Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Trayvon Martin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Proposed renaming: Shooting of Trayvon Martin ---> Assault upon George Zimmerman and homicide of Trayvon Martin

Proposed as more honestly reflective of the actual article content.117.120.18.132 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, the article hasn't determined that there was an assault on Zimmerman. (For example, his injuries may have occurred from Martin defending himself.) Whereas the shooting of Trayvon Martin is an undisputed fact. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Left-handed criticism of the article content perhaps?Apostle12 (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Not proven in court or via any source beyond George Zimmerman's own statement, and we don't know how this assault came along, so the article content on the assault would be something like one sentence. -- Avanu (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word misleading to describe NBC edits

There was an edit to remove the word misleading to describe NBC edits of Zimmerman's phone call, but it seems fair to use that word since the edits did mislead NBC viewers. Psalm84 (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two viewpoints to the word "misleading". One is from the point of view of the misled, and one is from the point of view of the creator(s). I accept that people were misled by the audio editing but I do not accept that the audio editors intended to trick people, to emphasize Zimmerman's racial profiling tendencies or to create the impression of a racist man. Because of the possibility that people will think NBC intended to mislead, we cannot use that word without context.

I am an audio editor and I know from experience that news stories are driven by the overarching wish to be brief. The most severe form of this drive is aimed at audio-only material on video news outlets. The visual nature of TV makes producers go crazy to slash audio-only material to the bare bone.

The widespread nature of this is indicated by both the Today show and Florida's NBC6 show performing the same types of edits as each other; different editing crews coming independently to the same solution. Everybody does this!

The New York Times said, "The people with direct knowledge of the firing characterized the misleading edit as a mistake, not a purposeful act." The same newspaper but a different article said, "People I talked to in and around NBC say it was idiocy, not ideology, that led to the edit, and that seems like a reasonable explanation, so I’m not buying that part about it being one more example of the liberal plot to subvert America." These conclusions works against any use of the word "misleading" used in Wikipedia's voice, without context. There is no motive to mislead. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether the edits were intentional or not, NBC is still responsible for them. They know they have to be careful with what they're taking out, and more than one person would have been involved. It's hard to see how the missed the racism they created. Psalm84 (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think your comments serve to support the NPOV descriptor "misleading;" it doesn't matter whether we are looking at it from the point of view of the misled or the point of view of the creators. The article never said "intentionally misleading," nor has it ever said "purposefully misleading" or "unintentionally misleading." That at least three news people were fired over their "idiocy, not ideology" speaks to how misleading this edit turned out to be, especially when it involved a case that is so racially charged. Doubtless some Americans (and perhaps others abroad, who are more likely to miss the retractions) will go to their graves believing Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." Just as they will always believe he said "fucking coons," even though that story has been thoroughly discredited, with even the prosecution quoting Zimmerman as saying "fucking punks." As a result of their having been misled, a significant number of people will continue to believe that Zimmerman is a racist who murdered an innocent black boy, no matter what the jury decides based on evidence presented at trial. We need to call it what it was--misleading and certainly not possibly misleading. It's the most NPOV thing we can do. Apostle12 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "fucking coons" or "fucking punks" has anything at all to do with trimming an audio track to fit a TV show. None of those phrases were in the original or added to the audio edits. Let us stay on track here, and discuss only the similar audio editing trims performed by Today editors and also by NBC6 editors in Florida. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The relevance of "fucking coons" is that it was also misleading, and misleading information has a long half-life. Please don't accuse me of going "off track;" it is perfectly valid to note such similarities on "Talk." Apostle12 (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Today and NBC6 are both NBC. I don't think there is much doubt by most that it was intentional. Obviously they are going to say that it wasn't intentional, but it is extremely hard to believe that it was not, just as the description of Zimmerman as a "White Hispanic". Arzel (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is that two separate editing crews independently made similar cuts, as stated in the Miami Herald. We are not here to tell the reader what you think, we are here to summarize what reliable sources have published, which is that the editing was a "mistake". The New York Times is one of our best sources. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

So, the result of both their editing efforts was the broadcast of misleading audio. What difference does it make if there were two separate crews or not? Actually didn't I read that one reporter was active on both crews--"Lilia Luciano, who had been the reporter on some broadcasts of both versions of the audio was also fired." But it doesn't matter--misleading is misleading, no matter how many people participated and whether or not the two crews knew of each other's existence. Misleading needs to stay. Apostle12 (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The word "misleading" is a descriptive term that is the opinion of the RS reporting on the editing. See WP:YESPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts...opinions should not be stated in WP's voice. Change it to Audio editing by NBC, to maintain a NPOV, let the text tell the story of the RS, which in this case, it expresses quite clearly.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense! If this is an "opinion" it is an opinion that is shared by all. It was misleading. The only dispute is whether or not the misleading was intentional. We never go there, nor should we. Whether by mistake or by intention, the broadcasts were misleading. Misleading needs to stay.Apostle12 (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It can be an opinion shared by all, that's fine, apparently it is. It shouldn't be an opinion voiced by WP. We let the RS report in the text of the article on whether it was intentional, mistake, misleading, giving the wrong idea, deceptive, deliberately, inadvertently. WP maintains a NPOV in titles and lets the RS speak in the text.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is from an Associated Press article:

"NBC News did not immediately respond to questions about whether the "Today" show has addressed the misleading reports on the air, or whether there are any plans to do so."

There really is no question that the reports were misleading. "Giving the wrong idea or impression," "designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently" were two results I found for "misleading." All reliable source say that the edits did those things. Psalm84 (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they do not say the edits were intentionally misleading. That is what I said above: there are two aspects to "misleading" and only one of them is what is established. The second aspect, that of intention to mislead, is denied by reliable sources, notably The New York Times in two articles. Your two results are only half right in this case. There is absolutely no way we can tell the reader that the edits were intentionally misleading. Binksternet (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not telling the reader that the edits were intentionally misleading. You seem so stuck on your own non-neutral definition of "misleading" that you cannot accept any other. What about the word "inadvertently" in the definition above? Something can be misleading without it being intentionally misleading.Apostle12 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Many reliable sources use the word "misleading" to refer to the NBC audio edits. Here are four:

"The producer's dismissal followed an internal investigation that led to NBC apologizing for having aired the misleading audio." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-tape_n_1409405.html

"NBC to Internally Investigate Misleading Segment on Zimmerman 911 Call" http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/nbc-investigating-segment-on-zimmerman-call.html

"NBC News to probe misleading edit of Zimmerman 911 tape" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/inside-politics-nbc-news-to-probe-misleading-edit-/

"NBC Miami reporter fired over misleading edit of George Zimmerman's 911 call" http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/nbc_miami_reporter_fired_over_misleading_Cms7JOSg8JVo6CpzXIjvwO

More? Do I need to add the above simply to source the word "misleading?" Apostle12 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits "give a false impression." That's what "misleading" is. The article doesn't say or imply it was done deliberately, and it includes an explanation from NBC. If it doesn't look good for NBC, that's NBC's fault. Even a Washington Post columnist who seems to think it may be a mistake (link) said it was "high editorial malpractice." Psalm84 (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Psalm84, one of your dictionary sources, the one defining "misleading" as "designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently", is based on the Thesaurus section of thefreedictionary.com which is not reliable. The definitions higher up on that page, the ones from the American Heritage Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary do not give any sense of "inadvertently". My copy of The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary says "mislead" means "lead astray, give wrong impression to". My copy of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language says, "1. to lead in a wrong direction; lead astray. 2. to lead into error (of judgement); deceive or delude 3. to lead into wrongdoing; influence badly". My copy of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says, "to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit." Here we find contrary definitions to thefreedictionary.com, one which emphasizes the "deliberate deceit" part. There's no "inadvertently" here. Writing "misleading" in Wikipedia's voice will make the reader think the audio editors were deliberately misleading when they were not. When used alone with no context, the word "misleading" poisons the readers mind against the audio editors. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

the listed definations are exactly correct. "Lead astray" "influence badly". That is exaclty what happened. People who heard the altered audio, were mislead, lead to incorrectly believe, lead into error, decieved, etc that Zimmerman offered the race without being promted, and used that as a direct reason for his suspision. Again, there is no impression of intent in ANY of those characterizations. "Mislead" was used in the context of this story by HUNDREDS of reliable sources. They obviously do not have an issue with that word, neither should we. You yourself acknowledge the difference in your own statement - "ill make the reader think the audio editors were deliberately misleading when they were not" If the problem you allege was real, and not pedantics, then there would have been no need for you to qualify the misleading as deliberate. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a situation where reliable sources and commen sense agree: the edits were misleading. The article must state that or we are substituting our POVs for that of RSs in direct contravention of WP policy.LedRush (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If Binsternet's post didn't convince an editor re use of the word I can't think of anything else to add. Binsternet is correct: The use of the word in our article would be "misleading". Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If I understand Binksternet's argument correctly, he just wants to remove the word "misleading" from the section title, not the text in the paragraphs that follow. I agree it should be removed as section titles are the voice of WP and should remain NPOV, i.e. "Audio editing by NBC". This accurately and neutrally reflects what the following text by the RS will be about. This is no different than some time ago, when an editor attempted to name this section "Media malpractice". If the RS want to report that the audio editing was misleading, that's understandabe, but WP shouldn't editorialize that description in it's section title.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Malpractice is a clear POV (possibly accurate, possibly not). Misleading is not a POV. The audio was edited in a misleading manner. That is a 100% factual statement, backed up by hundreds of sources, with no opinion involved. Listeners of the audio as edited by NBC are mislead as to the content of the 911 call. The potential POV comes into play if the edit was intentional or not, and what the particular intent was. "Audio editing" would cover such things as deletion of whitespace, noise cleanup, etc. It would be WP misleading our readers to imply that that was the type of editing being done. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point. "Audio editing" would cover several things, that is why we let the RS describe it in the text. They made an editorial decision to use misleading when they could have used several other definitions as listed above. Misleading is a POV and should be reported by the RS in the text, not by WP in the section title.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Under this standard, quite a few of our sections titles are POV. Allegations of racism, etc. As the allegations themselves are factual (the alegation, not neccisarily the actual events) and notable, I am fine with those titles, but I do believe the same standard should be used throughout.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, there is nothing about the definitions you found that makes using "misleading" inaccurate. As you said yourself, misleading can either be intentional or not. And you mention the phrase "often by deliberate deceit." The word deliberate is there, and on the word deceit, I also looked up "deceptive" and found reliable sources that called the edit that too. Two were Howard Kurtz from Newsweek and the journalism school Poynter.org. Many other sources also said NBC doctored the tape. "When used alone with no context, the word "misleading" poisons the readers mind against the audio editors." There would be hundreds of reliable sources that could be brought in that call the edits inexcusable. There are none that defend them. Psalm84 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, Wikipedia uses the word in other articles too when it is not just quoted by a source. There are no RS that defend the edits. They all say that the edits completely altered the conversation and made Zimmerman look like he found Trayvon look suspicious because of his race. "Racist," too, might be kept out the article since it offers an opinion. It might be better to say "acting on biases based on race" instead of "racist." "Misleading" is not an opinion, it's a conclusion. Is there any way to say they weren't misleading? Psalm84 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding the use of "misleading"

Relative to the discussion above, should this article say in Wikipedia's voice that the audio edits were "misleading", or "unintentionally misleading", or "characterized by observers as misleading", or should we just avoid the word misleading altogether?

