Jump to content

Talk:George Zimmerman/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Biased pro-Zimmerman editing

No one is allowing anything critical of Zimmerman to be posted in this article. Wikipedia standards are that something must be published by a reliable source and it must be notable. The statements from the Chief of Police of Lake Mary meet those requirements. If people want to have a balanced article then they naturally have to allow both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.104.246 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

POV issues

Calling someone a serial killer waiting to happen is an extreme break of POV rules. We do not engage in defamation of private citizens. The police have charged Zimmerman with no crime since his aquital. Police chiefs mouthing off to denounce people they disagree with is not the stuff encyclopedias are made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of editing a Wikipedia article, what matters is whether said statement was made by a notable person (it was; the chief of police where Zimmerman lives), and whether the statement was published in reliable sources (it was; Huffington post [George Zimmerman Is Another 'Sandy Hook' Waiting To Happen: Police Chief [1], the Guardian, etc.). This statement is far more weighty than what you are implying. This wasn't some random police chief "mouthing off" about some case he's not involved with. This is a police chief sharing his opinion of one of the most infamous men in the country who was recently acquitted of murder, has been continually in trouble with the law since the acquittal, and who lives in the town said police chief is responsible for. The police chief's "POV" is of great importance for the town he oversees, which is the town Zimmerman lives in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.9.54 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
As of this writing, the Guardian article about Bracknell's statement is the second result yield by a Google search of the name George Zimmerman. This is a notable and pertinent statement made by a notable and reliable source, published by reliable sources. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.9.54 (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
And the first result yield from a Google result as of this writing is an MSNBC article that opens with the following paragraph: "The police chief of the Florida town where George Zimmerman lives agreed in an email exchange that Zimmerman is a ”ticking time bomb” and a “Sandy Hook, Aurora, waiting to happen,” according to emails revealed by the website ThinkProgress." [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.9.54 (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

completely WP:UNDUE ones statement, by one man, regarding a person who is not at this time accused of any crime. This is completely unencyclopedic and a clear WP:BLP violation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to minimize the significance of this statement is transparent. This is not the statement of "one man," that is, some anonymous man in a crowd.... It is the statement of the Chief of Police of the town Zimmerman lives in, and it has now been published internationally in many papers. It is in the top Google result when you search "George Zimmerman." Further, your attempt to keep it out of the Wikipedia article is pointless because this statement has already circulated all over the Internet anyway. Notable statement, on-topic for the article/section, published in notable/reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.104.246 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a new article that mentions the Sandybrook reference in the title http://www.classicalite.com/articles/2807/20130917/george-zimmerman-update-next-sandy-hook-trayvon-martin-murder-trial.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Police chief comments

Florida police chief Steve Bracknell of the Lake Mary police department, which is currently investigating Zimmerman, agreed with a comment made by a member of the community that George Zimmerman is a "Sandy Hook, Aurora waiting to happen," reports The Guardian.[4]

The first result from a Bing search is this article. The headline quotes the chief of police as saying that Zimmerman is a threat to Public Safety. http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77454679/ Please note that this article was published in Orlando Florida, the state Zimmerman is from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.23 (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This page will not function as a list of complaints from across the internet speculating about a living person's future behavior. Please review WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK, and WP:ATTACK. VQuakr (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
BLP just says we have to make sure everything is well sourced, and this has been very well sourced. Nor is it an "attack" on the subject, we are just reporting in a NPOV manner what the sources say. Finally it is relevant to this subject given the nature of what makes him notable and the topic of the section "encounters with police". Please assume Good Faith and don't assume editors have an agenda to attack Zimmerman just because the available sourcing doesn't make him look good. That's not our fault. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not assume bad faith. Again, this page is not going to contain everything someone says on the internet about Zimmerman, particularly such speculation. Per WP:BLP, we are conservative and wait for clear consensus before adding such material to the article; your re-addition of the content while discussion is underway is not appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, please don't minimize WHO made this statement. This is a statement made by the Chief of Police of the town Zimmerman lives in, and it was made in response to his most recent encounter with the police, and it was published in a subsection called 'Other encounters with the police.' No one is suggesting that every statement ever made about Zimmerman should be included. It's nonsense to suggest anyone said that. But this is an important statement made by an important man, placed in the correct section of the article, and it is a statement that has been published in numerous reputable sources internationally: https://www.google.com/search?q=george+zimmerman+sandy+hook&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Bracknell's comment would sure belong in his article if he would have one. In this one it only belongs if it is (or if it will be in the future) notable, demonstrated by RS coverage of his remarks. I don't now if or if not this is already the case here. Just drawing the BLP line a bit more clear.TMCk (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a very notable statement, demonstrated by the fact that it has been reprinted in just about every major paper in the country, and even in the world. This is a statement by the Chief of Police of the town Zimmerman lives in regarding Zimmerman's most recent encounter with the police and it is published in a section titled "Other encounters with the police." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman's brother has now demanded a recusal of Chief Bracknell for his statement that Zimmerman is a Sandy Hook waiting to happen and a ticking time bomb. This statement has now taken on a life of its own, and it is unprofessional of any editor to attempt to remove this statement from this article. This statement is now undeniably notable. http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/20/george-zimmermans-brother-demands-recusal-in-domestic-incident-probe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that your hostility towards other editors is unwarranted. Can you please try to explain more clearly how a statement by GZ's brother, directed at Bracknell, makes this more relevant to an article on GZ? Particularly using the full quote rather than something along the lines of "Zimmerman's brother called for Bracknel to recuse himself following statements of opinion made by Bracknell"? VQuakr (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's inappropriate of you to accuse another editor of such things. Further, your statement is inaccurate. As for the statement by the Police Chief, it's self-evident that the statement has taken on a life of its own and has become an important statement, along the lines of Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference to "misleading media coverage" is itself misleading

