Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Allegations against NBC

Re: "Fox News newsmagazine host Geraldo Rivera, a former NBC employee, asserted that NBC "made an ideological decision that... they would argue strenuously for the prosecution of George Zimmerman and the ultimate conviction of George Zimmerman... [T]hey are cheerleading for the conviction of George Zimmerman."[232]" I don't watch tv except sports, and even I am aware of the ideological feud between NBC and Fox. Do you guys really want to trot that out here? I'm against it. I can say more if you don't understand what I'm getting at. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much substance in Rivera's personal inflammatory impressions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There isn't much substance to to anything in this wiki or legal case for that matter.18:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)
Yeah, I want to "trot that out" here, and did. Rivera said it, he's remarkably well qualified to reach the opinion he expressed, and I see no reason to suppress mention of it in the appropriate part of the article, where it is. If you find someone significant saying "he just said that because he hates NBC" we'll put that in too. Andyvphil (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What about O'Reilly's opinion of Rivera's point of view(shortened of course) as well then? "As for the case itself, Rivera insisted that the media had done enough harm. “This never should have been a Murder-2 wrap,” he argued, “this was involuntary manslaughter at best.” O’Reilly objected to this, noting that Rivera was “doing the same thing on the other side.” Rivera tried to tell O’Reilly “I am agreeing with you” on the damage the media can do, but O’Reilly still considered Rivera dismissing the possibility of a conviction to be just as bad as the opposite claims. “I don’t know what they have, so I am going to withhold judgment,” O’Reilly concluded." I'm questioning the inclusion of opinion pundits' comments in an encyclopedic article. I'm new here and I'm curious what other editors think is appropriate and why. ArishiaNishi (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think certain opinion's are OK, as long as they are attributed to the person saying it and they are well-known individuals. I also think it must be relevant to the article, and in this case, I think it is because NBC made quite a gaffe with their misleading edit, and it would appear by their reporting on this case that they did decide on an agenda to go with (IMO). Geraldo is well known and I agree with Andyvphil that he is qualified to reach that opinion and it is appropriately placed in the article as well. As far as O'Reilly commenting on Geraldo, I don't really think that adds anything substantive.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
In particular, in the passage you quote O'Reilly isn't responding to Rivera's opinion of NBC. We didn't quote Rivera on the appropriateness of Murder-2, so O'Reilly's response is off-topic here. Andyvphil (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It's probable that I have a strong negative POV of cable and broadcast tv in general that I'm unable to overcome. I'll leave this entire Media section to those of you who can. ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

More sources

Here are some additional sources:

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 May 2012

may i please edit this i have more info on the shooting of trayvon martin


Hiphoptt (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You may edit the page, but please note that any information you have must be sourced from WP:RELIABLESOURCES and be WP:VERIFIABLE so information that you know personally from people involved etc, is not acceptable for the article. Please include sources (newspaper, magazine, tv, etc) for any information you add. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. As stated on the template, requests need to be in the form of "please change X to Y." elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The article is currently Semi protected, therefore you can only edit after you've been using your account for 4 days and you have 10 edits under your belt. In the mean time, I suggest you propose specific changes as suggested by eS. I also suggest you read this talk page and the archives, as many things have been discussed before. As Gaijin42 has mentioned, any changes you do make will need to be supported by reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"trayvon's law" proposed by house democrats (national)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

...and quickly withdrawn: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/democrats-withdraw-trayvon-amendment/ --DeknMike (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST.... Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr.

Why is this in the "see also" section? I know the answer most will give, "it is similar". So are hundreds of other deaths in history, most currently the Taco Bell Shooting in Phoenix. None of these belong in this article. Please remove.--Mt6617 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The Chamberlain article has a section about a connection with Trayvon Martin, with four sources. Would the following change in See also be OK or would it also have problems?
--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
They are not remotely connected. The new article was recently created, and the connection between the two is completely manufactured by a couple of opinion commentators. There are many other "similar" stories why is this unrelated story special when the circumstances of the death have no similarities. Arzel (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2012

(UTC)

IMHO it is totally inappropriate and basically states the killing as a racial incident among many other things. It may have, or may not have been... that has yet to be determined As for the Chamberlain article, it is also inappropriate to reference the Martin article, but that is for someone else. Again, we may as well list hundreds of killings throughout history that are similar, whether they have a Wikipedia Article or not. I have found this article to be very fair, till this. This reference should be completely removed. Thank you.--Mt6617 (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Obvously, the subject of Trayvon Martin as a meme should be included somewhere. Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Good points. You may be right. On the other hand, there is a connection as both are claimed to be wrongful deaths, allegations of racism are being made in both cases, and as both happened around the same time, media coverage is comparing them. See [1], [2], and many more. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it should not be a "see also" section, as that perhaps implies there is a certain connection, but we have sources comparing the two, so I think it's worth a mention somewhere. I don't care why the media outlets are comparing the two, just that they are. We just document facts, and it's a fact that comparisons have been drawn. OohBunnies! Leave a message 13:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I can find sources likening this to Tawana brawley rape hoax and the duke lacrosse rape hoax cases. Let's include them, too. Ya?Whatzinaname (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The argument for Chamberlain inclusion has some merit. Please don't be sarcastic. Please be polite. That's the way we do things here. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Who says I was being sarcastic? It's a NPOV actually. We would need represent the people who contend this is a case only because a bunch of racist race hustlers are playing the liberal media like the useful idiots they are. Whatzinaname (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


If we want to open a section of "comparable cases" then that is fine. But I agree, the Duke Case needs to be listed, as does the Taco Bell shooting in Phoenix. Actually the Phoenix case is VERY SIMILAR as it involves a Black, a White-Hispanic, and the Stand Your Ground Law. It also just happeend April 4, 2012. I can also cite hundreds of other incidents/cases, etc that should be included. To list only one is biased, in fact it is beyond biased it is just wrong. Requesting again that it be removed. --Mt6617 (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that to be considered for this article, any of this info must have appeared in a reliable source that makes the connection with the topic of the article Shooting of Trayvon Martin. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


I will correct myself, as I see it was removed. My contention is that it not be included again, unless in a list of other "similar" incidents. --Mt6617 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I see your points and trust the community. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Prosecution's account of events

For the past two days we have been dealing with how to present accurate information about the prosecution's account of events. In an attempt to work with editor Isaidnoway, yesterday I pared down inclusion of information from the 12 April bail hearing to include the minimum amount needed for clarity:

During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening.[172][104] She said that Martin was scared because he was being followed by an unknown male and didn't know why. Martin attempted to run home, while Zimmerman exited his vehicle and started to follow Martin.[172] When the dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and an officer would meet him. The affidavit states that Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher's instruction, continued to follow Martin, then confronted him.[172] However, an investigator for the prosecution testified that there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's assertion that while walking back to his vehicle he was confronted by Martin, nor did the investigator know who threw the first punch.[169]

Isaidnoway reverted, and the paragraph currently reads:

During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening.[172][104] She said that Martin was scared because he was being followed by an unknown male and didn't know why. Martin attempted to run home, while Zimmerman exited his vehicle and started to follow Martin.[172] When the dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and an officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher's instruction and continued to follow Martin anyway. Investigator's stated that Zimmerman then confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.[172]

There is no conflict as to what the prosecution has said. We have the prosecution's affidavit of probable cause as a source, and we also have an article describing under-oath testimony during the bail hearing by an investigator for the prosecution. The affidavit contends with a certainty that Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher's instruction, continued to follow him, then confronted him. The prosecution's investigator at the bail hearing admitted, under oath, that there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's assertion that while walking back to his vehicle he was confronted by Martin. The prosecution's investigator also admitted under oath that the prosecution could not determine who threw the first punch.

I maintain that both sources present the "Prosecution's account of events" (the title of this section), therefore the information from both sources should be incorporated in the section. Isaidnoway insists that this is "editorializing;" apparently the only source he wants to reference is the prosecution's affidavit itself. I do not believe this provides readers with a full overview of the prosecution's perspective.

Perhaps Isaidnoway's preferred limiation would be more appropriate if we renamed the section "Prosecution's affidavit of probable cause." Failing that, I believe all sourced information regarding the "prosecution's account of events" should be included--especially information that derives from testimony under oath by the prosecution's investigator.

Comments? Apostle12 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I somewhat agree with both of you. Let me explain.
I agree with Isaidnoway that the material resulting from the defense questioning of an investigator for the prosecution, is not the prosecution's account of events. It is criticism of the prosecution's account, not the account. It only came to light when it was extracted by the defense's direct examination of the investigator.
I agree with Apostle 12 that it should be in the article, just not as part of the prosecution's account. It can be put in as part of the bond hearing proceedings. Also, we might consider putting a footnote in the prosecution's account that refers to the investigator's testimony at the bond hearing.
Would that work for you guys? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Basically, I agree with Bob. (In theory, the prosecution may actually disagree with the investigator's answers or characterization.) I'd also be for renaming the section affidavit of probable cause. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This solution has always worked for me, since you first proposed it in an earlier thread. There are two sides to this case: Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, Prosecution's claim of 2nd degree murder. Both sections should be able to stand alone as to what each believe happened that night. Just because there may be evidence that contradicts what Zimmerman claims, we shouldn't try and poke holes in his story and likewise for the prosecution's account. We shouldn't try to slant Zimmerman's account or the prosecution's account with editorial statements meant to undermine their statements.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I get it: Although the presecution's investigator provided relevant information under questioning, his testimony is not officially part of the prosecution's account, especially since his testimony somewhat undermine's the prosecution's affidavit of probable cause--the governing document. I did put a footnote at the end (as per Bob's suggestion), and I renamed the section "Prosecution's affidavit of probable cause," as per Emeraldflames. See what you think. Apostle12 (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
There is information in the section from a source to the Orlando Sentinel and other RS are cited as well, so it's best to just keep the section title "account of events" as that reflects what the section is about. Readers may get the impression that a section title "affidavit of probable cause" is quoted verbatim and it is not. The APC is cited with a link which readers can access if they want to read the actual document. The testimony of the investigator could also be editorialized to undermine Zimmerman as well, that's why it's best to include it in the section pertaining to the bond hearing.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman's account of events

Yesterday's and today's edits have improved this section, however I still see a couple of problems:

He said he was driving to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking through the neighborhood. Zimmerman's father told Fox 35 in Orlando, that his son thought that it was suspicious that someone was walking between the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk and he called a non-emergency police line to report Martin's behavior. According to the Orlando Sentinel, a source familar with the investigation indicated to them that while Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher, Martin approached and began circling Zimmerman's vehicle, which prompted him to roll up his window to avoid a confrontation. However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher. The Sentinel's source also stated that while Zimmerman was still on the phone, he parked his vehicle and got out and began trying to locate Martin on foot. Zimmerman claimed he could not find Martin and as he was returning to his vehicle, Martin approached him from the left rear and confronted him. According to Zimmerman, Martin asked him, "Do you have a problem?" He says he replied "No", and Martin then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar, while Zimmerman reached for his cell phone. Zimmerman says Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the ground. Zimmerman claimed he called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams. However, the Sentinel's source said that law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming for help and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled. According to Zimmerman's father, Martin saw the gun his son was carrying and reached for it saying "tonight you die;" they struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range in self-defense.

"However he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher." While it is true that Zimmerman never mentioned rolling up his window to avoid a confrontation, he did make reference to the fact that Martin was "staring at me," then saying "He's coming to check me out." So it is not quite accurate to say Zimmerman "never mentioned any of that." Just deleted this sentence, as this one is pretty clear.

"Zimmerman claimed he could not find Martin and as he was returning to his vehicle, Martin approached him from the left rear and confronted him." We know from the tapes that Zimmerman was having difficulty locating Martin, and when the dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, then suggesting "We don't need you to do that," Zimmerman's response was "OK." The call soon ends and we don't know what happened next. I think it is necessary to make reference to Zimmerman's exchange with the dispatcher and his seeming acquiesence to the dispatcher's suggestion. To delete it is prejedicial against Zimmerman's claim that he had given up trying to locate Martin and was returning to his vehicle.

"Zimmerman claimed he called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams. However, the Sentinel's source said that law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming for help and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled." This is supposed to be "Zimmerman's account of events," not a place where every point and counterpoint is mentioned. Other commentary re: muffling or non-muffling mentions that one's mouth can be covered at one point, yet uncovered at another, which would result in only the unmuffled screams being heard. I think it is awkward to bring in all the points and counterpoints, so I think the sentence ("However, the Sentinel's source said that law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming for help and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled.") should be deleted. This one is bound to be more controversial, so I'll wait for comments.

That's about it. I think the section is getting better. Apostle12 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to use a source from the police who says he has inside knowledge of Zimmerman's account of what happened and the police believe there is inconsistencies in his story, we should include it. We shouldn't be just picking out what we want to include. The quote "However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher", is an exact quote from the Orlando Sentinel article. Anybody who has listened to the tapes knows he didn't say it either, so the police source must have thought it was significant to the case because he did mention it. Again, if we are going to quote a source from the police who said that " One of those inconsistencies: Zimmerman told police Trayvon had his hand over Zimmerman's mouth during their fight on the night he shot Trayvon. The Sentinel's source confirmed that Zimmerman's statements include that allegation. But authorities do not believe that happened..." why we would leave such an important detail out of his "account of events", the source said his statement included the allegation and that the police didn't believe him. We have a source giving the POV from the police about his account and it should stay. Whether his mouth was muffled or un-muffled when he yelled is just speculation on your part and the police source doesn't mention it. The reason I deleted that Zimmerman "went along with the dispatcher's suggestion" is because it is not referenced in any of the RS we have included, in fact, in one of the Orlando Sentinel article's it says: "Even though a dispatcher told George Zimmerman not to follow Martin, his father said his son continued his pursuit to locate an address to give to police." There is no mention of Zimmerman following the dispatcher's suggestion in this reference or any of the other references. This is actually covered in more detail in another section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Would you be so kind to show me where the "dispatch" even told him NOT to follow Trayvon. That in and of itself is purely biased interpretation of the event. They said "we do't need you" -- not "don't do it".Whatzinaname (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I can be so kind to direct you to the reference where that quote came from; [3] I don't see how it is biased, being that the implied meaning of "We don't need you to do that" is pretty much "don't do it". Either way, it is not included in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
If your English comprehension is so poor to not understand the difference in the statements "you don't have to do something" and "don't do something". you shouldn't be editing the English wikipedia. At least, I'd advise you check your dictionary on imperative and declarative sentencesWhatzinaname (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Gimme a break. It has to do with plain old common sense, if you are talking to a police dispatcher and they advise you "we don't need you to do that", especially when they just asked you a specific question, "Are you following him", I think anybody exercising a little common sense would understand that to mean "don't do it". You don't call the police and then question them about what is grammatically correct, that is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Give you a break? I think I gave you a break by a good faith assumption you simply lack English comprehension-- apparently in error. You think the dispatch is too stupid to know the difference between a direct command and a simple statement? Do police say "freeze gun holding criminal! You don't have to hold on to that weapon. You don't have keep your arms at your side! you don't have to stay standing!" Saying something like "you don't need to do that" is nothing more than dispatcher saying "we aren't going to be liable/responsible for what happens if you continue to do what you are doing." It does not mean "don't do it". "Don't do that" is a very simple sentence. Common sense says if they intended to convey that, they would have said itWhatzinaname (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, we will have to agree to disagree. I think it is clear what the dispatcher meant when he said "we don't need you to do that". You can parse the English comprehension of what the dispatcher said, meant or implied all you want, it's time for me to move on from this silly and unproductive discussion. Like I stated earlier, it's not even included in the article as to what Zimmerman's dad said.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher" is merely the opinion of the author of the article and should remain deleted. In my opinion, he made several statements to the dispatcher that were consistent with this account.