RfC discussion

I think we should say that the audio edits were "unintentionally misleading" when discussing the creation of the audio tracks, and "characterized by observers as misleading" when reporting the reaction in the media. I do not think we should say in Wikipedia's voice that the editors intended to be deceitful, as we are told by The New York Times that the edits were the result of "a mistake, not a purposeful act." We should not convict the editors of deceitful practices when we know otherwise. The firing of various people was not an admission of guilt, it was a signal that the networks were apologetic for the mistakes that were made. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
misleading or characterized as misleading I do not think we have enough information to say intentional or unintentional and choosing either one is POV. Certainly we have NBC's apology saying it was unintentional, but what other than a CYA would you expect? Also we have much analysis calling it spin/libel/etc. We can narrate both options in the detail, but choosing either one for the section title is POV. Beyond that it is an irrefutable fact that it was misleading - again intent is up for grabs. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"misleading audio edits. The edits were misleading. Whether made so without regard to that result, or made so in the hope of it, does not matter; the edits were misleading. If, indeed, they were mistakes, firing for a first such mistake may seem harsh (although I'd not have hesitated to fire someone who did so intentionally), and I wonder if the internal investigation shows that the edits were questioned before being aired (and in that case, why there were so few firings!) "... often by deliberate deceit ..."; we don't know if it was such, which would make it a case where it was not by deliberate deceit. Deceit it was, deliberate or accidental, and consequently misleading. htom (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Using "misleading" doesn't talk about intent of the editors, it just accurately describes the edits. Psalm84 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you figure? The word "misleading" encapsulates both inadvertent and deceitful practices. Both of those meanings end up with the listener misled, but only one of them accuses the audio editors of trickery. We should make it clear to our readers that the audio editors are not thought by reliable sources to be guilty of trickery. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your assertions make no sense to me. There is no intent embedded in the word "misleading;" it has to do with effect. If something gives the wrong impresssion, it misleads; and that is exactly what happened in this case. We don't know anyone's intent, and we don't purport to know. No one here is accusing the audio editors of trickery, and the article doesn't say they engaged in trickery. When you wrote earlier that you don't believe the misleading edits constituted evidence of a liberal conspiracy, you set up a straw man argument--to the best of my knowledge no editor has ever assereted such a thing, and I know the article never has. All the article says is that the audio edits were misleading, based on multiple sources. Not sure why you are so vehemently stubborn on this point, saying the same thing over and over as though multiple assertions will somehow imbue the word "misleading" with new meaning. Apostle12 (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Misleading" describes the edits. They were misleading. The intentions of the editors is a different concern. Most RS describe the edits as misleading but like WP don't take any position on whether they were intentional or not. A Washington Post column I linked to said a shortcoming of the apology by NBC was that it didn't actually try to explain what happened. The only one I've seen referred to is the one from the NY Times, and that only quotes people inside NBC. As other editors have said, that doesn't count for much. NBC could face some liability in this situation, and the person in NBC was actually just an anonymous source. Misleading can be either intentional or not, but it's the evidence that determines which it is. WP has fairly presented what the edits were and NBC's response that it was an error. That's all it can do unless there are RS that offer more information, including more information from NBC on how it happened. Psalm84 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. We are not saying the editors were misleading. We are saying their edits were misleading. Apostle12 (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Misleading or Intentionally Misleading So we allow the statement that Zimmerman intentionally mislead the judge regarding his finances, but noooo, we can't say that NBC intentionally mislead millions of people because they say it was a mistake? Give me a break. Arzel (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

NBC knew it was a big deal when they were caught on it. 'Misleading' is fine enough, just don't present it too strongly as intentional or unintentional, since you can't say for sure which it was. At best, it was sloppy, at worst, it was a vicious character attack. Saying 'misleading' isn't unfair. -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Move all of the NBC call edit info into the Reporting on Zimmerman call to dispatcher sub-section. As it stands now, that information appears in two places; 'Allegations against Zimmerman', and 'Misleading audio editing by NBC'. We can also convey the story in fewer words. It takes up a disproportionate amount of real estate wrt the entire Shooting of Trayvon Martin article. Given that the network readily admitted it was an editorial mistake, and took corrective action, to dwell on it makes it more a story about NBC (and a media story about the media) than an article about the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. The result of the editorial misjudgement was the edit 'mislead' or invited viewers to reach erroneous conclusions, in the same way most errors and omissions mislead, so it should be handled like that in the writing. ArishiaNishi (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You described what was said about photos of Martin as "misleading." That's all that's meant here and how reliable sources describe it. They all say that NBC completely changed the meaning of Zimmerman's words and made him seem like he found Martin suspicious because he was black. Whether it was intentional or not, it was still misleading. There's also no evidence from RS that it was a mistake. RS report what NBC said about it, but they don't say if it was a mistake or intentional. To say either is only an opinion. Psalm84 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement on the misleading part. When your work misleads, that's a mistake. The edit by NBC was misleading, and a mistake. It was badly done, indeed! Any thoughts about the rest of what I said? ArishiaNishi (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Mistake and Mislead are not the same. We have no evidence that NBC made a mistake, even if the likelyhood is that they did. The reason you can't just plainly say "they made a mistake" is because of the larger context where the media began to fan passions of the public by misrepresenting other facts or hyping less important ones. "We can't see any evidence that Zimmerman was injured in the video from the PD", for example. While it is a true statement, it is a clearly irresponsible statement. We also have no proof that this was an oversight or misjudgement from editors. In fact, it may have been directly or indirectly encouraged from editors. You can't assume things about which we have no proof. Regardless of how you feel or what you think might be right, evidence is needed. Stick close to the evidence and reliable sources. -- Avanu (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Misleading Reliable sources agree that the edit was misleading. We can delve into intent in the article itself.LedRush (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Everyone keeps saying Reliable Sources (plural) as if this term "misleading" is sourced to multiple sources in the article. It isn't, it's sourced to an opinion blog by Matthew Sheffield on the POV pushing, partisan website run by MRC (Newsbusters). Sheffield quotes a NY Times columnist, David Carr, [1] who uses the term "misleading", why not just use it as the RS instead of a partisan opinion/media watch group with an ideological agenda. MRC (Newsbusters) has been brought before the RS noticeboard before. [2] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Move to Reporting on Zimmerman call to dispatcher "Mistake and Mislead are not the same." This discussion is beginning to remind me of that famous quote "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is." Yeah, mistakes are bad, and what they did was bad, but NBC and the media in general isn't on trial here, Zimmerman is. Maybe other editors DO see the story about Zimmerman and Martin as a media event, but I hope not. Let me put it this way then: What about that audio edit and Today Show broadcast is it that editors want to get across about the NBC edit? Is there a causal relationship between that broadcast and some actions actually taken by the public that are RSd that justify writing so much about it here? Otherwise, it's sufficient to state that they did it, give several links to a fuller discussion, and leave it at that. Let's not turn this into "We watch 'the media' so you don't have to." It's not lost on me that the media section is almost entirely what the media got wrong, and that is far from a neutral point of view approach to the Media coverage section. End of rant. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The "media coverage" section just mentions what RS have said about the coverage in the case, though. When most of them have talked about it, it's usually been for negative reasons. There could be some minor changes to titles and moving things a little, but the description of the edits seems fair. It just explains what NBC did and reports what NBC said about it. Psalm84 (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right. "Mistake" means it wasn't intentional. We have no evidence that it wasn't intentional, other than a CYA statement by the company which we can state. However, misleading does not denote intent, and is covered very clearly in reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times reporter talked to NBC insiders who told him it was a mistake, not intentional. Therefore we are not looking at a CYA reaction, we are told by a third party that it was a mistake. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How is an NBC insider a third party to NBC? No one questions that third parties have reported that NBC said it was a mistake. What we're saying is that that is a CYA response from an interested party, and therefore indicative of nothing. Of course, we can say that NBC said it was a mistake, but any such opinion that it was a mistake must be attributed, otherwise we would be publish a POV in clear contradiction to WP policy.LedRush (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The NBC insider is the source quoted by the third party. Insiders quoted anonymously are often whistleblowers rather than ass-coverers, but in this case the source said it was a mistake. We trust The New York Times to get this right. Binksternet (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

we trust the new york times to accurately report what they were told. They have no knowledge as to the honesty/accuracy of what they were told. The inside source can very well still be a CYA. Just because you are anonymous doesn't mean you aren't protecting against a lawsuit Gaijin42 (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Trust the New York Times?! Please; without the ability to verify what was reported, it means nothing. Please stop beating a dead horse. Apostle12 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"misleading" (not "intentionally misleading") See WP:EDITORIALIZING. There is no way to get inside the minds of NBCNews's audio technicians/editors/producers, so Wikipedia could (at most) state something like, "Commentators such as Joe Shmoe of XYZ News called the edits "intentionally misleading"." Since the effect of the edits was undeniably (and widely reported as) "misleading", that unspun (non-editorial) term need not rely on specific attribution. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Misleading Both "unintentionally" and "intentionally" add unneeded POV into the article. It was misleading. Report that the Times said it was unintentional. Then let the reader draw their own conclusion. Eastshire (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close

The discussion in the RFC is pretty one sided, with almost every one agreeing that misleading by itself with no qualifiers is acceptable. but that intentional/unintentional/mistake/etc are POV absent proof. (Obvious dissenter to that is Binksternet). I think there is consensus to keep misleading. However, if people really want to push lack of consensus, then WP:STATUSQUO, which would also lead down the path of keeping that term as it has been in place for quite a long time. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

interesting comparison case

Off Topic

Here is a case, that the facts of are much closer to the original "spin" of the Martin shooting. Has gotten tons of local attention, but hasn't broken out nationally yet (probably won't since its a pretty clear cut case) 75 y/o white guy shoots 13 y/o neighbor kid who was home from school. White guy had some guns stolen previously, accused the kid of it. Kid shot in front of mother, while kid backing away with his hands up. kid dies. Prosecution for 1st degree intentional.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/family-friends-of-shooting-victim-recall-a-loving-teen-ps5kvgi-156849655.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but it can't be considered for use in this Wikipedia article because it doesn't mention any connection with the topic of this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What in the world does this have to do with the Trayvon Martin shooting?! Apostle12 (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing and it's not even remotely similar. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I collapsed this as off topic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed heading change

I would like to change the sub heading "Pleading" to "Pre-trial," as it more accurately describes this section. Any comments or objections to this? Also, the bond revocation section could be moved into the "Pre-trial" section. Minor4th 00:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-trial means there is going to BE a trial. That is not certain. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The stage the case is in is called the pre-trial stage. (just like the pre-trial hearing is called such even though there could still be a plea agreement before a trial is actually held). The defendant has been charged with a crime and the case will be resolved by a trial unless there is a plea agreement or some other intervening procedure -- but the case is proceeding towards trial. "Pleading" as a heading makes no sense and is not descriptive the information under that heading. Do you have another suggestion? Minor4th 02:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed it back to pre-trial, as that is the correct term for the stage it is in now. A trial date will tentatively be scheduled. Zimmerman's attorney, O'Mara has said that he won't be ready for a trial until at least next year. [3] [4] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Section on the Prosecution's Account

This section has a number of issues with it. It really should include in each paragraph, at least, some attribution. It is all the prosecution's alleged version of events against a defendant who rejects their account and hasn't been found guilty. Even in the last paragraph, the prosecution left out that Zimmerman's family members identified the voice on the call as his and Martin's father didn't identify his voice on the call. The section is also nearly word-for-word taken from the probable cause affidavit, but there aren't any quotations in it. With no quotes and not attributing at least once in a paragraph, it can give the impression that what's said is Wikipedia's account of what happened.