The statement "Six weeks after the shooting, amid widespread, intense, and in some cases misleading media coverage,[20][21]Zimmerman was charged with murder" smacks of pro-Zimmerman POV and implies that charging Zimmerman with murder was influenced by misinformation. But looking at the references cited, the "misleading media coverage" referred to is a single incident of an edited tape aired on a news outlet. If that incident merits mentioning, fine. Explain it properly. But to disingenuously use it to insinuate that "some cases" of misinformation prompted the murder charge is wrong. The overwhelming pressure to charge Zimmerman began before that airing of an edited tape and continued after the editing was exposed. A man with a history of violent encounters admitted to intentionally killing an unarmed child and walked away without charges -- that was the reason for the public outcry. 76.174.24.153 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We could split it into two sentences; (1)"After the shooting, there was widespread, intense, and in one case a misleading media report about the shooting." (2) On April xx, Zimmerman was arrested and charged...-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I believe this reference to the media coverage being misleading should be removed from the article. It's very obvious at this point that people who are editing this article are often very much pro Zimmerman. It seems to be a struggle to keep anything in this article that is critical of this man who was recently charged with murder, An acquittal that led to widespread protests throughout the nation. I believe in keeping things neutral in articles about living people but we also have to keep things realistic. It would be laughable to keep anything critical out of this article because this is a critical situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's disgraceful how misleadingly biased the editing is. Nothing about Zimmerman following Martin and saying "they always get away" -- the encounter is instead just described as an "altercation." 76.174.24.153 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing info from existing sources in biography section

Text in question:
"At the time of the Martin shooting, Zimmerman was employed as an insurance underwriter and was in his final semester at Seminole State College for an associate degree in Criminal Justice.[3][12]"
The citations give much more detail thus the paragraph should be expanded like following (or similar):
"His mediocre grades had led to academic probation in 2011 and he was expelled from school less than a month after the Martin incident, citing the safety of students on campus as well as Zimmerman's."."
Note that I summarized it w/o giving every single detail from the sources. I'm placing this here for discussion since the article is protected so there must be some consensus to add the above as is or with the wording tweaked. Comments/thoughts please.TMCk (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:MUG

NOTE: An editor of this page has now taken this argument even further, filing an incomplete "deletion request" on Wikimedia, attempting to have this image deleted entirely from Wikimedia sources: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Zimmerman,_George_-_Seminole_County_Mug.jpg Mug shot in question.

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)...see WP:MUG.

George Zimmerman is not currently under arrest, in custody, nor is he facing any criminal charges. If the purpose of the image is to identify Zimmerman, and there's not a suitable picture, then we must rely on a text description of the subject. Using a mugshot is clearly a violation of WP:BLP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The statement is that images of mug shot should not be used out of context. George Zimmerman is most famous for being on trial for the murder of Martin. This article wouldn't exist if not for the murder trial. Frankly I'm surprised that this article exists at all because usually they don't allow Wikipedia articles to exist for people who are primarily famous for only one thing. I suppose this article exists because ever since the acquittal Zimmerman has remained in the media, that is in trouble with the law. At any rate it seems to me that it is very much in-context to have the main picture of Zimmerman be a mug shot because the murder trial of Martin is what is most famous for. Lastly a mug shot is obviously in the public domain which is what Wikipedia biography articles want. What would you prefer? A picture of him with his faced bloodied? That picture is on the main article. A picture of him in the court room on trial for murder? Those pictures have been published all over the media. Pictures of him receiving speeding tickets? Or a picture of him in his recent encounter with the police at Lake Mary? Face it, there aren't many pictures out there of this man that do not involve some sort of confrontation with the law.