I think the "However, the Sentinel's source said that law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming for help and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled." is problematic to me as well. It sounds like an exaggeration either on the part of the source or on the author of the article. It doesn't seem likely to me that "law-enforcement authorities" would "not believe" this aspect of Zimmerman's account purely because he can be heard yelling for help on the tape. Without further explanation as to why they don't think it's possible that *part* of the time Trayvon had his hand over his mouth and *part* of the time he didn't, it just doesn't make sense to me. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph where it is referenced about him not "mentioning that to the dispatcher" starts out "The source said", and is mentioned again in the Sentinel article in another paragraph that starts out "Here, according to that source, is the sequence that Zimmerman provided:" I believe the police think this is significant for some reason (who knows why, maybe their theory is that he's lying) and it should stay in. As there is conflicting statements about who was really yelling and it specifically says in the article that he alleged Martin put his hand over his mouth, it is relevant that the police don't believe him. You know we could just revert it back to the original version of what he says happened where no police source was quoted as disputing his account, which seems like what some editor's are trying to do with this new information (leave out the police's POV about his account). Some would say that Zimmerman's account of what happened is problematic as well. We simply don't know at this point what evidence the police have, but we do have a source saying his account is questionable, we should include it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


Seems like the section is giving too much space to what the Sentinel says, an unnamed source said, about what the police said, that Zimmerman said. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed down some of the "according to's" and "what the Sentinel says" and "sources say".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That looks better, although my comment was intended to be about multilevel hearsay, especially when an unnamed source is involved.
On another subject, an inline citation should be placed close to the material it is supporting, rather than grouped with others at the end of a large paragraph. Otherwise, it's difficult for the reader to know where to look among the sources if the reader wants to verify a particular part of the text. See for example WP:INTEGRITY. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of hearsay either, but in this particular case, this reporter, Rene Stutzman from the Orlando Sentinel, I think has done a pretty decent job of covering this and has been on the case from almost the beginning. I'm sure she has developed a relationship with a source close to the police.
Good point about the inline citations, I went ahead and did it, and added some wikilinks at the same time.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The unnamed source in the article[4] might be connected with the prosecution. The source is only described as "a source familiar with the investigation". People connected with the prosecution would be familiar with the investigation.
In the Sentinel article there is, "But authorities do not believe that happened, the source told the Sentinel, because on one 911 call, someone can be heard screaming for help. If it were Zimmerman, as he claims, his cries were not muffled, the source said." In the Wikipedia article there is, "Law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled." If the law-enforcement authorities are the prosecution, then this sentence is misleading. Read the same sentence with "The prosecution" substituted for "Law-enforcement authorities" and you will see what I mean. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I see what you mean, maybe we should just direct quote it, or do you want to use prosecution. The case was turned over to Corey and she used her own investigators. To me, law-enforcement authorities includes everyone from the police to prosecutor's to the judge, but I can see where a reader may misinterpret it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks like we shouldn't use the material from the unnamed source because we don't know whether or not it is the prosecution's version of what happened. In fact, it may not even be the prosecution's version but a rogue version from a person connected with the prosecution. After all, the information about the case was sealed by court order, so the dissemination of true info is a violation of that court order, but false info would not be a violation of that court order. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Most of what this unnamed source says has already been corroborated by other RS. Really the only thing new added is that Martin was circling his SUV and that authorities didn't believe his story about the yelling. Even though the info was court ordered to be sealed, that doesn't mean that a source still wouldn't have access to it and speak anonymously to a reporter. If it's a clear violation of WP policies, then by all means, let's remove it, if it's not, I say leave it in there. I think the source's new info has a ring of truth to it, IMO.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "I think the source's new info has a ring of truth to it, IMO." — Currently in the Wikipedia article is "Law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled." This assumes that the only time that Zimmerman was calling for help was when his mouth was covered. Does that ring true with you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at it from the POV from the source (investigators), their theory according to the affidavit, is that it was Martin screaming on the tape, not Zimmerman, this would explain the phrases "authorities don't believe that happened" and "someone can be heard screaming". The affidavit says that Martin's mother reviewed the 911 calls and identified the screaming as Martin's. The phrase, "if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled" indicates that the source (investigators) think Zimmerman was lying about being the one screaming for help when supposedly Martin was covering his mouth (how could Zimmerman being screaming if his mouth was covered). That is why I think the source's new info has a ring of truth to it (meaning the source is close to the investigation), because the info matches with their theory of Martin being the one screaming for help, not Zimmeman, because his story is not plausible from their POV.

Now, if we look at that statement from the POV that it was Zimmerman screaming for help, then I would agree with you, but the affidavit states that the investigators think it was Martin yelling, not Zimmerman. And since this source is close to the investigation, I think we need to look at the sources POV to better understand that sentence.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment, "how could Zimmerman being screaming if his mouth was covered" — His mouth wasn't covered during the whole fight. He was screaming for help when his mouth wasn't covered. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
You're assuming that it was Zimmerman screaming for help, that's my point, the investigators stated in the affidavit it was Martin screaming for help, not Zimmerman. If you think we should remove the source's POV about Zimmerman's claims, I'm fine with that. We can leave Zimmerman's section for his account of what happened and then make a new section for the prosecution's account of what happened. Their are two sides to this story, Zimmerman's and the prosecution's. We shouldn't leave out the prosecution's account of what happened because we don't like it or can poke holes in it. After all, they did charge him with 2nd degree murder, which indicates to me that they don't believe his account of what happened.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Re "If you think we should remove the source's POV about Zimmerman's claims, I'm fine with that." — Agree. We should remove the info that comes from the unnamed source and use other sources for the corroborated info.
Re "We shouldn't leave out the prosecution's account of what happened because we don't like it or can poke holes in it." — Agree, if it is properly sourced and fits in a proper place. A possibility is to mention the prosecution's account as part of what happened at the bond hearing in the pretrial section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. The pre-trial section would be appropriate as well for the prosecution's account of what happened, I will put something together.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Emeraldflames is correct that Zimmerman made several statements to the dispatcher that are consistent with "Martin approached and began circling his vehicle." Quoting directly from the transcript of this call, Zimmerman said "Now he's just staring at me...Yeah now he's coming towards me...Yep, he's coming to check me out...Shit he's running...He ran." It is disingenuous to quote a source saying "he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher" when we know in fact that Zimmerman DID mention most of it; the only word he didn't use was "circling." Similarly "Zimmerman went along with the dispatcher's suggestion" is fully supported by the call transcript. When Zimmerman affirms that he is following Martin, the dispatcher replies "Okay, we don't need you to do that;" Zimmerman acquiesces with a simply, but definitive, "OK." It is true that the call ends, and we do not know he turned around and began returning to his vehicle; no one, including Martin's father, knows whether he continued or not. However, once again, this is supposed to be Zimmerman's account of events, recounted to the best of our ability for our readers.

Regarding the 28 March 2012 Valerie Boey interview with Robert Zimmerman, George Zimmerman's father, the written text of the article leaves quite a bit out, understandable since the interview lasted 19 minutes 5 seconds. It is necessary to listen to the entire interview to achieve a correct rendition of what Robert Zimmerman says. Apostle12 (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The video portion of the interview is awful long, I don't know whether reader's will take the time to watch it or not, alot of people just read the text, which is quicker. If there is something in the article that is specifically referenced from the video portion, maybe we should indicate that in the article, so reader's will know where it came from. Just a suggestion.
As far as Zimmerman and his account of events, all the "counter-points" have been removed. It makes more sense to include a section for the state attorney's account of what happened, since there are two sides to this case.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Re: "If there is something in the article that is specifically referenced from the video portion, maybe we should indicate that in the article, so reader's will know where it came from." Good suggestion. The footnote can include this information, with timestamp. We are not limited to citing merely a url. Andyvphil (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I put the note in, but not the timestamp of the video part that was referenced, wasn't exactly sure what was referenced in the article from the video, a timestamp can be easily added though if someone knows the specific reference(s) from the video.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Whatz is of course correct that the very carefully phrased "We don't need you to do that" is a CYA, not an instruction, and will almost certainly be found in exactly those words in the dispatchers' script or training materials. As someone who'd had many interactions with dispatchers it would be surprising if GZ did not realize this. On the other hand, he did stop running. On the third hand, the dispatcher did not object when GZ asked that the arriving officers call him rather than he come to meet them, leaving what he intended to do in the interim unspecified and pretty much putting the lie to any assertion that the dispatcher was telling him to do anything at all. Andyvphil (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not think there is conclusive proof that Zimmerman stopped following Martin at that point. Zimmerman has stated it to be so, and claims Martin attacked him. But that version of events is not proved to be true, and will likely be a major point of contention during the trial. We should not write our article assuming a particular version of the truth regarding that. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say "stopped following". I said "stopped running", which you can hear on the tape. He lost sight of TM. He thought TM was heading for the back exit. My guess is that either during or after the call he proceeded to Retreat View Circle to see if TM was still to be seen heading towards the back exit, which is on that street, and failing to see anything was returning to his truck when he encountered TM at the "T". After which whatever happened happened. We'll see. Andyvphil (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the present formatting of the information, with the state's attorney account and George Zimmerman's account opposing one another, is very effective. This format allows the reader to get a very clear impression of both sides. I am please with our collaboration on this issue. I will add a note to the interview source suggesting that readers who wish full information should avail themselves of the video rather than relying solely on the text. Apostle12 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A quote has been added of Robert Zimmerman saying that he and all his relatives think that George is the one yelling help on the 911 calls. I don't see this as being "George Zimmerman's account of events" and the only way it could possibly belong is if it was put in the same sentence or the one after where it says Zimmerman yelled for help. Wickorama (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The father says that Zimmerman saw Martin walking "behind the townhomes". Zimmerman never said that on the 311 call and I challenge anyone to look at a map and come up with townhomes Martin was walking behind while Zimmerman was driving where he could see Martin while driving down the street, let alone see Martin and get suspicious. Behind the townhomes on both sides is a sidewalk and behind the townhomes to the north is a street. Which would make walking behind them nothing unusual. "Walking behind the townhomes" seems like a piece of fiction the father made up to protect the son from the charges that Trayvon was "just walking down the street minding his own business". Same with the part where the father says Martin saw the gun, BUT DIDN"T GO FOR IT. Wickorama (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New section — Prosecution's account of events

The recent additions in this section are WP:EDITORIALIZING. The statements added imply a relationship between "Zimmerman confronted Martin" and "no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's assertion Martin confronted Zimmerman" and "who threw the first punch". These statements apply to Zimmerman's account of events. This section is the prosecution's account of events. The purpose in adding these statements after "Zimmerman confronted Martin" seems to be to undermine that statement.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Please see new section "Prosecution's account of events," below. I would agree with your assessment re: editorializing if the information did not originate in statements made, under oath, by the prosecution. If there is any "undermining," it originates with the prosecution itself. Therefore I believe the recent additions are appropriate. Apostle12 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Adverse information" on TM includes THREE suspensions

I'm transfering the following from my talk page, so others may chime in: Andyvphil (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer your edit summary, "The Herald recognizes that all three suspensions are adverse information. Why are we disagreeing with our RS?"[5] — We're not disagreeing with the Herald. It's just that we don't have to put in some details. The info about the recent suspension for marijuana and the previous incident involving the jewelry and burglary tool, were the most relevant and useful parts for the article. The other details seemed much less useful and were not included. Also, the article had a better balance of space between Zimmerman's and Martin's adverse info, than it does now. Could you reconsider? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When the suspensions are mentioned elsewhere, not just in this particular source, it's often stated that there are three. For there to be just two here is confusing and unnecessary... and I do think it's a disagreement with the Herald on what info is necessary. I don't think they included the third suspension because they had more space.
I'm not doing this to shaft Trayvon. If you don't think there's enough bad about Z to balance put in the info about his being fired for allegedly being to aggressive in tossing out a drunk. I'll support you -- I'm an inclusionist. More info, explained without slant, and answering every reasonable question as best we can - that's my preference. Load times and storage space are not much of a constraint nowadays - we can afford to let the article grow. If you think TM needs balance, I'd start with replacing that backseat headshot (move that elsewhere). I've suggested a better one, where he looks quite pleasant, and I think there's a valid fair use claim, particularly for a small facial crop. Andyvphil (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Just because a detail appears in a source is not a good enough reason to put it in the article. It may be appropriate for the source article it appears in, but not for a summary that goes into Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure. But I gave you reasons I think this detail is part of a set, jarringly incomplete without it. Andyvphil (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Re "Sure." — Good that we agree on that.
Re "But I gave you reasons I think this detail is part of a set, jarringly incomplete without it." — The only remaining reason you gave is "For there to be just two here is confusing and unnecessary", which is unclear and doesn't have any substance. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
More, I said ""The Herald recognizes that all three suspensions are adverse information", and "When the suspensions are mentioned elsewhere, not just in this particular source, it's often stated that there are three." Why do you think the RS generally mention three? Also, what is unclear or insubstantial about my other comment? Readers who want to find out about the adverse material on TM and only find two suspensions explained here will be mystified to hear elsewhere that there were three. Why do this? Andyvphil (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought we got that settled when you wrote "Sure". Read over what you were agreeing with and try again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I thought the marijuana suspension and the jewelry/burglar tool were the most relevant parts of the suspension info because Martin was able to be in Sanford because he was suspended, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he looked on drugs and the school marijuana incident supported that, and because Martin could have been considering burglary during his walk through the neighborhood, in addition to just going home. The other parts of the suspensions had far less relevance to the incident. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you wrote: "Just because a detail appears in a source is not a good enough reason to put it in the article. It may be appropriate for the source article it appears in, but not for a summary that goes into Wikipedia." And my answer remains: Sure, of course. What this has to do with my argument that the three suspensions are to be considered as parts of a whole is beyond me. (1) TM was found to be at school with a marijuana pipe and residue. (2) On a previous occasion he was found with women's jewelry a (womans?) watch and a "burglary tool." OK, this is relevant to the possibility that GZ might have been right in thinking that TM seemed to be on drugs and might have been casing townhouses. It's far from dispositive, but it's worth mentioning. That (1) resulted in a suspension ((2) did not, btw) is irrelevant. That (3) TM could be in Sanford on a Sunday night because he didn't have to be in Miami Monday morning is relatively uninteresting.

On the other hand, the fact that Crump initially drew a picture of TM as an upstanding young man who was (not quoting him necessarily, this was the picture implanted) doing well at school and with ambitious plans for the future who crocheted and baked cookies in a toy oven and liked candy and drank nothing stronger than tea and was 14 years old and... the fact that this intial Crump picture was swallowed whole by the media and contributed to the firestorm, but that this picture was "complicated" when it turned out that, among other things (4) TM had three school suspensions in the five or so months before his death. That's a separate fact, and that the number was three and not two is a simple truth relevant the trajectory of his image. And my argument to that effect is unaffected by my agreement to your anodyne observation.

Nb: It is not clear what the first suspension was for. The family says tardiness/absences, but also denies having heard of the "burglary" aspects of the second suspension incident. Andyvphil (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment, "Crump initially drew a picture of TM as an upstanding young man who was (not quoting him necessarily, this was the picture implanted) doing well at school and with ambitious plans for the future who crocheted and baked cookies in a toy oven and liked candy and drank nothing stronger than tea and was 14 years old and..." — That's not in this Wikipedia article. Early on there were some things like that in this article but they were removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If so, they of course should never have been in Wikipedia's voice. But the fact that they were in this article, and it's sources, is part of the history of the event which is its subject. And the revelation of the three suspensions is part of the history of the decay of that initial media image. It may not get a word at the trial, but that is not our sole subject. Andyvphil (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments requested regarding Adverse information section

What the two of us have been discussing in the above are the following previous and current versions of the section Adverse information from Zimmerman's and Martin's past history.