It also does seem necessary to say that the material is from the affidavit in each paragraph because it does take from it so closely. Not that it's "plagiarism," but mentioning it means that Wikipedia is just acknowledging it's paraphrasing and borrowing from the affidavit and it's not really Wikipedia's account. It's also just informing the reader that the information is contained in the affidavit. What if rather than saying several times "the probable cause affidavit," it just said "the affidavit" instead? Psalm84 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed the opening paragraph back to the original wording to indicate that this section is what "investigators described took place" (somebody had changed it), just like in Zimmerman's section where it says "Zimmerman described in detail what took place". It's important to remember that there are two sides here as to what took place, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and the prosecution's claim of 2nd degree murder. No one is saying that Zimmerman is guilty, but the prosecution rejects Zimmerman's account of what happened, so that needs to be included in the article. This is why it is sourced to multiple RS reporting on the affidavit. The section title and opening paragraph clearly state that this is the prosecutions account of events, so I don't see how anyone can get the impression that this is WP account of what happened.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, though, it still should mention that it's the prosecution's account. The section doesn't use quotes or set off the account by indenting, which would very clear. It's indirectly quoting and it should for each paragraph give its source, like anytime a source is quoted at length. A lot of the people who would read this article aren't likely to be so familiar with the case that it's that clear to them. By not giving the source again, it sounds like it happened the way it's written. The third paragraph can be read that way. Psalm84 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's not quoted and if each paragraph is not specifically attributed to the pc affidavit, then the whole section should be renamed "probable cause affidavit" - I don't know why it's not named this anyway since the entire section is a recitation of what is in the probable cause affidavit. Minor4th 21:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And why does all of that minute detail have to be in there? Just quote the pc affidavit if you're going to essentially include everything is says. I think this section should be pared down to the essentials and a "prosecution's account of events" can be added near Zimmerman's account if you want to go into great detail. This section is supposed to be about the court proceedings. In this ond section, I think it would be sufficient to say the pc affidavit alleges Z profiled and confronted TM and then shot him to death. Minor4th 21:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I inserted attributions to some of the allegations where events are disputed,, so that it is clear that so far these are only the prosecution's version of events. I think it would be appropriate in this section to include one or two cites to criticism of the pc affidavit. I will look for sources. Minor4th 00:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dershowitz's comments were already included in the public response section and the investigator's testimony was already in the pre-trial section. Per a previous discussion on the talk page, an agreement was reached that Dershowitz's comments were appropriate for the public response section and the investigator's testimony was placed in the pre-trial section. We also agreed that the prosecution's account of events should be able to stand alone as their version of what they allege happened, just as Zimmerman's account of what he alleges happened stands alone (without criticism) and the witness accounts stand alone (without criticism). Zimmerman's and the prosecution's and the witness accounts have all remained relatively stable for the last two months, and their respective section titles clearly indicate what the reader will be reading about.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not just Dershowitz' comments. There were several legal analysts who made comments specifically about the pc affidavit, and that is what is included in this section. Those reactions are prolific enough to make them notable. I added one sentence of balancing information that is directly related to the "prosecutor's account" -- someone reading this article should not have to sift through various sections to find out that there was a notable reaction to the pc affidavit itself. It makes more sense to put the "prosecutor's account" in close proximity to Zimmerman's account where there is also information about reaction. In the court proceedings section, you really don't need a blow by blow of the pc affidavit -- and if you're going to insist on that, then there needs to also be some balancing information. The whole article is a jumbled mess in my opinion. Too much focus on minute details and no meaningful organization, such that the main points get completely lost. But since this article is on 1RR, I guess it will stay that way. Minor4th 05:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Isaidnoway - I think you have run afoul of the 1RR on this page. Please revert yourself. This is the third or fourth time you have removed the same edits that others have made. Minor4th 05:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Isaidnoway - here is what I see as your reverting the same edits numerous times: [5]: you remove attribution to the pc affidavit, [6]: removing the attribution again, [7]: removing attribution again, [8]: removing attribution again and 2nd revert of the first sentence, which describes exactly what the pc affidavit is. There are only 3 editor currently editing this section and discussing it, and you are taking it upon yourself to revert all of our edits to preserve a version you like. I'm adding back the info about the criticism and more detail about the affidavit. Please do not revert again unless there is a consensus after discussion to do so. Thanks. Minor4th 06:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I second Minor4th's request. I think I may have asked you previously on this talk page not to edit war. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. Cla68 (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, and I would also like to echo that request that editor's not revert long-standing text without discussion and consensus.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages people to just edit, though. There's no way of knowing about old consensus agreements unless they're somehow noted in a comment on the editing page. And things do change, too, so sometimes an issue needs to be discussed again. Psalm84 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any changes that the prosecution has put forth to change their account of events, they still claim it was 2nd degree murder, don't they?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

When the text of an article has remained unchanged and in place for a length of time, and an editor wants to change it, it is usually customary to reach a consensus before changing it. See WP:STATUSQUO. By crafting the text to want you want it to say, you have disregarded the previous hard work of several editors who collaborated on this section and worked in good faith to reach a compromise. See [9] You completely ignored WP:AGF and changed it to your version without a consensus. Consensus is not majority rules.

Dershowitz's comments are not part of the prosecution's account of what happened that night, they are criticism of the account, not the account. The investigator's testimony was elicited at Zimmerman's bond hearing which was a hearing to determine whether Zimmerman should get bail or not. His testimony was in regards to that determination and should be included with that hearing. Deshowitz's comments belong in the public response section and it is redundant to include them here as well.

I have stated several times on this talk page that there are two sides to this case; Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and the prosecution's claim of 2nd degree murder. Just because you don't like the prosecutor's version of events, doesn't mean we should try to poke holes in their story or undermine that section. Both version of events should be able to stand alone as to what each allege happened that night. We shouldn't try and slant this article in Zimmerman's favor, WP:NPOV and give more weight to his version. WP:UNDUE

I am not opposed to change or compromise when it is done through a good faith effort of reaching a consensus. My reverts were done to emphasize that the text should remain as is, until a compromise that addresses all editor's concerns is reached. I oppose including Dershowitz's comments in this section as well as the testimony of the investigator.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there had been a consensus to keep any criticisms out of the accounts of Zimmerman and the prosecution. The criticisms of the prosecution could have a subsection in the "Public response" section. The paragraph that begins "The affidavit states that it does not contain a complete recitation of facts" makes sense to keep there. The first paragraph also seems a little more clear the way it is now.Psalm84 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a consensus reached right after the April 20 bond hearing. When the testimony of the investigator came out, it was included in the prosecutions account and the investigator's testimony was included in Zimmerman's account. It turned into a kind of point/counterpoint situation where every statement by Zimmerman was challenged by a statement disputing his version, and every statement by the prosecution was challenged by a statement disputing their version. Through discussion and consensus, we reached a compromise where each version of the events (Zimmerman's and the prosecution's) should be able to stand alone on simply what they each alleged happened that night. I think it was a good compromise that was reached by discussion and cooperation then, and I still think that it works just fine. I don't object to the criticism being in the public response as that is where it always has been. If you think it works better with the criticism in their respective accounts, then I will include some in Zimmerman's account of events to balance it out.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

But the comments about the pc affidavit are not just "public response" to the incident. They are specifically directed at the pc affidavit and therefore belong in the same proximity. It's commentary on the legal proceedings themselves. If you want to move the criticism of the prosecutor's account then move the prosecutor's account to a different section as well. Minor4th 22:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The criticism of the prosecution could have its own sub-section, or there could be a section somewhere that brings up questions about both accounts. I understand that it makes sense to have it near the prosecution's account, but with where the account is right now, under the court proceedings, I'm not sure about it. There could also be a separate section with both accounts and questions about them, but that would be a major change. Maybe we could also see what Isaidnoway would want to add to Zimmerman's account if these criticisms would stay in the prosecution's account. Psalm84 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dershowitz's comments are not part of the prosecution's account of events, but merely criticism given in a media interview, which in my mind equates to a "public response" on the affidavit. The investigator's testimony was not given in the prosecution's account of events either, but rather was given at a bond hearing for determination on whether Zimmerman should receive bail. If they are not part of the prosecution's account of events, I don't understand why they should be in that section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the links that are cited for the criticism and Dershowitz's comment. They are specifically about the pc affidavit and nothing more or less. It is purely legal commentary by legal analysts about the legal proceedings. The investigator's testimony is part of the prosecutor's account. He is the prosecution's investigator and their witness, testifying about the prosecution's account. If there is some kind of consensus that all of this information should not be in the "court proceedings" section, then please move "prosecutor's account" to somewhere close to Zimmerman's account and there's plenty of room for criticism and counter points to both accounts. In the court proceedings section, there is really no need to essentially quote the entire pc affidavit and discuss it in depth. I think it would be sufficient to recite that a pc affidavit was filed alleging Zimmerman profiled and confronted Martin and shot him. That's the bottom line, isn't it? If you're unhappy with it, why don't you work something up in your userspace and make another proposal instead of just arguing that you don't like it this way. Minor4th 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If you could explain why the article shouldn't include the prosecution's account of events, maybe I would understand your position better. If you could explain how including commentary criticizing their account of events improves this section, maybe I would understand your position better. You are the one who edited a long standing version of this section, so the burden is on you to explain why the prosecution's account of events should be edited the way you want it to read, and how it improves this section. The previous version that you edited did not violate any policies or guidelines of WP, was presented in a NPOV and was achieved through discussion and consensus, so if you think your version is an improvement over the previous version, please explain it in detail for me. If you prefer not to give an explanation, that is fine too, I'll understand. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that the accounts in the article need to be looked at. The first one is from the police, in which their opinions on the case are given. That's under a section called, "People involved in the case." It should really just give some background on the SPD, like past problems that it's had. It is remarking on the case, though, even though none of the accounts have been given yet. Then the next account is from the friend of Trayvon. It says, "According to state prosecutors and attorney Benjamin Crump." Her account has been released now, so that may not be needed, but her account is part of the prosecution's case. After that is the arrival of police, and then Zimmerman's account. Sometime after that is the prosecution's account. It may make sense to move them together. The police account should definitely be moved to later in the article, it seems. Psalm84 (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We knew that some of the information that was inserted in the article in late March and early April would eventually become irrelevant and out-dated once charges were filed and more details about the case were released. I think it's a good idea to look at some of that stuff and think about highlighting the most relevant issues in the early stages and organizing it for a better reading experience. One of the issues that has been bothering me is the claim that Serino filed an affidavit the night of the shooting, asking for Zimmerman to be arrested. I have scoured over all the documents that were released in May, and the only affidavit there is dated March 13. If he did file an affidavit that night, one would think it would be included in the released documents. Also, Angela Corey seemed to indicate in her interview with The Miami Herald that the only affidavit was the one in March. Her comments from that interview are in the police section. I am still looking for a source that explains why there is a discrepancy in this difference of time frames of when it was filed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I just made some changes as I discussed above to the "Police" section, moving a lot of that to the section on the investigation. It does seem like the article could be changed here and there now the case is past the early stages. The Serino affidavit does seem to be the one from March, or else as you say it would have been released. It doesn't seem like there was one from the night of the shooting, but it doesn't seem likely that there are any sources that say the earlier report was wrong. It does seem to need some correction somehow, though. Psalm84 (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Starting to look better. Good job. What do you think about moving the girlfriends cell phone call to the witness account section. She is a witness to the last few moments between Zimmerman and Martin. I don't think her phone call needs it's own section. A paragraph in the witness account section would suffice.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This move makes sense. Apostle12 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving the girlfriend's account to the witness accounts does seem to be a better place for it. Psalm84 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)I like the new direction. It flows better. Isaidnoway - I was not saying the prosecutor's account should not be included in the article. Maybe we just misunderstood each other. Minor4th 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh...OK...my bad.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

hiding "media bias"

Hiding media bias under the broader "media coverage" is not gonna cut it. We have an entirely bogus section on nonsenscial, idiotic, and most of all unproven "alleged raism" section so it can't really be too hard to argue for a media bias section in and of itself, instaed of the "Weasle title" . Additionally, at this point, the media bias is a bigger story than the actual homocide, yet it's almost entirely invidible on this wiki, It will be much higher in the wiki stem of the this article too, not way down at the bottom, especially below made up, fantasy garbage about "racial bias".09:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)

Sanford City Hall community forum

I have removed this entire paragraph until it can be accurately worded and placed in a section where it is more appropriate.