More succinctly: a mug shot is an appropriate picture for someone who is primarily known as a defendant in a murder trial. He wouldn't be a public figure and wouldn't have a Wikipedia article if he hadn't been on trial for murder of Martin. The picture on this article to depicts him in the manner in which he is most famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe a mug shot should not be used because he was found not guilty. WP:MUG supports this: "This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)…" Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, But that's not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is to refer to people and depict people in the context in which they are most famous. Wikipedia policy is also to use pictures that are in the public domain. For these reasons a mug shot is the obvious choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
And this argument is futile anyway. About 90% of the pictures of him in a Google search pertain to the murder trial. Removing his mug shot from this article is just a drop in the ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case the picture is not being used to give a false impression, Zimmerman is only known due to his arrest and trial (see first sentence of article). It would be false if it was a person otherwise known as a politician or movie star for example. However, if there was another public domain picture available, the mug shot could be moved to the crime section of the article. Either way the picture stays in the article. Since it's the only picture we have it makes sense to use it in the infobox. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:MUG clearly says "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." This is clearly presenting him in a disparaging light as he was found not guilty. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but this picture in this article (arguably) does not give a false impression of guilt or disparagement since the only thing he is notable for is the arrest and trial. We are just repeating ourselves multiple people have said the same thing above, there doesn't seem to be consensus to remove the picture. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The point is - he isn't under arrest anymore, he isn't standing trial anymore. He's just a regular citizen now. A regular citizen with a mugshot. Yes, he became notable because of the shooting and subsequent murder trial of Martin, but that's over now, he's just a regular citizen now. If we're going to use a mugshot for his bio article, then the content of the article should reflect his time in jail, because that's what a mugshot of an individual implies, he's in jail, under arrest or somehow in trouble with the law. Zimmerman is not in jail, nor is he under arrest, nor is he awaiting trial. His mugshot is being used out of context to present him in a false and disparaging light. It's extremely disrespectful and clearly impugns his reputation by using a mugshot of him related to a crime he has been acquitted of. Arguing that it's the only picture available is not an excuse for violating WP:NPOV or WP:BLP (editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing a crime unless a conviction is secured). There was not a conviction secured in this case, and by including this material (mugshot), it suggests Zimmerman has committed, or is accused of committing a crime - he hasn't committed a crime, nor does he stand accused, he has been acquitted. If there's not a suitable picture, then we must rely on a text description of the subject.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Zimmerman was already well-known when his mug shot was taken six weeks after he killed Martin. Regardless, the policy is that mugshots are not appropriate for the main picture in articles about people. TFD (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
But what was he known for? Exactly what you mentioned above: The murder of Trayvon. And why was his mug shot taken? Oh because he was charged with the murder of Trayvon. Your argument is self-defeating. And as others have mentioned this conversation is going in circles. This is a waste of time and space. My personal interpretation is that certain editors will not accept the reality that this man is known solely for his crimes. My personal opinion is that a biography article shouldn't even exist for this man As Wikipedia rules are that someone does not deserve a biography page when they're known only for one thing. And in fact this article has indeed been nominated for deletion by at least one editor. The reason given for keeping this article is that ever since the acquittal Zimmerman has remained in the public eye. And why has he remained in the public eye? Because he has been accused of a few crimes since the acquittal. I'd be interested to know what those who oppose the mugshot think this man is actually famous for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.23 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules do not say mugshots are inappropriate for biography pages. They say that a mug shot should not be used in a misleading manner. Everyone agrees that is Zimmerman is most famous for being charged with the murder of Trayvon. Even the few people who want the mug shot removed agree that he is most famous as the defendant in a murder trial. I get the feeling that the people who want the picture removed Are the same people who wrote in the main article that the media coverage was misleading. And I get the feeling that said people are in the minority here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.23 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed the image, since per WP:BLP we are conservative and default to not including while discussion is underway. I also posted a notice at WP:BLP/N to encourage broader input. As a living person who was acquitted, it is not acceptable to use this booking photo. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDVICTIM "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." I personally can't stand the guy. However, my opinion isn't WP policy. The Florida courts found him innocent and that is enough for Wikipedia to not use images of him portrayed as an arrested person. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the picture into the shooting section where it is used exactly as in the other two articles about the shooting. There is no way anyone can claim BLP when the picture is used in proper context to be about the shooting incident, inside the shooting section, just as in the other two articles (Shooting of Trayvon Martin, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman), where nobody has complained for the many months that picture has been used exactly as it is being used here (BLP is not limited to just biography articles). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm against the use of the photo per WP:MUG as it is being used here to disparage a man who has not been found guilty of any crime.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:MUG says pictures should not be "used out of context" to give a false impression. In this case the picture is in its proper context, contained with a sub-section about his arrest. It's not our fault he got arrested, would you rather we not report he was arrested? You seem to think that readers will assume he was found guilty when our article and picture says nothing of the sort, it is a history of his arrest, of which the mug shot is an integral part. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If you had other pictures, that argument might make sense. But given that he is notable for only one event, BLP says "including every detail can lead to problems", like portraying him as a convict through imagery with no counterweight imagery. Including every detail no matter how sourced and accurate is expressly discouraged by BLP, especially when there is no counterweight. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter would be that this image should be used on this article because it is already used on several other articles on this topic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zimmerman,_George_-_Seminole_County_Mug.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk • contribs)