Previous version


Adverse information from Zimmerman's and Martin's past history

In 2005 Zimmerman was charged with an offense for shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent in a bar; and a month later there were mutual restraining orders granted to his fiancée and himself after an altercation between them.[1][2] Martin had been recently suspended from school after there was found in his possession traces of marijuana; and in a previous incident at school a security officer found in his possession women's jewelry and a screwdriver described as a burglary tool, though no evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen.[3]

Current version

Adverse information from Zimmerman's and Martin's past history

In 2005 Zimmerman was charged with an offense for shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent in a bar. A month later mutual restraining orders were granted after an altercation with his fiancée.[1][2]

At the time of his death Martin was under a 10-day suspension from school for having a marijuana pipe and a baggie with traces of marijuana. He'd been suspended four months previously for graffiti, an incident in which his backpack been found to contain a dozen pieces of women's jewelry, a watch, and a "burglary tool" (a screwdriver), though no evidence was found that any of it was stolen. Before that, he'd also been suspended for tardiness and truancy, his family said.[3]

Please express which version you prefer. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Prefer previous version — Compared to the previous version, the current version contains extra negative details about Martin that are not sufficiently relevant or useful to be included. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • An arrest for shoving a police officer, which led to pre-trial diversion and alcohol counseling, is in a different universe than a school suspension. It seems bizarre to equate the two, or to treat them in a tit-for-tat fashion. Zimmerman had previous contact with the criminal-justice system, whereas Martin did not. In an effort to artificially "fix" that imbalance, we're dredging up school suspensions and presenting them as if they're equivalent to actual arrests. I think if you step outside the bubble that this talk page has turned into, that will sound as ludicrous to you as it does to me. MastCell Talk 17:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the judge at the bond hearing decided that the shoving incident and the restraining order were not significant. Here's what the judge said.[6]
"And so we're familiar with those particular situations. I won't say it's standard, but it's a run-of-the-mill type run-in with the alcohol and beverage agents at the library, I believe it was. They're fairly common, so I'm familiar with those, even though it's in another jurisdiction.
The injunction was somewhat mild compared to the injunctions that I'm familiar with and so really what this revolves about is the facts of this particular situation as presented to the court.
What I'm going to do is I'm going to find that the motion is well taken. I'm going to grant the motion, set bond in the amount of $150,000..."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Change to neither ---> Prefer previous version -- I agree with Bob K31416 and MastCell on this. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I personally don't think either version is appropriate, since both equate Zimmerman's arrest/domestic altercation with Martin's school suspension. I think it is arguably appropriate to describe Zimmerman's previous interactions with the criminal justice system, and inappropriate to recount Martin's school disciplinary record. I suppose it's arguable that Martin's suspension should be mentioned in the context of how he ended up in Sanford, but it's completely inappropriate to juxtapose his suspensions with Zimmerman's arrest/restraining order, as both proposed texts do. MastCell Talk 18:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Latter is better, but Isaidnoway is correct that adverse info re Zimmerman should be further developed. This aspect of the case is covered at length in many RS and it is arrogance beyond adequate description that Mastcell and his like want to censor this information. Andyvphil (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Both should be removed, but only Zimmerman's withstands any scrutiny regarding relevance.LedRush (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
We could remove Martin's and move Zimmerman's to a bond hearing discussion in the Pre-trial section which would include a summary of the judge's comments that essentially say that these items from Zimmerman's past history are not significant. The only part of Martin's that we might include elsewhere is that Martin's father had recently taken Martin to Sanford to be with him, after Martin had been suspended from school for a baggie with traces of marijuana residue, according to the school's zero tolerance policy. Or more simply that Martin's father had taken Martin to Sanford to be with him, after Martin had been suspended from school. ---Bob K31416 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I would agree to that, if we just say that Martin was suspended and don't say why (as it's completely irrelevant and prejudicial).LedRush (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If Zimmerman's past history is moved to bail hearing, then it should be mentioned that the judge's comments were related to the issue of whether he should get bail. Martin's suspension could be mentioned as to why he was in Sanford, but I don't necessarily think that the reason for Martin's suspension is prejudicial. I would like to hear some more feedback as to why they are prejudicial.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The marijuana aspect of Martin's suspension may be prejudicial because it can cause a preconceived judgment of Martin as having erratic violent behavior because of drugs. (Reefer madness.)--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Aah, I see. I don't think Reefer Madness was the best example to give though as it is a cult classic and considered more of a comedy by stoners, rather than a cautionary film or any realistic portrayal of pot smokers. Just sayin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Dis-connect the two histories. Zimmermans history achieves a police/court system level whereas Martins history is only school related. There should be some explanation of why Trayvon is in Sanford (concerned father).```Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Both histories should be further developed Absent video or eye-witness testimony, the character and propensities of these two individuals are highly relevant in trying to determine what might have happened that night.

Let's take Martin. Let's pretend Martin was never suspended for anything, ever. That he was an A+B honor roll student without any history of suspicious, out-of-bounds behavior- with no significant disciplinary problems at school. If this were the case, it would be hard for many people to imagine Martin acting in some of the ways that Zimmerman claims that he did.

One of the reasons many people became convinced that Zimmerman was the "bad guy" was because this was what was initially reported by the media. Until information surfaced that directly contradicted what had been reported. That new information would be considered very relevant by a significant number of people. And, in fact, that new information has been widely reported from the Miami Herald to the New York Times.

I oppose the idea that Wikipedia withhold/censor widely reported, reliably sourced information because *some* editors have decided on their behalf that its not relevant. It would be silly for Wikipedia to not even mention what has been so widely and reliably reported, and what a very large number of people certainly *do* find relevant.

I think both versions are too short, and can't be done justice in a few sentences or even a single paragraph. Background information re: both Zimmerman and Martin ought to be further developed and fully presented to the readers of the article, who can decide all by themselves whether they think its relevant. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of judgement and I value yours, as I do others, except for one point, "...ought to be further developed and fully presented to the readers of the article, who can decide all by themselves whether they think its relevant." This is a generic argument that I've read before on talk pages in Wikipedia. It's fallacious because it would justify adding any inappropriate material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If that were the singular part of my argument I would agree. But the comment is predicated on this information having already been reported by a wide variety of reliable sources, including but not limited to the New York Times. The New York Times, along with a number of other respected publications, believed that this information was appropriate to let their readers in on. Does that mean that *every*thing that is widely reported by a wide variety of reliable, well-respected sources is automatically appropriate for inclusion? Not necessarily. But if a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors/readers happen to *agree* with those sources as to relevance and appropriateness for inclusion then I think the burden of proof is on those wanting to censor/withhold this information. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, neither side has the burden of proof. What we try to do is find a version that a consensus accepts. Initially, there was more space given to negative info about Zimmerman and Martin. The info was reduced in order to build consensus.
At present, there seems to be a consensus growing towards limiting the negative Martin info to just the last suspension without mentioning marijuana. The suspension could be put in the Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Trayvon_Martin section, in a simple and brief way, along the lines of "His father had brought him to Sanford for a visit after Trayvon had been suspended from school." If the reader wants more info, the source is available.
Also at present there seems to be a consensus growing for a brief mention of the Zimmerman negative info in the Pre-trial section because the prosecution brought it up in the bond hearing, along with a summary of the judge's comments that the info wasn't significant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
There may be a consensus among a localized group of editors in this thread, but overall, I think there remains a significant number of editors/readers that would like to have access to what has been reported about Martin and Zimmerman's backgrounds unhindered by arguably overreaching Wikipedia editors. Emeraldflames (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm more or less willing to go along with this last comment by BobK - but I still believe the suspensions are irrelevant. The most we should say is BobK's sentence referring to suspensions as the reason for his being in Sanford without going into the details about them, although I do not think any of this is appropriate or necessary at all, and is a coatrack for bringing in negative material about Martin. Zimmerman's background was brought into the courtroom events and therefore should be included in Pre-trial. Neither the "previous" nor "current" versions are at all acceptable. Tvoz/talk 05:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The judged referenced it only to completely dismiss the notion it is relevant to the case. Bit of a non sequitur for inclusion. it's obvious biased POV pushing to include anything related to zimmerman's past and not trayvons. The idea his suspensions are "irrelevant" is nothing short of absurd. The truancy might not be (though it might be relevant in the media bias section, since the media claimed martin was a black doogie howser), but the possession of burglary tool/women's jewelry and drug paraphernalia are highly relevant.Whatzinaname (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Some editors want to substitute their judgement of the relevance of various adverse information to Zimmerman's (or Martin's) legal guilt as the basis for including or excluding the information. But, as I've pointed out before, the homicide and trial is not the exclusive subject of this article. The generation of a lynch mob atmosphere through the success of Crump's approach to the media, and the subsequent disintegration (in progress) is also part of the story we have to cover. Andyvphil (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Re "The generation of a lynch mob atmosphere through the success of Crump's approach to the media, and the subsequent disintegration (in progress) is also part of the story we have to cover." — You can cover that using reliable sources that explicitly discuss the lynch mob atmosphere etc. I think it would be a good addition. However, without a reliable source that explicitly uses the details of the suspensions in a discussion of a lynch mob atmosphere, it would be OR. There may eventually be such a reliable source, but so far there isn't.
For now, it's a matter of editor judgement as to whether the suspension details are appropriate for the article. As I mentioned before, a source or sources that include the details will be available for the reader as an inline citation(s). Your position so far seems intransigent. That's OK but I don't think it will gain consensus. A version between the two extremes of no suspensions and most of the details of the suspensions has the best chance of gaining consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You are trying to build a consensus about how to include the information. Certain other editors have no interest in achieving a consensus on anything because, they argue, so long as there is no consensus the information should not be presented in any form whatsoever. Which is exactly what they want. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about consensus, since I'm in no hurry to add information that's debatably not relevant and/or debatably has BLP issues. You should be worried about consensus if you should wish to add such materialWhatzinaname (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not it's added, and in what way, is a matter of consensus. So I don't understand your message. Would you care to clarify? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the point is that it can only be added with consensus, but consensus is not needed not to add it.LedRush (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
There's no Wikipedia policy that supports that notion. If you think otherwise, please give the excerpt and link. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
There's no Wikipedia policy that supports your notion. If you think otherwise, please give the excerpt and link. However, do not visit WP:BLP, WP:BRD or [[7]] or you might not like the implications of what is painfully obvious to everyone else.LedRush (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox News, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, BBC, etc. all found the information concerning Martin's suspensions to be relevant and appropriate to report. There's your consensus. This is a case of several overreaching Wikipedia editors who have decided that they "know better". This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's talk about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. From WP:BLP: When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. The details in question (and many others) have been published in reliable sources, but that doesn't mean they automatically belong in our encyclopedia article. We can have a serious discussion about whether these details are relevant, but that will involve acknowledging what policy actually says on the subject. MastCell Talk 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLP states that information be added carefully, not that it be withheld altogether. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
So show me you're interested in handling it "carefully". Your comments so far in this thread haven't really given that impression. MastCell Talk 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we should do whatWP:BLP advises. Adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research (NOR). Make sure every statement has citations from reliable, high quality, published sources. Basically the topic should be covered in a way that presents all of the various viewpoints on it fairly.
For example, one perspective on the suspensions are that they are not relevant. Ok, no problem. That perspective can be represented by including the quotation from Crump where he basically says that the suspensions are just that, irrelevant. Keep it well-sourced, neutral, and present a fair and balanced view of the topic.
WP:AVOIDVICTIM, that you quoted from, presupposes that Martin (or Zimmerman) was a victim. This has not been established and is, in fact, a matter of debate. Either way, the WP guideline offered focuses again on making sure the information is well-sourced and presented in a way that is neutral, fair, and balanced. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's be serious for a moment. If someone runs out to the store to get snacks and, on the way back, is accosted, pursued, and ultimately shot to death by an angry, armed man muttering about how "these assholes always get away", then he's a victim. That's the case regardless of what happened during the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, which is likely unknowable except for its end result.

In any case, the WP:BLP concerns I quoted clearly apply here. If that remains controversial, I'll consider asking for feedback from editors at the BLP noticeboard, since I think the meaning of the policy is getting lost in tunnel vision here. MastCell Talk 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, Would you care to give an alternate reasonable description of the incident where Zimmerman was a victim? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Did Martin run out to the store or was he looking for some more women's jewelry to steal under guise ? Was martin accosted, a word you don't even know the definition of, or was zimmerman accosted given that BOTH the girlfriend AND zimmerman's statement of events described Martin first accosting zimmerman, asking him why he was following him? Was zimmerman so angry he decided to smash the back of his own head on the pavement, delivering at least two visbily significant gashes? Whatzinaname (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'll wait for MastCell. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Good luck with that. I wasn't actually commenting at you, though.10:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)
I've never argued one way or the other about whether Zimmerman is a "victim", but if you want to apply WP:AVOIDVICTIM to Zimmerman, I'm totally fine with that. I'm just tired of the constant efforts to find ways around applying fundamental Wikipedia policies to this article. MastCell Talk 23:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said, you have presupposed that Martin was a victim. You've characterized events in a way (far from a NPOV) to conclude (speciously) that Martin must have been a victim.
You should consider that other editors and readers of Wikipedia might not agree with how you've personally characterized the events- may not accept the truth of some of your premises- and may challenge the validity of the conclusion you have personally drawn from them. I certainly do.
Although clearly not established to me, I will concede that Martin *may* have been a victim. But even *if* he were a victim, WP:AVOIDVICTIM only stresses that the information be presented in a way that is "completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Emeraldflames (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's anything, I think that they were both victims of circumstance. Zimmerman was trying to protect his community and overextended himself. Martin was part of a teenage culture where physical force settled disputes but may not have gotten involved in a fight if he knew Zimmerman was armed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
At this juncture, it's impossible to tell who is or isn't a victim. And the policy is referring to real victims, not the poetic variety.Whatzinaname (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerning how extensively they have been covered, the quality of the sources that have covered them, and their importance to many editors/readers, it is embarrassing that this article has not a single mention of any of the prior incidents of either Zimmerman or Martin. If you want access to all of the information you'll have to go elsewhere. Emeraldflames (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of stuff that- if I had the same philosophy as other editors- I would remove/censor from the article as well:

The City of Sanford posted a "George Zimmerman 911 Call History" listing 46 calls by him between 2004 and the 2012 shooting. Irrelevant, prejudicial.

On the recording of the call, Zimmerman is heard commenting "these assholes, they always get away." Irrelevant, prejudicial.

"According to Crump's statement, Martin's girlfriend said that he expressed concern about a strange man following him, and she advised him to run. She says she heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing and that Martin's headset suddenly went silent, leading her to believe that he had been pushed. She attempted to call him back immediately, but was unable to reach him." Irrelevant, prejudicial.

"Zimmerman was not administered a drug or alcohol test." Irrelevant, prejudicial.

"Two experts on forensic voice analysis, contacted by the Orlando Sentinel, concluded independently that the screams in the background of the 9-1-1 recordings were not from Zimmerman..." Irrelevant, prejudicial.

I could argue that all of the above (and more) is irrelevant and/or prejudicial, but I don't. I realize that it is relevant to other people- and, most importantly, I think most of the information is reliably sourced and presented in a balanced way (point, counterpoint.) Emeraldflames (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Title change of article

I am moving these comments left by editor Richgreene2 in the lead section of the article (reverted edit) to the talk page for further discussion here (appropriate place I think, instead of the lead section of article).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"This article could be titled: "The Attack of George Zimmerman", but that would be just as biased as "The Shooting of Trayvon Martin". I highly recommend no discussion of this case until it is settled in a court of law. However, if Wikipedia NUST risk influencing future jury members, the least that should be done to delete the obvious bias in the title of the article is to change the title to: "The George Zimmermman - Trayvon Martin Case"."