The Miami Herald secured a videotape of the January 8, 2011 Sanford City Hall...

The Miami Herald secured a videotape of the January 8, 2011 Sanford City Hall community forum, which confirms that Zimmerman stood and publicly protested the conduct of the Sanford Police Department in the Ware case. In particular, Zimmerman criticized its former chief, Brian Tooley. Zimmerman said police had engaged in a "cover-up" and that Tooley should lose his pension. He also said he'd been on ride-alongs with Sanford police (confirmed by police records) where he found them to be lazy. The Herald reported that it had contacted five out of six black churches where Zimmerman was reported to have distributed fliers on the Ware beating, however no one recalled receiving them. Despite the videotape of the Sanford City Hall community forum, Martin family attorney Natalie Jackson, who also represented Sherman Ware, denied that Zimmerman had been involved in protesting Ware's beating.[100]

It was an audiotape that was obtained, not a videotape. Look at the source cited carefully, [10] the videotape is of Zimmerman in the police station on February 29, 2012. The audiotape from the community forum is right below the videotape. The Herald says it is a clip of a recording of the January 2011 meeting. Zimmerman spoke specifically about the police chief and what actions the commission were going to take to repeal his pension. Zimmerman stated: "I believe he has already forfeited his pension by his illegal cover-up, corruption and what happened in his department." Zimmerman didn't say the "police" had engaged in a cover up but rather the "police chief" had. His ride along was not "confirmed by police records", his application to ride along was "approved". We can only rely on Zimmerman's statement that he went and that his application had been approved and that his lawyer, O'Mara said Zimmerman went on several ride-alongs with police. Capt.O’Connor said the department does not know when or with who, or “if in fact he ever did ride with SPD.” I would suggest using his statement, his lawyer's statement and his application being approved. The last sentence of the paragraph should be struck altogether, as the source doesn't say that. Lastly, I question this paragraph being in the section titled "Defense of Zimmerman's character". Who in this Herald article is defending his character? Natalie Jackson sure isn't. Ware's sister said about Zimmerman “I have never seen that guy in my life, I feel like he is using that case to make it look like he was a good guy, when I feel he is a liar and a murderer.” Rev. Griffin, pastor at the church where Ware's sister worships said, "Nobody got fliers here.” Rev. H.D. Rucker said "...he’s telling a lie... I’m beginning to think he is a racist." I guess you could make a weak case that his own lawyer was defending his character.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I edited the above slightly, adding ellipses and quote marks to clarify what Rucker said and separate it from what Isaidnoway wrote in his own voice. Andyvphil (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good call; definitely needs clean up. Apostle12 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I originally added the information from that Miami Herald article, but it was altered some from what I had:

"On May 23, 2012, the Miami Herald reported that Zimmerman was recorded criticizing the Sanford Police Department and its former Chief, Brian Tooley, at the city hall meeting on Ware's beating. Zimmerman said police had engaged in a "cover-up" and that Tooley should lose his pension. He also said he'd been on ride-alongs with police where he found them to be "lazy." The Herald said it had recently contacted five out of six churches where a Zimmerman relative claimed he had distributed fliers, but none recalled them."

On the "cover-up" part, I do think I should have limited it to Tooley. Zimmerman did talk about corruption in the department connected to the cover-up, mentioned that justice should be "black and white," and had concerns still about the police even with Tooley gone, and there were other officers involved in the Ware situation, which was known in Sanford, but it still should have been made clearer since it was Zimmerman's actual words. I guess I have to say it was a little "misleading."

On where this was placed, and what was reported from the article, it was put under "Defense of Zimmerman's character," which is under "Alleged Race Issues - Allegations against Zimmerman." The previous paragraph talks about how a Zimmerman family member wrote a letter to the NAACP that claimed he'd protested against the police in the Ware incident. There was never any proof that he ever spoke out or did anything, though, until that recording showed up, so I put the recording information there as some proof. Then I also include the mention about the Herald checking at black churches to see if they'd received fliers from Zimmerman since that also seemed like something relevant. I thought something had already been said in the article somewhere in which there were doubts about Zimmerman's claims, so the quote added from the Martin attorney seems needed. I hope with some changes this information can be back in the article soon. Psalm84 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed some things in the paragraph:

The Miami Herald secured an audiotape of the January 8, 2011, Sanford City Hall community forum, which confirms that Zimmerman stood and publicly protested the conduct of the Sanford Police Department in the Ware case. In particular, Zimmerman criticized its former chief, Brian Tooley. Zimmerman said Tooley had engaged in a "cover-up" and that he should lose his pension. He also said he'd been on ride-alongs with Sanford police where he found them to be lazy. The Herald also reported that it had contacted five out of six black churches where Zimmerman was reported to have distributed fliers on the Ware beating, however no one recalled receiving them. Despite the audiotape of the Sanford City Hall community forum, Martin family attorney Natalie Jackson, who also represented Sherman Ware, denied that Zimmerman had been involved in protesting Ware's beating.

One question I have is about the ride-alongs. I know I read that police said he had requested to go along or had been approved for it, but they still couldn't confirm if actually went. I also read somewhere that someone in the department said there may be records on it but with all the media requests for other things, he had no time to check. I can't remember where I read that, and just want to ask first if police comment is needed. I also wonder if more needs to be mentioned about Zimmerman's criticisms of the police, not just Tooley.Psalm84 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Took the liberty of changing "videotape" to "audiotape" in the section above, since it was an obvious error. Apostle12 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I missed that one. Thanks. I think it could go back in the article now, unless there are more comments on it. Psalm84 (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Leave out the last sentence, it's not supported by the source.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is in there. I think you missed it. I believe it's on the second page. Psalm84 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've read the whole Herald article. What Jackson said was that "she denied Zimmerman was among those who participated in community activism on Ware's behalf". The Herald article doesn't say "despite the audiotape of the sanford city hall community forum". I don't see a whole lot of use for this paragraph other than where he makes the comments at the community forum which backs up the paragraph already in the article about him helping to organize the community forum. The rest of it has nothing to do with the shooting.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What the article says seems to indicate that Jackson still holds the same opinion, though. It says, "She said she found Zimmerman’s emphatic statements against the police chief in 2011 curious..." And she does seem to say the recording doesn't mean much to her. I originally did add information from this article because of the recording, but it also seemed like the part about the Herald asking black churches about the fliers should be included too. I didn't include anything from Jackson, but it seems like it makes sense to include it. I thought on the earlier claims, like the NAACP letter, there had been a response from the Martin family, but there wasn't. I'll add the other things and leave out Jackson's comment for now, though. Psalm84 (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The recording didn't mean that much to her, she denied that Zimmerman was involved in community activism. You seen to want to imply in that sentence that the community activism is the taped recording of Zimmerman, the Herald article doesn't say that. My take on the Herald article is that the "community activism" was Zimmerman going around town and handing out fliers, which the churches deny happening and Jackson denies happening. Anyway, the Herald article does corroborate the Zimmerman family members statement, but the rest of it does little to nothing to defend Zimmerman's character, which is the sub-section it is included in.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about what Jackson said. I didn't write that sentence and didn't say anything about her at all when I added the information. Whoever wrote that sentence might not even have meant it like it can sound because it is a little complicated. That's why I left it out now, to see if it should be worded differently, if some mention of what she said should be included. The mention of what the churches said I thought was also relevant because it says something, too, about what his family claimed in defending him. His other remarks he made at the meeting, about that he went on ride-alongs and found the police lazy could go somewhere else or not be included. Psalm84 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to including Jackson's commentsin the article, but it just doesn't seem right to put them in this section. Natalie Jackson is the last person on earth that would defend Zimmerman's character. As far as the ride along goes, I don't object to them being there, let's see if Apostle12 develops something about what he was talking about--police favortism, they would fit nicely there.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as Jackson defending Zimmerman, but just responding to the claims that his family made to defend him. Maybe something could be said that she didn't believe Zimmerman had done more than speak at the meeting, or quoting her as saying that all of Sanford had wanted to officer's son to be punished. Psalm84 (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

She's not defending Zimmerman, hence her comments are irrelevant to this section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine, Psalm84. I favor inclusion of this paragraph, since it corroborates what Zimmerman family members have to say about his sticking up for Ware, the black homeless man. There seems to be a lot out there about Zimmerman's relationship with the Sanford Police Department; apparently after criticizing the department publicly at this meeting, he came to respect it duirng later months. I may try to write about this issue, because the Sanford Police Department has taken a lot of heat re: the supposed "favoritism" they showed Zimmerman. Not much evidence of that in the sources. Apostle12 (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I did add back everything but the remark by Natalie Jackson before I saw your comment. Maybe that part if it's included could be worded better. Psalm84 (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman the designated neighborhood watch volunteer

Note: Moved from User talk:Apostle12 [11].

