|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Zimmerman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
New Photo of George Zimmerman
I cannot add this to the page because I have not made any edits in a while.
Here is the code:
Peter, my first impression was you copied the image off the web. See the profile picture at George Zimmerman's Twitter site. However the photo at Twitter is a lower quality then this one, and this one includes the camera metadata, so it's not a web copy. Also you are a professional photographer as Google search shows. I think you, and the photo, are probably legit. I will go ahead and add it, but don't be surprised if someone tries to delete it from Commons, who didn't do the research I have and simply assumed it was a web copy. Also you have little history of uploading to Commons. To protect the image from possible deletion the procedure is to submit a OTRS ticket so that you can be verified as the real Peter Duke, and not a fake Peter Duke. Professional quality pictures like this of famous people usually come under tighter scrutiny as copyright violations in particular when versions are visible elsewhere on the web. -- GreenC 17:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like that Twitter feed is down as of today, but Google provides an apparently intact archive at . I'm not too clear though if there was previously a way to get a higher-res version out of Twitter than is displayed on the page normally. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I looked with Google reverse image search and was unable to find a higher res version anywhere. -- GreenC 15:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also it appears George's Twitter account was suspended yesterday or today for Tweeting nude photos of a woman he claimed to be dating. -- GreenC 15:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Green Cardamom: At least on the archived feed above, and apparently as reproduced (blurred) in news reports, neither photo shows a nipple, let alone anything south of that. If we get to updating we should be careful to note it is nothing more than that a person might guess she was nude when the photo was taken. This might be an outing/harassment/libel issue but apparently revenge porn cannot be alleged since it was basically "PG". Wnt (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
As Zimmerman is known for his legal issues and arrests, the photo should be his Seminole Co. booking photo, not from Glamor Shots. There are, of course, several from which to choose -- http://www.name-list.net/img/images.php/Zimmerman_5.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- No. This has been discussed extensively before; the relevant policy is at also available at WP:MUGSHOT. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay (I just saw this message). Yes, I own the photo, I took the photo and am making it available to Wikipedia. I included it because it is a recent and therefore up-to-date photo. I'm not sure what the problem is or why it is so difficult to believe that fact (confirmation bias, I assume). I willingly put the image into the public domain so that it may be used here. Peter Duke (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- @BigDuke6: it looks like it was deleted due to lack of documentation of your permission. If you are interested in releasing rights to the photo under a Wikipedia-compliant license, feel free to re-upload it. VQuakr (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah Peter, this isn't about personal trust, it's about Wikipedia's legal policies to prevent copyright violations (as you can imagine is a huge problem). I hope you will follow the procedures of releasing the image under an appropriate license with documentation so we can use the image. -- GreenC 12:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It is disturbing that this article compared to the article about Trayvon Martin, including the shooting of Trayvon Martin is biased in such a way that it makes George Zimmerman appear to be the victim in this case. Zimmerman's life story is written to emphasize that he is "not racist", yet in the Trayvon Martin article, more words are dedicated to portray this child as racist. These three articles need to be evaluated for objectivity which all clearly lack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Baloney. The Wiki articles are objective, particularly when compared to a lot of the USA major media. Please list the particular sentences you feel are not objective. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)BG
For instance, from the George Zimmerman article:
"According to Donnelly, in 2004 Zimmerman and an African American friend opened a satellite office of Allstate Insurance, which failed a year later."
In early 2011, Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman claimed he witnessed "disgusting behavior" while participating in a ride-along program with local police; however the police department said it did not know when, if ever, Zimmerman was in that program."
There is no reason to include either of these, beyond suggesting that Zimmerman is not racist.
There is also that there was no Neighborhood Watch in the neighborhood.
From the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article:
"From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times. Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.
In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.
Zimmerman had made nearly 50 calls to police between 2004 and 2012 to report various local disturbances, such as loud parties, open garage doors, potholes, and children playing in the street. Following break-ins in the neighborhood in 2011, Zimmerman's calls to police increasingly focused on reporting people he suspected of criminal activity.
During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. On each of the calls, Zimmerman only offered information about their race when specifically asked by the dispatcher to do so, reporting that the people were black males.[Note 2]"
Notice there is no indication of any calls from other Neighborhood Watch members. Wendy Dorival said there was a meeting in Fall of 2011. Nothing after that.
Besides which, how are any of the other calls or crimes relevant to Martin's shooting? It is attempt to suggest that Zimmerman had good reason to think Martin might commit a crime.
The fact however is that as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, you *watch*. You do not get out of your vehicle with a gun to chase someone.
Neutrality / Argumentative
Sorry that I WILL make a mistake here, this is my first attempt at contributing to a talk page. Kindly teach me instead of getting angry if I make a mistake, I can learn.
When speaking of Zimmerman's ancestry, reference is made to each of his parents. The only remark regarding his mother is: "Gladys Zimmerman was born in Peru and has some black ancestry, through her Afro-Peruvian maternal grandfather".
This statement is defensive to an argument not made, which causes bias to the reader.
Why mention that Zimmerman has "in some small part 'black' ancestry", without mentioning the remainder of his ancestry, which is actually the bulk of his ancestry through his mother? From a neutral point of view, I feel that this statement is loaded, though I'm not sure exactly "standard" of Wikipedia has been broken. Conor (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should include an "In the Media" section that outlines the public accusations and offered defenses, to provide a more neutral view? "Accusations have been made ... that ... racism ... " (cite sources, a poll, etc). "Supporters have referenced ... " (many quotes from the previous user's accusation of bias)
Sexual assault allegation
Regarding this edit. This is a serious criminal allegation that likely runs afoul of WP:BLP particularly WP:BLPCRIME because charges were never filed. It amounts to one person's allegation with no investigation or anything. Anyone can (and often do) make claims against a famous person. It's also an old story, from a single source. Before we add this I'd like to hear from other editors what they think. -- GreenC 14:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Pretty stale 12 Oct 2012 USA Today article. She was his cousin. She resented the fact that her father doted on George Zimmerman as the son he wished he had had. Then she made her revelations and her family shunned Zimmerman after that. I believe Witness 9 spoke with state investigators on the homicide trial and with FBI on the hate crimes investigation. Witness 9 claimed Zimmerman's family was racist but did not put any quotes in G.Z.'s mouth. FBI interviews of G.Z.'s estranged girlfriend contradicted Witness 9 on race: his mom did not approve of her race, G.Z. defended her against his mom, he got along with whites hispanics and blacks and never said anything disparaging about any race to her. The FBI hate crimes investigation of G.Z. ended with no charges. It's a four year old newspaper article and the follow-up did not bolster her accusations. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly as written in that edit, it was inappropriate editorializing and a BLP violation. There is probably sufficient sourcing available though to support a sentence. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Can the conduct of Apperson's attorney be added to the article?
After Apperson's sentencing his attorney LeFay told the press “I find it to be disturbing that no matter what Mr. Zimmerman does, and no matter what violent things he does, he always seems to end up wearing the victim’s mantle.” Is this acceptable legal conduct? I think LeFay should be sanctioned.220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)BG
- Regardless of if it is appropriate or not, it is not WP:DUE for the article at this point. ResultingConstant (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Attacked by Apperson
Zimmerman was victimized by Apperson and for this Apperson was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in jail. The title of the section on the Apperson attack should clearly state this. Instead, someone wrote "altercation" with Apperson. Look, this is wrong. This is like saying the people at the 9/11 towers "wrangled" or "disputed" or "altercated" with the terrorists. No: they were attacked by the terrorists. XavierItzm (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)