An argument clearly in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyways, I see six editors above (including myself) that agree this image should not be included. Do we agree that this is an adequate consensus to keep the image out of the article? VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
VQuakr, there's no consensus. The WP:MUG section of BLP is very clear on the point of context, as you said: "I can see the argument for using it further down the article, in the context of a trial and acquittal [section]." As a reminder, MUG says pictures "should not be used out of context". The word "context" is there for a reason. Anyway you're too personally involved in this debate to declare consensus, can't have it both ways taking sides in the debate and declaring an outcome. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Green Cardamom, yes you are correct, WP:Mug states that pictures "should not be used out of context", but no one is arguing this is "out of context", so there is no gain in you citing that again. WP:Mug also says "including every detail can lead to problems". That is the focus of the debate here. Is this an overly negative detail to add to a BLP given our duty to "be conservative" with details that portray the individual in a negative light. As I read your above comments, it appears as if you're suggesting there is no possible negative perspective added by including this picture. Is that really accurate? Do you really think there is no added negative impression by including a mug shot? If not, then you would need to explain what added benefit there is to adding this picture, that outweighs the negative. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • no one is arguing this is "out of context" absolutely untrue, people have been arguing this point on this page, please pay attention, they are saying the picture makes Zimmerman look guilty since it's a mug shot and thus "present a person in a false or disparaging light". And that argument in invalidated by the issue of context since the picture is in the section about his arrest. WP:MUG does not say "including every detail can lead to problems". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, WP:AVOIDVICTIM says "present a person in a false or disparaging light" and I ask, how does the picture being in context "invalidate" WP:AVOIDVICTIM? Additionally, WP:BLPCRIME says that "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Given that he is not convicted, and an unknown for any other event, we should take extreme caution in presenting any information about him being accused of committing a crime other than basic explanatory information. This is not arguing out of context. This is arguing not necessary even in context and well cited. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not say "present a person in a false or disparaging light". You keep misquoting the rules, and changing which rule you are referencing even though we have a specific rule for Mugshots. As for BLPCRIME, George Zimmerman is not "relatively unknown" by any measure his arrest and mug shot was world news. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"There's no consensus.... you're too personally involved in this debate to declare consensus." Really, Cardamom? VQuakr (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Where did I say consensus was achieved? Anyways, if you really still think this should be included, I suggest a RFC to formalize the decision. What do you think? VQuakr (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Well you asked the question yesterday right in the middle of an edit war, people posting on your talk page in disagreement, a BLP discussion ongoing elsewhere, other anons posting here in dispute - stuff blowing up left and right, it was quite clear there was no consensus. There hasn't even been a straw poll, much less a RfC, zero formal conflict resolution. Further you singled out the 6 people who agreed with you as reason to suggest consensus may have been reached, ignoring dissenting opinion. RfC is probably needed, but also some agreement on how to word it, how to advertise it, and neutral parties to help. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
VQuakr asked "Do we agree that this is an adequate consensus to keep the image out of the article?" He never stated it was consensus, you just accused him of such (WP:CIVIL?)Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment/General statement of fact: By the rules, BLP and else, the mugshot can clearly be used in this article, not as the leading image but placed in a section where there is context. There must be a brought consensus with good reasoning not to use it at all and as a side note, nominating it for deletion at commons was maybe made in good faith but completely out of line in regards to policies over there. So since there are editors who want to use that (or another image, of him being arrested [see thread below]), the question basically comes down not if we use it but how. I refused to check the article by now to see if it is still implemented there somehow or not since in any case there should be a policy based consensus on, again, how it's been used. This or another arrest image will be implemented in this article at some point w/o doubt; The question is which one and how to keep context clear. The image itself is not disparaging, only the use can make it so. And Dkriegls, You say in the following related thread regarding primary sources that: "Using court or police pictures counts as using public documents to support claims against him that the courts disagree with." Our policy for primary sources do NOT include images! If so there would be no mugshot in all wikipedia. Thought about that and why it isn't so?