Could you please hint me the citation(s) for the information you're referring to in this edit summary? Thanks, TMCk (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I realized shortly after I wrote my edit summary that I should have written that Zimmerman was designated by the Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowner's Association (not by the Sanford Police Department) to act as head of Neighborhood Watch. Unfortunately I know of no way to go back and change edit summaries. There are two relevant stories:

"There is evidence that the Twin Lakes homeowners' association told residents who saw suspicious activity to call Zimmerman if they could not contact the police, according to the association's statement." http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

"By June 2011, Zimmerman's attention had shifted from a loose pit bull to a wave of robberies that rattled the community, called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

This article makes it clear that Zimmerman was "chosen as co-ordinator (of Neighborhood Watch) by his neighbors." http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

Some additional information appears here, although this article mistakenly refers to Zimmerman as "self-appointed:"

two: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/v-fullstory/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html

Sorry for any confusion my edit summary caused. The addition of "designated" is well-supported however. Apostle12 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for your reply to which I'll respond when I have more time on hand.Don't worry about your editsummary. Happened to you and happens to me and others all the time. The moment one hits the safe button there is that "argh" sound to be heard all over wiki :) TMCk (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Aaaargh! Did you hear that "argh" when I hit safe w/o leaving an intented editsummary? :)) TMCk (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me go over those citations, their possible interpretation and what they're actually saying or not saying.
CNN you say is stating: "There is evidence that the Twin Lakes homeowners' association told residents who saw suspicious activity to call Zimmerman if they could not contact the police, according to the association's statement."
So there is "evidence" but no fact that they would call Zimmerman and it would be OR to make the assumption this would make him the "designated" neighborhood watch volunteer...
Next is Reuters which states: "The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol."
They ask him to launch a neighborhood watch which is more than rare to be carried out by one person only. A hired security guard would do such, maybe, but not one single person unless he's just acting on his own. As the citation says, he was asked to "launch" [like in assemble] a neighborhood watch, not start patrolling as a lone neighborhood watch dog. For the most he was designated by the community to get an organized watchgroup on his way. Some early sources describe him as the captain of the watchgroup, maybe wrongly but neither the less there was an acting watchgroup and Zimmerman was sure not a loner in this. CNN calls him a "...28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer,..." and doesn't mention him being the only one out there.
Then there is Orlandosentinel that starts with the headline: "...Zimmerman was not following Neighborhood Watch 'rules'." and then goes on to describe him as the one "who coordinated the Neighborhood Watch." That's an info we can say as to his part in the neighborhood watch. But to make this clear, coordinating and being the designated is not necessarily the same thing. One can coordinate while under the supervision of another, just think military I.e.
Regarding the miamiharald, I have no take on whether they misrepresented his role or not and it doesn't matter much in my opinion, other than there are conflicting sources all over the net.
Ergo, unless already done of course [I didn't check the article], I would be appreciated if you would either reverse that edit or replace the "designated" with the sourced "coordinated the Neighborhood watch'. Maybe it seems to you to be of little or no difference; To me it is more than that as it should be as close to the sources provided in such contentious article. Usually I try to stay away of such :) but there are exemptions. Can you follow and agree with my thoughts? Did I miss anything? Best, TMCk (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I might just make the change since I assume that coordinator vs. designated makes no real difference to you as long as some qualifier is presented. Hope I'm right in my assumption but please let me know if not and we can continue this conversation here or on the article's talkpage. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just one more thing to make my thoughts clearer: As to our knowledge, we don't know if Zimmerman was made the general designated "chief of staff" by the community and/or neighborhood watch. As of today we don't know anything more than what I've pointed out above.TMCk (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The important thing is the sequence of events, which is accurately described in the section titled "Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch." During the year prior to the shooting, the level of criminal activity escalated at The Retreat at Twin Lakes, and community realized it had a problem. The community association met, and volunteers were sought to head up a Neighborhood Watch program. Only one person volunteered--Zimmerman. At some point residents were instructed by the homeowner's association to contact Zimmerman if they experienced problems and were unable to reach the Sanford Police Department. Clearly this makes Zimmerman the "designated neighborhood watch volunteer;" he was definitely not "self-appointed." Nor will just any qualifier be suitable. "Chief of staff" seems especially inappropriate; where did that come from?

Since this is the lede, it is important to summarize what the rest of the article says. I think "designated" does a good job of summarizing the section titled "Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch." Zimmerman was designated by the homeowners' asociation as the "go to" person if residents were unable to contact the police. There is nothing OR about the word "designated."

I cannot agree that what you wrote is accurate, because it does not convey the reality that Zimmerman was acting at the behest of the homeowner's association. The syntax of this sentence is also problematic:

"George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American, was a volunteer and coordinator in the neighborhood watch for the gated community where the shooting took place."

I have changed it back to read:

"George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American, was the designated neighborhood watch volunteer for the gated community where the shooting took place." Apostle12 (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I like this sentence and the wording better than the previous one. Here are some more links to articles you may be interested in as well. This one says the local group appointed him their coordinator, [12], this one says he volunteered to be the captain, [13], and includes some links to other good articles.

There are three Twin Lakes HOA Newsletters that were released as part of the prosecutors evidence that can be found here [14], starting at page 150. There is also a series of emails between Zimmerman and Wendy Dorival included in the evidence. The newsletter dated February, 2012 Volume 5, Issue 1 says if you've been the victim of a crime within the community, after calling the police, please contact our Captain, George Zimmerman at 407-XXX-XXXX, so we can be aware and help address the issue with other residents. It then goes on asking for additional members to participate, lists the meeting times and gives email addresses and Zimmerman's phone number again.

The newsletter dated September 2011, volume 4, issue 3, talks about increased incidence of crime within the community and to receive neighborhood watch updates, safety tips and to be notified of any suspicious activity within your community, call George Zimmerman at 407-XXX-XXXX, and lists an email address that Zimmerman used. This is also the newsletter where it mentions that on 9-22-11, they held a meeting with the Sanford PD and Wendy Dorival made her presentation to the residents there.

The newsletter dated June, 2011 Volume 4, Issue 2, does not mention Zimmerman by name, but does include a paragraph in it asking for volunteers for the neighborhood watch.

My suggestion would be is to pick just one title -- volunteer, captain, coordinator and then use appointed or designated, staying close to the RS, and let's be consistent throughout the article in the description of him.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right that consistency is important. I believe "designated...coordinator" best conveys the reality. It's much better than "designated... volunteer," because this phrase could imply that Zimmerman was "designated" to volunteer, kind of an oxymoron. In fact Zimmerman volunteered on his own and was then designated by the Twin Lakes HOA to coordinate neighborhood watch. "Designated...captain" could also work, however it implies that he was supervising other residents. Perhaps by using the moniker "captain" the HOA hoped others would volunteer to participate in neighborhood watch; in fact, out of hundreds of Twin Lakes residents, it seems Zimmerman was the only one who stepped forward. Went ahead and changed "volunteer" to "coordinator"--any thoughts? Apostle12 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I understood from the newsletters is that anyone who volunteered was called a captain. If you volunteered, you were basically in charge of "watching" the block you lived on, although I may be wrong about that. At any rate, it seems Zimmerman was the sole volunteer, captain and coordinator all in one, but if you source it to coordinator, I think that's fine.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They did have monthly meetings, though, that were reportedly led by Zimmerman. People coming to the meetings regularly might have been involved to some extent, since the watch mostly just watches and shares information. There doesn't seem to have been anything reported yet on the those meetings, though. Psalm84 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I read a lot of opinions and (editor's) free interpretations of the sources. The WP way to go is with what the sources say and leave any interpretation to them as far as needed. "Stick to the source" and you'll stick to WP policies. It's as simple as that.TMCk (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think if you look at any talk page on WP, you'll see alot of opinion giving and interpretating and off-topic talking. But in the end, most editors adhere to the sources as per WP policies and guidelines.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have a link to the photo tweeted by LeBron James of the Miami Heat in their "hoodies", dated March 23rd 2012, which there was no listed citation for currently. It was found on his verified twitter feed (http://twitter.com/#!/KingJames). http://campl.us/il4E I also have a link to the photo tweeted by Carmelo Anthony as well, also dated March 23rd 2012, which there was no citation for. It was found on his verified twitter feed (http://twitter.com/#!/carmeloanthony). https://twitter.com/carmeloanthony/status/183316466446254081/photo/1 KadeFC (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What we need is a news article that is reporting on them wearing the hoodies, not their twitter feeds. If you can find a reliable source that talks about them wearing their hoodies, I will put the citation in.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how this relates to the Trayvon Martin shooting. Apostle12 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already in the article in the public response section. Somebody put it in a long time ago with no sources. It's been tagged for awhile now.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Already done Mdann52 (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Discovery

Isaidnoway - you are adding edits about discovery that are only citing the original source documents. Please only include edits that are cited to secondary sources in which the discovery materials are discussed. If the secondary sources don't discuss them, they're not notable for Wiki purposes. Thanks. Minor4th 22:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting reliably sourced information from the article. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I mistakenly removed information from this section. Failed to notice that the article in question has a second page, where additional information is presented regarding the voice experts. Sorry. Apostle12 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything, and if Apostle12 was mistaken about the source, then so was I. My bad. Minor4th 23:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It' all cool, I put it back in, I've done the same thing with those kind of articles with two pages.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is also other information elsewhere in the article about the FBI saying they couldn't determine whose voice was on the tape. Maybe the expert opinions on it should all be in one place? On the two experts, there are some questions about them. On Ed Primeau, for example, he said here not long before saying he thought it wasn't Zimmerman's voice that he'd look to have samples of Zimmerman's voice if he was going to try to see who was on the tape. Maybe the fact that these experts gave this information to a newspaper should be included. I don't believe they've actually given sworn testimony yet. Psalm84 (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason I included it was because it was released through the prosecution as part of the discovery. They also included Zimmerman's prior arrests in the release of the discovery documents, but the only source I could find for that was the Huffington Post. I don't think they will be able to use the two experts at trial, but his prior arrests are very significant.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it works with experts and deciding on if they'll testify. Maybe it's up to the prosecution to decide if they think they're qualified? Psalm84 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I also just read that more discovery was released today, but have not yet found a reliable source for it. I will look. Minor4th 00:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(new issue re: discovery} Just reading over the "Discovery evidence" section and checking the sources cited. First of all, what is the attribution for this statement in the article:

The witness list included 50 possible law enforcement officers, including 28 officers from the Sanford Police Department, 28 civilian witnesses, including members of Martin's family, two of Zimmerman's friends and his father, Robert Zimmerman. Police technicians in biological and DNA evidence, trace evidence, gunshot residue, fingerprints and firearms and two FBI agents, may also testify.

Unless this is sourced to one of the secondary sources, this seems to be "original research" in the sense that it is describing the contents of the original source documents. There is no source cited for this part of the article.

Also, this section describes some of the contents and conclusions of the discovery documents, but leaves out descriptions of other evidence that is reported in the cited sources. I think we need to decide whether this section is going to give a blow by blow description of the documents and evidence or if it's just going to recite that discovery was turned over by the prosecution. As written, it seems to be cherry picking and leaves an incomplete and inaccurate description of what is reported. Minor4th 00:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. The section was expanded and the source appeared at the end of the next paragraph--now corrected. Please check around and add sources as necessary. Also I don't see any attempt to "cherry pick;" seems valid to me to cite the main points. If you see others you want to appear, please add them. Apostle12 (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification about the source for the quoted text I asked about. No big deal. I will add the information from the sources regarding the discovery documents. I think this section is going to end up being huge, especially as more discovery is released as the case proceeds. Maybe think about branching this off into its own section or combining it with other portions of the article that describe the media reports of evidence. Minor4th 00:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Social media

Right now the social media section only has something about how bloggers/social media users who support Zimmerman attacked Martin through social media. It should have a few sentences about how bloggers/social media users who support Martin attacked Zimmerman using social media. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not so much aware of these attacks myself, however if you have a reliable source please add the info. Apostle12 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

dershowitz accuses corey (multiple)

So Dershowitz has accused prosecutor Corey of a bunch of stuff (somewhat covered in article and talk before) but I had not seen this particular video before, which is pretty harsh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYV5MuoVCQ&feature=player_embedded#!

Dershowitz now alleges that Corey is threatening to sue him and Harvard for libel/slander regarding his criticism (article in next link written by Dershowitz). In this article, dershowitz speficially compares Zimmerman misleading court by not fully revealing funds raised, to Corey misleading the court by slanting information in the affidavit.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

His latest comments are included in the article. While I agree that Corey overcharged this case, Dershowitz is over-reacting as well. The affidavit is not "illegal". Under Florida rules, the affidavit is in compliance. Dershowitz also fails to mention that these type of probable cause affidavits are filed all the time in courtrooms all across the country for arrest warrants and search warrants.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:

"The affidavit is not "illegal". Under Florida rules, the affidavit is in compliance. Dershowitz also fails to mention that these type of probable cause affidavits are filed all the time in courtrooms all across the country for arrest warrants and search warrants."