@ Richgreene2: Please click on "Talk" (located next to "Article") to leave comments on how to improve this article. I think the current title accurately reflects the indcident that took place on February 26. Trayvon Martin was shot, and George Zimmerman admitted to shooting him. I don't think "The Attack of George Zimmerman" would reach a consensus among the editor's here. I also believe that through a collobrative effort of editor's the information presented in this article has been presented in a neutral point of view. If you feel there is something in the article that needs to be addressed, then please point it out on the talk page, so it can be discussed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Stonewalling and other blocks put up on the last several times of reflecting a proper title has been useless. We've been through this several times already. Yes, it is a terrible title, but I rather not start this again if there is no formal or binding decision which will change the title. Least the media firestorm is over with, so perspective can be obtained. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
What's the problem with the title again? Martin was shot. He may have been shot in self-defense, as Zimmerman claims. Even if so, "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" would still be an appropriate title. MastCell Talk 23:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree.... I think the title is appropriate. Martin was shot, The article is titled the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin". I do not see what the problem is. If someone wants to start an article titled "The Beating of George Zimmerman" then go for it! We all know that for there to be an article on Wikipedia, someone has to start it, groom it, and contribute to it with RELIABLE information. BTW... I am most likely one of the most conservative members here, and I have some real doubts about the State's case. Personally I believe the Governor caved into political pressure. So with that said, If someone like me thinks the article title is appropriate... well...--Mt6617 (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I still believe that the title is incomplete and should say "Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin". I cannot understand why one of the key reasons that we have an article at all is omitted. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
You are saying if Martin had not died, then no one would have cared what lead up to the shooting?Whatzinaname (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No, but it certainly wouldn't have been in the news for so long and in so many places. This event has had considerable international coverage (I'm not in America). A non-fatal shooting would have been seen by a lot of non-Americans as almost par for the course in a country seen by most of the rest of the advanced world as being obsessed with guns. (Not a criticism. Just an observation on different attitudes around the world.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't have been in media at all if both people were black or both were white/hispanic. Through I suppose the bigoted international media did enjoy the depiction of the supposed american gun nut.Whatzinaname (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure about the speculation in your first sentence. You may be right. As for the second, just as much attention was being paid to the stand-your-ground law as the firearms issue in this particular case. It always amuses me that Americans like their land to be seen as the greatest country on earth (and it is pretty good!), but sometimes don't want people to look. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I would hope they would be more concerned about a racist black man gunning down tourists from abroad, like Shawn Tyson, then worrying about the statutes designed to allow people to defend themselves from that very same savagery. But I think we've wandered bit far here for a talk pageWhatzinaname (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, as an occasional visitor to the US, I'd be worried (a little) about anybody gunning down tourists, but you're right, it's way off topic. International interest in the incident isn't though. This IS a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't really see this as a right/left, conservative/liberal issue. Just a tragic intersection of lives that someone (probably the jury) will have to figure out with inadequate information. The title seems fine to me, although I could accept "Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin." Apostle12 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I think "Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin" is an improvement. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Based on the discussion above, I propose a change of title to "Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin." Please indicate "Approve" or "Disapprove" below:

  • Disapprove. It has been proposed and discussed multiple times and the current title is fine. Time to give it a rest for a while. -- Avanu (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the current name is good enough, too and I don't personally care if the name changes or not, but "tired of talking about it" seems kind of a silly reason to disapprove. You all could have just as easily said "Approve" and we'd add the word Fatal and be done with it. But, again, I don't care ;-p Emeraldflames (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Approve of this discussion and any other discussion on improving this article a new editor wants to open on the talk page. Read WP:DONTBITE The reason the discussion was started in the first place was because an editor "Richgreene2" left a comment in the lead section of the article instead of on the talk page. Read WP:AGF I reverted the edit in the lead section and moved the comments here to the talk page for futher discussion. Read WP:ETIQ -- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree and do not think editors should have to apologize for not being fully aware of every (archived) discussion from the past. Apparently the accuracy of the title is still a current concern, and if editor Richard-of-the-Earth is tired of "wasting time" on such discussions, perhaps he should just sit them out instead of engaging in snarky attacks. That said, the consensus seems to be that the present title is good enough, so I will withdraw my (tepid) approval of the proposed change. It's just not a very big deal. Apostle12 (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I was not trying to WP:BITE the proposal, indeed it would be virtually impossible to keep track of the archives. That said, sf something has been discussed at length many times (which this has been) it is disruptive (unintentionally?) to keep bringing it up and rehashing it over and over. Bringing things to a swift close is not a bite, but just allows us to focus on areas where we can actually achieve some consensus. I believe there are some policies or guidelines to this effect (although I was unable to find them in a quick search). Otherwise you can win any discussion war by attrition, continually bringing up an issue until others give up in frustration. BTW, As I have stated in a previous discussion, I would actually support "fatal shooting", but I believe that bringing the discussion up again so soon is procedurally out of order. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Could this latest discussion be maintained on Talk even though other items are archived? That way new editors will be aware that the title has been recently discussed. I notice that archiving happens rather speedily. Apostle12 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
As the discussion has slowed down somewhat, we probably can increase the archive duration. I know mizabot has a "protect" template that can be added to save certain sections from being archived. I do not know about the bot we are using, I will investigate. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if my !vote was biting. I should have joined the conversation sooner with the links to the older discussions. We could create a FAQ with links to relevant discussions. There are several things that keep coming up. I don't know how successful FAQs are on other pages. Or we could just encourage people to use the archive search at the top of the page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I started a FAQ, but most of the FAQ-able issues have been resolved/dropped so its not so much of a big deal anymore. If old stuff starts cropping up more again though, I would definately behind a more concentrated effort. The Obama page has a FAQ which has been used to good purpose, succesfully I think, but it mainly serves as a shortcut for the regular editors to not have to answer questions, and just point to the FAQ. For the most part, new editors don't seek out the FAQ to learn things pro-actively. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The two "old" issues I see being brought up on a semi-regular basis are this one (title change) and Zimmerman's/Martin's past. In the future, I will suggest that new editor's search the archives and review past discussions on these topics. In this particular case, "Richgreene2" seems to have left his comments in the wrong section and then didn't return to discuss it further on the talk page.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem with both of these issues regarding a FAQ - there is no consensus on the actual content. There is no consensus on how to interpret the relevant policies, There also does not seem to be consensus on how lack of consensus resolves (default to include, or default to exclude) - so all we could do in a FAQ is try and summarize arguments and try to cover all POV neutrally. I suppose that could placate some new editors, who would at least know they weren't the first person to come up with argument X and that we weren't just all idiots for not including/excluding the obvious "right version" Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Whenever some ill-informed editor mentions voting, I'll bite. We don't vote here! Consensus and voting are almost opposite concepts. Consensus is gained by presenting and considering logical arguments. Voting isn't. I will continue to present logical argument whenever an opportunity arises. Claims of "we already voted on that" will NEVER convince me to cease that approach. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
All this chatter and re-hashing of old arguments is because an obviously new editor (who didnt even know where to "plug in') asked to rename the article. And then he didnt even bother to participate in the discussion that his lack of awareness created. Rather than an FAQ, let's send them to the archives to do their own re-search so we don't have to re-hash.```Buster Seven Talk 01:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, my bad. Strike the 'vote'. ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate References

This article contains duplicate references at the bottom of the page. Maybe that is how it is supposed to work but it appears that in some parts of the article the same reference gets reused in multiple places and yet only creates one entry at the bottom of the page which I would think is preferred, rather than an additional reference being created at the bottom of the page for multiple citings of that reference. At that time I am writing this, 132, 140, and 141 all point to the same page (Robert Zimmerman interview with Fox Orlando). 138 and 139 point to the same Mother Jones page that gives a transcript of the Zimmerman 311 call. Wickorama (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Kinda normal if sourcing a particular sentence seems appropriate. No harm in citing the same reference to support different sentences. Apostle12 (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not referring to multiple citings of the same source in the text, but rather multiple entries of the same source down in the references section. When I cite the same source in three paragraphs in the text, should I end up with 3 separate references down in the references section? It would appear that that behavior would give the reader the impression that there were three sources for the text when there actually was only one. Wickorama (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It is preferable, but not mandatory to use named references to avoid this problem. You may merge them if you feel the need, but make sure you keep the footnote cite at the relevant location. Gaijin42 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Not clear why the reluctance to fix. Here's my contribution.[8] There's more to do. Anybody? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I see now what you are referring to, and, yes, these should be fixed. No reluctance, just no sense of urgency. Some editors specialize in cleaning up references; good work and always grateful for same.Apostle12 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I made an edit that I think completed the request at the beginning of this section.[9] (Thanks to Tex for correcting an error I made in the edit before this one.) If there are any other places in the article that need similar work, anyone can feel free to mention them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Medical Report Information

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532 Shouldn't that be included? "A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury" There is more of course. It seems pretty relevant to the article. 76.123.170.56 (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Date formatting

I'm confused as to which format is the officially sanctioned one. On many other articles, primary editors insist on the 13 January 2012 format, since it eliminates non-essential commas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates This article seems to use the January 13, 2012 format, which some Wiki editors insist is not in accord with Wiki style recommendations. I agree we should use one or the other within a given article. But which format is considered correct?..just want to know. Apostle12 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that the time and date stamp of the above post, which I assume is Wiki sanctioned, uses 17 May 2012. Thanks! Apostle12 (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also: "The fully written "day month year" (e.g., 12 March 2005) in written American English is starting to become more common outside of the media industry and legal documents, particularly in university publications and in some international-influenced publications as a means of dealing with ambiguity." Apostle12 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess this covers it. BOTH are considered correct, with precedent ruling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates Apostle12 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) There is no 'officially sanctioned one', whatever you mean by that. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Both styles are acceptable, the only thing that is required is consistency within an article and don't change style without a good reason. In terms of preference, we do the same as we do with varieties of English. In cases where the subject is clearly tied to one country, as is the case here (to the US), we follow the style that is most common there which is month day, year. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! Apostle12 (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Polling Differences, by race and ethnicity

Is there more like this?: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-poll-idUSBRE83B1BB20120412 Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to ask what everyone is most likely thinking..... WHY? and what use is this to the article? You want Wikipedia to be a litterbox (full of urine and feces) like (most of) the media has been? --Mt6617 (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Mentioning that the case is viewed differently by different ethnic groups is "feces"? Andyvphil (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
To partly answer my own question, here's more feces, this time USA Today/Gallup rather than Reuters/Ipsos: [[10]] Andyvphil (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it being implied that only liberal leaning sources were biased in this account?

As someone who considers themselves on the radical center, I keep a close eye on both sides, and both communities. This article seems to imply it was only the liberal leaning news sources that were attempting to "take sides" here.

Anybody who has been covering this story, and keeping an eye on both sides, would know that right-wing sources were out to defend Zimmerman with near IDENTICAL fervor as left-leaning sources were to defend Trayvon.

>NBC edited their audio clip to try and make it look like Zimmerman volunteered that the suspect was black, in order to fuel racial profiling accusations. Egregious.

>NY POST ran a front page article proclaiming Zimmerman's innocence, accusing anyone refuting this as a "race huckster", and reporting each and every one of Zimmerman's accounts at face value, as if they were facts. Well before the evidence started to roll out. Just as egregious.

If anything, this case should have been a wake up call for what a lack of independent news coverage we have in this country, how difficult it is for them to resist spinning articles for their slant, and how powerful their influence is over their viewers, who rarely if ever question the validity of their sources.

Before any of the crucial details were even leaked, we had left-leaning bloggers insisting on Trayvon's innocence, and right-leaning bloggers insisting on Zimmerman's innocence. This speaks wonders about the state of today's media, political polarity, and racial relations in itself.

--69.125.144.46 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"trayvon hucksters site:nypost.com" turns up nada. Link, plz. Andyvphil (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The difference is the left was jumping to conclusions of guilt on GZ's part, while the right was saying "whoa... there's no proof - innocent until proven guilty." The biggest different between the two? The "right" is actually right. And with recent medical reports, the "right" is looking even more right. BTW, where's the NY Post thing you reference, in the article? I'm not seeing it. - Xcal68 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe he's saying that the New York Post article he referenced should be in the Wikipedia article. I don't agree, because NY Post is not a mainstream news source like NBC and there hasn't been any notable accusations that NY Post tampered with or edited recordings or other evidence. I agree there is bias on both sides, but there is no question that- particularly in the beginning- the anti-Zimmerman bias was evident in many mainstream sources. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The mainstream media is fairly liberal. The liberal media was biased in this case. Wikipedia only really covers the mainstream media. Conservative media may also have been biased as well, but conservative media is largely restricted to blogs etc that wikipedia does not typically talk about, unless further covered (tertiary coverage likely) in mainstream media. Fox/Rush/Beck being a few of the counterexamples of notable conservative media - examples which for the most part have stayed out of this case, except to say that the liberal side was jumping to conclusions. Certainly there have been some very biased conservative voices, some extremely racist voices as well, but they are not notable like the other examples we are discussing in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've had a similar concern to the original poster. It's evident to any thinking person (but also well-described in reliable sources) that the conservative media has engaged in a great deal of cherry-picking in the effort to portray Martin as a menace. For example, a piece in the New York Times discussed the "wave of vitriol... aimed at the young victim by conservatives online", noting that it began on explicitly racist sites such as Stormfront but rapidly spread to more respectable conservative media ([11]). The effort to vilify Martin included the same vices described above - cherry-picking, the use of selective quotation and outright inaccurate claims and misrepresented photos, etc.

    It's evident that the "Media bias" section (or whatever it's called at present) is intended solely to house complaints about the "liberal" mainstream media, not to provide a balanced overview of the actual media handling of the case. I think the reasons for that are obvious in reading this talkpage: a large number of the most active editors here are clearly partisan and indistinguishable from conservative bloggers, and the article reflects their preoccupation with using this case as a platform to denounce the "liberal media". Of course, the goal of producing an actual encyclopedia article suffers in the process, but that's Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If I had to guess it would be similar to the view expressed by Xcal68 above. In this particular case, you had a conservative media that generally ignored the story. The left-leaning media were the outlets that were most involved in hyping this up and so it would be only natural for them to be the target of a section on media bias. While ignoring a story is bias itself, its harder to call bias compared to an active press using its power for persuasion. Terms like "neighborhood vigilante", "murderer", and "stalked a boy half his size" are intended to convey an impression that Zimmerman was a foul cretin who only cared about executing black people. All of these things were stated in an evironment completely lacking in adaquate facts. Hearsay and innuendo cannot be the only thing supporting a news story. I haven't looked at the "media bias" section lately, but I almost think it deserves an article of its own (or become a merged part of another article), so that it can be shown in a more NPOV fashion. MastCell above tries to imply that anyone pointing out bias in this article must be a conservative blogger type person. However, we can easily see media bias all over without even trying that hard. Jon Stewart does it almost every night on the Daily Show. It's silly to start pointing fingers at people for recognizing bias. As long as we maintain a good article here, we can fight media bias on our own time later. Incidentally, here's another example of media bias and incompetence, my apologies to MastCell for this one not being an anti-conservative attack. -- Avanu (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
That link was just to a blog, complaining about blogs. - Xcal68 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Ah. So we're OK citing blogs like Mediaite, Newsbusters and the Daily Caller as sources in the article, but this piece from the New York Times is dismissed because it's "just a blog". Got it. MastCell Talk 22:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I know you meant "we're" in the general sense, but since you're responding to me, I'm assuming you'll next be linking to something I edited/posted in support of using blogs as main sources... - Xcal68 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I would just appreciate your help in decreasing the article's use of other blogs, if you feel strongly about the issue. MastCell Talk 22:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
A famous boxer was misquoted and this misquote was misquoted until the guy came off as someone willing to take gay people out and kill them. People were calling for his head on a platter and whatnot. But he just said he thinks God's law is above man's law, and that was about it. He didn't call for murders to take place. That link shows a bit of how the media took it and mangled it irresponsibly. -- Avanu (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Msstcell's' bigoted wingnuttery manifests again, and where are the admins to supposedly discipline their own? Whatzinaname (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

← To be clear, I think it is evident that mainstream media coverage has been poor and, in some cases, completely irresponsible (e.g. the NBC edits). That aspect is amply represented in our article, which I think is totally appropriate. What I don't see in the article - and what seems to be actively resisted at every turn - is any effort to discuss the role that conservative media played in the case. It's not for lack of sources.