    The discussion about "can we use that image" is senseless b/c we can and thus the discussion should focus on how to use it in context and find consensus in that. Everything else is a clear waste of time and editors who don't see it that way might want to raise the issue at the appropriate boards, like the policy pages they refer to, but not here.TMCk (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Please show me where "Our policy for primary sources do NOT include images!" I in no way indicated a policy interpretation that would restrict the use of all mug shots. Only those mugs of people found not guilty of the accused crime. Your suggestion otherwise was at best a misquotation. That BLP policy I quoted asks us to exercise extreme caution when using public records, it didn't "forbid it" and never excluded photographic public records. The entire arrest is an "assertion" of guilt that the courts overturned. We are not supposed to use Wikipedia to support assertions, only report the well sourced facts about the assertion. How exactly do you find that a mug "image itself is not disparaging"? Given that Mug Shot#Prejudicial nature states "The US legal system has long held that mug shots can have a negative effect on juries" (Citation: Barnes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 365 F.2d 509, 510--11). Do you have some evidence that this particular mug shot doesn't hold the same prejudice for our readers? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The OR policy on images has it's own dedicated section and the BLP policy WP:MUG section makes clear how images should need to be used: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context...". So again, it is under our discretion if and how to use such images within policy.TMCk (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
And BTW, ALL images are by nature "primary sources".TMCk (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
If you agree that pictures are primary sources, then extreme caution should be used. The is clearly the "spirit" of OR rules. But we obviously disagree on whether this image presents "the subject in a false or disparaging light" (WP:OI, WP:PRIMARY). So determining the degree of disparaging light is the actual debate here. I've cited evidence that Mug Shots are prejudicial by nature and have asked for counter citations. I still maintain my original point that if there was another picture for counter weight, it would balance the very limited prejudicial nature of that mug shot. However, another compromise I think might work would be to follow the Handbook of Massachusetts Evidence and "use reasonable means to avoid calling the (jury's) attention to the source of such photographs used to identify the defendant". We could do this by using a synonym for Mug Shot in the caption. One I found was "Identification Photo". We could label it his "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012". I still think a another less disparaging picture would be better for balance, but this compromise should also blunt the prejudicial nature of the photo. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 15:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Part. response: Why don't you contact him/his legal team at gzlegalcase.com and see if they're willing to provide some free images of Zimmerman for upload? There is a lack of free images we can use in his bio.TMCk (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I previously made such a request back before the trial. They (wisely imo) declined. To comply with wikipedia's license, such a photo would be free from any restrictions on use, including use in commercial ventures, and GZ has a big target on his back (pun unavoidable?) for malicious use of the photo. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The trial is over thus their position might have changed. Pointing out that now that he has a bio own his own here could help too. And BTW, please stop trying to get any image of him that you apparently don't like deleted. Just saw this deletion request of a photo that is clearly in the public domain by Florida law. It doesn't make you look much neutral if you keep doing this. strike -- wrong editor; was meant as advise for Dkriegls.TMCk (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
For the record, those deletion attempts aren't me. My personal views on him are severely negative and I wouldn't be trying to delete pictures just becasue "I don't like" them. However, I do like the idea of reaching out to his firm for a Fair Use picture for the top. I don't plan on asking though. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I should've paid more attention to editors handles. It was indeed another editor and I corrected my mistake in my previous post.TMCk (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible image for "Other encounters with police" section?

