Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Witness number 9 statement released

Witness #9 statements was released [1] and [2] and [3] despite O'Mara filing a motion to stop it until the judge ruled on his motion to recuse himself from the case. O'Mara argued that the judge could not legally rule on the witness #9 issue until he rules on the motion to recuse.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Incredibly inflamitory, and completely not relevant to the case at hand. Im very suprised the judge released it, because of the risk of Jury taint. Certainly under the precedent set for all of the other, well covered negative parts of Zimmerman and Martin past histories, this should not be included. Particularly as this allegedly happened when Zimmerman was 8-18 years old, and is currently completely unsubstantiated except by the witness's statement. The headlines are particularly misleading making it sound as though Zimmerman was an adult child molester, when in reality the girl was within 2 years of their age (certainly not excusing any sexual assault if the allegations are true, but does not fit the common perception of child molester at all) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that, despite being sourced by multiple news organizations (e.g., [4]), adding this to the article would seem to be inappropriate. I think it violates WP:UNDUE, at least. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevance to this case, would require some sort of factual finding regarding the allegations. There are a couple ways this could happen, all of which I think are pretty unlikely : 1) Zimmerman admits it -very unlikely unles he turns indo an idiot prior to the trial. 2 & 3) criminal or civil trial. Floriday relitively recently removed the statute of limitations for child abuse cases, but only for cases where the statute had not already run out as of the date of the law change (2010). The relevant SOLs are basically before the victim turns 25, which based on the linked stories would have expired before 2010, so its unlikely we would get a court ruling on the allegations. I suppose there could be some secondary tiers of evidence which might make it acceptable, significant coroborating witnesses, or dated journals , admission on the part of zimmermans family, etc. but so far we don't have any of that. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The allegations of course are not relevant to the shooting, but what is relevant is the legal aspect of this. O'Mara is arguing that the judge should have ruled on his recusal motion first, because once a motion for recusal is filed, the judge must rule on that motion before ruling on other issues in the case. If Judge Lester were to recuse himself, a different judge may have made a different ruling on witness 9 statements being released. Apparently, O'Mara filed a motion this morning (Monday) to stop the release of the statement, until the judge ruled on the recusal motion, but the state attorney's office didn't receive it until it was too late. I think O'Mara will use this to further his argument about the judge being biased against his client.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It does seem very inflammatory, especially since the alleged abuse happened when Zimmerman wasn't an adult either. The girl also said something about Zimmerman's family not liking black people (if they don't act like white people, it was reported), and that would seem to be why prosecutors want to use her testimony, but that doesn't really seem to mean much either since Zimmerman wasn't an adult at the time he knew her and there seems to be a lot of contrary evidence that's stronger and more recent. Psalm84 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BLPCRIME, these accusations against Zimmerman do not belong in the article. If they end up playing a major role in the legal proceedings, then we could revisit the issue. But at present it seems clearly inappropriate to include the allegations, even though they appear in a reliable source, for WP:BLP reasons. MastCell Talk 21:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. What's next? -- Avanu (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the latest allegations do not belong in the article, and I am surprised they were certified for public release. O'Mara may have a point about prejudice on the part of Judge Lester. That he approved full (rather than redacted) release of testimony by Witness #9, and that such testimony could easily taint the jury pool, IS part of the story. We will need to find a way to refer to the (cousin's?) allegations in a non-specific way, based on RS of course, during the course of explaining how such inflammatory allegations might affect Zimmerman's ability to get a fair trial. The Witness #9 testimony regarding Zimmerman and his family "only lik(ing) Black people if they act like White people" has some relevance--even if it's true, this clarifies that for the Zimmermans the issue is behavior and actions (i.e. MLK's "the content of one's character") rather than race (i.e. MLK's "the color of one's skin"). UNLESS, of course, one ascribes to the racist assumption that racial heritage determines whether people "act Black" or "act White," as Witness #9 seems to believe. These allegations will be difficult to write about, no matter how reliably sourced; yet they must be addressed in some manner. Apostle12 (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no... it would mean that they associate bad behavior with acting "black", and good behavior with acting "white". That's not exactly what MLK had in mind, I suspect. I've long since lost the capacity to be shocked or appalled by anything said on this page, but your comment is really over the line. MastCell Talk 16:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
My point is that there is no such thing as "acting Black" or "acting White." These are fictions promoted by Black racists and White racists alike. Apostle12 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting find in the Motion to Reconsider (by the prosecution) - They also argued that #9s statements about alleged incidents should not be released as prejudicial and admited problems with admisability, but included it in the discovery as it included the race issues which they might want to use. This can be seen on pages 2 and 3 of this link. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/State%20resp%20to%20motion%20to%20reconsider%20disclosure.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I read elsewhere that they may use her as a rebuttal witness not only for the race issue, but to rebut "good character" testimony that the defense may try to introduce. But on the race issue, we have the FBI report and if O'Mara releases reciprocal discovery about this issue from their POV, her credibility may come into play on the character issue. I really don't see this witness testifying. Since this witness approached the police to give a statement, and they subsequently interviewed her, the prosecution was required to release it as part of their discovery. The judges decision to release it is troubling though, Florida's sunshine law is too broad IMO.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll on witness 9

The results and comments in the straw poll indicate there is an unanimous consensus to keep witness number 9's statements out of the article. Any further discussion on this topic should be started in a new section. No further edits should be made to this section.

As I feared, an editor added these allegations into the article. [5] I reverted per WP:BLPCRIME. They just simply do not belong in the article at the present time. I think a poll of editor's is justified on this issue to reach a consensus. I obviously oppose.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose until there is some logical and reasonable connection to this shooting, backed up by a reasoned analysis in reliable secondary sources, this material is not only inappropriate under WP:BLP, it is a textbook case of an inappropriate addition. (Commenting after invitation from User:Isaidnoway) -- Avanu (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose 28-year George's actions starting from 8 years old in a "he said/she said" situation years before the incident at hand are notable, but Trayvon's school suspensions, Facebook and Tweet postings in the immediate preceeding months or weeks are off-limits? Including this opens a pandora's box of including all possible incriminatory accusations against both parties on issues other than who did what when on 26 Feb 2012. (Commenting after invitation from User:Isaidnoway) --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (I was invited here from my talk page.) Way too early. If it becomes a significant part of the case for some reason, we may have to include it, as we would other things like the other claims flying of both participants, but it's way too early for us to know that. (Personally I don't get the relevence of most of the allegations to the case but that's neither here nor there and US court cases have often seemed strange.) BTW I think the wrong link was used above as it links to some gnomish activity, which unless I missed it (a lot of small changes so difficult to see what was going on) didn't add the info. I had to look at the discussion above to see what was being referred to. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • comment I think [6] is the diff the OP intended to link to. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • strong oppose, speedy WP:SNOW based on results so far, and the fact that BLP issues are not up for consensus to override in general. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not now. (Not invited) ```Buster Seven Talk 17:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons given by O'Mara. (Invited by B7! ) --Kenatipo speak! 02:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It may be part of discovery and widely reported, but it's not relevant at this time. I had a notice on my talk page, but would have participated without it. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my earlier comments on this issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (invited on talk page). This evidence won't be admitted in court, and it shouldn't be included here by BLP guidelines. Muckraking has no place in Wikipedia. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Added discussion

Isaidnoway, When you contacted editors on their talk pages to request their comment, how did you choose which editors to contact? BTW, I note that not counting those contacted editors, there is still a unanimity so far of 6 editors for oppose. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that isaidnoway probably was risking a bit of WP:Canvassing by inviting editors with a particular slant (although I would not go so far as to say he definately broke this guideline, just was getting close :)) however in this case I think the issue is moot as even those not canvassed agree - as this content is so clearly out of bounds based both on BLP and the consensus set for precident of other information on this article. However, Isaidnoway certainly did the right thing in asking those canvassed to identify that they had commented due to his request, which significantly mitigates any issue imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As the first to respond here, after invitation from Isaidnoway, exactly what particular slant do you think I have? Most of my efforts here have been to keep irrelevant garbage out of the article, about anybody. Probably more of my time has been taken up keeping dirt about Martin out, such as his school suspensions. Is it WP:Canvassing if my position is unknown? Is it WP:Canvassing if my position is biased towards nobody? HiLo48 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the case was borderline, and as i previously stated, think that isaidnoway mitigated any issue fairly well by doing his invitation publicly on wikipedia, and asking those invited to state that they were (which completely . Additionally, his statement that he did not invite editors who were active anyway is also decently mitigating. Canvassing is comprised of several subtypes, spamming, campaigning, stealth, and votestacking. I think it is quite obvious that isaidnoway did not have a problem of any of the first 3. I was merely warning against the votestacking rather than any actual complaint, since the outcome is obvious which moots any issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I notified editor's who had participated in previous discussions on this talk page about similar BLP concerns about the two subjects of this article. Editor's who supported or opposed were notified. I didn't notify those editor's who are pretty regular about participating in discussions on this talk page (which included; BobK, Gaijin42, Apostle12, Psalm84, Whatzinaname and a few others) because they had already commented or wouldn't hesitate to offer their comment. The notices were brief, polite, neutrally worded and clear that it was a straw poll. WP encourages inviting other editors into discussions to obtain opinions and arguments. However, it is not acceptable to invite editors in an effort to "stuff the ballot box" or those with a particular slant as Gaijin42 alludes to. I knew upon seeing that witness 9's statements had been released, that it would only be a matter of time before an editor inserted this information in the article (which did happen). I thought a straw poll and asking for comments was justified, considering the circumstances and the controversial nature of the allegations against Zimmerman. It goes without saying that all editors across the WP galaxy are welcome and encouraged to discuss and engage on this talk page. P.S. Apologies to those I forgot to notify or inadvertently left out (Buster Seven).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • So far, I haven't seen anything on TV about it. Could it be that TV has the same concerns about reporting it as the editors here? Anyhow, has anyone seen it reported on TV? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, O'Mara was on Piers Morgan last night talking about it. [7], He played a couple excerpts from the audio interview with the person, and O'Mara indicated that they would be releasing their own reciprocal discovery about this issue.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Witness 9's allegations were mentioned on the TV news this morning.--Naaman Brown (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
What I don't understand is how the FBI "civil rights violation" investigators missed Witness #9. Since she claims the whole Zimmerman family is racist, why didn't the prosecutor (who is interested in making George Zimmerman look as bad as possible) point the FBI in her direction so they could interview her? --Kenatipo speak! 02:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably because her statements more reflect her own attitudes than those of the Zimmermans. The FBI interviewed in excess of three dozen people — coworkers, friends, neighbors, gun dealers, and even his former fiancee - all maintain that Zimmerman never displayed any anti-Black prejudice. Apostle12 (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
What makes you so sure they "missed" her? The FBI was looking for information on george. This witness 9 was specifically asked if she knew any racist comments or actions george ever took/said, and she couldn't come up with a single one.Whatzinaname (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me back up a step: did the FBI interview Witness 9 as part of their civil rights violation investigation? --Kenatipo speak! 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
According to Frances Robles, "“Witness 9” accused Zimmerman of sexually molesting her", Miami Herald, 16 Jul 2012, she took her accusations to the Seminole County prosecutor's office, investigators Jim Post and Jim Rick. Her claim that the Zimmerman's were racist is contradicted by the majority of witnesses interviewed by the FBI. (Ashley Hayes, "Witnesses tell FBI that George Zimmerman is no racist", CNN, 13 Jul 2012.)--Naaman Brown (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious

