "OK, we don't need you to do that"

That is, by any sensible interpretation of the English language, a warning to not follow. Whether there was the authority of law enforcement behind the warning to not do it is not relevant. Tarc (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok... but what reliable source states that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after that point? Not the one provided in the lede of this article. VQuakr (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? 1) it is in this source, At the core of this, for many people, is this particular passage where the dispatcher tells Mr. Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon Martin. And at that point, many people say: How is it possible that he's acting in self-defense if he's pursuing someone after having been told not to? but its also in hundreds of others. One can dispute how to interpret/spin "dont need you to", but there is zero question it was said, and that Zimmerman continued onward after that and away from his car.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

there is zero question... that Zimmerman continued onward after that and away from his car. Ok, what is the source? VQuakr (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a "warning not to follow". It is a polite reminder that the 911 call (and the operator) doesn't constitute some implied requirement onto Zimmerman that he act analogous to a policeman. There are good reasons for this: Liability issues, for instance. A 911 operator knows that he/she doesn't KNOW, for sure, what is actually happening. No visuals. She can't be sure the 911 caller knows everything, or knows it correctly. Any instructions she gives (like, 'do not follow that thug!', or 'follow the thug!') might later have unintended consequences. But, almost certainly she has been trained to excercise extreme caution, and I don't disagree that what she actually said, "we don't need you to do that" is a proper cautionary statement to make. The problem is that you are trying to misrepresent what was actually said, as if she said something different. Frysay (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)