File:Neighborhood-watch zimmerman.jpg I was just wondering if perhaps this image would be acceptable in the section about his other encounters with the police. This is a screen capture from the dashboard video camera of the police department of Lake Mary, an image of Zimmerman in hand cuffs being detained and questioned by police. It is believed this is in the public domain, so it may be suitable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 (talk • contribs)

From a BLP standpoint, it certainly seems to portray the subject in a negative light per WP:MUG. So no, not suitable. Editorially, I do not see it adding much to the article anyways. Zimmerman's back is turned, and it does not inform the reader about anything related to the incident except that Zimmerman was detained. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, there needs to be a solid argument for what this adds to the article that outweighs the negative implications. Just having a picture that is verifiable is not enough according the WP:Mug. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's your interpretation that it's a negative light. You are suggesting that it is the job of Wikipedia editors to portray people in only a positive light, which seems to be impossible concerning someone known solely for being charged with murder, and whose acquittal outraged a significant portion of the population, even eliciting an unprecedented speech from the president of the nation from the White House. You are implying that it is your job and agenda to police this page to ensure that it remains "positive" -- and that's demonstrating skewed and unencyclopedic bias on your part. This man is not known for positive things, so it makes no sense to think his page would consist of positive portrayals of him. But if you want to portray this man as such, by all means do so -- and thus contribute to the general popular conception that Wikipedia falls short of its aspirations of being a serious encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.223 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not mine or anyone's interpretation. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states that we the editors need to "exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" and that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." George Zimmerman is a private citizen found not-guilty of the crime he was charged with. Using court or police pictures counts as using public documents to support claims against him that the courts disagree with. Not including every possible negative image of him is not the equivalent of giving him in a "positive portrayal" as you suggest with your all or nothing False dichotomy. This article is almost entirely about his murder and police altercations. Adding the picture is just piling-on until he is convicted of a crime. Which, if past behavior is predictive of his temperament, will happen sooner or later. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Look we have a special rule for Mug shots stop trying to apply every rule you can find to bypass that rule. A mug shot does not assert guilt when used in the proper context. It shows the person involved in an arrest which was broadcast on front pages around the world. Here's what we can do: 1. The image caption can easily be used to confirm he was not found guilty. 2. The sub-section where the image is placed says nothing about guilt and can be renamed to "Arrest, trial and acquittal". 3. The article says multiple times that he was arrested and not found guilty. Any assertion that there is confusion about guilt is unreasonable and baseless. WP:MUG is quite clear that mug shots can be used within the proper context and we are going to great lengths to ensure there is no confusion about guilt, in fact repeating multiple times over and over that he was found not guilty. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, there is no such thing as a "special rule" on Wikipedia, and one rule does not trump another. Me citing rules is not meant to be used for WP:LAWYERING and misses the forest for a single tree. Citing rules is simply a way of working towards consensus on this page, here and now, based on previously met consensus by a broader community. The overall "spirit" of WP:BPL is to write articles "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". Suggesting a Mug Shot has no inherent bias is simply not supported by cited evidence. I would be all for including this pic if you could provide an argument for what it adds that is worth trumping the prejudicial nature (which I admit isn't strong, but does exist)? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that although WP:MUG says that mugshots shouldn't be used to represent people out of context, it doesn't make clear exactly what a mugshot represents that may be out of context. Does a mugshot represent that someone is a criminal? If so, then no, it shouldn't be included. Does a mugshot represent that someone is famous for being arrested? If so, then yes, it should be included. We need to figure out exactly what a mugshot implies before we can decide whether to use it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Small correction. You write "...mugshots shouldn't be used to represent people out of context.." but it is the mugshot itself that shouldn't be represented out of context just to show people in a bad light. That means that when using such images, (and it doesn't have to be a mug shot), we need to provide proper context to not make an individual look better or worse considering his legal standing. Would his only arrest be in relation to the Martin trial I would not use any booking image at all in his bio. The problem (for him and thus for us) is that he was detained by now at least 3 times, counting the one time before the main incident and the recent one after. This itself and covered by the media is notable for his bio I would argue. My personal problem is that we don't have any other images in this article and think we can do w/o a mugshot, just explaining his arrests in prose. But those who want to include such an image have a valid point and if presented the right way within policy I don't see a problem with it. You say "...famous for being arrested?" and I say, it looks more and more like a second fame which made this article possible. Further in response to your post, a mug shot itself implies that a person was arrested for whatever reason, even falsely. Hell, Bill Gates has a mugshot on his bio and it doesn't imply he's a hard time criminal with the context given.TMCk (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We have control over context. We can write a picture caption and change size of image and placement in article. It is unambiguously clear he is not guilty through these contextual measures. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Article locked - need to decide something