Apostle12, Regarding the first part of your edit summary,[8] "Zimmerman's reasons for suspecting Martin distorted by addition of this brief excerpt, added by BobK31416 7-11-12." — Actually, the brief excerpt corrects a distortion that Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious only because Martin was walking in the community, rather than "just walking around, looking about". --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that your intention was to correct a distortion. However, for many readers "just walking around, looking about" is also not sufficient reason for someone to be considered suspicious. The factors that aroused Zimmerman's suspicion included Martin's overall demeanor, where he was walking ("cutting between the houses"), how he was dressed, as well as his "just walking around, looking about;" and all of that was in the context of "we've had a lot of break-ins." It's difficult briefly to convey the context--perhaps best not to attempt it in the lede.
By the way, Zimmerman's "profiling" of Martin is often mentioned as wrongdoing in and of itself, even though it is a legitimate technique that everyone, including law enforcement, employs. There was nothing wrong with Zimmerman relaying his suspicions to law enforcement, especially given the history of criminal activity at Twin Lakes. And the FBI has confirmed that Zimmerman's profiling of Martin had nothing to do with racism. Apostle12 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Presently, it says that Zimmerman saw Martin walking in the community and he thought Martin was suspicious. There's no reason given as to why Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious, other than he was walking in the community. It needs rewriting. Any suggestions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think this is going to be somewhat difficult to do, as we don't have a lot of information on this, which can really only come from Zimmerman in terms of what his thoughts were. Certainly, this is the source of a lot of criticism of Zimmerman, tha he should not have had cause to be suspicious based on a guy just walking. However, I think we can expand with some information to flesh it out at least based on some statements from Zimmerman and the police. The problem I see is that giving this level of detail in the lede may be problematic, and cause some localized WP:UNDUE. Certainly we could flesh this out significantly though in Zimmerman's account.

  • Gang activity in the area, with known dress-code similar to clothes worn by Martin (goons) (See my dump section on the new discovery)
  • walking, looking at houses, without hurrying to get home and out of the rain (Obviously depends on the severeness of the rain at that exact moment which we don't know)
  • General fear/wariness due to recent crime in the area

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As the text is now, it's not neutral and only gives details to refute Zimmerman's describing Martin as suspicious, i.e. just walking, visiting father's fiancee, not armed, no indication of criminal activity. On the other hand, no reason is given why Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. Here it is.
"While in his vehicle on a private errand, Zimmerman saw Martin walking inside the community, where Martin and his father were visiting his father's fiancée. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious. Martin was not armed and, according to one police document,"There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter".[1][2][3]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think its going to be difficult to do without making these sentences unwieldy, but perhaps we could add some information in the sentences prior to indicate recent criminal activity in the area, and the gang uniform. Then zimmerman was on an errand, saw an unkown person who was wearing clothing similar to the clothing worn by gangs, etc. This is also going to be difficult to do neutrally though, as hoodies etc are certainly not gang-exclusive clothes that would be a clear indicator. Lots of the info we have is speculation/opinion of the police, lawyers, family (both sides), etc. We have very little information straight from zimmerman about what he was thinking in those moments. Maybe we will learn more on this point if he testifies. Trying to balance all these things is going to be really tough imo. I feel you on the "only refutations" part, but I think this is a part where there is legit criticism of Zimmerman - Was he actually justified in being suspicious? Martin was walking, there was no indication of criminal activity. Those are objective facts. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's an approach: let's start by moving the one-sided details. Also, some may be better mentioned only in an appropriate section that already exists after the lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Last night I watched the full interview (about 40 minutes) Zimmerman did with Sean Hannity. Most of the excerpts I have seen from the interview vastly distort what Zimmerman has to say and make him sound much less balanced than his full statement. There is still the very problematic "God's will" statement and the apparent dichotomy between "no regrets" and "so sorry," but he comes across as a person struggling with all that has happened since February 26. One part of the interview deals specifically with why he noticed Martin and why he found Martin's behavior suspicious, and a lot of that had to do with where Martin was walking--"cutting in-between the houses" is how he put it. This is brief enough that we could perhaps include it in the lede. The only place I have found the full, uninterrupted, interview available is on Zimmerman's web page, though a series of six videos comprise the full interview here: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity
Just found an abridged version of the relevant section of the interview, posted on NBC's "Grio," a reliable source. http://thegrio.com/2012/07/18/zimmerman-says-he-was-not-pursuing-trayvon-martin/:
“I felt he was suspicious because it was raining,” Zimmerman said. “He was in-between houses, cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the weather. … It didn’t look like he was a resident that went to check their mail and got caught in the rain and was hurrying back home. He didn’t look like a fitness fanatic that would train in the rain.”
Have added some short phrases in order to convey some context in the lede. I do think it is more NPOV than it was before - still not the full context of why Zimmerman noticed Martin, but conveys more than just that he "saw Martin walking."
Also added what appears above in "Zimmerman's account of events."
Perhaps we should make a point of linking to the six-part video series of the interview in some conspicuous way. Apostle12 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"the full context" is inappropriate for the lede. Thats what Zimmerman's account section is for. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A agree, however some context seems appropriate. Hope the changes have achieved that, since it's not accurate to imply that Martin's mere presence walking in the community is what aroused Zimmerman's suspicions. Apostle12 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs, and summarize the most important points. Right now, we have six paragraphs with no end in sight, as more and more information is being added. All these new additions to the second paragraph are totally unnecessary. Summarize it guys, leave the details to the body of the article. It's enough to say that Zimmerman reported his behavior as suspicious and Martin was not armed or committing a crime, that's the summary right there. The rest of the details belong in the body of the article. The third sentence, Though break-ins had been frequent in the community, Martin was not armed.... doesn't even make any sense. Martin didn't have anything to do with previous break-ins in the community. And the fact he was unarmed and not commiting a crime doesn't have anything to do with previous break-ins in the community. This paragraph needs to be reverted back to the original summary.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"No end in sight" is an exaggeration. Objections (above) cited "no context." The fact that there had been many break-ins goes to why Zimmerman was suspicious of someone he saw "cutting in-between the buildings"--not unreasonable to see this as possible casing of adjacent homes. Agree we don't need to refer to Martin not being armed a second time. Original summary has been criticized here--let's work on making it right, not just reverting. Apostle12 (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I am in general agreement with you about the length and its memoentum for growing and that we should keep it to the bare summary. I also see problems with the specific wording of the "breakins" addition, but do think that that could be correctly included in the summary as summarizing the average crime level in the area, which is valid for a summary imo. A crime in Mayberry means something quite different than a crime in Compton, and the difference in general awareness/suspicion of people and behavior is relevant at the summary level.
proposal cut the zimmerman quotes there and only have them in the zimmerman account section, but do include some narrative addition over "while walking" to hint that there is more informatino available elsewhere Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No end in sight is certainly not an exaggeration. Just take a look at the lead. We haven't even gotten to any court hearings, nor the trial, and every motion filed in court seems "significant" enough to find it's way in the lead. We are trying to summarize. It's also not unreasonable to clearly state that Martin was not commiting a crime as he was "cutting in between the buildings", after all it's not a crime to do that. And including his being unarmed and not commiting a crime in the same sentence as previous break-ins, as though to imply somehow the two are related is incredulous.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The following that is underlined is what I think are extraneous details for this paragraph. I used underlining instead of crossouts to just point out the details that need to be removed, rather than what the draft should look like. The info that Martin was temporarily staying in a townhouse of the community should be put in the first paragraph of the lead, without the father's fiancee detail. The info that Martin was unarmed is already in the first paragraph of the lead.

"While in his vehicle on a private errand, Zimmerman noticed Martin walking inside the community, where Martin and his father were visiting his father's fiancée. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, largely he says because Martin was "cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the weather." [6][7] Though break-ins had been frequent in the community, Martin was not armed and, according to one police document, "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter".[8][9][10] While still on the phone with the police dispatcher, Zimmerman left his vehicle and there was a fight, which ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the chest at close range.[11][12][13][14][15]"

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of those edits, as it leaves both additional weight of why zimerman thought what he did to his own account, and reasons why you may not believe him to the prosecutions account. I think possibly the "private errand" could be valuable, because it is so short, and indicates that zimmerman was not acting in a patrol mode as part of his neighborhood watch position, which was widely reported and i believe implied that he was on patrol in some sources originally (we should correct that misaprehension). 20:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Gaijin42, All of the underlined is valuable, just not suitable for this paragraph, especially "private errand". BTW everyone, I have my eye on many other parts of the lead for similar trimming. I think editors have gotten carried away about adding details to the lead, but we can discuss that later. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
So you want it to read:
"While in his vehicle Zimmerman noticed Martin inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious. Zimmerman left his vehicle and there was a fight, which ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin."
I can't agree that this adequately conveys anything of substance to readers who will only read the lede - which is to say most readers. This is a complicated story; brevity is important, however I think arbitrary restrictions on length are counterproductive. The lede hardly seems unwieldy,and "no end in sight" strikes me as exaggeration. That said, did make one correction based on Isaidnoway's comments. Apostle12 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Re "I can't agree that this adequately conveys anything of substance to readers " — I think that is because you are extremely familiar with the topic and you are taking for granted the most substantive parts of it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Other parts of the lead

Further propsed lede edits : Cut entirely the last two paragraphs, rewrite the 3rd to last paragraph to say Zimmerman is awaiting trial and out on bail. All of the back and forth motions should only be in the larger court case section imo. Alternately, have a continually updated last paragraph that indicates the most recent motions/events only and older events drop off (in this case the two different sets of bonds) - that way readers can get a quick summary of the most recent event without finding the court section, but dont get the play by play. The current precident will lead to an unmanagable length once things really go in force. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think keeping the first four paragraphs - essentially as they appear today with revisions as appropriate - would work. Like the idea of one last paragraph being a quick summary of recent events--no need for full history. Apostle12 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Four paragraphs is ideal, but considering the present length of the article, five concise paragraphs, I think could be manageable. I would also like to point out that "cutting in between houses" is not what Zimmerman originally said in his call to police. He said "he's just walking around, looking about", "looking at all the houses". In his interviews with police, he said he took note of Martin because he was "near a home" that he had previously called police about. He told his father, Martin was "walking behind" the town homes. And now he's told Hannity he was "cutting in between houses". Due to his inconsistent statements about what he actually observed, and all the different interpretations of those observations, it's probably best to just say his "behavior" which is neutral and covers a whole range of actions and mannerisms. Regardless of what he perceived Martin's behavior to be, none of those claims is a crime and the prosecution's perception that he was not commiting a crime needs to be mentioned.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I like some context for how Zimmerman's suspicions came to be aroused. Otherwise it might seem just completely off the wall.
I don't see Zimmerman's descriptions of Martin's behavior as "inconsistent;" rather they appear to me to be complementary ways to describe what he saw and explain why his suspicions were aroused. Without training very few people use language precisely, nor can a single word or phrase capture everything one experiences. Zimmerman seems quite clumsy in this regard; in fact he often expresses himself so awkwardly that he becomes his own worst enemy, as in his "God's will" statement. (Another, not dissimilar, public figure comes to mind - George W. Bush.) I agree that Martin's behavior, up to the point where he may have assaulted Zimmerman, was not criminal; I also understand how Martin's behavior might have aroused suspicion. Apostle12 (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Describing Martin's "behavior as suspicious" is not off the wall, in fact it is the most neutral way to summarize it due to Zimmerman's inconsistent statements in describing Martin's behavior. We shouldn't leave the reader with the impression in the lead of this article that this is the defining behavior that aroused his suspicions, when Zimmerman is giving inconsistent statements about describing Martin's behavior. The lead should summarize that Zimmerman called the police and "described Martin's behavior as suspicous", and then let the reader sort through his inconsistent statements in the body of the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

article organization

I think we either need to split up some of the article, or do some major refactoring. Information is scattered all around, some chronologically, some by topic and it makes it difficult to find things. One example I just ran into today was the FBI report about them not thinking zimmerman was racist. Its currently in the "further investigation" section, but I think should be located in the "defense of zimmermans character" section. Im sure there are numerous other examples as well on various topics. I think we should try to come to a consensus about how the information should be arranged and try and improve the article.