Looking at the talk page, a disproportionate amount of discussion seems to be consist of editors complaining about and vilifying the liberal/mainstream media (which terms seem to be interchangeably used here). I think that mainstream-media malfeasance is a part of the story, and one that we can and do convey. But editors' interests seem limited to using this incident as a springboard to vent their personal dissatisfaction with the mainstream media. I don't see a lot of interest in looking at the media's role across the board, just in vilifying the lib'rul media, which is disappointing. MastCell Talk 22:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that is because this article is about Trayon Martin and George Zimmerman, and not "Media Bias in the 21st Century". :) -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm with you, but media bias has been a dominant theme on this talkpage, so there's no escaping it. And it is a relevant aspect of this topic - it's just that I'm not sensing a lot of interest in a truly balanced, source-based overview, just in using this as a platform to beat the drum about the liberal media. MastCell Talk 23:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The section seems to mainly be discussing problems with what are usually considered WP:RS. Was there a certain other one, that you feel deserves mention, that is missing? Write something up and add it... - Xcal68 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I've done that, and the material was rapidly removed from the article. Based on the overall tone of talkpage discussion, including in this thread, and the selection of editors currently most active on this page, I don't see much reason to re-insert it. MastCell Talk 23:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Diff on removal of your edit, plz. Andyvphil (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Original edit, removal. MastCell Talk 18:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
That left-leaning side of the media is generally more at fault in *this* story. Active versus passive. -- Avanu (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The media bias in the article (and largely in the talk page) is talking about sources which clearly qualify in general as WP:RS. ABCs video, CNNs audio analysis, NBCs video editing. The example above is stormfront. Anyone who is expecting neutrality or editorial control from stormfront or gun rights blogs equivalent to ABC, NBC, and CNN is going to be in for a life of disappointment. What is a conservative source who showed bias that is anywhere near the notability/general reliability of ABC, NBC, and CNN. What story did they run that got meta-covered by other reliable sources to nearly the degree that those stories did. If there are equivalent sources, with equivalent stories, then absolutely they should be included. But the fact that there are some racist wing-nut blogs out there is not the same thing. If we are going to drop to that level of media analysis, then I can find you plenty of liberal blogs saying pretty much that Zimmerman should be summarily executed - the fringe is the fringe, for both sides. NYPost meta coverage of conservative sources I think could be notable enough for inclusion as I think NYPost is far enough up the RS foodchain, even if it is their blog. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Wait, i thought the media was fair and unbiased. Are you suggesting that certain media outlets are left of center in their editorial oversight?? That those very same media outlets may have biased the case with their own egregious bias? Never. Careful though, Mastcell will consider you a ring wing blogger if you dare mention anything resembling this clearly distorted view of realityWhatzinaname (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We all bring our biases to the table, which is why it is incumbent on each of us to review opposing viewpoints with an open mind. A truly balanced perspective may be beyond individual reach, however it remains a laudable goal. It seems to me that the presentation of information in this aricle represents the best available anywhere, thanks to the diverse points of view held by Wiki editors. If I want explore all sides of an issue, Wikipedia is where I begin. Further perusal of the cited articles provides ample opportunity for deepening one's understanding. That faults are noticed, and refinements continue, should be a source of Wiki pride. Apostle12 (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Surveillance Video Section Proposal

I was thinking of adding the photo taken at the scene which show Zimmerman with a bloody head and/or the photo taken at the prosecuter's office showing his wounds. See: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/New-Photos-Reports-on-George-Zimmerman-Released-by-Prosecutors-151951775.html In addition, note that he was treated at the scene, which most likely accounts for the lack of blood in the Surveillance Video. ITBlair (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Butchery of "Public response" section

Editor Isaidnoway's recent "edit" was not really an edit. What it did was make the statement by Steele nonsensical. Without the first paragraph, the following paragraph becomes a non sequitor:

"It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. The tragedy surrounding Trayvon's death is not in the possibility that it might have something to do with white racism; the tragedy is in the lustfulness with which so many black leaders, in conjunction with the media, have leapt to exploit his demise for their own power."

"It" in this paragraph reads as though it refers to Trayvon Martin's death, which is not what Steele is saying at all.

With respect to Sowell's fine essay, which is directly relevant to the section dealing with unprovoked attacks on whites by blacks that have been linked to the Trayvon Martin case, Isaidnoway simply engaged in exactly the kind of censorship Sowell refers to. There was nothing "inaccurate" in the summary provided (I just reread Sowell's piece to make sure), and his valuable perspective was published just two days ago.

Steele and Sowell are two very notable, eloquent people, and their views deserve a place in the "Public response" section. Eliminating their views (Sowell) or butchering them beyond recognition (Steele)are uncalled for.Apostle12 (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Thomas Sowell piece opens with a description of two white newspaper reporters who were beaten by a mob of young blacks, beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work, that might sound like news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper, but wasn't. Then he goes on to talk about "violence by young black gangs against white people chosen at random", and the media and authorities tendency to try and sweep these episodes under the rug, and "what the authorities and the media seem determined to suppress is that the hoodlum elements in many ghettoes launch coordinated attacks on whites in public places." What has this got to do with the shooting of Trayvon Martin? This wasn't a case of "violence by black gangs against white people". This is a case of Zimmerman shooting Martin allegedly in self defense and the aspects surrounding this specific case. Sowell doesn't even mention Martin or Zimmerman at all or even try to make a significant or relevant connection to this case, nor mention that this "violence by young black gangs against white people" is "linked to the Trayvon Martin case" whatsoever. Furthermore, the section is titled "Public response", which indicates to me at least, that the "responses" made by individuals are directly related to the specific topic of this article.
Steele does write very eloquently and specifically referenced this case, but why give so much weight to his statements as opposed to other notable figures who made public responses as well. I would think the President is more notable than Steele, but yet his statements don't receive the weight you think Steele's statement's require. Why is that? I have seen more RS reporting on Obama's statements than RS reporting on Steele's statements. While is is important to reflect all relevant viewpoints on this case, we should also consider their viewpoint (Steele's) prevalence in reporting in RS. I don't think this article should give more weight to Steele's statements with the detail that is included without RS reporting that his viewpoint is more prevalent than other notable figures who made a public response. Steele's statements should be condensed or summarized appropriately and not being given undue weight in the public response section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The Thomas Sowell piece is referenced only in summary. It was published just a few days ago in the wake of numerous attacks by blacks on whites, among them attacks where those attacking specifically referenced "Trayvon." No, Sowell does not specifically reference Trayvon, yet I believe his piece does have relevance to the racial tensions surrounding the Martin case. Apostle12 (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article".Since Sowell does not specifically mention that the "numerous attacks by blacks on whites" are "linked or connected to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin", his piece is not directly related to the topic of this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
More to the point: dozens, if not hundreds, of notable individuals have voiced their opinions in writing about this incident. On what basis have these specific opinion pieces been selected and prominently featured? If we're going to open the floodgates to opinion pieces, then we should probably have a serious discussion about what criteria we're going to use for inclusion, rather than just reproducing the Hoover Institution's party line on the subject. MastCell Talk 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The section titled "Public response" deals with the many ways people let their opinions be known about the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Apparently "the floodgates" have already been opened, however they have been equipped with an ideological filter intended to exclude conservative points of view.
The problem with this section is that it deals almost exclusively with the opinions of those who support Zimmerman's arrest and who have obviously made the rush to judgment that Zimmerman should be convicted, imprisoned or worse. We learn of the Change.org petition created by Martin's mother, signed by 2.2 million Martin supporters. We learn of the thousands of people expressing their opinions nationwide through "Million Hoodie" marches. We learn of the use of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea to express opinions of support and protest. We learn of students expressing their opinions by staging walk-outs from high school. We learn of Al Sharpton's opinion, where he irresponsibly uses the prejudicial term "murdered" before the trial has even begun. We learn of Jesse Jackson's opinion. We learn of President Barack Obama's opinion. We learn of the opinions of those who, through many incidents, express their opinion that Martin's "murder" needs to be avenged. And we learn of Spike Lee's opinion, voiced by Tweeting Zimmerman's address in a remarkable display of contempt and lack of concern for Zimmerman's safety. (He only apologized for getting the address wrong, not for attempting to put Zimmerman's life in danger.) We learn of the opinion of the New Black Panthers as they offer a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman's "capture."
This section deals very little with the opinions of those who favor a more measured public response, because by definition such people are waiting to see the evidence. They have respect for the legal process, and they are likely to honor any decision a jury makes when the case comes to trial. Yes, we hear of Geraldo Rivera's hoodie statement, and his subsequent apology. And we hear of the death threats made against Zimmerman, likely encouraged by Sharpton's use of the term "murdered" and Jackson's ambulance-chasing rhetoric. Finally we hear Alan Dershowitz' opinion that the afidavit of probable cause is defective.
What we most certainly do not see in the "Public response" section are the reasoned opinions of ANY conservative public figures. I chose one, a black man who is appalled by the ambulance-chasing and who views the shooting of Trayvon Martin in a larger context. That man is Shelby Steele, and I believe the two short paragraphs I chose are essential to provide at least a modicum of balance to the "Public response" section:
Referring to Trayvon Martin's death, Senior Fellow Shelby Steele at the Hoover Institution stated:
"And this points to the second tragedy that Trayvon's sad demise highlights. Before the 1960s the black American identity (though no one ever used the word) was based on our common humanity, on the idea that race was always an artificial and exploitive division between people. After the '60s—in a society guilty for its long abuse of us—we took our historical victimization as the central theme of our group identity. We could not have made a worse mistake.
"It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. The tragedy surrounding Trayvon's death is not in the possibility that it might have something to do with white racism; the tragedy is in the lustfulness with which so many black leaders, in conjunction with the media, have leapt to exploit his demise for their own power."
I intend to reinsert Steele's statement as soon as possible. If the "Public response" section is guilty of promoting any "party line" it certainly is not that of the Hoover Institution. To imply that I am giving "undue weight" to Steele's statement is highly ironic given the present bias. Apostle12 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not imply anything. I stated it. You are giving undue weight to Steele's statements. All of the other statements you referenced in the Public response section are summarized in simple and short one or two sentences. Do you think that by giving Steele's statements undue weight you are making up for what you see as bias in the Public response section? Do you think his statements are more relevant than other notable figures who made statements? Has his statements received widespread RS reporting like the other notable figures statements have? I don't have an issue with a short summary of his statements, but giving them undue weight isn't the right way to go either.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
It is possible to summarize the other "statements" because they are so devoid of thoughtful analysis. And, yes, a succession of such statements, all supporting the same basic idea (Zimmerman bad, Martin good) does constitute bias in the "Public response" section. Steele's statement is concise, and I doubt any accurate summary of the ideas he expresses would be any shorter. In a sound-bite world, thoughtful analysis comes up short.Apostle12 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your personal appreciation for Steele and personal disdain for other commentators isn't a valid rationale for a content decision here. The statements currently in the article are not sourced to opinion pieces; they're sourced to independent news articles. These were statements considered newsworthy enough to be reported upon by independent sources. If an independent source (for example, a major newspaper) writes a news article about Sowell's response to the incident, then we could feature it, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. MastCell Talk 20:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I have added a (too short) summary of Steele's statements. The two spare paragraphs I previously chose were, I believe, a far superior way to introduce the thoughtful perspective Steele voices in his lengthly WSJ piece. Just to clarify, my disdain is not for the other commentators; I believe their voices deserve to be heard. My disdain is reserved for editors who artificially limit the scope of discussion to suit their own ideological bias. Apostle12 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the Steele statements comments a lot more on the state of black America/black leadership than about Zimmerman and Trayvon specifically. If its included I think it should be pared down some. Emeraldflames (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggest a Neutrality Flag on this article

I saw a ton of inaccuracies on this page, clearly trying to sway opinion one way or the other. I highly suggest one of those "The neutrality of this page is in dispute." If there's one that says "the facts of this page are in dispute" that would actually be more accurate. I would add it, but I have no idea how or even if I have permission.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you give specific examples of inaccuracies or disputed facts, so we can address them on an individual basis.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had the time. It's in the minutiae, and it would just take too much time and effort and sourcing to do it justice. If no one else feels this way, then I suppose I will bow out.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are "a ton of inaccuracies" in the article. When you have the time, if you could point out a couple then we could discuss it. Overall, I wouldn't say the article is either pro- or anti-Zimmerman. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what, I was going too fast and wasn't reading carefully enough. Sorry. Apparently, Zimmerman made several different calls to the police on different days. I read them all as the same call. So, when the details of those calls didn't line up, I thought there were a bunch of inaccuracies. Sorry about that.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. That section is titled "Shooting". Maybe since those phone calls were made before the shooting, we could make a sub-section under Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch with those phone calls listed there instead.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
In response to the reader's concerns, I added a note clarifying the timing of the first of Zimmerman's two February 2012 calls. Since the events associated with the February 2 call are directly associated with the content of Zimmerman's February 26 call, the February 2 call provides valuable perspective. Apostle12 (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Eyeballs needed

On TM's high school, and the school's namesake. [12] [13] I fixed it, I think, but I don't do wiki stuff anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

document dump may include older documents

The latest document dump may include older documents. There is an assumption among some editors that the latest batch overrides previous information. Date checking and provenance is important, especially in areas like analysis of the audio of the police calls (911 and non-911). --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of the older documents that were included in this recent dump also seem to have Zimmerman's statements redacted as well. For example, in the recent release, Officer Timothy Smith's initial report has Zimmerman's statement he "shot Martin and was still armed" redacted and his statement of "yelling for someone to help me" redacted as well. The initial report we have included in the article is not redacted. [14]
The recent release also indicates that the request for a capias was filed on March 13 [15]. According to what we currently have in the article here[16] an affidavit was filed on the night of February 26. I didn't see an affidavit dated on February 26, included in the recent release, has anyone else seen it? ABC's article on the affidavit is dated March 27. [17] At the risk of speculating about Serino's motive for filing the request for a capias on March 13, why would he then 3 days later give an interview to the Orlando Sentinel [18] where he states that "his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense". and also say in the same interview that "everything I have is adding up to what he [Zimmerman] says". Seems contradictory to the capias request and would be a nightmare for the prosecution to call him as a witness. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

references

  1. ^ a b Francescani, Chris (April 25, 2012). "George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting". Reuters. Retrieved 27 April 2012.
  2. ^ a b "Transcripts CNN NEWSROOM — George Zimmerman Bond Hearing (9 am)". CNN.com. Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. 2012-04-20. Retrieved 2012-05-06.
  3. ^ a b "Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin". Miami Herald Media Co. March 26, 2012.