The article is still locked and no one can edit it to make changes. It is hurting the article development. I would like to suggest we try the compromise suggested by Dkriegls above to use an alternative caption of "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012", placed in the trial section, with the photo reduced in size. It is the closest compromise that has been offered so far. If that doesn't work than suggest an alternative picture in the public domain: George Zimmerman white shirt 1. There are a series of these walkthroughs in a white shirt this seemed the most neutral in pose. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do you suggest the "white shirt" picture to be placed? It sure is not suitable as the lead image and is of such low resolution that no reasonable quality image can be cropped out from it.TMCk (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
And the article will be unprotected early if there is a good sign of consensus on how to proceed.TMCk (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Trial and shooting section. Caption saying name and date. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Only slightly possible, but fit's better in the shooting incident article. Context for the image would need to be given in the main prose which it doesn't belong as being too much of a detail.TMCk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
See the problem with images and context about details in his bio vs. the shooting incident article?TMCk (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok then the police ID photo is not too much detail, since his arrest is discussed in this article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Green Cardamom—you say "There are a series of these walkthroughs in a white shirt this seemed the most neutral in pose." I don't think the photo you link to is acceptable. This is not an article on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. We already have that article. Nor is this an article on the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. We already have that article. This article is not a rehashing of already existing articles. This would seem to be an article on the whole person, not a revisiting of the chapter in George Zimmerman's life that spanned approximately February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. There was an unfortunate and tragic incident, but there was also a trial and an acquittal. We have articles focussing on the tragic incident and the trial that took place. The acquittal at that trial brings closure to the chapter in George Zimmerman's life that spans February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. I don't think there is any special need to document in this article, by means of a photograph, that particular chapter in his life. I think that revisiting that chapter by means of a photograph in this article is uncalled for. No photograph is preferable to a photograph that presents George Zimmerman in a negative light. This article is not an article about a person convicted of the utterly serious crime for which there was a trial. Acquittal has to mean something. We should stop focussing on that which the other two articles adequately address. Bus stop (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually each article on Wikipedia is standalone, not dependent on other articles (with some special exceptions). Content is redistributed in books, CD's, we write each article as a singular standalone unit independent of other articles (with some special exceptions this not one). I'm sort of amazed at some of your comments: "bring closure to the chapter in George Zimmerman's life" - are you in any way connected to George Zimmerman? You seem determined to "bring closure" and prevent any picture of "that particular chapter in his life." Our job at Wikipedia is to document history, Zimmerman participated in one of the most important trials of the 21st century, the lack of any photograph in this article on that topic can be addressed using what is available in the public domain. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to be close to him to interpret BLP as calling on us to provide balance to a private citizen who has not been found guilty of any crime. The fact that his legal team did not provide a fair use picture, the last time an editor asked, should give us great pause about using one that does not present him in a neutral light. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The Zimmerman legal team has done a terrible job managing their clients image. That they failed to provide a flattering picture for social media like Wikipedia is just further evidence of ineptitude in that regard. Regardless it's our job to document Zimmerman and we have pictures to choose from. The interpretation of BLP and context has been gone over but you made a statement that you would consider an alternative image caption, which is in the first post of this section. I'd like to hear what you think since it was your proposal. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Green Cardamom—we should choose a format for writing about an incident that transpired in Sanford, Florida, in the time period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. We should not choose multiple perspectives and then set about writing articles from each of those perspectives. Yes, each article on Wikipedia is freestanding and independent of one another. But Wikipedia should not be a collection of articles recounting the same incident in multiple formats with varying layouts and varying perspectives. This article should probably be deleted. It probably represents a poor approach to writing about the incident that transpired in Sanford, Florida, in the time period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. There is little justification for this article. Bus stop (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom Actually, the legal team is probably quite wise to not give wikipedia a picture. For the same reason we don't have flattering publicity photos of most celebrities (The NYT wrote an entire article about this). To give a photo to wikipedia is to give a photo to the world, which can be used on any merchandise, posters, etc without any legal recourse. Including if that photo has been significantly manipulted to be unflattering, or making political statements. That is a big can of worms Zimmerman's team is smart not to open. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Could we use a picture of him at his trial? I think that is probably the most common image of him. TFD (talk) 14
58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I am unsure of the copyright status. Almost all of them we have access to are via the media (with media watermarks/logos etc). But I believe that the source of those was a ahred cam from the govt, but I suppose it could have also been a media pool cam. If its a pool cam, the images would be copyright. Not sure if this has been addressed before in other articles or not. 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
We can use Fair Use if no PD is available of the trial. The quality of the images suggest media pool and probably should be assumed without other evidence. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
As you pursue the use of photographs from the period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013 you reduce the justification for this article in the first place. This is an incident already written about extensively in two other Wikipedia articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Each article on Wikipedia is standalone. AfD of no concern. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Green Cardamom—complete agreement that "Each article on Wikipedia is standalone." But we should not be creating articles that substantially duplicate one another. You have been arguing for a reduplication of material already found on Wikipedia. You are insisting that we delve into, with this article, the area already covered exhaustively in other Wikipedia articles (Shooting of Trayvon Martin, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman). How many more articles are needed to tell the reader about George Zimmerman? The reader can learn all that is proper for them to know about George Zimmerman from our already existing articles on the incident that transpired in Sanford, Florida, in the time period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013. This is a biography of a living person. You have suggested that I may bear some "connection" to George Zimmerman. That is totally incorrect. I am simply trying to keep Wikipedia in line with my conception of propriety in these matters. This was a tragic incident. Trayvon Martin lost his life. Our responsibility as an encyclopedia is to contain the information relevant to that incident. The duplication of that information for no obvious reason is not serving the purpose of the encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This article does not "substantially duplicates" any other article (ie. WP:CFORK) and adding a single picture is not going to change that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia can be put to problematic purposes. All such problematic purposes have not been categorized and given a name. You are saying that this article is not a WP:CFORK. I have not said that it is a WP:CFORK. That might be a "straw man argument". But the point I wish to make is that this article represents a misuse of Wikipedia. That is because this article serves no purpose. It is almost entirely redundant. There is no information in this article which both justifies the existence of this article and is not already found in other Wikipedia articles such as our Shooting of Trayvon Martin article and our State of Florida v. George Zimmerman article. This article is a restating of information for no known purpose. This article, in the light of the existence of those other two articles, represents a gratuitous publicizing of George Zimmerman's travails occurring in the time period February 26, 2012 to July 13, 2013, in Sanford, Florida. In light of our other two articles on the subject, this article represents a figurative tarring and feathering of the subject of this article. There is nothing of any importance found in this article not found in already existing articles on Wikipedia. This article is serving almost no purpose other than the dubious purpose of restating that which is already found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, back on point with this section. I wanted to see where Bus Stop was going, but that just veered off topic. I agree the white T is too low quality for the top. Otherwise though, I like Green Cardamom's proposal. Perhaps we could add the white T to the Biography and the "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012" to the shooting and trial section. As thumbnails on opposite sides. If we get a better resolution non-mug shot, that should replace the white T and be moved to the top (if good enough). Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have protected this to stop the edit warring. GB fan 01:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The full protection has expired, I have reinstated the indefinite semi-protection. GB fan 11:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Biography section