I think a split for the trial/court things should clearly be done, as that information is going to continue to grow and dominate the main article, which should probably just focus on the shooting itself.

Also, I think quote a bit of the article is stale WP:RECENTISM where it was information that was all that was available at the time of the early article, but now is washed away I think. Do we need every breathless development/commentary from before the arrest? etc. Obviously the trial is ongoing, but I think we can take a look back at the early information and decide what is long term worthy of encyclopedic entry. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Part of the "story" here was the way the story was handled by the media. I think that in itself warrants some degree of attention. I don't think we need a play-by-play, but the sometimes extreme bias in the choices of photographs, the poor fact checking, etc, needs some mention somewhere in Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that part of the story was how things were handled by the media--this is not "stale recentism," as you state. Rather the original media distortions continue to reverberate in the public's perception of events--read any random selection of public comments following any current article if you doubt this. Early on Martin was portrayed as an innocent boy-victim, not a young man who was capable of attacking Zimmerman. I am not, of course, saying he did attack Zimmerman, but his ability to do so seems still to be in question because of early media portrayals. Even Martin's earlier "boy" photograph continues to be used in the media to falsely represent him (to wit an appearance of this photo in yesterday's 7-23-12 edition of the Washington Post), so we need to maintain historical perspective in our wiki article if we wish to counter the momentum of past distortions. A particularly persistent distortion, by the way, is one that appears even in the prosecution's affidavit of probable cause, which falsely asserts that the police dispatcher suggested Zimmerman not follow Martin before Zimmerman got out of his vehicle--in fact the dispatcher's suggestion (some characterize it as an "instruction") occurred only after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, and we know it was followed by, at least, his verbal agreement. So all of this is still very much in play. Apostle12 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

•Setting the scope of this article is an excellent idea. This is the main article on the incident, and as such, should primarily contain the events of that night, pertinent background, and the legal case. The media's handling of the story can be briefly described and linked to a stand alone article, if editors are inclined to explore that issue in more depth. The intersection of events and the mode of informing the public of events (journalism), is an interesting one, and well worth rigorous analysis, but it shouldn't become the focus of, or even color, encyclopedic articles on the events themselves. Once the scope is settled, the most effective organization of the article will be much easier to determine. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Night

The fact that the incident occurred at night should be mentioned in the lead. The reduced visibility of the darkness affected the eyewitnesses' ability to see what was happening and Zimmerman's ability to see Martin. The change could easily be made by adding "the night of" to the first sentence, i.e. "The fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman took place on the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, United States." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

According to http://www.calendar-365.com/calendar/2012/February.html, In Miami, sunset was at 6:21pm, so events happening at 7+ would certainly have been in the dark depending on what the local lighting situaion was. Additionally the moon was a small waxing crecent according to http://lunaf.com/english/moon-phases/lunar-calendar-2012/02/26/. I support this suggestion. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The diminished visibility from the darkness of the night is mentioned in some of the witness accounts in the article.
"her son could not see any details in the dark"
"it was too dark to see blood on his face"
"He was no longer certain who was calling for help, having not seen their mouths in the dark."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I support this suggestion as well. I think pretty much all the witnesses said at one point it was too dark to really see anything. I think one witness even mentioned turning on a back porch light to see what was going on, and another one described seeing someone out there with a flashlight immediately following the shooting.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We cannot overlook that it was not only after sundown, but it was raining and the sky would be cloudy overcast, and it was cold for late Feb in Florida. --Naaman Brown (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Much beyond "night" is going to be tough because you would have to reliably source everything. There are no good sources on the clouds or amount of rain at that exact time, and we have had some previous discussions regarding "unseasonably cold" and determined it was too undefined/subjective to put in. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The recent clean up and organization of the external links section looks good, but I'm interested in other editor's opinions about some recent additions to this section. See WP:EXT for guidelines.

Robert and Gladys Zimmerman's website, which obviously is biased, and Justice for Trayvon, a Facebook page, which is obviously biased. The version of events from Wagist and BCCList contains unverifiable info and speculative scenarios. From Wagist: That implies Zimmerman and Martin didn’t just have one confrontation, they had two. Zimmerman gets back to his SUV and is waiting for the police to arrive. Suddenly, there’s a knock at the window, it’s Trayvon. From BCCList there is this: Zimmerman is undeniably stalking his prey.

Should these external links be included?- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Another questionable version of events is in The Reid Report, which consists of a video and readers' responses. Part of the video essentially says that Zimmerman was trying to capture Martin when it uses the words "pursuit" and "chase", i.e. "we know for sure that the pursuit took place in this direction" and "this is the chase, there". --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In the external links subsection "Walk throughs and graphics of events leading up to the shooting" — I suggest removing the 1st (Wagist), 2nd (Reid Report) and 4th (BCCList.com) external links per item #2 in the WP:EL section Links normally to be avoided.
The 3rd external link in the section is a NY Times article that is already being used in the article. I thought that being already in a citation would be a reason for removing it too, per WP:EL, but I couldn't find anything in WP:EL that would support that deletion. Maybe someone else might find what I missed.
As an aside, although I suggested removing the 1st one (Wagist)[9] from the external links section, I think it's a useful source for the 7:09 starting time of Zimmerman's call, which was previously discussed on this talk page.[10] The Wagist article would be useful because it shows where the correct time of 7:09 comes from and how the 7:11 time given in some sources is incorrect. So I would suggest moving it to a footnote for the call starting time in the main text. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest deleting the "Justice for Trayvon" Facebook external link per item #2 in the WP:EL section Links normally to be avoided. — The Facebook page begins with, "On the rainy evening of February 26th, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman inside his own gated Sanford, Florida community where he was living with his father, stepmother and little brother." This misleads the reader into believing that Martin was a permanent resident of the community and that his father's fiancee and her son were his stepmother and little brother. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest deleting the external link "George Zimmerman Defense Fund website" as it is not very informative, and is mainly an appeal for donations. It is mentioned in the main text, and a link to the website can be found in the article that is referred to in the accompanying inline citation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
When I looked again in the main text, I couldn't find the link in a reference. So maybe it would be better to move the link as a footnote in the main text where it is discussed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Just figured out what's going on. The subject link is accessible through the gzlegalcase.com website which is in a footnote at the end of the Zimmerman's attorneys section. I don't think it needs to be repeated in the external links section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the three walkthrough's you mentioned being removed, but I also like your idea about the start time of Zimmerman's call, maybe we could just use this link which just provides the graphic without the commentary [11], I also like the graphics showing the layout of the community, here are links to the graphics without the commentary, [12] and [13] and [14] and [15]. I also agree about Justice for Trayvon being removed per links to be avoided (social networking sites), and although Zimmerman's parents isn't a social networking site, I think it should be removed as well. I also agree about his defense fund site being removed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Justice for Trayvon is any more biased that other main stream coverage. The people maintaining Justice for Trayvon GlobalGrind, seem to be a legitimate news source with original news coverage in a tabloid format, not a blog site.Geo8rge (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Geo8rge, Re the Justice For Trayvon website, my suggestion for removal per WP:EL wasn’t based on its presumed bias but because of its false misleading information. Please see my previous message of 16:15, 28 July 2012 where I explained it in more detail. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Isaidnoway,
1) Re “I also like your idea about the start time of Zimmerman's call, maybe we could just use this link which just provides the graphic without the commentary [16]” — Thanks. Unfortunately, the graphic alone is confusing because it seems to show that the call started at 7:11, i.e. the time-stamp of the first log entry for the call. The Wagist article points out that the call connection time of 7:09 is the correct call starting time and that some news sources had eroneously said 7:11. This is very useful clarification for the reader, since otherwise the reader would be uncertain about whether or not the sources with 7:11 are incorrect.
2) Re “I also like the graphics showing the layout of the community, here are links to the graphics without the commentary, [17] and [18] and [19] and [20].” — The graphics of the community, given by the four links in your message, need clarification or imply speculation about what happened that night. A link to graphics that don’t have those problems, and has commentary without speculation, is already in the main part of the article as part of a NY Times reliable source[21]. Perhaps it should remain in the external links section too, and we should add a comment that it contains seven images, so that readers don’t mistakenly think there is only one and don’t click to see the rest.
3) Re Zimmerman’s parents’ website, I’m still thinking on that one. BTW, does anyone know the link to Martin’s parents’ website?
--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
What bothers me is the whole article (Wagist) is an editorial and is based on speculation. His theory is that there was two confrontations. Neither Zimmerman nor the prosecution mention two confrontations that night. He also speculates about Martin "doubling back" and wanting to look "tough". Wagist nor Dan Linehan is considered a RS. Zimmerman's and his parents personal websites are nothing more than a front for solicitations for money.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
None of your points apply to the first part of the Wagist article, which is a useful clarification of the starting time 7:09 of Zimmerman's call, and which explains the source of the incorrect 7:11 time. Here's the beginning of the Wagist article.[22]

Media outlets have been reporting on a “missing minute” in the Trayvon Martin case, between when George Zimmerman’s original phone call to police ends and when 911 calls from Zimmerman and Martin fighting start coming in.

There’s actually considerably more than a minute missing during that time.

This is due to widespread confusion about when Zimmerman placed his original call to police. Many write-ups claim his call began at 7:11, which is incorrect.

At 7:11 p.m., Zimmerman, who was in his truck, spotted Trayvon. There had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood attributed to young black men, and Zimmerman was wary of someone he did not recognize walking along the path that goes through the back of the townhouses, his father later told a local TV station.

7:11:12 is the time that the ticket notes were first saved at the dispatching center, but Zimmerman’s call connected at 7:09:34, two minutes earlier.