The affadavit was Judge Herr's sole basis in the constitutionally required (4th+14th amendments, see Gerstein v. Pugh, SCOTUS '75) determination that Corey's information provided probable cause to detain Zimmerman on a charge of 2nd degree murder. Herr blew off his obligation to notice that the Affidavit was terminally inadequate. Does unconstitutional count as "illegal"? Andyvphil (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not meaning to change the subject, but T-mobile recently had to retire Zimmerman's old cell phone number after they re-issued it last month and the guy immediately started getting harassing phone calls. [15] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This story does have "legs":

Alan Dershowitz, "Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism", News Max, 5 Jun 2012.

Jeff Weiner, "Dershowitz: Zimmerman prosecutor ranted against Harvard", Orlando Sentinel, 6 Jun 2012.

Jeralyn, "Dershowitz Says Angela Corey Threatened to Sue Harvard for Zimmerman Criticism", Talk Left, 6 Jun 2012.

Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney who posts at Talk Left: The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news, had this to say about Corey's affidavit:

"In my opinion, not only was the affidavit in this case legally questionable as to what was included and omitted about the investigation, it failed to allege any facts to establish probable cause for second degree murder, the crime for which the arrest warrant was sought. The affidavit didn't apprise the reviewing magistrate of the elements of the crime or its theory as to why probable cause for that particular crime existed, as opposed to manslaughter or a lesser crime. There were no facts set forth that it represented to be evidence that Zimmerman acted with a depraved mind or out of hatred, ill-will, malice or spite."

--Naaman Brown (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions from anyone regarding changing what is in the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dershowitz's latest comments are already in the article. The rest of the criticism about her would probably fit better on her page, Angela Corey.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we agree. Regarding the comments that are already in the article, they're more about the conflict between Dershowitz and Corey than the topic of the article. I would suggest putting in more about the criticism of the affidavit and removing the parts about the personal conflict between Dershowitz and Corey. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the part about the conflict between Dershowitz and Corey. If you think more criticism about the affidavit from Dershowitz is warranted, I don't object to that either as long as it is placed appropriately in the public response section with his other comments. I oppose it being in the prosecution's account of events where his current criticism is placed at. I thought a compromise had been reached on that issue.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

More about Corey from an op-Ed piece. http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400601/ron-littlepage/2012-06-08/ron-littlepage-angela-coreys-hissy-fits-threats Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's wife arrested

George Zimmerman's wife was arrested Tuesday afternoon for allegedly lying at his bond hearing about the couple's finances. Shellie N. Zimmerman, 25, faces a perjury charge. She met conditions for a $1,000 bond and was released Tuesday afternoon, according to the Seminole County Sheriff's Office. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/justice/florida-zimmerman-wife/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 -- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There's also this: [16] which says

"Jeffrey Neiman, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said cash transactions in excess of $10,000 usually trigger a reporting requirement by the bank to multiple government agencies — including the IRS.

"If Mrs. Zimmerman intentionally structured the financial transactions in a manner to keep the offense under $10,000, not only may she have committed perjury in the state case, but she also may have run afoul of several federal statutes and could face serious federal criminal charges," Neiman wrote in an email to The Associated Press" .

Not sure if this is really appropriate in this article, as it doesnt so much relate to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Is there another offshoot article where it may be more appropriate?Minor4th 00:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant to me, unless we want to engage in assassinating Mrs. Zimmerman's character just for fun. Apostle12 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's speculative anyway, so let's keep it out of this article.Minor 4th 00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wife's arrest/charge should absolutely not be included in the article per WP:BLPCRIME as she is not a well known individual. If she is convicted of perjury eventually, then that is a different matter. A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured She is a tangental subject of this article, notable only through the actions of her husband. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for me. It adds nothing meaningful to the subject and unnecessarily ca this person in a negative light when final resolution of the charge is beyond speculative. Minor4th 13:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

She's already mentioned in the article in relation to Zimmerman's bond being revoked. The prosecution alleged that she and Zimmerman misled the court as to their financial situation, was involved in "coded" telephone conversations and transferred large amounts of cash back and forth between accounts, which resulted in Zimmerman's bond being revoked. She is mentioned specifically in the prosecution's motion to revoke bond, [17] and is specifically mentioned in the judges written order to revoke his bond, [18]. Her alleged actions are relevant as to why Zimmerman is back in jail, awaiting a new bond hearing. She became notable because of the actions she allegedly commited. The alleged collusion between these two individuals has also placed Zimmerman's credibility in question, [19]. It seems relevant to include a sentence pertaining to her arrest.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Isaid, given that her collusion with Mr. Zimmerman, leading to his bond being revoked, is already in the article, I do not think it would be too much to add a few words saying that she herself was later arrested, if even in parentheses or perhaps a footnote. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The suggestion that her arrest is only tangential to the case overall is a fairly ridiculous one. The charge of perjury against her is directly related to testimony that resulted in her husband's bond being set at the amount it was and is directly related to the court's decision to revoke said bond. Her actions and the charge against her are now both part-and-parcel of the case. To suggest that this therefore violates WP:BLPCRIME is disingenuous at best. The arrest should be restored. Grandpallama (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My point was that it was tangental to the shooting (the subject of this article), not the actual court case. Her testimony, if she commited perjury or not, will have no bearing on the shooting, and if Zimmerman was justified or not in doing so. Beyond that, I'm not sure why his having the money was that big of an issue. If bond is to be set at a level which cannot be afforded, then why do we have the concept to begin with? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The judge said in his ruling that it was apparent that his wife testified untruthfully and that Zimmerman also testified and did not alert the court to the misinformation. He went on to say that "most importantly" Zimmerman has demonstrated that he doesn't respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process. Whether or not she commited perjury is irrelevant to the shooting. But this collusion between the two of them has put Zimmerman's credibility at risk. This episode makes the 4th time that he has been less than honest with the police and the courts. His claim of self-defense is going to rely on his credibility, and this collusion has jeopardized that even further.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the fine distinction that Gaijin42 is trying to make, and it's true that the wife's perjury charge cannot affect what has already taken place (i.e., the shooting itself), but the collusion, as Isaidnoway points out, will certainly have an effect on the case he and his counsel will attempt to make in court. Grandpallama (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your statement, just curious what the four times were that Zimmerman has been less than honest with the police and the courts. If you could respond here, or on my talk page, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that this incident would be allowed to be presented to a jury as being both prejudicial and irrelevant to the actual event. I also find the dual standards of what information is considered article relevant through a chain of logic - For zimmermans wife, apparently any plausible chain of logic is considered sufficiently relevant for inclusion of information which conflicts with BLP and BLPCRIME. For Martin similarly reliably sourced and plausible logic chains are insufficient. Even more baffling, Zimmerman's own history (assault, domestic etc) follows the Martin example (yay consistancy!) but it does not apply to his wife (inconsistancy boo). @Isaidnoway : What are the other 3 incidents? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(1) On the night of the shooting, he told police he had no prior arrests and had a "clean record"--not true. I'm sure you remember (Gaijin42) that Martin's family blasted the SPD for telling them that Zimmerman had a "squeaky clean record", in turn, the SPD issued a press release stating that Martin's family had misunderstood the officer, because Zimmerman had told them he had a "squeaky clean record". (2) When Zimmerman was arrested in April, he told the officer booking him that he had never been in a pre-trial diversion program--not true. (3) At his bond hearing when he apologized, he testified under oath that he thought Martin was closer to his age, but told the dispatcher the night of the shooting, "late teens"--contradictory statements. And now we have number (4) where in collusion with his wife, allegedly misled the court about their finances. Additionally, Gilbreath testified at his bond hearing that Zimmerman's claim of Martin slamming his head was not consistent with evidence they had found. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Zimmerman also told police that Martin reached for his gun, and they struggled over it, which is not corroborated by other evidence. He told the police that Martin was circling his SUV while on the phone with the dispatcher, but failed to tell the dispatcher that. You put all that together and the prosecution is going to argue there is a "pattern" of Zimmerman not being truthful, which affects his credibility to his claim of self-defense. The preceding was compiled from info already in the article and these sources, [20] and [21],-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On the four times Zimmerman lied, it doesn't seem so clear. I could only read part of one of the Orlando Sentinel articles because I'm out of free access there, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand the first statement still came from the police. The second is from a Sentinel report. In either case, it's hard to trust without actually going over what was said. The SPD didn't seem to come up with a capias request until after the story was national news, and the media has reported things like Zimmerman was "self-appointed" N.W. captain and called police 46 times in a year for black males. On some of the other things, in the recorded testimony of "John," he says the guy on the bottom did end up on the sidewalk, and again, we only have a leak about Zimmerman saying Martin was "circling his vehicle." Maybe he just went around it once, or even not completely. He did tell the dispatcher Martin was coming up to the vehicle, and the dispatcher said to tell him if he "did anything else," which seems to mean if Martin did something like attack. Psalm84 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting...thanks. I noticed the disparity between his saying at the bond hearing that he thought Martin was close to his age and his "late teens" response to the dispatcher. The misleading statements to the police are especially troubling, as he must have known that what he said would be carefully scrutinized. The latest revelations about speaking in code and purposefully misleading the court as to their finances also negatively impact Zimmerman's credibility. The "head slamming on concrete" seems less a problem, since his injuries were well documented and his head must have hit something hard; makes me question Gilbraeth's statement. Likewise the "circling" issue, because Zimmerman did mention that Martin was coming toward him while he sat in his vehicle and that Martin was "just staring" at him. Some of that could come down to interpretation. This case is truly a difficult one to gauge--I trust the jury will have an easier time of it than those of us who are attempting to write this article. Even with careful study, it's impossible to know what to think, and the general public seems hopelessly confused by the various disparities. Thanks again! Apostle12 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should leave this out until it can be shown that a couple of reliable sources have referred to the wife's arrest in the context of opining as to how it might come back to haunt Zimmerman at trial. Let's not speculate on that - the only legitimate basis of inclusion, as far as I can tell - ourselves, but wait until there is evidence of reliable sources doing so. Then it could be added to the article, in a single sentence. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are two sources with different views, one says her arrest does affect the case, [22], and this one says it won't, [23].