FBI Mulls hate crimes charges (among other tidbits)

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/fbi-seeks-charge-george-zimmerman-hate-crime/nN5pR/

  • FBI considering hate crime charge
  • Photo of Zimmerman with black grandmother mentioned (not shown)
  • continued sealing of evidence and witnesses
  • witnesses redacted even from Zimmerman attourney
  • prosecutors mention inconsistent statements from zimmerman as part of decision to charge with 2nd degree murder.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The article states: "He's facing a second-degree murder charge, which carries a maximum possible sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty."
That is highly notable, because usually, people on the political left are against the death penalty, not for it. This information should be added to the article.
P2d4b8z2 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
P2d4b8z2 now blocked as sock of banned editor User:Grundle2600. Note that "Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems with a banned user's participation outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason." Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
What a bizarre statement. The FBI is looking into charging Zimmerman with a hate crime; I don't see where the "political left" enters into it. MastCell Talk 22:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
That's who Holder is a tool of. Andyvphil (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is already mentioned in the article about the FBI investigating this as a hate crime. I wonder why WFTV is just now reporting on it. ABC obtained a copy of Zimmerman's medical records. [19] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The political left does enter into it, primarily because Attorney General Holder is a child of left-wing group think. How else to explain his unwillingness to charge African Americans who commit crimes agains whites, for plainly racist reasons, with hate crimes? How else to explain his unwillingness to charge African Americans who violate laws forbidding voter intimidation "because there is no proof any whites were prevented from voting"? How else to explain his unwillingness to discipline Department of Justice heads who make blatantly racist statements like, "I didn't join the Justice Department to protect white people from black people."
I hope this latest development turns out to be baseless, because there is NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that would indicate Zimmerman acted out of racial animus, and frankly it makes me angry that this is even being raised as an issue! There is evidence that Zimmerman was fed up with criminals who had been victimizing the neighborhood that, as Neighborhood Watch Captain, he had been charged with monitoring. That most of those criminals were black is well-known, yet hardly relevant to the behavior Zimmerman noted as suspicious--the 9-1-1 calls make it plain that Zimmerman noticed Martin because of his behavior, not because of his race. The left seems perpetually confused on these issues. Apostle12 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You must have missed the big notice at the top of the page explaining that this isn't a blog, nor an outlet for your various personal opinions about Eric Holder and race relations in the U.S. Please at least pretend to make an effort to comply with this site's talk page guidelines and policy on biographical material. MastCell Talk 06:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course...momentary lapse.Apostle12 (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) -- the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch -- has revealed that Zimmerman was not only NOT a Neighborhood Watch Captain, he was not even a member of any group recognized by the organization (http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization.php). Moreover, it is NOT Neighborhood Watch policy to go on patrol with a loaded gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhysdux (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The HOA recognized him as "our Captain" and the SPD used him as their contact. See the recent doc dump by the prosecution. And he wasn't "on patrol". What's your point? Andyvphil (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The FBI investigating the incident for a hate crime is old news. There is no indication he is going to be charged with anything. What is new is: "A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.." http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.T7MHOOtYsT8 Emeraldflames (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Just added the new information about the medical report to "Ongoing Investigation," along with the source. The WFTV "hate crime" story does add a new twist that the article previously has not referenced--the "enhancement" from life in prison to the death penalty. Also the story indicates that the "hate crime" investigation is current and ongoing. Apostle12 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the FBI investigation is old news as well. The investigation has been ongoing since March 20, and it is already mentioned in the article. I don't think this WFTV report is any more relevant than what is already in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
As noted above, the report's focus on Zimmerman's greater legal exposure is significant and relevant. Apostle12 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The legal exposure is only significant and relevant if he is charged. The article only states that he "may" be charged, which is just speculation on the part of the TV station reporting it. We shouldn't be suggesting that he "may" have commited a crime that hasn't been charged. See WP:BLPCRIME.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is just the ABC affiliate's legal analyst being an idiot. No death penalty unless you enhance deprivation-of-civil-rights Murder ONE. And the state's M2 is already a ridiculous overcharge. Andyvphil (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
A rather important aside to the new knuckle information is that the funeral director claimed that trayvon had no injuries on his hands. The rabbit hole is getting pretty deep for the race hustlersWhatzinaname (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
That is why you don't simply include such things in Wikipedia. A funeral director isn't an expert in medical autopsies. Actually the progress of the Martin/Zimmerman story in the media, and Wikipedia's coverage of it would be a terrific example of why we have WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP policies on Wikipedia. This case is rife with gossip, lies, innuendo, misrepresentation, and more, from well-intentioned people, as well as people with a political or personal agenda. It really shows why we need to lean strongly toward careful and prudent coverage of media-intensive stories. -- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't need an MD to see bruising or open wounds on someone's knuckles. The funeral director was part of the problem, which is why it is relevant. He gave numerous interviews saying there were no injuries on trayvons hands all the while critcizing the case for being handled unprofessionally by the police.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

More results from autopsy of Martin

This station in Miami is reporting Martin had marijuana in his blood and urine and a photo of Zimmerman taken that night. [20] It's only a suggestion, but discussion is needed about the marijuana aspect before inclusion, I think. I'm not saying it shouldn't go in the article, but more feedback from other editor's.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE! The drug test results should absolutely should be included. CNN is reporting the drug use as well (in addition to a number of other news sources). See the CNN report here: Autopsy: Drug THC found in Trayvon Martin's system. The Miami Herald story said the autopsy report showed Martin was actually 5-foot-11 (not 6'3") and weighed 158 lbs. The Miami Herald also reported Martin had a red lighter in his pocket. I hate censorship and oppose Wiki editors who advocate keeping properly cited material out of an article. Wikipedia is a major source of information for tens of millions of people. This article should include everything that can properly cited, and we should err on the side that it is relevant. If it's relevant to the court, the prosecutor, or the defense and featured in national news stories, it's relevant and appropriate to include in this article. MiamiManny (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
As with most things, I'd favor giving it a day or two to see how things play out, per WP:NOTNEWS. Arguably the toxicology findings are relevant, although it should probably be borne in mind that urine toxicology is typically positive for at least 2-7 days and sometimes longer after marijuana use. Blood toxicology is usually a tighter time frame, although (as I think the CNN article notes) the relatively low level of THC in Martin's blood doesn't necessarily indicate any significant level of intoxication, although it does speak to usage within the past several days. MastCell Talk 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I have come to believe the same thing about waiting a day or two as well. This is not the 10:00 news, so I don't sense a need for urgency in including it. I don't think the toxicology findings are that relevant to the legal case, but I don't object to it being included as part of the overall autopsy report. In fact, a sub-section would fit nicely with all the info from the report in one place.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Used marijuana in the last several hours, not days, if my memory of biochem is correct. The carboxylic metabolite is what hangs around, not THC. Pure THC means very recent usage. This autopsy report has actually been out awhile now, it's the same one with the "bloody knuckles", just the media didn't jump on it. Maybe they are milking this thing into a daily news cycle. Hmm. I just read a foresic doctor claim it could have days as well, but find that incongruent with the biochemistry, it should only take a few hours for the body to convert THC to the carboxyl form almost entirely.Whatzinaname (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
So a professor of forensic medicine says the blood level means it "might have been days" since Martin smoked pot ([21]). But that doesn't jibe with your personal recollection of "biochemistry". What to do? MastCell Talk 04:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Weasel words. He's using the cover of "trace"(not to mention "night" for even more weaseltude) levels to claim you can have trace levels for several days -- that's true, but misleading. You can't have trace levels that high, but you can have trace levels. As you say, give it a few days. Dollars to donuts it's not at all as he detailed Whatzinaname (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Why exactly do you think we should wait a day or two on relevant sourced information? Do you think the autopsy report details could possibly change within the next 48 hours?MiamiManny (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I just don't see a need for urgency. Time is on our side. Yesterday, early media reports indicated Martin had scrapes on his knuckles, now it is being reported as just one knuckle. The day before that we included a report that the FBI may charge Zimmerman with a hate crime as if it was somehow more significant than what was already included in the article about the same topic. Somehow the revelation that it was a death penalty crime became significant, now we hear the FBI cannot determine if it was a racial slur. Having said that, I can't stop anybody from editing this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that Autopsy results with the THC finding should be included, but it is OK to wait to see the different accounts converge to a more complete picture.ITBlair (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have to rely so much on media's interpretations of events anymore, since- in a lot of cases- we can see the original reports and documents. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 and WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article states that the autopsy said that the gunshot was fired from an "intermediate range," which is an awfully vague phrase to most readers.

ABC cites the distance as "between 1 inch and 18 inches away," which is a lot more informative. I think this information should be included in the article, because everyone knows what that means.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmermans-version/story?id=16371852&page=2

QfB6Kqqd5u (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that one of the articles cited in the medical section already states that THC was found in his system. Since one of the of references already mentions it, should it be included now? 214.13.69.132 (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • thc in trayvons system is now in the authoritative primary source, and has been reported I multiple secondary sources, thus passes the verifiability and reliability bar of BLP
  • Zimmerman reported that "he's on drugs or something" and "up to no good"
  • Martin actually being on drugs is directly relevant to that statement, - this goes to both the motives of zimmman, and his reliability/judgement . If travyon had not been on drugs, then zimmerman thinking a black kid on drugs is a probably sign of racism. Trayvons actually being on drugs shows that perhaps Zimmerman could correctly recognize odd behavior.
  • being on drugs is certainly not a crime justifying being shot - but it does perhaps justify the initial suspicion on zimmermans part
  • being on drugs may have caused Martin to otherwise act strangely in the way of his movement, or the way he was looking around, depending on the level of his trippiness. Agaithis goes to if Zimmerman had causes for being suspicious
  • we should certainly not imply that th drugs has a correlation with other possible criminal behavior (casing/robbery) as there is no evidence for that
  • while pot is not generally associated with violence, it is associated with paranoia, which may have affected trayvons actions later in the interaction.
  • I'm ok with waiting a day or two to see if the information changes quickly, but more delay than that seems like stonewalling frothe opposing editors. This is information asked on an autopsy from months ago, and the raw information is unlikely to change rapidly (although media analysis of that information certainly could)
  • obviously the bulk of the analysis I included above should not be included in the article as OR unless is can be found repeated in RS which I believe some of it has, however, I included it here to show relevance past the mere BLP criteria being met.
What does it mean to be "on drugs"? You have several experts saying that the levels found in Martin's system are unlikely to represent intoxication and are more likely representative of past use. I think you're getting out over your skis a bit. Like I said, I'm fine with including the fact that Martin's blood and urine showed evidence of marijuana use, but we need to also convey the interpretation of that finding by experts. That's what the sources do. MastCell Talk 17:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen any RS reporting that Martin "actually being on drugs" or it being relevant to any statements Zimmerman made in his call to the police. I agree your analysis should not be included in the article as well. I also have not seen any editor's who yet oppose including the autopsy results either. Here are a few links reporting on the results with experts analyzing the results. [23] [24] [25] [26] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is reasonable per WP:BLP to avoid surmise and speculation -- but now scads of strong reliable sources mention the marijuana, and it would be ludicrous for Wikipedia to ignore CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, etc. They all cover it, and we should make the factual claim in this article. AFAICT, the exact amount of THC found was not released, and even if it were released, there is no way for editors to determine more than the fact that the autopsy found that chemical. [27] implies that if the THC were in the blood, that it would have been recent use, but that if the THC were not in the blood, but other means of detection were used, that the use might have been even weeks ago. Does anyone here have an RS source on whether a "blood test" was the source of the finding, or was it a different test? Collect (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Per TIME, the blood level of THC was 1.5 ng/mL, and the blood level of the carboxylate of THC was 7.3 ng/mL. TIME describes these levels as being "so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication." The article quotes an expert thus: "THC in blood or urine tells us nothing about the level of intoxication... That says nothing about his functioning." Source: [28]
  • Per CBS, THC was found "in Martin's blood and urine". The expert quoted by CBS stated that the "THC amount was so low that it may have been ingested days earlier and played no role in Martin's behavior." The expert went on to say: "This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes." Source: [29]
  • CNN repeats that the blood levels of THC and THC-COOH were 1.5 ng/mL and 7.3 ng/mL, respectively. They write: "It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were." An expert quoted by CNN "cautioned against reading too much into the blood THC levels, adding that one cannot make a direct correlation between those findings and a level of intoxication. He also said that levels of THC, which can linger in a person's system for days, can spike after death in certain areas of the body because of redistribution." Source: [30]

Does that answer your question? I think the recency and potential import of the findings are addressed by multiple experts in multiple reliable sources, and if we include the positive finding, we should include the relevant context in which to interpret it, as these reliable sources do. MastCell Talk 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

    • Interesting also is [31] which says that two states established a legal limit of 2ng/ml for THC for impaired driving, and more than a dozen states set the limit at zero. Clearly an issue of substantial interest. See also [32] which implies that blood tests generally show no THC after 24 hours. The chart furnished there implies, if I read it correctly, that levels under 1 ng/ml are reached in blood at the 7 to 8 hour mark after one smoked dose, and the THC-COOH reaches the 7 ng/ml level at about the 4 hour mark for one "dose." Collect (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
      • So do you want to go with that WP:SYNTH, or do you want to just use the actual experts quoted in the actual reliable sources dealing directly with this actual incident? MastCell Talk 03:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
        • First of all -- SYNTH does NOT apply to talk page discussions, so drop that bit <g>. And some of the "experts" are not specifically experts on the drug level issues in the first place (I love seeing just how far some media go in giving expertise to uncredentialed pundits). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Please focus - I'm asking what you want to put in the article. That's what this talk page is supposed to be for - to discuss what sort of content is appropriate for the associated article. So what do you want to put in? The WP:SYNTH you described above, or material from actual experts quoted in actual reliable sources describing this actual incident? MastCell Talk 00:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Just saw this added to article. No case has been presented as to its relevance. It's nonsense. It's completely undue. Just makes this article look even sillier. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll try again. Can anyone explain why adding does anything more than attempt to build a case along the lines of "He was a druggie. He deserved to be shot"? He could have been high on heroin, and I still wouldn't see any relevance to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Read above. Also look back in archives. It is "high" time this (universally reported) information is included. Silly would be to continue to censor it. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Excerpt from Associated Press article Trayvon Martin Case: Evidence Of Marijuana Found In Martin's Blood:

"Martin's autopsy indicated that medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine. The amount described in the autopsy report is such a low level that it would have played no role in Martin's behavior, said Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
'This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes,' Kobilinsky said. 'If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out.'

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he had THC in his system. I submit that this is irrelevant to this article. Being true does not make it relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone already laid out several reasons above as to why it may be relevant to this case. So when you say "No case has been presented as to its relevance. It's nonsense.", *that* is nonsense. You're statement that the *only* reason to include it would be to imply "he deserved to be shot" is also nonsense. The idea that anyone who thinks it may be relevant is a "bigot" is also nonsense.
Are the NY Times, Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, BBC, etc. ,etc. bigots too? They all reported it. If you disagree with the arguments above, you are welcome to try to counter them. But pretending that they don't exist is nonsense. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not arguing the fact that it was reported. I'm asking - How does the fact that it was reported make it relevant to the article? HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Paraphrasing above: 1. Zimmerman has been accused of "profiling" Martin (racially and otherwise.) Zimmerman reported that "he's on drugs or something" and "up to no good". Martin testing positive for drugs is directly relevant to that statement. Trayvons actually being on drugs shows that perhaps Zimmerman was not racially profiling, but merely correctly recognizing odd behavior. (If Travyon had tested *negative* for drugs that would support the idea that Zimmerman was jumping to conclusions about Trayvon for no good reason. Being on drugs is certainly not a crime justifying being shot - but it does perhaps justify the initial suspicion on Zimmerman's part.
(If Martin *had* been smoking "the pot" that night, this may have also caused Martin to otherwise act strangely in some manner in front of Zimmerman, depending on the level of his trippiness.) * While pot is not generally associated with violence, it is associated with paranoia, unclear thinking, and other mental effects that might have influenced Trayvon's decisions actions in the interaction. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that better expressed response, but it still contains an awful lot of words like "if", "perhaps", and "suspicion". It's all very speculative. If this really has to be added, could it be placed in the sort of context you describe, rather than sitting out there like a shag on a rock allowing any less informed reader think "Ah, OK. He was on drugs. That's why he was shot." HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48, Regarding the excerpt that I posted above, did it indicate that marijuana did or did not play a role in Martin's behavior on the night of the shooting? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who has been following this case in the media knows that it has been widely reported the reason that Martin was in Sanford (suspension from school for traces of marijuana in a baggie). Zimmerman's call to police where he states that Martin looks like he is on drugs or something. Along with a slew of other speculation about this young man reported in various media outlets. People interested in this case have been waiting for the autopsy report to be released for their own various reasons. We can present this report in a section appropriately titled, maintaining a NPOV with expert's analysis and give the readers of WP a place to get unbiased information about this autopsy. I don't see it "sitting out there like a shag on a rock", it is placed in the appropriate section and adding any sort of context other than expert analysis risks pushing a POV about "if" "perhaps" and "suspicion" which we should avoid.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Isaidnoway, Was that suppose to be a response to my question to HiLo48? If so, please try again and may I add that the answer to the question does not involve taking a position on the issue, but just an understanding of what the excerpt said. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
BobK, no I wasn't responding to your question for HiLo48. Sorry, I didn't see your question when I posted my position. But, to answer that question for myself, yes I understand what the excerpt says and that it why I included it in the article. I didn't put the comments about the case in though, do you think they should be included? My first thought was to put them in, but I changed my mind because I thought the "behavior" aspect was more relevant than whether the results would be admissable in the court case. I can see an argument for including them though.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Re "I didn't put the comments about the case in though, do you think they should be included?" — My preference is no, if you are referring to, "If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out." These comments are a short term prediction which will become obsolete as the case progresses. One reason I included these comments in the excerpt was to give some perspective to the marijuana issue for the participants in the discussion here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


There is a section on the National Highway Transportation site, that describes THC and its effects.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm

A number of states States (Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin) have passed “per se” laws, in which it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle if there is any detectable level of a prohibited drug, or its metabolites, in the driver’s blood. In a few other states it is 2 nanograms or greater is considered driving while impaired.