Here’s the connection time:

It then shows the Event Report. Please recall that I am not suggesting that the Wagist article should be in the external links section. I am suggesting that it should be in a footnote in the main text for the 7:09 call starting time. The footnote would mention that reports of a 7:11 time are incorrect and reference the Wagist article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Why cite Wagist when http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf The Zimmerman 911 Call History PDF posted by Sanford, Florida clearly showed on Event Number: 20120571656, (call) Connection: 02/26/2012 19:09:34, (log) Created: 02/26/2012 19:11:12 By: snoffke On Terminal: TM21. The log entry creation time is actually 98 seconds after the call connection time. (Yeah, the link is memory holed, which is why I download and save PDFs.) --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Re "Why cite Wagist when http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf [[dead link‍]] ..." — Presuming that's a link to the event report, it doesn't say that 7:11 has been incorrectly reported in the media, which is the proposed info for a footnote that would be sourced by the Wagist article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I added the footnote.[23] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


  • Graphics and walkthroughs - I thought the page needed some graphics as written descriptions of the events make no sense due to the layout of the housing development where it took place. I don't really know which ones are better than others, I basically picked the ones that had clear graphics of the retreat at twin lakes and where stuff was. I did not really look into the theories and opinions behind the graphics, I just picked the ones close to the top of a search list that had nice clear pictures. I did chose the ones that had TM walking a more or less direct path to his home rather than some of the earlier theories that had him running around in circles.Geo8rge (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as the defense websites go, The legal defense fund represents a unique feature of the the Zimmerman defense and possibly a future trend for example a few of these have popped up, Bei Bei Shuai has one, I think in the future most indigent people will have one. The Robert and Gladys site seems to be part of the story, although it is too new to say if it will be important. But the defense websites are what the defense chooses, they are all going to be part of their public relations effort and will obviously be biased for the defense. As far as I know there are no similar prosecution websites except maybe the FLA 18th circuit court siteGeo8rge (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • From WP: Links normally to be avoided Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid, I think the defense sites should stay as they are whatever the defense O'Mara Law and the Zimmerman's decide are their official websites. As far as the walk throughs go I think the world is stuck with these unofficial sites until the prosecution puts together their theory about the events that night. Until then the only official story is George Zimmerman's interview with the police with commentary added from the witnesses. It is unfortunate there on not better sources than blog sites, but that is the situation. I think the graphics on the blog sites are less biased than the text if that matters. Geo8rge (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In this case, the subject of this article is the shooting of Trayvon Martin. O'Mara's site is designed to inform the public the strategy of the legal defense of Zimmerman. Zimmerman's and his parents personal sites are set up basically to solicit funds for their living expenses and are heavily biased in favor of Zimmerman. Justice for Trayvon is a Facebook page, which definetely should be avoided, and GlobalGrind is not a RS. The prosecution has put forth their theory about the events that night, it's in the section titled "Prosecutions account of events". Zimmerman's interview with police is merely his version of the events that night. The walkthroughs and their analysis of what happened that night are not from a RS, and make claims that are unsubstantiated. I agree the graphics alone are less biased than the text that accompanies them.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
"In this case, the subject of this article is the shooting of Trayvon Martin." These pages start as a page devoted to the the event involving the victim, but as time goes on they end up being about the trial of the alleged perpetrator. The shooting of Mr Martin is in itself sadly not noteworthy. The protests and the trial are what sets the events apart from other tragic murders.Geo8rge (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Justice for Trayvon website had significance to the protesting for a trial, which is why I believe it is relevant to the case.Geo8rge (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The shooting of Trayvon Martin is what led to the protests, his shooting is what led to Zimmerman being arrested and charged, his shooting is what led to question's about stand your ground laws, his shooting is what led to extensive media coverage and misleading and biased media coverage about it, his shooting is what led to allegations of racial profiling, his shooting is what led the FBI to conduct an investigation, his shooting is what led to the Sanford police chief resigning, his shooting is what led to a special prosecutor being appointed by the governor and finally his shooting led to the president of the United States to comment specifically about it. Seems to me the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a noteworthy and tragic event.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I personally don't see problems with including POV sites in the extetrnal links section, as long as we are NPOV in the selection of said sites. Both the Justice for Trayvon sites, and the various Zimmerman defense sites are clearly biased but wikipedia can serve a useful function as a directory for our readers; WP:NOT notwithstanding. As many on all sides of the issue have commented, we are one of the best sources for information on this case, and that should include the most relevant external links. In some cases, the sites themselves are somewhat independantly notable as they have recieved coverage due to their novelty (defense setting up a website is very new), or surge in membership (Justice for trayvon) In particular I think the zimmerman sites are justifiable as direct mouthpieces of one of the primary participants in this incident. Justice for Trayvon is more iffy since its just some random FB people, but if the Martin family has a website then certainly it should be included too Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
George Zimmerman's and his parents personal websites are just fronts to solicit donations for their living expenses. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that in the article, but I don't consider their personal sites a RS or useful for our readers, in the external links section. I think we should follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines when it comes to including personal websites asking for donations to support ones living expenses. If the interpretation of those guidelines is that is permissible to include personal sites asking for donations, then I am fine with that.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The George Zimmerman website has some historical significance is it was what caused the perjury charges. It is also apparently his personal website. His parents website is harder for me to defend, but they seem to be claiming they are also being effected by the trial. Their website has biographical info on G Zimmerman and their own stories. The George Zimmermab legal defense fund seems to me to be significant to the trial as it is one of the sources of funding, and was at the time considered a novel. I think the issue will pop up often in the future, so maybe an official WP policy on legal defense fund links in articles and external links should be made.Geo8rge (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Zimmerman and his wife misleading and deceiving the court is what caused the perjury charge against Zimmerman's wife, not the website, and Zimmerman's parents lives are being affected because of their son's actions that night.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloggers offering their own theories and timelines of events are now part of the main street news coverage. The Trayvon Martin truth squad: a Web phenomenon. My personal theory is that the lack of a trial or even a prosecution theory or a main stream news source willing to supply one caused a void being filled by bloggers. Needless to say it is cheaper and less embarrassing for main stream news sources to just let the bloggers sit around for hours calculating where people where second by second. At any rate the bloggers, even if they are biased or crazy, are becoming part of the story. Another example of how as time goes on the story stops being about the victim and starts being about events surrounding the trial.Geo8rge (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that George Zimmerman has been charged with 2nd degree murder? Are you aware that this charge is the prosecution's theory of what happened that night? Are you aware that these "bloggers" theories and timelines are from March and early April? These theories and timelines are not from a reliable source and really have no place in this article, even in the external links section. This story will never stop being about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, you fail to realize that all of these events came about because he was shot and killed. You provide a link to a story in the Miami Herald titled The Trayvon Martin truth squad and then say the story stops being about him, how bizarre.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's father in Notes section - Edit Request

This is the first time I've been to this article, so as a fresh set of eyes, I would like to point out something that stood out as needing clarification. In the Notes section, it says Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is a Hispanic from Peru. Shouldn't it more accurately read Zimmerman's father is white, non-Hispanic, and his mother is a non-white Hispanic from Peru. You can be be both white and Hispanic, for example, Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bündchen, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, etc., so the line as presently written is not clear as to their races. Here is a photo of his parents in court. I will let regular editors here handle this. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bündchen is not Hispanic; technically she is a Latino.

I believe you are probably correct, but the issue is sourcing. We have sources saying mother his hispanic. We have sources saying dad is white. We do not have sources saying Dad is "not hispanic" (and finding such would be unlikely), and as you said there are certainly white hispanics - therefore we cannot due to WP:BLP put anything in regarding this absent sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

blatant POV pushing and will not be tolerated

The fact that we have sworn testimony from witness 8/jeantel specifically indicating trayvon martin used a racial slur directed toward zimmerman is more relevant to wikipedia than 99% ofthe other speculative and fantasy racism found in the rest of the "allegation" of racism sections. If you can provide some evidence how anything else is even equally relevant in that entire section be my guest. As it is, it's nothing more than blatant political POV push trying to keep out the racist comments of Trayvon. 68.115.53.79 (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Witness #8, Rachel Jeantel, testified to what Martin said to her over the phone in a conversation the night of the shooting. She did not testify that it was an "alleged race issue" or that is was "allegations against Martin". To the contrary, she testified that words like "cracker" and "nigger" which Martin said, are not offensive to her. When questioned about it again on a recross exam, she testified again that people in her community refer to white people as "cracker", and use the word "nigger", and this is non-offensive normal behavior. Additionally, she stated that she didn't consider the term "cracker" to be racial and also testified that she didn't know if Martin used those words regularly. Her testimony never indicated or even implied that it was an "alleged race issue" nor did she testify that it was an "allegation against Martin".
I understand what you are trying to convey here, but you are not putting her testimony into the proper context. She is not the one who alleged the terms she said Martin used were racial. The defense team is the one that chose to pursue that line of questioning about whether the terms Martin used were racial. The defense team is the one who made the allegations against Martin, and her, for that matter. But she never wavered in her testimony that those terms were not offensive to her.
There have been many media outlets that have highlighted that portion of the defense's line of questioning, and her answer's, and offered their opinions on what it may or may not have meant.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
the fact she thinks that cracker is not racist and not offensive is not even remotely relevant. How many things do we delete on this wiki page because "george doesn't think so and so or say so and so, so we are just gonna delete it". SHE IS NOT TRAYVON MARTIN. She is also not part of "trayvon's community". You have supplied not a shred of an argument supporting non-inclusion. 68.115.53.79 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No. We are not going to add inflection or assert that which cannot be proven as "fact". At most, we would need third-party sources claiming that and we would have to cite it as "opinion" and provide context at minimum. The media is dramatic and biased for these issues; Wikipedia should not parrot such accusations blindly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but your logic for creating this sub-section with a single quote from Jeantel's testimony is that Martin made a racial comment, so therefore, it is an allegation against himself? I am not disputing that she testified to what Martin called Zimmerman, but she is not the one who alleged that the term Martin used to describe Zimmerman was a racial slur, defense attorney Don West did. Like I stated above, I get what you are trying to convey, but put it in the proper context. Here's what I believe you are trying to convey and is put in the proper context:

During the trial of Zimmerman, Rachel Jeantel testifed that while on the phone with Martin on the night of the shooting, Martin described Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker". On cross examination of Jeantel, defense attorney Don West questioned her about the term (cracker) Martin used to describe Zimmerman, alleging that it was a racial slur. Jeantel testified that she did not believe it was a racial slur and that it was not offensive to her.'