The judge also ruled today on the additional discovery to be released, [24]. Looks like Zimmerman's statements to authorities will be released along with tests performed on him. Some witness names will be released as well, those who have already appeared in interviews, others will remain anonymous. The recorded phone calls between them at the jail will be released as well. His ruling says they have fifteen days to comply.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not an RS, but I believe relevant under "recognized expert" analysis, as the author is a cornell law professor. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/perjury-charge-against-shellie-zimmerman-raises-more-questions-of-prosecutorial-overreaching/ Gaijin42 (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I would favor referencing the information contained in the above source. The prosecution's grooming of Shellie Zimmerman's testimony, completely leaving out her offer to phone the brother-in-law, is exculpatory and deserves a place in any discussion of the charges against Mrs. Zimmerman. Apostle12 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.Minor 4th 08:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I would include the wife's arrest in the timeline, but not in the text of the article. NoSeptember 05:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I would leave it out until (unless) there are a variety of reliable sources discussing the arrest as relevant to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. As pointed out above, we have been careful to refrain from throwing in negative information about Zimmerman and Martin, even though widely reported, because it has nothing to do with the case (but everything to do with public perception and rushes to judgment). The events leading to the bond revocation are described in the article -- it is irrelevant whether or not she was arrested or not. Shellie Zimmerman's arrest cannot be held against Zimmerman or offered as evidence of his guilt or innocence in any way. It is not a conviction...it is meaningless as of now. If we are going to include this tangent in the article, then I think we need to go back and beef up the character descriptions of Martin and Zimmerman as well. Minor4th 07:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about including the information on Zimmerman's wife or not, although it does seem to be tied into this case. But I just added the background on Zimmerman's arrest and the domestic violence injunction, and noted that the judge didn't find them that important at the bond hearing. It seemed they needed to be added because they're mentioned where the judge is quoted on the Zimmermans allegedly misleading the court. Psalm84 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Investigation and "discovery evidence"

The subsection about the initial investigation is largely duplicative of information detailed in "Discovery evidence". Since we are well beyond the initial investigation and into discovery, can we eliminate the initial investigation section or at least eliminate the duplicative information? Perhaps the "Discovery evidence" should be moved out of "court proceedings" and have its own stand alone section that pulls in other evidentiary information? The article is becoming unwieldy and we're at the very beginning of the legal process. The bulk could be improved by trimming repetitious information. Thoughts? Minor4th 14:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The initial investigation section in this case is important, as it is the source of a lot of the controversy around the police/govt actions. decisions not to arrest, prosecute etc. The information that was known at those times is directly relevant to those decisions. (Vs information known in hindsight from further investigations, which change peoples opinions about what should/shound not happen) However, we should be trying to organize the information as much as possible, and information that does not help elucidate that controversy should be condensed down into the discovery secion probably.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading through it again, I'd say you're right that the initial investigation is important to give context to the initial determination against making an arrest or bringing charges. In that light, most of the section looks ok, with the possible exception of information about medical records and autopsy report. I don't believe any of that was reported early on as part of the initial investigation (we don't know for sure what was considered since police were pretty tight lipped). That information seems misplaced and it is detailed elsewhere. I might remove that or merge it with discovery unless there are objections. Also, the 911 recordings are referenced and described repetitively -- I think we need to find one place where this fits best and trim the superfluous accounts. I will not have any more time to looks at this today, possibly this evening, so if another editor is feeling bold...Minor 4th 15:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the medical records and autopsy results into the discovery section. I merged the ABC report on Zimmerman's medical records in as well, I think they are notable. I do think the discovery section should remain in the court proceedings section for now anyway, as they were released as a result of a court order. In the next week or so, when Zimmerman's statements along with the rest of the discovery the judge ordered to be released, we may have to take another look at it. You are right, the discovery section will certainly expand with the additional evidence. I also agree about the 911 calls, all that should be in one place as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about info on Zimmerman and Martin

I noticed in the sections about Zimmerman and Martin there is little information about aspects that have been widely reported in numerous reliable sources ..such as Zimmerman's prior brushes with the law and Martin's suspensions. Is there a reason to keep this infomration out, as I think it balances the current information and presents a more complete picture of the players. Also, today or yesterday Judge Lester issued a written ruling on Z's bond revocation in which he specifically cites Zimmerman's previous domestic violence orders and indications of past violence. I understand the logic in keeping out information about charges that never resulted in convictions, but now that Lester has mentioned these things in a new order, is it something we should consider for the article? What I don't want to happen is a character assassination of one of the players while leaving the other painted in a more positive light than has been widely reported. Would like the community's input on this. Minor4th 23:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, certainly, and there are sources to be found biased one way and the other way, so there are ample sources for equality in character assassination. I would caution against any emphasis on past negative behavior for either guy, and concentrate instead on what the legal teams are using as their arguments. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Pick any archive at the top of the page and you will find a discussion on this topic with any number of arguments for excluding and including. It's usually a good idea for a new editor to an article to scan the archives first before editing the article, especially one that is as controversial as this one is.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that emphasis on past negative behavior should be minimized. However, I agree that Lester's written ruling on Zimmerman's bond revocation should be presented in full. Apostle12 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to collect a few links for discussion and possible inclusion in the article. It's possible this has already been discussed on the talk page, but I have just recently started editing again and am not aware of what's already been hashed out.

[25]"Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin"

[26] "Trayvon Martin suspended from school three times"

[27] "Trayvon suspended THREE times for 'drugs, truancy, graffiti and carrying burglary tool' and did he attack bus driver too? New picture emerges of victim as parents claim it's all a smear"
[28]"Zimmerman does not properly respect the law" (“…This is a serious charge for which life may be imposed; the evidence against him is strong; he has been charged with one prior crime, for which he went through a pre-trial diversion program, and has had an injunction lodged against him,” Judge Lester wrote. “Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process.” )
[29]"Zimmerman accused of domestic violence, fighting with police officer"

Those are just a few examples.Minor 4th 23:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but I agree with Apostle12 that the article should have full written rulings on the case. Obviously not written out in the body of the article, but collapsed or listed by links. Some quick way people can open and read complete rulings. ArishiaNishi (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen any complete rulings -- essentially the same quote is in all the sources. I'm not aware of any repository for the case documents, unfortunately. Minor4th 15:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The 18th Circuit Court's site has media advisories and public record documents pertaining to State v. Zimmerman here, [30]. They update it regularly and usually have them the same day they come out. The detailed discovery that was released on May 17th is not available on their site though. They were only made available to media outlets who set up accounts with the Florida State Attorney's Office. The NY Times has all 183 pages of it though and 4 audio recordings of some investigator interviews with witnesses that were released here, [31]. Also see this discussion on a previous talk page [32], where it seems we are forbidden from using the audio recordings due to "tricky copyright issues".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

i don't see that discussion as forbidding usage, and I find the "govt recordings are not copyrightable" argument extremely compelling. Is there something other than that talk archive that makes you think this actually is copyrighted? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is another link discussing the issue, [33], I agree that the site hosting all of the audio recordings was not a RS and couldn't be used in the article, but as far as the copyright issue went, it was a bit confusing. I agree with moonriddengirl's statement that we treat witness statements as we treat other public records that we know to be copyrightable. We can link to them where right to publish is unquestionable (such as government sites) and we can quote from them to the same extent we quote from other non-free works. As far as I know, there are no government sites hosting the audio recordings of the interviews with the witnesses, the only way to obtain them from the State Attorney's office was by being a member of the media. My question was and still is, if the NY Times has the audio recordings on their site, why couldn't we provide a link in the article to them. The response I got on the previous talk page [34] really didn't seem to make sense to me. What is your take on it?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the NYT does not own the copyright
I think it is patently obvious that the author of the recordings is the govt, and as such the recording is not copyrightable
The original words could theoretically be copyright by the speaker, but I find this a weak argument
- The words were provided as testimony
  - I think there are tons of examples of compelled speech by the govt, being recorded by the govt, being used for commercial and non-commercial purposes, without the consent of the speaker. (TV shows etc) As such there is a presumption of non-copyright status for the content of the recordings
- They were not put into a fixed medium by the speaker
- They are not a speech, or other creative materiel
The recordings are verifiable, through both the NYT (reliable source) and the original govt site.
- The fact that the govt site is not generally accessible is not a barrier to verifiability. We allow references to books etc which are in private libraries, or to papers that require membership to view. The fact that such membership in this case is harder to get does not change the fact that it is theoretically verifiable.
Absent significant proof of copyright or barrier, we should follow the precedent set by thousands of other use of govt created materiel.
Regardless of copyright, linking to or importing the documents has a clear fair use rationale as they do not have commercial value, and there is no possibility of obtaining a reasonable replacement.

Gaijin42 (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the most pertinent part of your conclusions is that they are not a speech or other creative material, which I think would be the only claim of being copyrightable. These were interviews given to a investigator working for the state attorney's office, and were recorded for a specific purpose, i.e. State vs. Zimmerman. I also think there is a fair use qualification here and the NY Times is a RS.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO I think we should be free to use any of the discovery material as appropriate as far as copyright and reliability are concerned. That being said, I have not reviewd the recordings or other information myself, so I am not making a !vote or comment on the appropriateness/relevance of any particular piece of evidence, and I do think there may be a primary/secondary sourcing barrier for some information as well. I think those issues (relevance, notability, primary/secondary) would need to be handled on a case by case basis depending on what the particular piece of evidence/recording was.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bits about Zimmerman's past were in the early stages of the article. When news of Martin's negative past came out, it was added, but quickly removed. In the interest of fairness, it was also removed from Zimmerman's section. Personally, I don't believe either individual's past actions are relevant to this article. --Korentop (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

2nd round of discovery

Here's a list of the State's 2nd redacted supplemental discovery. It's just a list, not the actual discovery. [35] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible Changes

There's been some discussion about making changes to the article so it will be organized better. There are a couple possibilities that I wanted to mention. One would be moving most of the section on Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch to a new section that would be background on the shooting. It could also include Zimmerman's first call to police in February. And right now the "Shooting" section only has Zimmerman's call in it. Before it also had the testimony of his friend, but even that doesn't cover the shooting. It seems to make sense to move all the accounts of it here, but I wanted to get other people's opinions on it. Psalm84 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What you are proposing isn't clear enough for me to comment in detail. However just reread the "Shooting" section, and I find that it works for me. When you refer to "the testimony of his friend," I don't know exactly what you are referring to. Also when you write "It seems to make sense to move all the accounts of it here," I do not know what you mean. Specifically "accounts of it" and "here" have insufficient antedecendents for this to be a clear proposal. Apostle12 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry if what I meant wasn't clear. I meant to write "there" not here. What I was referring to is that all the accounts of the shooting are at different places in the article. The account of Trayvon's friend who had been on the phone with him used to be in the "Shooting" section, but it was just moved to the witness accounts. It makes sense for it to be with them, but maybe all the accounts, including the witness statements, should be in the "Shooting" section. That question was brought up recently when there was some disagreement over adding criticism of the prosecution's account to the section on it. Right now the "Shooting" section doesn't cover the shooting. Psalm84 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean--the "Shooting" section does not cover the shooting, a real problem! I made one simple change by eliminating a subcategory, which has the effect of bring everything related to the shooting under "Shooting." Not trying to be heavy-handed here; it's just easier to make the this sort of change (boldly) and solicit comments. Please let me know what you think; for me it kind of works.Apostle12 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just made two other minor changes--changed "Shooting" to "Shooting and initial investigation," while eliminating "and initial investigation" from "Sanford Police arrival." Hope this flies; let me know. Apostle12 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That really is much better. It makes a lot more sense. The only account not under "Shooting" now is the prosecution's. Maybe it isn't needed there. I do wonder, though, if it does make more sense to have all the accounts of the shooting together in one place. It may be simpler for readers to do that since there's so much to the story. That was why I suggested moving most of Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch to a new section. I'd like to try that and see how it works. If there are any objections I wouldn't mind if it was changed back. Psalm84 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Changed the heading a bit. Timing of neighborhood watch formation seems important--not really clear before. Also eliminated reference to The Retreat at Twin Lakes, since it appears again in the first sentence of this unit. Reworded one sentence to make it clear that reports of attempted break-ins also included at least one break-in that was accomplished; the thieves had already disconnected the occupants' television.