Around 34% of crash victims have drugs in their system. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving

A more detailed synopsis on the effects of THC are in the NHTSA report report (pages 7 - 12). www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/drugs_web.pdf Basically, you get high and can have 40 ng, but these levels start to fall. After 12 hours they get to under 1 ng. File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

Check-out Table 5 in the following link, it deals with THC concentrations in the blood. According this graph the THC levels in TM's blood are consistent with somehow who used marijuna two to three hours prior to detecting this level of THC in the blood.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html

I will try to dig up more data, but in many states the levels of THC in Trayvon Martin's blood would make him legally too impaired to drive. ITBlair (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevada and Ohio have a 2 nanogram THC limit for driving. Pennsylvania has a 5 nanogram limit, but that's a state Health Department guideline, which can be introduced in driving violation cases.

See: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/05/15/colorado_house_passes_bill_on_marijuana_duis/

A note on the effects of marijuna from the Federal government. It causes poor judgement and sometimes paranoia. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana-abuse/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-your-brain-body

So far there is no solid agreement on how the levels of THC in the blood relate to performance/cognition impairment. Although it is clear that the higher the levels the greater the impairment. ITBlair (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Elements missing in the media coverage section/bias

The repeated attempts to portray zimmerman as "white" needs to be included, as well as the weasly copout of "white hispanic". Bernard Goldberg might be someone worth citing, given his history in the media and early pick up on this media canard. Additionally the repeated attempts by the media to claim two different but related things: that zimmerman was told not to follow martin, which is a biased interpretation of a phrase, as well as claiming zimmerman continued to follow martin after the "you don't have to do that" that they claim meant "don't follow him"Whatzinaname (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Goldberg is OK, I would think. Here is a timeline from a not so RS about the "white" portrayal in the intitial reporting. [33] As far as the "biased interpretation of a phrase", I don't see it as particularly relevant but then again, my english comprehension is not that great. :) -- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Breibart.com is not a reliable source for any encyclopedia article, much less for one with WP:BLP implications. Is this covered in reliable sources? MastCell Talk 03:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree about Breitbart, but the article does link to the original article put out by the AP where they described Zimmerman as white on March 8. [34] It also has a link to the Orlando Sentinel article on March 12, where they described him as white as well. [35] It also has a link to the comments by the Rev on March 12, where he said racial language was used before the tapes of the calls were even released. [36]Just because a source is deemed unreliable, doesn't mean they can't be used for information gathering to other RS which have been used in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
those sources seem irrelevent unless you're proposing OR Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't see the relevance in that the media claimed he was told "not to follow trayvon" when in fact he was never told that? Or that even further claim that he not only was told not to follow him but in fact continued follow him, which we also have no proof actually happened -- and neither does the prosecution according to testimony in court already. No proof he pursued him after the "we don't need you to do that" comment. NoneWhatzinaname (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Present an argument that establishes the relevancy along with the RS to support your argument. I do understand your concerns with the biased media coverage, but I just don't see the point in turning this article into a editorial soapbox about the media and their biased coverage of this case. I see this article being about the legal issues and the ramifications that will follow from those issues. Here is what we have in the article now about this subject. [37] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The media repeatedly lying about it is "relevancy". http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-shows-zimmerman-stopped-following-martin-after-dispatchers-request-corroborates-story/ I'm not sure what you are so confused about. Whatzinaname (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
What I am confused about is why you just don't add it to the Media coverage section. As long as it is presented in a NPOV and is relevant like you seem to think, then do it. I really don't see anybody fighting against it's inclusion. If someone raises an issue about it, then it can be discussed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, I remember watching CBS Evening News shortly after the shooting, and they, without qualification, claimed that Zimmerman used a racial slur on the phone with the police. Since it later came out that it could not be determined what he said, has CBS News explained why they were so sure at that time? Cla68 (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
To answer MastCell summarily declaring Breitbart an unreliable source, I have a couple of comments. First, Breitbart isn't a source, it is a publisher. And in this story particularly, you are less likely to see 'reliable' coverage of media bias from the same entities that created or participated in that same bias. It might require an outside type of journal in order to get a reliable opinion on the bias of those publishers that are considered mainstream (and therefore somehow more reliable). To simply exclude a source because you don't like its publisher or its author, or the content of the article is not diligent and encyclopedic. But if it represents a reasonable and well researched statement, it has every right to be considered. -- Avanu (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Please take the time to re-read WP:IRS. In the very first section, the guideline prominently notes that discussions of "reliable sources" explicitly include the reliability of the publisher.

Are you seriously contending that breitbart.com meets this site's sourcing criteria, for example that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I'll leave out the obvious unsuitability of this source for any sort of BLP-related material for now.

Maybe Cla68 could comment, since he's experienced in evaluating sources, but if you're making a serious argument that breitbart.com is a reliable source in this context, I'll be happy to go to the relevant noticeboard for outside input, as I've had to previously to deal with the way inappropriate sources are staunchly defended on this talkpage. MastCell Talk 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean this? The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings. Because from what I see there a "reliable source" must be reliable on all three of the criteria laid out. You *only* mentioned the publisher, and you failed to explain a rationale as to why it didn't meet the criteria for reliability on this article. I *never* said Breitbart was actually reliable, but if you're going to summarily exclude a source, it seems only reasonable that you explain why. -- Avanu (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your comment. You said: "Breitbart isn't a source, it is a publisher." WP:IRS explicitly states that there's no such distinction. It seems obvious to me that breitbart.com lacks the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" demanded by this site's sourcing guidelines. If you disagree, then you can either explain why you think it meets those criteria, or we can ask for outside input. If you don't want to use the source but are just playing devil's advocate or something, then let's not waste our time. MastCell Talk 03:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Go to RS/N - enough folks here find it reliable that mere assertion that it is not, does not prevail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
MastCell, you sound like you don't like anyone putting information into the article that defames the press. The problem with the tale of Trayvon and George is that the media really went off the rails in their attempts to portray George Zimmerman as a villain. He, in fact, may be a villain here, but we simply don't know. The press didn't seem to care. Whether it was to avenge Trayvon or to show people that racism still exists or whether it was to sell more advertising, the mainstream press went crazy. Now you want to assert that Breitbart is an unreliable publisher, unfit for use. Such things usually depend on context. You want to claim that ABC, NBC, CBS, etc are good and reliable publishers... for this story? They do not have a track record on this story that is reliable. You need to read the fullness of the WP:RS guideline, and not just cherry pick a bit out that supports what you want to happen. Because most of the mainstream media has been so unreliable on this story, we can't just assume they are going to be reliable for this story in the future. Same thing goes for an outlet like Breitbart. Has their coverage of this story been accurate and consistent, or sloppy like those others? You might also remember that the WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV policies trump the WP:RS guideline. To sum up, back up your assertion just a little please, don't just declaratively say "Publication X is completely unfit". Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Wait - I want to hear something from Collect (besides cop-outs). I don't expect much from most editors here, but Collect actually understands what a reliable souce is, and likes to present himself as a defender of good sourcing and WP:BLP. Collect, do you think breitbart.com is a reliable source? For BLP-related material? MastCell Talk 00:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you keep generalizing when we need specific statements. Nothing is likely to always be reliable for all purposes. But we're talking about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and this case. So the question would be "Is Breitbart a reliable source for material related to this case/this article?" Sheesh. -- Avanu (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Breitbart.com is a reliable source for Andrew Breitbart's opinion. A lot of pundits have opinions on this incident. Is Breitbart's opinion so significant that it should be included here? Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Breitbart.com isn't a reliable source for Andrew Breitbart's opinions, inasmuch as Breitbart no longer has any, being dead. It's as good as source as, say, the Huffington Post, as far as I know. Andyvphil (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't even notice that the guy had passed away. So, who is running his website now? Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bloody head at police station?

The back of Zimmerman's head at the police station

The picture of Zimmerman's bloody head is in the section Sanford police station, implying it was taken there. Earlier in the article it said that his head was treated at the scene of the shooting. Seems contradictory. Did a source say the picture was taken at the police station? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it seemed contradictory as well. If they did treat his head at the scene, it wasn't very well. This photo gallery from the Orlando Sentinel [38]says the pictures were released as part of the evidence and they look like they were taken inside somewhere. Where else could it have been? I will look some more.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is a couple of sources that say it was at the police station. [39] [40] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That settles my concern. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
[41] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Just confuses me. Only bloody head shot in the article is three versions of Z's head in the surveillance video. There is a cellphone shot taken at the scene and injury shots taken at the SPD, but none of them are in the article, last time I looked. Andyvphil (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you clarify your comment? Isn't the picture that is in the article an injury shot taken at the SPD? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon's Height and Weight

I corrected Trayvon's height and weight listed in the article page. Height was listed as between 5'11-6'. Weight was listed as between 158-160 lbs. Per the autopsy report already referenced his weight was 158 exactly and height was exactly 71 inches, or 5'11". Also, the article references the Martin family thinking Trayvon was 6'3". The way the sentence is written it could lead some to believe Trayvon's body shrank after death. This was reverted by Gaijin42 saying "Conclusion is logical, but is WP:OR. Need a WP:RS to make this statement." I changed my wording on that some to prevent the original research issue. That doesn't explain why a different edit of Trayvon's ht/wt was changed though. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 13:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason there was two height's and two weight's listed in that sentence is because one of the references at the end of that sentence is from the initial police report that night which lists Martin's height at 6 foot and his weight at 160 pounds. The other reference listed at the end of the sentence about what Martin's parents said about his height and weight says this:
"The report listed the height and weight of every person, including the 911 callers. The only person whose size is not noted is Zimmerman. At 5-foot-9, Zimmerman was much shorter but heavier than Trayvon. The report listed Trayvon at 6 foot and 160 pounds, though his family said he was actually 6-foot-3 and weighed at most 150 pounds.
So, according to the references listed at both of those sentences, the way they were written before the edit, were both correct in what they stated. I don't believe the way the sentence was previously written, according to the reliable source, would lead anyone to believe Martin's body shrank after death. Not sure the edit is an improvement over what was already there.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I went back and looked again and saw where Trayvon's weight is listed as 160 lbs. Of course that was just an initial report that estimated his weight. Now that we have an exact weight by the medical examiner we would want to publish his exact measurements. My problem with his family's statement is that they state he was 6'3" before death. He wasn't 6'3" before death, the family was wrong. Normally I'd say that probably shouldn't even be in the article. In this case I think it should stay because so many people think Trayvon was taller than he was from initial reports. We need to make sure they know how that misinformation was reported. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 00:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I just don't see any issue with putting all the information about his weight and height in the article. I must have missed that part in the reliable source that says the initial police report estimated his weight.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Matthewi, We need to go by reliable sources unless it's clear that they are wrong, which is not the case here. Your claim that Martin's height couldn't have been 6'3" before death appears to be your own opinion based on the autopsy measurement of body length when the body is in rigor mortis. Note that body length in rigor mortis and a person's height before death, are measurements of two similar but not identical things. In rigor mortis, the stiffened body could have been distorted and not straight, e.g. like a person slouching, and also may have undergone other changes that could have made the body length measurement shorter than the height before death. So far, no reliable source has disputed the height of 6'3" before death given by the parents. The autopsy report did not claim that the post mortem body length measurement was a measurement of the height before death. So we only have your opinion, and possibly that of other editors, that the height before death couldn't be 6'3" if the autopsy body length measurement was 5'11" in rigor mortis. Do you have any information from reliable sources about how much the measured body length of a corpse in rigor mortis can differ from the person's height before death? That would be helpful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure Trayvon's body didn't shrink five inches in under 15 hours but I completely accept your argument that a source is needed to say that. I didn't think of that to begin with but if everyone adds what they believe to be true there are beyond to be more mistakes. After my editorial note being challenged I wrote the sentence again but just in a way that it wouldn't seem to be saying he was 6'3" before death. It just says his family believed he was. In my opinion it was unintentionally stating something I believe to be untrue and, more importantly, that was also unsourced. I appreciate your feedback and it shows some people could believe the body could have shrank just as I believe it hasn't. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 02:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The autopsy height and weight for Martin are correct. Part of the autopsy protocol is actually weighing the corpse and measuring it. And drop all the silliness about "rigor mortis" --- rigor only lasts a few hours and was long over by the time Martin was autopsied.
Zimmerman's height as reported by the police is likely correct. They actually have a graduated marking behind the suspect when photos are taken, and the suspect's shoes are usually removed by this point. His weight, however, was probably self-reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.97.195 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Re "And drop all the silliness about 'rigor mortis' --- rigor only lasts a few hours and was long over by the time Martin was autopsied." — From Rigor mortis, "In humans, it commences after about three to four hours, reaches maximum stiffness after 12 hours, and gradually dissipates until approximately 48 to 60 hours after death." (The reference is Saladin, K.S. 2010. Anatomy & Physiology: 6th edition. McGraw-Hill.) The autopsy was performed 15 hours after death. According to the autopsy report, "Rigor mortis is complete, ...". (The autopsy report can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/trayvon-martin-autopsy_n_1525763.html .)
In other words, the body was in rigor mortis at the time of the autopsy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-worded whole paragraph to provide a better understanding of the varying heights and weights, while making it easier for the reader to view.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What was the purpose of adding the phrase, "released in May, 2012"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It improves the article by providing the reader with some historical perspective about when the autopsy report was released confirming Martin's height and weight. Up until that time, we only had the initial police report, Martin family statements and Zimmerman's perspective. It's important to remember that once this trial is over, this encyclopedia article about the incident will provide a look back at what happened and dates are very important and relevant in providing the reader some historical perspective of the timeline.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't the last released of the measurements/estimates. I think Zimmerman's was released only recently. I don't think you can say that the autopsy report is a confirmation since it has different values, especially with the family's reported estimates. If one wanted to give a relevant measurement/estimate timeline, the times that the measurements/estimates were made would be used, not just the release date of the autopsy report. Mentioning only the release date of the autopsy report, which was 3 months after the autopsy, which was performed the morning after the shooting, may give the impression that the autopsy measurements weren't taken soon after the shooting. From the above considerations, the release date of the autopsy report doesn't seem useful in that part of the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I clarified for the reader that the autopsy was performed the day after the shooting and then it was released in May, 2012.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Made some mods. The paragraph is now in chronological order for the measurements/estimates. Still didn't find the autopsy release date useful here but included your addition of when the autopsy was performed, except using "morning after" instead of "day after", to reflect the prompter timeframe. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Anytime we can put a date in the article to provide the reader with a historical perspective and timeline, we really should. If you will notice, I know that you have been away for awhile, we are updating the aricle with more dates to provide that perspective for the reader. It certainly doesn't take anything away from that paragraph and actually adds more information for the reader, which is our goal here. I will re-word it later when I have more time.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
We already have in the height/weight paragraph that the autopsy was performed the morning after the shooting. In the section Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Discovery_evidence it has already been mentioned that the autopsy report was among the evidence released in May 2012, which is the appropriate place to put that release date info, rather than in the paragraph on Trayvon Martin's height and weight where it would be a digression.
P.S. Please don't make personal comments that may deprecate an editor's ability to contribute to an article. If you feel you must, then do it on the editor's talk page where it can be freely discussed without disrupting the discussion on the article talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I knew that the release date was mentioned later on in the article, but providing the reader with that information here is certainly not a digression. When mentioning the autopsy report here in this section or mentioning any of the evidence that was released, and then informing the reader the date it was released is appropriate in any section where it is mentioned. Additonally, the references provided there for the autopsy report are both dated in May, 2012, so that is the reason I included the release date was to inform the reader that while the autopsy was performed the day after, it wasn't publicly released until May, 2012. My comments in no way are disruptive or hinder and/or deprecate any editor's ability to edit the article and make a meaningful contribution to improve the article. Your contributions to this article and talk page have always been welcome and are always taken as WP:AGF.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind remarks.
Please note that just because there is info in a source, doesn't mean it should be included in multiple places in an article. I still don't see the point of mentioning the autopsy public release date in the height weight paragraph, especially since it is already appropriately mentioned elsewhere.
You mentioned regarding the autopsy report public release date that "providing the reader with that information here is certainly not a digression" but you don't give a reason for this conclusion. I think it's a digression because the paragraph is about Martin's height and weight, not the autopsy report. You also mentioned regarding the autopsy report, "informing the reader the date it was released is appropriate in any section where it is mentioned" but again you don't give a reason for your thinking. Also, note that the present form of the paragraph does not mention the autopsy report, so your desire that the release date should be mentioned wherever in the article the autopsy report is mentioned doesn't apply here.
Please note that there is presently a nice timeline in the paragraph for when the various measurements/estimates were made. I think that our recent joint efforts are a good contribution to the paragraph. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Defense witness list