Your edit doesn't even say who made the allegation against Martin. You've created a sub-section titled Allegations against Martin, but you fail to provide the reader with who is making the allegation. You can't just insert one line out of her testimony without putting it in the proper context. If you want to create a sub-section about Allegations against Martin, then you need to clarify exactly who is making the allegation against him, and it certainly wasn't Rachel Jeantel making that allegation, it was Don West.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Coming into this late, but all of the sworn testimony in the trial refers to racial bias on part of Martin, not on the part of Zimmerman. I think its odd that the article only has subheadings regarding Zimmerman and the police. There should at least be a bullet about Martin given whats come out in court. 68.50.245.173 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
jeantel made the allegation that trayvon called george a cracker, that's "the allegation". We don't know if martin ever said that, or if martin did say it if it was in a racist mindset. You can only tell the facts and let the reader discern what they think.04:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.53.79 (talk)
When defense attorney West asked her - "You don't think that's a racial comment" - that is when the "allegation" was made (by West) that what Martin had said about Zimmerman (creepy ass cracker) was a racial comment. Jeantel didn't allege that Martin made a racial comment, West did, her answer to West' question was No. Then West repeated the question to her again and she again said no, she didn't think what Martin had said about Zimmerman was a racial comment. West also asked her - "You don't think calling someone a creepy ass cracker is offensive" - now West is making an "allegation" that what Martin had said about Zimmerman was offensive. Jeantel answered No to that question (allegation) as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You seem really lost. As already said, what she THINKS is irrelevant. She is nothing more than a hearsay witness. She is not a telepathic. Nor are you. 68.115.53.79 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Correct. Neither are you. She repeated his words. Defense did not make an allegation (although they did make some implications towards that point). Allegations are made by reliable and notable commenters. If youw ant to include this content, find reliable sources, specifically making the allegation that this was racism or racial motivation. Taking the alleged hearsay fact of what martin said and saying that it is an allegation of racism is original research. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
@68.115.53.79 - If you believe that "what she THINKS is irrelevant", why are you arguing for inclusion of what she THINKS Martin said to her.
@Gaijin42 - Allegations can also be made by a defense attorney when they pursue a line of questioning about what a witness has testified to. West specifically asked Jeantel about racial issues, in response to her assertion that she thought it was racial because Martin had said a white man was following him. West seized upon that statement she made and then proceeded to ask her questions like: “It was racial because Trayvon put race in this?” - "You don't think that's a racial comment". Here are some sources discussing West's interaction with Jeantel.
And the defense really likes that "creepy-ass cracker" line that Martin delivered to his friend. West and his team have accused Jeantel in front of the cameras not so much of toning things down for the mother of dead 16-year-old as that Martin's slang somehow had some deeper meaning. The implication, in this transforming trial, has become that Trayvon Martin was the racist for calling George Zimmerman a "cracker,"...[24]
George Zimmerman’s defense attorney insisted during several testy exchanges with an important prosecution witness Thursday that Trayvon Martin injected race into a confrontation with the neighborhood watch volunteer...[25]
Peterson suggested that line of questioning underscored racial subtleties of the case...[26]
I would argue that RS have alleged that West made "allegations against Martin" when he pursued that line of questioning. Use whatever term you wish in describing West' line of questioning - alleged, implied, asserted, contended - but there is no doubt that West interjected a racial component into his line of questioning concerning Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking a question about if someone else thinks something is racial, is not the same thing as saying that they themselves think it is racial. If/when they directly make that statement (closing?) that is making an allegation. If other notable/reliable sources are making that allegation, then it could be sourceable now. Zimmerman has directly been accused of being racist/acting in a racist manner. The SPD has directly been accused of being racist and acting in a racist manner. Thus far (within the context of the additions made to this article, and sources provided for that purpose) nobody has done so towards Martin. If such sources exist, then we can discuss adding it and attributing those allegations to them. Beyond that, the number of people making those allegations against Zimmerman/SPD is huge, compared to the one person (albeit highly relevant to the case) brought up here. The allegations are not apples to apples, and I would say they aren't even apples to oranges. They are apples to elephants. The alleged racism of Zimmerman and SPD has been directly linked to motive in their actions in the night. This linking has been made by multiple sources. To the degree that this issue has been raised against Martin, it is not a direct allegation (as stated before), and further it has not been linked to his actions in the night. Such a linking is fairly obvious, and plausible to make - but us making it is Original Research. Find someone else reliable who has done that for us, and attribute the allegations to them.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I will defer to the original editor who inserted the information the task of finding reliable sources to support this being included in the article . My argument is that a single sentence cherry picked from Jeantel's testimony doesn't support an "allegation against Martin". Having said that, I do believe that if put in the proper context with reliable sources discussing this line of questioning, it is an allegation against Martin. The sources listed above all specifically mention defense attorney West and his line of questioning of Jeantel. I also believe that asking a question about if someone else thinks something is racial is an allegation against the person who said it, because the person asking the question would have to believe that it was racial in order to ask the question in the first place.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
On a personal level, i don't disagree. Im just saying it isn't sufficiently sourced to convert that inferred allegation to an acutal allegation, particularly when compared to the explicit nature of the other allegations in the section. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
What are you even talking about "sufficiently sourced". It's freakin sworn testimony. it doesn't get any more sufficiently sourced for an allegation.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Her sworn testimony is in fact a DENIAL of an allegation. She said it wasn't racist. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time already HER OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. It's not Trayvon's opinion. Even if trayvon would still be alive today and have said "it wasn't meant to be racist", the most you could do is say "he claims his words were not racist"etc. It's all further irrelevant by the fact the section is called "racial allegations", not racist allegation. So I can pull my lawyer notebook out and underline the fact that the section only is for "racial allegations" . not "racism allegations" cracker is clearly a racial epithet, whether racist of intent or not, hence would qualify.Whatzinaname (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
What you personally think about her opinion is not germane to this discussion. What reliable sources are reporting on determine what is relevant and notable. As noted above, there are RS reporting on her testimony in regards to this issue. Are you able to provide a reliable source that is reporting that her testimony is not relevant to the trial or that her testimony is not relevant to the jurors? The source you have provided for that sentence does not anywhere in the article state that her testimony is an "Alleged race issue". Unsourced material which is speculative may be challenged and removed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You write a lot of words, but unfortunately none of them make any logical sense. Wikipedia isn't your webpage or message board, you need reminding of this. Nothing in there is speculative or unsourced. That's just something you seemed to have dreamed up. Whatzinaname (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I will gladly discuss this issue with you if you care to participate in a civil manner. Your recent comments seem to reflect that you would rather focus on the editor, instead of the content. Please see WP:AGF and WP:EQ and WP:NPA and WP:CIV and WP:EW and WP:CON.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what there is to discuss. I say the sky is blue, you contend it's pink.We are talking about a simple, one sentence, easily verifiable statement of fact that is highly relevant to the the section in question. Seriously, there is nothing to discuss. Your job as an editor here is not to stack the deck for a certain person by addition or omission.Whatzinaname (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I added context, clarity and more references. And your job as an editor is not to lecture or criticize other editors who are trying to gain a consensus for improvements for a WP article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll be removing any speculation. only glanced at it, but almost asll appears speculative. "a white person might not" is purely speculative. Ok after a bit more review. Not quite in the acceptable realm, not as horrible as first thought after taking time to read a bit. changing her words will absolutely not be allowed. She never said "her community" she said "her culture". the community was a mix of her and west's interjections into the comment. I find it akward we have 2 paragraphs of speculative nonsense about "cracker wasn't originally a slur", pretty mch all racial slurs "didn't start out as slurs". What is the relevance of all this material other than dog wagging?Whatzinaname (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
According to this article, right there in the lead, this incident received national and international attention. Since the trial has started, there has been renewed interest in this incident and this article. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is not exclusive to the USA, Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, accessed by millions of readers around the world. The whole concept behind an encyclopedia is for readers to research, learn and educate themselves about topics that are of interest to them. Many of our readers don't know what the term "cracker" means. You assert that "cracker" is a well known racial epithet, but fail to realize that it may not be well known to readers across the world, and yes, even some right here in the good ole USA. That is why I gave some background information about the term and attributed it to the person who is describing what the term means. His definition and explanation of the term is highly relevant to this section and his opinion is attributed to him, as per Wikipedia policy. We can't just say Martin said "creepy ass cracker" without explaining to our global audience what it means.
Furthermore, West asked her this question (which is in the source provided) - "You’re saying that in the culture that you live in, in your community, people there call white people crackers?” - Therefore, the edit - She testified that people in her community call white people cracker and she didn't find the term offensive. - was factually correct. So, I "absolutely did not change her words".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Direct quotes from testimony aren't what we use as sources in Wikipedia. We use secondary sources. Direct, firsthand sources can be used in a limited fashion to fact-check our secondary sources, but whether Jeantel says "cracker" is racist or not, isn't relevant. Suppose for a moment that she hasn't really fully considered whether the term is racist. I've personally heard white people use phrasing that they feel isn't racist, but another person will come up and explain why it is insensitive or racist to them and they change their mind (or don't). Point is... a LOT of people consider both the N-word, and the word "cracker" to be racially-charged and inappropriate. Jeantel did not seem to evidence a lot of sophistication in her answers (my opinion, of course, not a source), so instead of arguing so much about the direct, firsthand sources, find reliable secondary sources, and make the case for their inclusion. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. You are speculating that she may not have fully considered what the term means. I could speculate that she did fully understood that a LOT of people consider it a racial comment, but she doesn't. The point is - we simply don't know. We can only go by what she testified to. She was asked a direct question by West and she gave a direct answer. There are secondary sources referenced there that discuss this line of questioning and her answers to the question. Relevancy is determined by what RS are reporting on - her testimony was widely reported on and her assertion that it is not a racial comment. In my opinion, not sourced of course, sophistication is not a requirement for a witness to testify at a trial. She comes from a culture and community where the particular terms and language they use a lot of people may not understand. Just because you and I, and many others from around the world may come from a community and culture that thinks and speaks differently than her community and culture doesn't make her or her testimony irrelevant to this article.
There is a whole sub-section devoted to this "star" witness for the prosecution and there has been widespread reporting on every detail associated with this witness - her phone call with Martin, lies she told about her age and her reason for not attending Martin's funeral, and now that we finally have her testimony at his trial, all of a sudden, it's not relevant? Just the fact that she never before in any interviews or depositions, told anybody that Martin said to her "creepy ass cracker" is highly relevant and the testiomy that followed is relevant and should be put in the proper context, instead of just cherry picking certain statements from her testimony.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway, I think I wasn't clear enough. I *meant* that what she said... AKA her direct testimony, which might include the court transcript of the trial... is not relevant for us within Wikipedia. We have to rely on secondary sources, and as such, we will encounter various points of view, and we have to carefully determine whether each so-called reliable source is actually reliable for use in this article. It is a relevant topic to this article how race and culture are intertwined -- to a point, but not too much. After all, this article isn't titled "Race and class in the US". I haven't seen the specific statement that you and this other person are debating, but I would think it is probably a good time to start a new subsection since this debate seems to have run its course. -- Avanu (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


if you persist, i'll start reverting to the original single statement, free of all speculation. To any honest person, her testimony in this regard only revealed her dishonest nature. In the same testimony she said she chose not to use the words "nigger" and "cracker" when giving her earlier statements because she didn't want to use them around trayvon's mom. If she truly did not find words such as that offensive, why would hide them from trayvon's mom? Whatzinaname (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLP applies to the talk page as well. Your comments about Ms. Jeantel are totally out of line.
You are reverting reliably sourced material that is relevant to this section, without providing any reasonable argument whatsoever. Speculation is defined as a statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork. Bill Ferris is not guessing at the subject matter. He is a recognized leader in southern culture. [27] and [28] and [29]. The reliably sourced information that was inserted into this section was attributed, as per WP policy, to reflect that it was his opinion. WP:NEWSORG states that when taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. In this instance, Bill Ferris is the one providing the significant viewpoint.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen any compelling argument made for inclusion here. You apparently don't understand that a statement such as "some white people might X" is by its very nature speculative when used in conjunction X. Even it were not speculative, we still would have no idea what Trayvon Martin meant by his words, which then questions its very relevancyWhatzinaname (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:EXCEPTIONAL --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You provide a secondary reliable source to support your contention that this is an alleged race issue. And now, you are attacking your own source as being speculative and not reliable. If you think the source you provided is speculative and not reliable, then we need to remove that source and her testimony. The opinion expressed in the source you provided is not some radical declaration that is some fringe theory or the conspiratorial rambling's of a delusional lunatic demanding to be heard on his views. This is an opinion expressed by a scholar who has studied the culture of the south. His opinion is based on research and study. You're applying your own editorial judgement as to what his opinion means, which is just fine - but let the reader's do the same -reach their own conclusions as to what his opinion may or may not mean to them.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