(1) I've been working on expanding his biography section and was researching some basic info to add about where he attended school and have run into a puzzle - Here are the two RS I am working with: This Reuters article and this Washington Post article. The WaPo says the Zimmerman children attended All Saints Catholic School on Stonewall Road through the eighth grade before going to a public high school. That seems to make sense since he was an altar boy for 10 years and worked in the rectory and his mother was very involved in church activities. However, the Reuter's article says that at age 10, because he was bilingual, he would be called to the principals office of Haydon Elementary School (a public school) to often translate between immigrant parents and school officials. I read the Reuters article first and just assumed (because it implies) that he had attended this elementary school, but then I found the WaPo article which contradicts that assumption. It seems rather strange, doesn't it, that a public elementary school would call on a 10 year old boy who attended parochial school to translate for them? Surely he wasn't the only person in that town who was bilingual. Search engine queries about bio info for Zimmerman yield results that show most sourcing either relied on the Reuter's article or the WaPo article. Any thoughts/comments/suggestions or additional sources? I was wanting to use the fact he was bilingual at an early age to show he had strong ties to his hispanic background, which he has consistently self-identified as throughout his life. But if I added this info, it also seems to imply he attended that elementary school. I used WaPo in the article for Catholic school.

(2) I also just used generic naming for sub-sections that someone may want to look at if they think it needs to be changed. I also moved his 2005 arrest to this section because it seems to fit better there with a chronological biographical timeline of his life before the shooting. The "Other encounters with police" section, I think could be used for encounters after his trial, maybe a section title re-name to that effect? There was also a lot of other background information concerning Zimmerman when he lived at The Retreat, but it's covered pretty thoroughly in the shooting article, so I left it out in this one. I didn't add any current material surrounding Shellie's filing for divorce and details she has given in media interviews, until we gather a consensus on some of those issues.

(3) I also removed the expansion tag from the shooting section, why expand that section, there's an entire article on the shooting. The lede also could use some work and expansion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by estranged mother-in-law

Another possible source for this article? Reputable, established newspaper.

The dailymail article explicitly says "according to TMZ". TMZ is NOT a reliable source. This information should be excluded under WP:BLPCRIME unless he is actually charged with a crime, unless this story is covered by multiple reliable sources and not just reprinting gossip rags. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The statement is actually found in many articles: https://www.google.com/search?q=george+zimmerman+mother+in+law+accuses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=george+zimmerman+mother+in+law+accuses&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.240 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of which source the story to TMZ. Add -TMZ to your query, and the results are significantly lower. Of the non-blogs that remain, two that stick out are CBS, and Orlando Sentienl, (along with UPI) which say :

  • "There was some damage to the house. Who committed that damage, I don't know. Was it there before hand, I don't know," Lake Mary police officer Zach Hudson said. "We're trying to figure out exactly what we have here."
  • The police press release did not state whether George Zimmerman is suspected of removing the items.
  • Dean "has not yet produced the lease agreement to the Lake Mary Police Department and we have not yet confirmed ownership of the items that were alleged to have been removed," Hudson said. "This incident is being reviewed to determine if it will be a civil or criminal matter."

So the facts are, Zimmerman was legally staying in the home. After a messy divorce proceeding begins, The owner of the home claims some damage and missing items. Without evidence (that we are aware of), they have blamed Zimmerman. Police say THEY DONT HAVE ANY SUSPECTS. THEY DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN. IF IT WAS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHO DID IT. Including this story at this time would be a gross violation of WP:BLP, and at this point continued pushing for this story on the talk page here is a violation as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/lake-mary-police-talk-to-george-zimmerman-about-reported-theft/-/1637132/22259964/-/kjj42u/-/index.html Erik Sandoval, "Lake Mary police talk to George Zimmerman about reported theft", Click Orlando WKMG, 3 Oct 2013.

"Zimmerman had finished moving out of the home the day police received the call from [Machelle] Dean. As they question Zimmerman, police say the list of items allegedly taken from the home is shrinking as the Deans now report they've found the television in another location."

There is nothing that fits WP:RS like an estranged mother-in-law unless it is an estranged wife. --Naaman Brown (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture silly

The present picture of Zimmerman makes him look like a total conman. It may reflect his true inner being but what others see is someone they should keep their kids away from. Is that picture some kind of a joke? 203.131.210.82 (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Zimmerman/Archive_1&oldid=1136353446"