The defense has filed a witness list with over 130 people listed [42]. Noteworthy enough right now for inclusion? It's interesting that they listed Martin's parents and other relatives, all hostile witnesses. Crump, Norm Wolfinger and the city manager were listed as well. I favor a sentence or two about this development for inclusion, but where would be appropriate - pre-trial or trial?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone commented on it really other than just the routine coverage of the case? Its not surprising or notable that they are going to call witnesses in general, and the list doesn't mean they are really going to call them, just that they reserve the right to (perhaps to rebut some other piece of evidence that may come into play). Id say its probably not important enough yet, unless its gotten a bunch of buzz from someone important. If it does get added, Since Trial is empty so far, I'd say pre-trial, and we can move it to trial later when that section expands. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The Orlando Sentinel article was only two hours old when I read it, so waiting to see if anyone else comments or picks up the story would be OK with me. I think we might see a little interest in this. The media hasn't gone completely away on this story, look at Zimmerman's brother and his tweets.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin's parents settle wrongful death claim

According to Fox News, "Trayvon Martin's parents have settled a wrongful death claim for an amount believed to be more than $1 million against a Florida homeowners association where their teen son was killed." [43] Any thoughts on mentioning this, possibly in a sentence or two in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Its relevant to the case of course, so it should be somewhere in the article. Dream Focus 21:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Rene Stutzman, "Trayvon Martin's parents settle wrongful-death claim: Homeowners association is thought to have paid more than $1 million", Orlando Sentinel, 5 Apr 2013. The settlement is between Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowners Association and lawyer Crump, for father Martin and mother Fulton. The exact amount has been blacked out in the copies of the papers released. Quote the disclaimer in the settlement: "It is understood and agreed that the payment made herein is not to be construed as an admission of any liability by or on behalf of the releasing parties; but instead the monies being paid hereunder is consideration for avoiding litigation, the uncertainties stemming from litigation as well as to protect and secure the good name and good will of the released parties." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naaman Brown (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Should be taken into account that insurance companies often settle for financial reasons, if they think that fighting the case will cost more than just settling, regardless of who's at fault. Star767 02:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Major Problem in the Article's Thesis

George Zimmerman wasn't the neighborhood watch for where he lived. George Zimmerman associated himself with the neighborhood watch but he was not a member of the neighborhood watch and there has been no evidence of the contrary. Please correct the thesis of the article which claims that George Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch. He was not a member of the neighborhood watch just because he self identified himself as a member of the neighborhood watch. George Zimmerman was not a member of the neighborhood watch, he was just a paranoid man with delusions of grandeur and a gun, riding around his neighborhood in a car. The fact that he self describes himself as a member of the neighborhood watch is a demonstration of his detachment from reality that is a driving motivation throughout the events that lead up to the murder of Trayvon Martin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZorroinArkham (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple primary and secondary reliable sources attesting to the fact that he was selected as the community watch coordinator, including from the police department. Many of these sources are in the article already. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

New info box on Martin

I see that a new info box has been added to Martin's picture, but yet one was not added for Zimmerman. Should Zimmerman have one? Or for that matter, should Martin? I also see that Martin's height and weight is listed from the initial police report and not the autopsy. Being that all the info in the box is already in the article about Martin, is this info box necessary.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur that it is un-needed, as all of the information is in the article already. there was a major debate on this in the early days of the article and consensus came out against. while there is always the opportunity to overturn consensus, I see no evidence that such has happened. If it is included, certainly both should be, but overall this is an article about the event, not the people. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
OMG! How could you say this is not about the people? Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon. People! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
DocOfSoc, you seem to be focusing on emotion from your last comment. This article is not about people, per se, it's about the shooting. \\ That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with a personal info box. It was mentioned that if one person has an info box they both should have one; Trayvon currently has one. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 12:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Matthew, I agree they should both have an info box. However, without people being involved there would have been no "event", no shooting. To me, it is ludicrous to say this is not about the people involved.To depersonalize the violence in our society is part of the problem. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Doc, you might or might not be correct about violence in our society but Wikipedia is just to aggregate well sourced information into a certain format. Wikipedia is not to correct anything in society that we might feel is lacking -- expect the goal to bring free and accessible information to everyone. That's the only goal and all we should think about doing without the rules and format for this site. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 08:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Article length

I'm just a noob here, so maybe I'm wrong, but this article seems to be far too long for the subject, with a lot of unnecessary details. It seems to me that every possible detail is being included, more like a report than an encyclopaedic entry. For example, I don't see why paragraphs about the height and weight of those involved are necessary, or the sections about the attorneys. It's well written, but seems excessive.

I know this is a recent/ongoing case, and a hot topic. I know nothing about it, and can't edit it anyway. So I'm just wondering if some of you could maybe look into cutting down extraneous details to make it a bit more readable? Thanks. voodooexperiment (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is long and I betting it will remain so until after Zimmerman's trial. Many of us have agonized over almost every piece of info for over a year in an effort to keep it balanced. e.g. the height and weight are important when a man and a boy confront each other. You say you know nothing about it. Did you read the whole article? Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I did read the article. Well, the bits that I didn't fall asleep at :P I've been reading about shootings recently, and this article is much longer than any of them, even ones we know full details about like the Columbine massacre (which often gets slagged off for being too detailed). I know it's an ongoing and highly sensitive case. Trimming it down was just a suggestion. Maybe I'm looking at it from a readers point of view, not an editors? voodooexperiment (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I can assure you there is nothing in the article that was not discussed extensively! We appreciate your input and when you are more experienced and the trial is over, we can work on shortening it. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I am just a noob and you are all so much more experienced than me! I know you have all put so much thought into this. Maybe some subpages are in order? This article is longer than the 9/11 attacks, but that has quite a few subpages. As a reader, the eyewitness accounts sections put me in mind of Rashamon, the same story told from lots of angles. I just don't think it's Wikipedia's place to report every little detail, but rather give a concise overview of a subject with the most important details. I've got to give you all credit though, this article is very well written, and I'm sure it will be shortened once the hype has died down. Thanks again ^_^ voodooexperiment (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading to suggest Martin provoked the attack

I have reverted an edit to the lede of this article which blatantly inferred that Martin provoked the attack. There is no evidence to suggest that Martin provoked the attack, and indeed, the fact that Zimmerman is being tried for murder rather than manslaughter suggests otherwise - that prosecutors believe there was no legal provocation or justification for the killing. There are no reliable sources provided to support the inferred claim that Martin provoked Zimmerman. polarscribe (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013

Please add the Facebook Support page for the Trayvon Martin Murder Trial, State vs George Zimmerman. The link is: https://www.facebook.com/statevsgeorgezimmerman?ref=tn_tnmn Statevszimmerman (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The site does not appear to be an official site of any sort, or directly representing the Martin family or the Prosecution. It has 1 like, and was created yesterday. Not worthy of inclusion at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Further voice analysis

So the applicability of this to the Trial is pending due to the pending Frye hearing, but the experts have released two new reports detailing what they would testify. Is this notable to the article, even though it may not be used at trial? Since we are already discussing their opinions, my view is that we should include their most official version of those opinions (or cut the entire section until it is used at trial)

TLDR : mixed bag. report one says first two identified yells might be M, and last two yells might be Z, but evidence is weak. Report two says last yell was M.

First report

  • 16 utterances identified, only 6 suitable for analysis, about 8 seconds of speech. "Samples this brief rarely lead to attempts at identification, [...] 10 seconds is the bare minimum"
  • mimimum to marginal material for identification purposes
  • none of these conclusions reach the criterion for a match
  • The usual procedure was modified
  • evidence suggests that Martin produced first two, Zimmerman made last two, confidence level is not very robust
  • scores of 0-3 mean no match. 4-6 is neutral, but generally positive. 7-10 indicate strong match
    • (all of these appears to be subjective scoring by the analysts, not any kind of automated analysis)
  • Zimmerman
    • scores for cries 1 & 8 not zimmerman
    • scores for cry 13 average 5, but due to variance inconclusive
    • scores for 14 and 16 65-75% zimmerman, and "less likely that he (Z) was not the person who made these two cries)
  • Martin
    • more difficult since no "matching" samples could be obtained, comparing against old telephone calls etc.
    • "for cries 13, 14, 16 quite clearly demonstrate he [M] did not make them" (and above it was rated as likely that Zimmerman made them)
    • "on the other hand there is some evidence he was responsible for the first two cries (1 & 8)" ... "70% confidence M made first two calls" ... "did not reach the "definately match" category, data do not provide any real evidence that he did NOT make these utterances"(consistent with the Z analysis above)

Second report

Identification in the second report appears to be restricted to one statement "stop" immediately before gunshot. "conclude tentatively that the world was produced by [M]."

As pointed out by the Talk left site, the second report has some very "interesting" claims in it, these appear not to be identification statements, but additional phrases (from Z) he was able to extract from the recordings not reported elsewhere.

"For example, approximately one second after the start of CALL3, Mr. Zimmerman makes a seemingly religious proclamation, "These shall be." His speech is characterized by the low pitch and exaggerated pitch contour reminiscent of an evangelical preacher or carnival barker.

The statement is challenging for the untrained listener to detect as it occurs simultaneously with Trayvon Martin's loud, high-pitched, distressed, and tremulous "I'm begging you." and the 911 Dispatcher's "Nine-one-one." Many of Mr. Zimmerman's "side-bar" utterances are subject to such multiple-talker masking effects and to low signal levels. "

"'These assholes, they always get away' is proceeded by a whispered "Dear God" and followed by a whispered "but not on me"

RFC : Fork article - State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

As it becomes clear that there will be an trial of some sort, and that trial is likely to include a massive dump of information (in addition to what we already have in the article about the case, that is already lengthy). I propse that we fork out a sub article for the case, including pretty much everything from our existing "Charges" section onward, and leave just a high level summary and hat-tip. This article is purporteldy about the shooting itself, and the case is already overwhelming, and will only do so more going forward.

Being super bold as nobody has responded in 2 days. stubbed and hat-tipped. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I support this bold move as well. But the question now shifts to what would be appropriate content for this article. For instance, should the sections on the attorneys involved in the trial be included here or is it more appropriate to have that info listed in "the trial" article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
States attorneys should be in the trial article (only?). I can see valid reasons for the Martin/Zimmerman attorneys being in this article, as they were both engaged and had notable involvement prior to charges. Crump probably does not need to go into the trial article at all, except as referenced in deposition/evidence motions, as he is not a party to the trial. OMara probably be in both as he has notable actions both involving the trial and not. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we could mention the first state attorney, Norm Wolfinger, and the events that led to the Governor appointing Corey to take over the case, in this article. I agree about Crump and O'Mara, but I think we will see Crump somehow interject himself into the pre-trial and trial publicity.
Is it your suggestion for this article that we only include the events that happened before Zimmerman was charged? Because when Zimmerman was charged in April, that is technically when State of Florida vs. Zimmerman began. So, shouldn't the sections about the present state attorney, defense attorneys, judges and evidence released in the case...etc. and events that happened after Zimmerman was charged be in the new article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


Not necessarily strictly by chronology. There could certainly be events after the charges filed that apply to the shooting in general but not the case. Crump may certainly inject himself, but that is not relevant to the case itself, except as a witness, or reaction, or something. In general yes, I would think most of the info about state/defense/evidence should move over. This will improve both articles, as most of those people have no relevance to the shooting itself, nor to the larger event outside of the case itself. However, the evidence is complicated, as lots was revealed to and notable prior to charges (voice analysis by orlando times etc). Defense is also going to be relevant outside of the case, due to likely civil suits and being the spokesperson for one of the primary participants. (Similarly Crump gets mentioned in the main article as the spokesperson for the Martin family) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

major discovery dump

GZ legal just made a huge discovery dump. Logs of all Martin's cell phone text messages (20 pages!) (notably saying his mom kicked him out for truancy), photos from his phone (including him? holding a gun, and with pot plants), tons of high rez photos of GZ from the night of (in particular high rez pics of injuries to head, and lack of injuries to hands, and damage to his clothes), as well as (redacted to the public) copies of Martin's school records, suspensions, youtube videos, etc. tons of high rez photos of the scene/area. Also redacted was the evidence from the school police case (probably the grafitti/jewelry incident?)

The dump has gotten lots of coverage, even from sources that have mostly left the case alone recently

Not sure if anything should go in yet, or if it should go here, or in the FlvGZ article.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The judge has ruled (at least temporarily) that the two sides cannot bring up evidence of Martin's familiarity with guns, previous marijuana use, and previous fighting incidents.

[44] and [45]. Considering that there was a hearing held on this matter, I think it should go in the St. vs. Z article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I added the ruling to the FvsGZ article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2013

Please change "May 23, 2012" to "May 23, 2013" in the following line in the intro:

"On May 23, 2012, George Zimmerman's attorney filed a motion to push the trial back six more weeks.[32]" Jalars (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 03:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Juror E7

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

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

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. [46] 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)

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, [47], 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)

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)

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.[48] 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.[49] 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)

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)

Definition Of and Description of Legitimate Uses of the Word "Profiling"

Is there some law against "profiling" ? And exactly what IS profiling? Can one be sued in civil court for "profiling", is it a criminal offense? I think the word "profiling" a made-up, mass-media created word to describe the sentiments of an angry mob and justify the reverse-lynching of a man because he is partially white, that killed the person that was assaulting him in self-defense, because he was black? I think it's "B". I think the use of this word in this article to be completely inappropriate and any use of this word should be considered blatant bias in favor of the ignorant and angry mob, and I ask for consensus to adopt as a matter of policy for this article to remove this word from the article completely, until someone can produce a substantive, reliable definition of this word, and demonstrative how it's use in this article is both constructive and necessary.Jonny Quick (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There are laws against law enforcement profiling, but none that prevent civilian profiling. however, this alleged profiling can be used as an element of the murder/manslaughter charges showing ill will or negligence etc. (absent the self defense claim, this would clearly be used as part of showing culpability of murder/manslaughter. With the self defense claim, SD overrides all other elements of the crime - however, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense, then all of that is applicable again.) Allegations of profiling have been made by numerous reliable sources, including most importantly the prosecution. Your logic is completely against wikipedia rules which would require us to do original research to see if actions taken fit the definition. this is something completely verboten. We rely on what reliable sources say. And reliable sources have repeatedly brought up the allegation of profiling. The remainder of your comment is WP:FORUM and may violate WP:BDP Gaijin42 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


Testimony of U.S. Army Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter

Zimmerman claimed on Fox News that when he killed Martin he did not know about a "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law in Florida.

U.S. Army Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter, a Judge Advocate General officer and teacher of Zimmerman's at Seminole State College, contradicted Zimmerman's claim.

Trainor (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught that too. I imagine that we will see more witnesses for the prosecution that will contradict other statements that Zimmerman has made, in case he doesn't testify. In order for inclusion in the article though, we will need a RS that has reported on this contradiction.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
how do you "know" zimmerman remembered everything in every class he ever had? Be specific with your speculation.Whatzinaname (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
i'm still waiting IsaidnowayWhatzinaname (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_10&oldid=1092031515"