her opinion as to what Trayvon said are not speculative. They are heresay, but wikipedia doesn't have any problem with heresay, assuming what is said has relevancy to the wiki section in question.As i said before, here opinion that the word is not racial/racist, i forget off hand what the exact word was, is speculative. But you were the one who wanted that inserted. My original edit was one sentence long, probably a total of about 12 worlds and was 100% speculation free. you weren't happy with that, remember? Whatzinaname (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Her opinion is just that - her opinion. Just like your opinion is just that - your opinion. Like I said, you seem to be OK with expressing your own editorial judgement about Ferris's opinion - what's wrong with letting readers reach their own conclusions as well. Why are you trying to insert your own judgement for theirs? People are capable of reading an opinion of someone and coming to their own conclusions on what it means to them, without having you telling them what it should or should not mean to them.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have let readers make their own judgement. You are the one trying to color the section as you please. Surely we would not have paragraphs of color commentary about Nigger actually being some kind of honorific if Zimmerman had described martin as such just shortly before the shooting. Whatzinaname (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The point of this discussion is that the content is sourced, it's on topic and the opinions expressed are properly attributed. Readers are not able to make a judgement about content that's not even in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to wiki link the cracker portion, then anyone who wishes to ponder if trayvon was talking about the .0000000000000001% of whites who wear cracker with pride. As far as trayvons intentions/beliefs, anything along that line is purely speculating. That has to be left up to the reader.Whatzinaname (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
"As far as Martin's intentions/beliefs are concerned, anything along that line is purely speculation"....and that's your opinion of the content. Just because you think it's speculation, doesn't mean the rest of the world shares your opinion. Readers are perfectly capable of reaching their own conclusions after reading an opinion by a well-known scholar, about what "Martin's beliefs/intentions" may or may not have been in his conversation with Jeantel. The point is, the content is sourced, it's on topic, and any speculation/opinion/statements about Martin's intentions/beliefs are properly attributed to the scholar offering his opinion. You seem to contend that there is something wrong with a white or black person who doesn't find the term cracker offensive to them, that there is somehow something wrong with their beliefs, just because they don't come from the same "culture" and mindset that you and a lot of other people come from.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your supposed source that can read minds and time travel using his degree in make-believe, doesn't even pass the most lenient of smell testsWhatzinaname (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source to back up your assertion that Bill Ferris is a mind reader, time traveler and has a degree in make-believe. Or in the alternative, please provide a coherent and valid argument as to why content that is reliably sourced, on topic, properly attributed and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines, is being reverted.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
He is no expert on anything whatsoever relevant.He would need both a time machine -- cause martin is dead -- as well as a mind reader to avoid speculation. you've lost this argument a dozen times over now and the best you have is some guy who dug his degree out of a crackerjacks box and got a political appointment from slick willy Whatzinaname (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Since you have no desire to have a serious discussion about this, I will assume that you have no coherent or rational argument that you can provide for exclusion of sourced content. I have provided everything necessary for inclusion and will proceed with my edit.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You've done nothing but waste bandwidth and time. Whatzinaname (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Noting how many suspensions Trayvon has in school as well as the multi generational ethnicity of George Zimmerman is clearly pushing a specific agenda and not remaining neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachieskeen (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Both items have been discusses broadly in secondary sources. How does covering those sources here violate WP:NPOV? VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of Zimmerman's grades and failure to obtain a degree?

Zimmerman's section contains information about his grades in college as well as his failure to obtain an associates degree. That information seems completely irrelevant to the shooting of Trayvon Martin to me. I agree that the information about his prior arrest and restraining order is relevant because it goes to the issue of possible, violent tendencies. But what do his grades in college and failure to obtain an associates degree have to do with it? This article is not a biography of George Zimmerman. It's about the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

I think that part of his section should be removed. Liam Patrick (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed the one sentence. I think the fact that he was in school in general is relevant as background, but being short on credits has no relevance to incident or case. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.Liam Patrick (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

George Benjamin Zimmerman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.29.68 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2013‎

Good catch. Fixed it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Burglary tool

Chris Serino said that there was a burglary tool found in the bushes after a search of Twin Lakes. Were any prints found on the tool? Do the prints match Trayvon Martin?

Is info box map unduly biased?

I know it says that "Fuzzy" gradients are used but when comparing the map with crime scene photographs, Martin's body actually lay at the top edge of the red rectangle. According to GZs testimony he shot TM approximately where the second O in "shooting" is. The current map supports that GZ must have been still following TM if he was so far down the alley. Wayne (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't qualify this as bias, but the graphic should be updated to more closely resemble the evidence we have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 July 2013‎ (UTC)
The map, I feel in my opinion, may have some unintended bias. Not so much for what you propose, but the fact that it doesn't include the entire sidewalk section of the "T". It only shows the sidewalk circling around the building, but omits the part of the sidewalk that continues on into the next street. The reason why I feel that this may be biased is because Zimmerman claims that he took that sidewalk to almost the end and was turning around and heading back to his car on that sidewalk when he claims Trayvon Martin came out of the alley between the buildings. Without that sidewalk on the map, it cannot show an accurate description of the entire scene. Therefore it is inaccurate and possibly biased. JOJ Hutton 00:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Addendum to my previous comment I'm going to remove the map. If for no other reason than it has some inaccuracies, biased or not. There have been some concerns over some of these inaccuracies and these should be addressed before any map is reintroduced into the article. Whether or not it shows a bias or not, the inaccuracies are enough to remove the map from the article.--JOJ Hutton 13:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


Covering DOJ's involvement in the case

Some recent revelations about the DOJ CRS department's involvement has come to light, apparently some elements of the CRS had been agitating for Trayvon martin in the fallout of the shooting. This will get its own section in the response to the shooting section. obama's comments about the case will also be moved there. both being from the executive branch of the government. I'm opening dialogue here as to what should be moved and/or added to such a section before it is included. A link to the recent revelations http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/11/justice-trayvon-audio-released-doj-member-urging-a/ Whatzinaname (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Last week, a conservative watchdog accused an obscure agency within the DOJ of helping support the "pressure campaign" against Zimmerman in the wake of the shooting last year. Judicial Watch claimed documents and public accounts showed "extraordinary intervention" by the department in the campaign that eventually led to Zimmerman's prosecution. Fox News article -- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tag for Current Event

Trial is currently underway with a verdict possibly due within next 48 hours. The police and the city of Sanford are preparing for the possibility of social disorder. ABC News --Rhatsa26X (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2013 (CDT)

Nice work

I just wanted to say nice work to the editors who have built and maintained this article since the beginning. You did a really good job. This article is a neutral presentation of a story that is now entering its final stages, likely a lawsuit against NBC and other media outlets, plus activist fallout from the verdict. Great job. Cla68 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I second that motion; great job on this article. Put it on the main page. —Prhartcom (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree - the article is very carefully balanced. I read through the article expecting to find a bias but there was none which is refreshing. 99.95.168.131 (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree also. I read the article for the 1st time today and it seems well written and measured for such a charged story. --Malerooster (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not shot in the heart

Current article says: "The encounter ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the heart at close range."

None of the sources cited confirm he was shot in the heart -- he was shot in the chest.

Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.28.71 (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I followed this case closely and recall at least one, if not more, expert medical witnesses who testified that Martin was shot through one of his ventricles. Aelius28 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This is from the ME's report
A. Entrance: Left chest, intermediate range
B. Path of the projectile: Skin, left anterior 5th intercostal space, pericardial sac, right ventricle of heart, and right lower lobe of lung
C. Direction of projectile: Directly, front to back
D. Exit: None; fragments of projectile recovered in pericardial sac and right pleural cavity
E. Associated injuries: Entrance wound; perforations of pericardial sac, right ventricle of heart, right lower lobe of lung with bilateral pleural hemorrhage
F. Postmortem radiograph: Metallic fragments of projectile identified
Need any other questions answered? ViriiK (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2013

98.109.11.151 (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC) As of now George Zimmerman is not the shooter but victim of an attack...

Not done:. As far as I know, it was never disputed that Zimmerman shot Martin. RudolfRed (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to verdict

Should we have a different article for the NAACP petition and other people's responses to the verdict? Oct13 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No. VQuakr (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Important details about Zimmerman's 5 911 calls

Prosecutor Richard Mantei told a Florida judge the five calls are central to the prosecution's argument that Zimmerman committed second-degree murder since it shows his growing ill will at people he viewed as suspicious who were walking through his neighborhood. In each of the calls, which were played for Judge Debra Nelson with the jurors out of the courtroom, Zimmerman described the suspicious characters as black males. The calls made in the six months before Zimmerman fatally shot Martin on Feb. 26, 2012, reflect the neighborhood watch volunteer's growing frustration with repeated break-ins at his gated community of townhomes and plays into the prosecution's theory that his view of Martin as a suspicious character was "the straw that broke the camel's back," Mantei said.[4]

Herderda (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And your point is.....? Whatzinaname (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it truly necessary to emphasize how "multi-racial" Zimmerman and the gated community was? It truly seems like a defense of Zimmerman when it is mentioned so many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.242.204.247 (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious about this line: "Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report what he considered a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community." The source linked ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-cops-botched-investigation_n_1409277.html ) actually says it was 911, yet the transcripts and their source says non-emergency. So which is it? Did he call 911 or the non-emergency number? 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.64.44 (talk)

manslaughter

Why dose it say that he was tried for manslaughter? Is that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.104.187 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the jury had the options of returning a verdict of not guilty, guilty of second degree murder, or guilty of manslaughter. The reference in the lede does not support the manslaughter part since that option was added after June 10th; a more current reference should be added. VQuakr (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
He wasn't strictly "tried" for manslaughter. he was tried for murder 2, and manslaughter was an included charge. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2013

Article states "The jewelry was impounded and given to the police, but no evidence ever surfaced to indicate that the jewelry was stolen.[47]"

This is incorrect. Please read "http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/"

Thank you 75.32.237.126 (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting development, however "Conservative treehouse" is not a reliable source. If this gets picked up by mainstream it could be used as an "after the case" development. Even if 100% verified, unlikely to be included in the case as a "prior bad act" generally inadmissable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Witness 8

Is there a reason that Witness 8 is not being identified as Rachel Jeantel in this article? Her name has been widely reported, all over the place, in multiple reliable sources. Not to mention that she appeared and testified in public (i.e., in open court). Am I missing something here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Rachel Jeantel is clearly identified in the Trial of George Zimmerman article. She even has her own self-entitled sub-section heading. So, I am baffled why her name is intentionally kept out of this article (at least, in the Witness 8 section). Is there some valid reason for this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Almost the entirety of this article was written prior to the trial. Her name was not known at the time the witness 8 section was written, so there is no "intentionally kept out of this article" - nobody has updated it yet. Free free to add it. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
She testified several weeks ago, I believe. And she made quite a bit of hoopla in all of the media reports, news reports, TV shows, etc. Not to mention on the live stream of the court sessions. Her testimony was a "pretty big deal" and she was billed as the State's "star witness". Given all that, I am surprised that her info was never updated in the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been wondering the same thing. I would have changed it but didn't want to step on any toes. Its probably time to do so now.--JOJ Hutton 16:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

most of the more active editors were focused on the trial article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The name of witness 8 seems pretty apparent now -- added a citation.Wisdomthatiswoe (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Separate article for George Zimmerman