I think the prosecution's account should stay where it is, since it is part of the court proceedings. Apostle12 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just had suggested moving them together to make what happened a little simpler to follow, but this way seems to work too. Psalm84 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I thought all those changes were fine. Something that also needs some attention is the "911 Call history" for Zimmerman, since it goes back to 2004 and most weren't 911 calls. Psalm84 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph in Zimmerman's bio needs to be moved to the neighborhood watch section as well. It pertains to the neighborhood watch.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I left that there. It seemed like something still needed to be said in Zimmerman's bio about him being in the neighborhood watch. There were already two similar sentences about Zimmerman being appointed the coordinator so I just moved one. Psalm84 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I moved it to the section where it belongs. It pertains to his role in the neighborhood watch, which has it's own section. If there are two sentences saying the same thing, get rid of one.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I thought it made sense to mention something about him being in the neighborhood watch in his bio. Psalm84 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead section, there is a section devoted entirely to the neighborhood watch, it's mentioned in his account of events and it's mentioned in the Initial Sanford Police investigation results. How many times do we need to mention that he was a neighborhood watch volunteer? I'm not sure why it's even in the police investigation results section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Copied from another section:

What I do have an issue with is Trayvon Martin's bio being stripped bare. What is up with that? There are 3 sentences left. Meanwhile, George Zimmerman has a glowing 3 paragraphs. Is this balanced? The information needs to be put back here, instead of elsewhere. I am going to restore it back where it belongs.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On the information that was moved from Trayvon Martin's biography, some of it has been recently added. It isn't all from the beginning of the article. I did take out the "Miami Florida area" because I combined a sentence. And I'm surprised that you would oppose taking his suspension out of his biography, since the biography should just include major facts about someone. And Zimmerman's would be longer since he is older. It isn't all "glowing" about him, too, because it does include mention that his height and weight came from being detained by police. Since someone else created a subheading about Martin staying temporarily in Sanford and mentioning the suspensions, it seemed best to move all the information about it there. Psalm84 (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin's bio and Zimmerman's bio has been there since the beginning of this article, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. It seems kind of counter productive to include it and then remove it without any kind of discussion. I restored it because a consensus was reached to include it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone else created the subheading about Martin living temporarily in Sanford and mentioned the suspension there, so I thought I'd move the rest of the information on the suspension into that section. After moving the information about the neigbhorhood watch from the People section to the Background section, I didn't think this would cause a problem. Maybe I should have explained my specific reason that I had a concern that IMO it would be fairer not to mention Martin's suspension in his bio, and since there is another option it seems to me better there. I only mentioned in the edit summary that I moved it so that it wouldn't be included twice in the article, so I also should have mentioned it there too so that my reasons were clear. Sorry that I wasn't clear on that. Psalm84 (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the word "allegedly"

I just wanted to mention something about why I removed it. I had it in the paragraph describing Zimmerman having a gun and leaving his car on the night of the shooting, and that he was criticized for "allegedly" violating neighbhorhood watch rules by doing so. The reason I removed it is that I was concerned that "allegedly" tends to suggest being accused of doing something illegal and it could create some confusion. I also thought the word wasn't quite necessary because Zimmerman didn't follow N.W. rules in having a weapon and leaving his vehicle, even though he might reasonably believe he needed to follow Martin. To avoid any confusion, I'd like to change the wording of the sentence so that "allegedly" isn't necessary. Psalm84 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the phrase about neighborhood watch rules could be removed so it just says that Zimmerman was criticized for having a gun and leaving his vehicle to follow Martin. Psalm84 (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One issue at a time. The first issue is whether Zimmerman "observed from a safe distance." If you will recall, he was on the phone with the dispatcher and, from his perspective, Martin disappeared. ("He ran.") The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to tell him if Martin did "anything else." (Contrary to the false assertion in the prosecution's affidavit, the dispatcher did not at that point tell Zimmerman to wait for the police to arrive.) Zimmerman may have felt that he could get out of his vehicle and try to ascertain Martin's whereabouts while still observing from a safe distance. After all, he could just as easily have been on foot from the beginning. Only after Zimmerman left his vehicle and embarked on his mission to locate Martin did the dispatcher forward his mild suggestion, "We don't need you to do that," to which Zimmerman replied "Okay." If Zimmerman is telling the truth, which at this point we don't know, Martin came upon him suddenly and confronted him while he was returning to his vehicle.

The second issue has to do with Zimmerman carrying a weapon. According to his father, he was not going out specifically to do neighborhood watch on the evening of February 26. He had become accustomed to carrying a weapon since obtaining his concealed carry permit some 15 months earlier. We don't know whether or not he routinely carried his weapon while doing neighhborhood watch. While people who do neighborhood watch are not encouraged to carry defensive weapons (cans of pepper spray, tasers, knives, guns), neither are they prohibited from doing so if they can do so legally.

Your suggestion could work (will have to take a peek), since it helps us avoid these issues. The fact is Zimmerman was criticized for leaving his vehicle and carrying a weapon.

As an aside, I know one thing for sure: If I were doing neighborhood watch in a subdivision where there had been burglaries, thefts, multiple break-ins and a shooting, I would carry a defensive weapon if I could do so legally. One thing I have been curious about: Have the young black men who were so thoughtlessly victimizing those who live in The Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood stayed away since the shooting? Have they stopped their pattern of criminal behavior? Apostle12 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and edited the sentence. I think it works. Apostle12 (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it works too. Some RS did say he violated the NW rules, and that could be mentioned along with the police comments that he wasn't breaking the law, but it still might create some confusion. I do understand the points you made about Zimmerman's actions, and they're definite possibilities. Maybe when his accounts are released things will become clearer. Psalm84 (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, more clarity would certainly be appreciated. I especially hope that a higher level of clarity is possible before this case goes before a jury; I don't envy them, since any jury ruling will cause one faction or another to demonize them. Apostle12 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, the source cited does not support the first sentence. The only thing remotely close is; The recent shooting raised troubling questions about whether the homeowners association knew its volunteer was armed with a Kel Tek 9mm semiautomatic handgun. Maybe you accidentally removed a source during editing? Just thought I'd give you a friendly heads up before someone comes along and removes it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is more, even in the article you cited. And other sources within the same paragraph support it. I think such a non-controversial statement can stand on the body of sourcing established throughout the article, as it must have before; I didn't remove anything. Nevertheless I did add two specific sources. Many more are available. Apostle12 (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in the original source cited to support that sentence the only reference to Martin's family was in this paragraph; "But the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin left the boy’s family and attorneys convinced that the volunteer developed a twisted sense of entitlement, one that gave him a false sense of authority to enforce the rule of law in his tiny gated community. Trayvon’s family’s attorneys believe that led to racial profiling and murder." But thanks for adding specific sources, as unsourced material may be removed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

Please explain how this is OR/Synth, " Numerous official reports have been released which accounts for the differing physical descriptions in sources cited in this article. Martin's physical appearance, size and weight were originally contested and used by the media to advance speculation prior to the arrest of Zimmerman and trial evidence." The information is summarized in the following sentences. Also the numerous instances in the article show this. We got Mother Jones and Wagist which used these, including comments from the defense lawyer Benjamin Crump to advance the information. The original material actually still online and viewable from the RSes as well. [36] You can call this OR/SYNTH, but it most certainly is not. We still have sources in this article that make numerous comments about height and weight; readers have every right to get clarification. With lines like:

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

Wikipedia editors should not engage in creating OR or synthing sources, but this is an example of an accusation that is patently false. We have many major blogs using this information to advance their POV often times citing these actual articles as Mother Jones did.[37] Concerns about height and weight were more prevalent and long lasting than Jesse Jackson's quickly silenced claim that Martin was shot in the back of the head by Zimmerman. Much of the firestorm surrounding the case came from a combination of "armed vs unarmed", "white vs black", "man vs boy", "big vs small" analogies. Considering the images used in the media, the differences were so inappropriate that it galvanized public outcry into a political weapon. The Martin's weight was listed as 140 pounds in many sources early on, including the Daily Beast, Examiner and others. The two original articles on the weight difference for Zimmerman being 250 pounds have been 404ed and are not on Archive.org it seems. Though just about everything has been disputed in this case.[38] Because of the blacklist I can't link to the Anderson Cooper response on Mediaite, but it has a video of CNN’s Anderson Cooper speaking with Mary Cutcher, Selma Mora Lamilla account of the events. Take out the last little bit if you want; but its not OR or synth; numerous journalists have pushed this and parroted Crump and other lines without independent verification to push speculation instead of official facts. Mostly, because such "facts" were not forth-coming from the police and the widespread reports of a coverup. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

From the beginning of WP:SYNTH,

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

Here are the sentences in question,

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for consensus, I think both sides share merit. ChrisGualtieri's first claim appears to be altogether true. There really isn't a consistent set of reliable sources which confirm Martin's height and weight. And while it is no doubt true (or at least, extremely likely) that this variance has been used to create speculation, I'm not sure it's relevant to point this out. I submit that "The height and weight of Trayvon Martin has been disputed," or something like it could be added. To go further that "the media used" this information to advance an agenda is too much, as Bob K31416 correctly states. Provided that ChrisGualtieri could produce a reliable source which states that Martin's weight has been disputed, this seems like a valid addition.

However, I can then see his point: if there are 360 sources, and amongst them a variety of weights listed, is it really necessary to provide a source which points out these discrepancies? It would probably would be, as he says, a wild-goose-chase to find a source that states something like this outright. At what point is it valid make conjecture's such as "media reports of Martin's weight have varied" without having another person say this for you? ZTFulkerson (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Re "if there are 360 sources, and amongst them a variety of weights listed, is it really necessary to provide a source which points out these discrepancies?" — I agree, it's not necessary in this example you gave. That wasn't the problem. Here's the subject sentence.

"Numerous official reports have been released which accounts for the differing physical descriptions in sources cited in this article."

As I mentioned, this wasn't true. There weren't numerous official reports, there were two: the police report and the autopsy report. There were also unofficial reports by the Martin family. Also, the implication that if there are numerous official reports they will differ, is OR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

- It is not OR, this is a basic fact, the family put forth one and the police estimation form Zimmerman, the police report from the officer that night and the medical examiner report are all differ. Prior to the release of the medical examiner's report the going public weight issue was Martin's family estimate. We have Crump's interview alone noting the difference between the weights for Zimmerman as well. Early on the matter of weight was used to put physical size to advantage in the fight. You can not call it OR, because it is not, I'll bring it to DRN if you are so obsessed with this - I got better things to do, and quite frankly you do not know the meaning OR. Noticing that we have a ranger of over 50 pounds for Zimmerman and 40 pounds for Martin is simple and the Mother Jones, Daily Beast, Wagist, Anderson Cooper Interview, CNN, and Crump's ABC comments are all simple ones which show from the families and the lawyers themselves advancing the discussion of weight into the "facts" of the case. This is no different then that now silenced drama of "Martin was shot in the back of the head". Okay? Looking at two sources and noticing the discrepancy is not OR, its common sense and is perfectly acceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of the way you worded the statement which carries with it an implication that I described previously. I also described reasons why the sentence was wrong. Your statement implies that the physical descriptions in the sources cited were different because there were numerous official reports. Actually, the sources cited had different physical descriptions because they were based on different reports with differing descriptions. Is this what you wanted to say:

"Various reports with differing physical descriptions have been released, which accounts for the differing physical descriptions in the sources cited in this article."

Would that be what you want to say? If so, this is OK with me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, anyone else disagree before I add? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

Really? The best image we can come up with for the infobox is a map?! How about a picture of Trayvon, as that's the title of the article. CTF83! 00:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No. I think the map was a very good, impartial idea, actually. The title of the article is not "trayvon martin", btw. Whatzinaname (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I was just being lazy....but the article title has Trayvon's name in it, hence his picture should be in the infobox. CTF83! 01:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The wiki is about THE SHOOTIHG of trayvon martin, not trayvon martin, Besides, even if it were a picture there wold be all sorts of acrimony over which picture to use.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone improve the map? Since the two parties first met at one location, then traveled to the location of the scuffle and shooting, can that path be added to the map?MikeVdP (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)