In light of the trial ending and the huge media exposure of it all, should we make a separate article for George Zimmerman? There seem to be enough details about him to warrant one, although I understand if it's more desired to keep everything focused in one spot. I might end up making a draft for it later if I get the chance. - Sausboss (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say its still WP:blp1e and any detail would be pseudobiography or repetition from what we already have. Also, as he has now been found not guilty, quit a bit of the negative bio stuff we have may be a blp violation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never been a big proponent of WP:BLP1E being applied to every single person. The guidelines purpose is to prevent minor characters in events from having articles from being created. Major characters in events, especially notable and highly covered events can and should have articles. I amgoing to say yes, simply because BLP1E would not apply in this situation because Zimmerman is one of the major characters in this notable event and is covered in many sources.--JOJ Hutton 16:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The guideline WP:CRIME discourages creating individual articles on victims, perpetrators and people accused of committing crimes, when their notability is related to the crime itself and all the information about them can be contained in that article. I'd say that's still the case here. However, if Zimmerman goes on to become a notable figure who is covered by the media outside of this case (like, say, Bernhard Goetz) a separate article would be justified. Robofish (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I will support a separate article for Zimmerman. This is a rare case which has had huge effects on black/white relations and a separate Zimmerman article would be appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Referring above to Bernard Goetz as a notable figure, I'm pretty sure Zimmerman is well past the 'Goetz Benchmark' in terms of notability. Also, post trial you can count on any number of stories/reports to come out which were withheld during the trial phase. For instance, reports are that the suit by Zimmerman against NBC will be resumed. That may or may not be a notable event, as would any potential suits against some of the other major broadcast outlets. Not saying the separation of Zimmerman should occur today, but let's at least keep the debate open. 10stone5 (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The only notable thing about Zimmerman is the shooting (BLP1E), but articles could also be split off per WP:SS, if enough could be said about Zimmerman to warrant having an article. The article as it stands is so nicely contained though, and I would worry that creating another article would just needlessly duplicate information. Is there enough relevant information about Zimmerman that it can't be fit into an existing article? --Odie5533 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I will only reiterate what I am on record saying before. I do not think that WP:BLP1E is applicable, given Zimmerman's significant role in the event, plus the amount of national and international coverage this case has generated. WP:CRIME is a more applicable guideline. I still feel however, that the event, the trial, and the aftermath are notable enough to warrant a separate article for Zimmerman.--JOJ Hutton 12:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Unintelligible

Instead of "he's [unintelligible], he was just staring..." it should be "he's here now, he was just staring..." It is pretty obvious, especially from the context and what Zimmerman talks about next, that this is what was said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lathamcity (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

typo

Please add that martin was convicted of aggravated assault. I believe there is a typo in saying Martin was found not-guilty on July 13, although many people may judge him not-guilty. Zimmerman was found not-guilty.

Where is the typo? I do not see where the article says that Martin was found not guilty. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It was in the lead and has been corrected. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Foreign media still using the NBC misleading audio edit in mid 2013

It is reported that foreign media, notably the NOS TV journal of The Netherlands in a video report of july 14th 2013, continue to misuse the NBC misleading audio edit. The NOS journal uses the misleading edit to portray Trayvon Martin as an innocent victim of racism "because he was black". Note this misleading edit is being used after Zimmerman's acquital to re-assure the Dutch audience that Zimmerman really was a racist and that American justice -supposedly- has failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.78.118 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a source discussing this (you said 'it is reported' so I presume you have such sources). To comment on the NOS TV source ourselves would clearly be WP:OR. Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

trim witness/evidence section

As all of this is covered in more detail, with better sourcing, and was the actual evidence used in the case in the other article. I think most of the witness/evidence stuff in the main article should be summarized much more tersely and moved (except it is already there?) to the trial article. Thoughts? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't hurt to look at the rest of the article and summarize some of it as well. I agree about the witness/evidence content, now that we've actually heard from them. I also think Zimmerman's account and the prosecution's account should be looked at and summarized too.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the huge amount of media coverage?

People are shot dead every day in in the U.S. - very few cases receive such a huge amount of attention. The article should try to explain why this case has received so much national and international media coverage. If Zimmerman and Martin had been of the same ethnicity, it would have been a local news story only and no marches or demonstrations would have taken place. Why is the racial difference between the two being made into such a big deal? Martin attacked Zimmerman; Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. Race had nothing to do with what happened. Why are many people making unjustified claims that race was of relevance. 92.41.194.223 (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a Media Coverage section, but it could use improvement I suppose. Do you have any sources that discuss why this case was examined so closely by the media? --Odie5533 (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The Media coverage section does not try to explain why the case received so much media attention. Neither Zimmerman nor Martin are known for anything else, so the media's obsession with the case seems inexplicable. I don't have reliable sources stating why there was so much coverage of this case, which is why I raised the issue. 92.41.194.223 (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see how you'll add anything meaningful to this issue, an important issue to be sure, until some time has passed, the rancor has subsided, and cooler heads analyze what happened. All indication are, Zimmerman will be suing NBC, so perhaps some meaningful information will come out of those proceedings. 10stone5 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Racism"?

If "racism" is such an issue with the jury's decision why don't they release the race of the six woman? Can't they do this without disclosing the jury's identifications? What are they afraid of? It looks like most of the racism is coming from the loud mouthed activists who wouldn't have even blinked if Martin wasn't black.

As far as I know their race was released. The newspapers here said they were five white and one black. Wayne (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The race was reported by people (media reporters) who made their own determinations of the race of the jurors by looking at them. The actual race of the jurors, as self-identified on their juror questionairres, will not be available as long as the court is keeping the jury identity anonymous. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • According to the juror who spoke, race was not considered or even discussed by the jury. While no one has clairvoyant abilities, and many commentators have theorized that race played a part in the jury's decision making, until something concrete and empirical comes out, I'll take this one juror's word for it, that race did not play a part in the jury's decision 10stone5 (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for one day to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline in the future. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You protected the wrong version of the page, that has the material that multiple editors have reverted and additional ones have stated shouldn't be there in the discussion above. One editor was reverted 6 times, and his version is what is currently in the article. Please fix that. Dream Focus 22:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is written with a strong bias toward the Zimmerman defense. Please add a POV tag to this article until the content issues are resolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you quote something you believe is bias? Dream Focus 22:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It would help if you could cite some specific examples, so we can take a look at it and discuss it here on the talk page.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Dream Focus, since you were one of the 3 people I noticed over that 502 byte change removal, I noticed that it was put back in before the article was protected. I am in agreement with the editors who are removing that that it is just opinion rather than facts. The State solicited opinion on the facts that are in evidence so the doctor giving their statement is still opinion rather than facts. It's up to the jury to determine whether to accept that or not. So in the court of public opinion, it is still opinion at least to me? ViriiK (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't agree on NPOV at all with PeaceLoveHarmony on NPOV citation. Assuming that is the neutrality hang-up here, then cite the problem and allow for a discussion. If anything, given some divisive articles in Wiki in the past, I'm actually amazed at how sanguine and rationale the discussion and critiques have been for this article. If there is no solid discussion, please remove the tag ASAP, and reserve that tag for something really substantial. 10stone5 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation 248 and 249 error.

1. Citation 248 links to clearpolitics.com (a right-leaning source) and yet the article in the paragraph says that it references the BBC. 2. 249 isn't actually a citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.76.181 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What's your point about 248/249? I looked at 248 (which 249 is the same citation) and it's a discussion between Huckabee and Dershowitz which has nothing to do with the political leaning of the site. Dershowitz is a left-wing political person with an expertise on the law. Huckabee is just a right-wing pastor/former governor. So the citation needs to be fixed with the "/" dropped from the 248 linked and 249 just needs to be removed since it's a duplicate but I don't have the editing authority to do that. ViriiK (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I took a second look at the paragraph you're talking about. One part of the paragraph references the BBC but the remaining paragraph is separate from the BBC. ViriiK (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

jury instructions

The 40 potential jurors were today read the jury instructions on reasonable doubt, and self defense. Omara wanted to read some, State objected, Judge read whole thing. Are these suitable for inclusion under a jury instructions subsection? (unreliable convenience links to what was read below)

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think the whole text of the instructions is necessary, is it. Just a brief mention that the judge read them and that a self-defense instruction was included.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would think that, on a more general point, a link to the jury instructions be provided, if only so that readers of this article are aware of what the law is that the jury will have to apply. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml

I suggest that something like the following should be added in the Court proceedings and verdict section, following "... was presented to the jury for deliberations on July 12."

Judge Nelson presented the jury with 27 pages of detailed instructions, reminding them that it is important that they follow the law spelled out in those instructions in deciding their verdict and that those laws must be applied even if the jurors do not like them.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf|title=Instructions read to jury by The Honorable Debra S. Nelson, Circuit Judge|publisher=State of Florida, 18th Judicial Circuit Courts}}</ref>

The assertions there about the instructions are supported by the source cited. Details are in the cited & linked source and in the Error: no page names specified (help). article for that section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

--The Historian (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. An external link to the instructions would be a good idea.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've added this to the article though it has had only brief exposure here. I'll be traveling today/tomorrow and don't know how much internetting I'll be doing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Trayvon Martin

What is the source that Trayvon Martin's ethnicity is "African-American"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.84.89 (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Duh, what race do you think he looks like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.6.168 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Trayvon Martin clearly looks Chinese to me. (Disclaimer: Sarcastic comment. Please do not respond seriously.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
A tanned Chinese. But seriously though, I did read somewhere that ethnicity has to be cited. Has ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a billion or so sources describing him as either black or african american, so I really don't think that will be an issue. Zimmerman's ethnicity is debatable/controversial. I don't think anyone has even hinted at any such debate regarding martin. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Transcript Add

In the transcript portion of: Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing? Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...

The unintelligible portion can be clearly heard as "He's here now" leading into "he's just staring..."

Captain Lorna Doone the Pirate (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

An IP mentioned the same thing yesterday. I think the transcript is taken right from MoJo, and I'd err on leaving it. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The Mother Jones transcript of Zimmerman's call to the police is of poor quality, with numerous errors (though it's not as bad as CNN's).
E.g., it has Zimmerman saying, "Alright, where you going to meet with them at?" Actually, Zimmerman said, "Yeah," and the dispatcher replied, "Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?"
That's just one of many inaccuracies.
There's an accurate transcript here: http://www.burtonsys.com/zimmerman911transcript.html
NCdave (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos

Selection of the photos used seems a little biased. The photo of Martin shows him smiling, yet the photo of Zimmerman is a mug shot where he's staring straight ahead with an expressionless look, as mug shots tend to be. The mug shot photo makes Zimmerman look like a criminal, because it's a mug shot, and because he was not exactly happy when the photo was taken. Is this the only available photo for Zimmerman? Or are we intentionally trying to make Zimmerman look like the criminal? There are plenty of photo's of Zimmerman floating around. Whose decision was it to use the mug shot??


Another-- remove All photos of Martin until you can uncover one as close to the age he died as possible. Many are all over the web. Grilles, Tatoos. You have photos of Zim the same year the event occurred. If you do not, no one can trust this page or Wikipedia

We are restricted in our use of photos by copyright. Zimmerman is a living person, and therefore photos of him have additional protection. We are using the photos that can either be used freely as they are not copyrighted, or ones that can be justified under fair use. Martin, as a dead person, has less protection/greater justification for fair use photographs (because no new photographs may ever be taken of him). Get the Zimmerman family to release a photo without copyright restriction, and we can use it. The selection of photos was EXTENSIVELY debated for weeks, and you may find all of the relevant details in the archives. Baiscally, we are using the mugshot, because it is the only photo we legally can use. The many photos floating around of Zimmerman, are all copyrighted by the various news agencies that took those photographs, and who could sue wikipedia for using them.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Aren't we talking about the wrong thing here? Who cares if the photo of Martin wearing a hood is touched up? Both photos look the same basically. What is the difference aside from the tone? The bigger and far more important issue is the choice of photos used at the top of the article for Martin (smiling youth) and Zimmerman (a mug shot, with "criminal status" in the caption). This is a completely slanted presentation, regardless of the article text. Why is nothing being done about this? There are other photos of Zimmerman. Why do they continue to be ignored? 74.100.213.169 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What photo of zimmerman are you aware of, that is not encumbered by copyright? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I left a comment about this issue above, and I totally agree about the copyright issues. But, I think I agree that using a mugshot is slanted/bias, in light of the fact he has been acquitted. If we have to remove his picture until we can find a more suitable one, then so be it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand completely what you are saying about copyrighted material, as I have on several ocassions, tried to upload photos of Zimmerman and O'Mara, only to run into a snag. But, having said that, I still think Zimmerman's mugshot photo shows a bias, especially now that he has been acquitted. We really need to explore this issue further and get a NPOV photo of Zimmerman.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Isaidnoway One could probably make an argument that some of the photos from the trial could be copyright free, even though we are getting them from media, as they were ultimately taken by government cameras and redistributed to all the media. However, that raises the issue that Zimmerman's appearance now, is quite different than it was at the time of the event (weight gain), which could lead to neutrality issues that we were trying to change the balance of size between them at the event. What photo do you think would be both able to squeak past NFCC and POV? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I found this one of Zimmerman leaving court on Wikimedia, but it is the only new addition that I could find. It's a side shot of him smiling with a lawyer/intern? and his father in the background. It's not ideal, but it's not a mugshot either. I don't know if we'll ever be able to find one of him at around the time of the incident showing his actual weight at the time. We may just have to rely on a text description of his weight at the time of the incident. The info about this recent pic says it is from Voice of America, from their Chinese site. I searched their archives (USA site) for any additional pics and only came up with this one of him with O'Mara and West at the trial, maybe a possibility of getting O'Mara and West into the trial article? I have seen several the media have used that would be acceptable, but like you said, we'd have to make an argument for "fair use".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting information on Zimmerman's age

The first section of the article states that Zimmerman is 28, but his year of birth is given as 1983 which makes the age of 28 inaccurate. 74.120.190.9 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Time passes. He was 28 when the incident occurred. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

irrelevant misleading opinion of medical examiner

  • 26oo added a bit which was reverted by Gaijin42. [30] He then reverts the revert, and puts it back in. I then revert him. Zedshort reverts me and adds it back in again. So, lets discuss it here instead of edit warring back and forth. Two want it in there, and two want it gone. Medical Examiner Valerie Rao said she reviewed Zimmerman's medical records and 36 pictures of his injuries taken at the police station after the fight and concluded they were not life-threatening and very insignificant. Why does it matter if the current injuries weren't life threatening? Does that have anything to do with shooting someone who is currently beating your head against the ground? Should he have waited for the wounds to become more significant before responding to the attack? Dream Focus 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. It matters because she's the Chief Medical Examiner of the 4th District of Florida, who was brought in as a state witness for her expertise. Secondly, Mr. Zimmerman refused further medical attention at a hospital not once but three times, which itself shows that his injuries were not significant. This quote from an expert on the matter backs up why he didn't want further medical attention. The quote is very relevant and not misleading, that is your opinion. 26oo (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I am at 3rr, and 2600 is definitely in violation at this point. Dr Bao's testimony is not fact. It is his opinion. There were other opinions as well, which disagreed with Bao's It is not neutral to quote just Bao, and not the others, and it is too long to quote everyone in that context. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

At least 5 different people testified about Zimmerman's injuries, several of them doctors or EMTs. Why is Bao's the only one you quote? No injuries are required for self defense, and the fact that he was ruled not guilty, where the only valid defense to the proven killing was in fact self defense, indicates that the jury found that argument compelling. This is a section saying what his injuries were at that night. Opinions and testimony about the importance of those injuries is covered, in detail in the trial article, where it belongs. He has injuries. That is the only fact. Everything else is an opinion as to the importance of those injuries. Bao has no special authority to factually declare them insignificant, it is just his opinion. We cannot repeat everyone's opinion in this context, so we should quote no-ones. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, you are welcome to add any other medical testimonies. I added a paragraph and violated no rules, if you want it removed there's an obligation for consensus. Blanking the paragraph or editing it in a way which doesn't match the source is not allowed. I've already explained that Mr Zimmerman refused medical attention 3 times and the quote illustrates why that was. 26oo (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a classic case of WP:UNDUE to me. By inserting only her opinion, when there were multiple opinions given at the trial, seems to imply that her testimony is more credible than the other testimony given. And you really can't assert that this particular quote illustrates why Zimmerman didn't seek medical attention, that's clearly WP:OR on your part, as she couldn't possibly know the reason behind Zimmerman's decision to not seek medical attention.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
That insertion is problematic several times over. wp:undue selection of one (prejudicial) statement from thousands, selection from primary sources, and all of the reasons cited above. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gaijin42's point that no injuries are necessary for the plea of self defense, so it doesn't matter how bad they were. The injuries only proved he was the one on the ground getting his head beat down and yelling for help, while Trayvon was the one on top of him beating him. Dream Focus 22:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Isaidnoway, it does carries undue weight, I shall add some "weight" to it, and give a countering version of his injuries so to not have the input removed. It seems to me that people are intent on removing the text all together than fixing it so it is in line with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. 26oo (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
To avoid any further edit warring, it would probably be a good idea if you could draft a proposal of further additions you'd like to make and present it here on the talk page for consensus discussion. I think one of the main concerns surrounding the current content we are discussing here, is that you have indicated that you inserted this statement from ME Rao in an effort to illustrate a point - your POV. Obviously, that would violate WP:NPOV and you'd also have to be prepared to discuss how it's not a WP:OR issue and WP:SYNTH issue as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
26oo wants consensus and I think it is pretty obvious from those that removed that highly subjective opinion that consensus is against 26oo. Arzel (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed: 26oo does not have consensus regarding this particular prosecution witness' spoon-fed reply regarding "life-threatening injuries" red-herring fallacies. As to whether the article is biased towards the Zimmerman defense, I need only point out that such is to be expected in a case where the defendant is found not guilty on all charges after only a day's deliberation in what seems a rather clear-cut case of Martin assaulting Zimmerman and trying to beat the hell out of him in front of witnesses. The entire case itself is essentially a non-story, as stuff like this happens almost every day of the year all over the country. The bigger story by far is the incestuous alliance between the race-riot-baiting press and hucksters such as Al Sharpton as they attempt to repeat the ratings-orgies of the O.J. Simpson and Rodney King cases. The Zimmerman case has received about fifty times the coverage of the murder of a US ambassador.--Froglich (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and bon appétit!--Froglich (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a shame that article has nothing to do with the case, one could also argue and make a case out of the fact that Trayvon Martin's background regarding his situation at school has nothing to do with the shooting and had no impact nor possibly influenced Zimmerman's profiling of him that night, and thus shouldn't even be in the article. 26oo (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
How could Martin's background possibly have influenced Zimmerman when, prior to the moment Martin tried to beat the crap out of him, they'd never met? In contrast, if anyone thinks the riot-baiting media circus had nothing to do with the decision to prosecute, I have a bridge to sell them.--Froglich (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Reports are already used in this article, removing one in favour of none, especially when it is balanced is not allowed. Secondly, read what I wrote again, I said Martin's situation at school has nothing to do with the shooting and I shall press on that later. However, Zimmerman's educational background is very relevant given that it's related to self-defense. 26oo (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've inserted a balanced input from a source already used in this Wiki article describing Zimmerman's injuries. Secondly, it was removed without any Wikipedia:Consensus. 26oo (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You did not. You inserted the same content you edit warred on before, with additional negative information about zimmerman. There is consensus that that information SHOULD NOT be included, certainly not in "Zimmermans account", and definitely without the other opinions of medical witnesses who described head getting hit against concrete as life threatening. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Negative? I inserted a report from Zimmerman's own physician, unless you want to discuss the authenticity and bias of ABC News, I am afraid you are in the wrong. The issue here was undue weight, I believe that is fixed now. Your previous removal was without consensus, you must understand that consensus is not a vote, this is not a democracy. 26oo (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
A physician called by the prosecution, to present information that argues against his defense. That is not balance. Consensus is not a vote, but you have 0 argument backed by policy. All of this testimony is already included in the case article, where the testimony is directly applicable. You are attempting to add this information in a highly partisan WP:UNDUE and WP:POV manner, in the section that is supposed to be Zimmerman's version! At a minimum put it in the states version!!! Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The new "balanced" version was nothing of the sort. 26oo, present what you want here first and discuss before reverting again. Arzel (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed balanced and now undue weight has been fixed which was the problem in the first place, I see no problem now unless you want to create another issue. I want to point out that the source I've cited was used in the article before I used it but was deemed no problem. So the issues of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight and Wikipedia:POV have been resolved. I do not have to come here each time I make an edit to the article after I fixed the original issue. 26oo (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You did not balance and fix it. I reverted you again. Stop edit warring that back in. Everyone else is against you having it there. It doesn't matter if someone said his injuries were not life threatening, there no possible reason to mention that at all, as others already pointed out to you. Dream Focus 17:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
That's your opinion, a senior medical professional's opinion regarding his injuries is very relevant to whether or not his life was in danger for him to take the course of action that he did. 26oo (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
As others have pointed out already, you don't have to have to have life threatening injuries for a case of self defense. When someone is beating your head into the ground, you are allowed to shoot them. Dream Focus 17:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

in order for this to not violate WP:NPOV you would have to list the other medical expert who said the injuries were life threatening as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Also, is there any reason to mention what medications Zimmerman was on? That was also added in. [31] That seems to be leading the reader to believe Zimmerman was the aggressor do to medication, as evident by him having the symptoms mentioned. Dream Focus 17:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Does anyone but 26oo think that bit should be in there? He also added a bit in I just removed [32] about Zimmerman getting a good grade in a class that taught self defense, which of course is irrelevant, since Martin outmatched him, thus the reason Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head pounded. He certainly couldn't defend himself against his opponent by other means than his gun. Dream Focus 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The class bit has nothing to do with being outclassed or not in the fight, its in reference to knowing what self defense laws were, which is used to imply he tailored his statements to police because he knew how to get away with it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Too long

This article is too long to be read comfortably, and should be split in sub-articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is long, but I disagree that it need to be split apart in any significant way (though there may be some redundancies and tangents that could be trimmed away). I don't know of any other broad and deep synthesis of the components of these events, held to encyclopedic (i.e. not journalistic, not for profit, not for ratings, not political) standards. Seems like one of the more beneficial adaptations of historical encyclopedic values to the newer medium. (I haven't been watching this talk page closely, so imagine I've missed this conversation happening at least twice so far, but I was very impressed by the article so thought I'd jump in). --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CNN court was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Police: Trayvon Martin's death 'ultimately avoidable'". CNN. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
  3. ^ "Martin Spoke of 'Crazy and Creepy' Man Following Him, Friend Says". Retrieved July 24, 2012.
  4. ^ http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_23535125/zimmerman-prosecutors-want-admit-his-five-prior-911
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_15&oldid=1143397589"