Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Jury racial makeup

I do not believe we have sufficient sourcing to say as a matter of fact that " by a jury of six women, all but one of whom was white". The jury members themselves have not spoken about their race. The judicial system has not released any information about their race (although they have it). Some reporters who were in the room who are not in any way experts in racial identification described them. If we are going to include this information, we need to attribute the racial identification to the observers who are making that assertion. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read a number of articles that concur with the wording here. It is relevant information that readers will be looking for. If we don't accept the journalists as reliable on "race", we can change the wording to "reportedly white" or "according to reporters". On the other hand, if we take out the "race" completely, then we should take out the gender too, if it hasn't been reported by the judicial system. I mean, the "women" might self-identify as "men". - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the gender makeup is statistically much more interesting than the racial makeup. Gender is approximately 50/50. So a 6 woman jury has a 0.015 chance of occurring randomly. Seminole County is 10% black, so even on a 12 person jury, one would only expect 1 black juror, and 0 would not be statistically unlikely. On a 6 person jury having 0 black jurors is even more probable. Of course, the impact of the race may have been important to how open the jurors may have been to different arguments - but now you are getting into what the jurors were thinking, which is complete speculation.

Gender is much easier to tell - at a minimum we can tell what gender the jurists were presenting. Race is significantly more subjective, especially if racial mixing was multiple generations past. I personally am pure European (as far back as anyone can trace anyway), but due to Mediterranean background am several shades darker than several of my self identified black (bi-racial) friends who could easily pass for white-only if they were so inclined.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur on your points, but as this is a racially charged case, any referenced information regarding race will be valid and relevant. What is the wording of the news articles? I mean, the difficulty with race is of course context, history, and definitions. North Africans, Arabs, and Indians (Asian) have actually been considered Caucasian, but not necessarily white, which is mostly associated with European Americans, but also includes a large proportion of Hispanics, which can be white, but are also an ethnic minority. I think as long as the source is explained in the text, it is both acceptable and important to include what is known. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that this is a racially charged case, which is why we should be extra cautious - claiming that the jury was all white or all white plus a hispanic could be throwing more fuel onto the fire. There was already at least one significant racial misidentification issue, heavily reported by the media (incorrectly or in multiple somewhat contradictory ways)- Zimmerman is white? Hispanic? white-hispanic? etc.

If we are going to have this informatino in, we must state that "The jury was reported by the media to be..." or some such

Even CNN is very careful about how they are attributing this info "The prosecuting and defense attorneys referred to the jury members as five white women and one black or Hispanic woman. CNN does not have access to the juror questionnaires and cannot confirm the ethnicities of the jurors." Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Black or Hispanic"? Really? I hadn't heard even that degree of specificity. All I've read says either "minority" or "non-white". Note that there are "black Hispanics", especially prominent among Dominican people, but also among other groups. If all we know is minority/non-white, that leaves open possibilities of people descended of various Asian, African, Native American, Austranesian, etc. etc. groups. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

HLN (that I had never heard of before this case? where did they come from?) Also has a "black and hispanic" juror. Also goes into the demographic statistical likelyhood http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/21/george-zimmerman-trial-female-jurors-trayvon-martin.

Another "black or hispanic" description http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/07/who-are-the-members-of-the-zimmerman-jury-2680094.html

Another "black or hispanic" ultimately sourced to "described by a prosecutor as" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364213/Zimmerman-juror-signs-deal-write-tell-book-murder-trial.html

In light of the mixed sourcing, I am removing the racial commentary in the article until we can develop a consensus on accurate wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus shouldn't be too difficult. I would suggest wording "minority", non-white, or I can even support "black and/or Hispanic", with references. Oh, I first heard of HLN at the end of the Casey Anthony trial. Seems that media source really specializes in the big trial genre of TV journalism. - Boneyard90 (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they are a rebranding of "CNN Headline News". Beyond B-29 (Black/hispanic), I think use stating as a matter of fact that the other 5 are white may be a violation of WP:BLP, and insufficiently sourced, when we are dealing with 3rd or 4th hand reports. (How many of the authors of these articles actually physically saw the jurors?) At a minimum we need to say "were described in media reports as" or something to that effect. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, if we are going to put more detail into the racial makeup, I think we need to do this in the context of the jury selection process. To my knowledge, only 1 black juror (g81) was specifically challenged/dismissed, and it was the state that did so - So there was ample opportunity for more minorityy (and male) representation in the jury. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the race of the sixth juror as "black or Hispanic"? I don't know what discussion resulted in its removal, but with Gaijin42's suggestion of adding "were described in media reports as", maybe it could be restored. Without that info, the reader can only wonder what her race might be.[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image link is broken to me, but in the context, I assume it is a picture of that juror? If so, I think that may be a WP:BLP privacy violation, especially in light that the jury identity is under seal currently. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all latest comments & recommendations by Gaijin42. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, Reuters, and the Associated Press are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, we have sufficient sourcing to say " by a jury of six women, all but one of whom was white". Here are some quotes from these sources:

New York Times: "After hearing three weeks of testimony inside the Seminole County courthouse, the jury of six women — five white and one Hispanic — began deliberations at 2:29 p.m. They adjourned at 6 p.m. and were to resume their work at 9 a.m. on Saturday. " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/us/zimmerman-trial.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Washington Post: "A jury of six women, five of them white, was picked Thursday for the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., who says he fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, in self-defense." http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-20/politics/40094953_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-jurors

CNN: "The six jurors -- all of them women -- deliberated for 16½ hours. Five of the women are white; one is a minority." http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/

Reuters:"Here is a glimpse of the women - five of whom are white and one of whom is Hispanic of mixed race - who must come to a unanimous verdict in the racially fraught case:" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-jurors-factbox-idUSBRE96B0WK20130712

Let's add this information to the article and make it better. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still curious to the factual relevance of the race (or sex, for that matter) of any of the jurors.Whatzinaname (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No answers then? All will be henceforth stricken.Whatzinaname (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Article on Media Bias regarding Martin-Zimmerman

If we decided to create an article on the media bias regarding this case, what is the standard for a "reliable source" if our typical standard generally allows for well-known media outlets to 'get a pass' on standards of reliability? -- Avanu (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Essentially we have to accept the reliable sources as sources about themselves - though academic research etc that is not self-reflective would be a better choice if available.

Key will be that we can't point to an article, and show that it was wrong by what was later known (trial or other articles). Someone else will have to have written specifically about the first article being wrong and biased. (Otherwise its WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's synth or OR if it's a purely factual difference. For instance, if they said Zimmerman was 7 feet tall, you don't need a source to say "the media claimed he was X amount taller than his actual height", but you would probably need a source to say " The media tried to make Zimmerman look much more imposing than he actual is by exaggerating his height".Whatzinaname (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the rules are generally interpreted strictly, especially on a controversial topic such as this one. You can write something like that, but if someone challenges the information, it will be removed unless a source directly stating that can be found. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem we have here is that the media outlets that make up most of where our so-called "reliable sources" come from have EXTENSIVELY BIASED the facts surrounding what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman has been torn down to be a murderous monster, while Trayvon Martin has been built up as if he were a pure and innocent saint, with many placing this event on par with Emmett Till's murder. A group of men brutally beating a 14-year old beyond recognition, and hiding the body, has almost nothing in common with this case. Trayvon Martin didn't have a scratch on him. George Zimmerman was taking a beating. Somehow our "reliable sources" have not represented this. What we have here is a big problem with Wikipedia, if we're unable to create an article that talks about this bias because our sources won't admit to it. -- Avanu (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to find reliable sources that discuss media bias and cannot merely write about what you perceive to be media bias, per WP:NOR If accusations of media bias have only been made by fringe sources then you must treat accusations of media bias as a fringe view, per WP:FRINGE. While media outlets are the only sources we currently have, in time we can use academic writing which is more reliable. TFD (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"wp:reliable source" is the bare minimum standard for satisfying the wp:verifiability requirement for inclusion, and does not indicate actual reliability. When sources ignore the basic realities (that the shooting occurred while Zimmerman was getting beat up (race aside), and the verdict probably related to that, that "stand your ground" law was not not really a factor, editors should perhaps attribute media implications otherwise as assertions. North8000 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there are different types of writers for the media. One type writes the day to day news, and another type writes with a longer term perspective. The latter type may be sufficiently removed from the former type to write a credible report about possible media bias in the day to day news reports. If there's a story there, I think it will come out. Just a matter of patience. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You better have the patience of the tide.Whatzinaname (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I hear you. The case suing NBC is coming up. That might shake out a story. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

CNN and "white hispanic" section

I do believe this is relevant but this should be expanded on. The title should be " misrepresentation of Zimmerman's racial identity" in my opinion. CNN isn't the only news station to do this, yahoo news, the associated press, and the Huffington post did it too. In fact, the Huffing ton post described Zimmerman as a "self-proclaimed Hispanic" just two days ago. A clear sign of media bias. I highly suggest that this is expanded on because if Zimmerman was identified as Hispanic in the beginning, this likely wouldn't of been a national story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

i actually recall someone at a major network looking into the use of "white hispanic" from the new york times when this incident was going down originally and they could only find 3 incidences of them using the word. And notable "white hispanics" on the left like bill richards were suspiciously lacking. totally right, in any event, that CNN is being unfairly singled out in this regard. Can you find the sources, though? that's the tangled web wikipedia weaves. Everything must be processed through the liar, libophone media itself to end up on its supposed encyclopedic pages.Whatzinaname (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Props to the editors

This isn't change-related, and I realize we're probably trying to keep the talk to a minimum, here, but I want to congratulate the editors, reviewers, and administrators who are doing a great job keeping this page unbiased, well-sourced, and encyclopedic. In a few weeks (months?) this would make a good GA nominee. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

downplaying the jewelry it by saying "several" instead of a "dozen", and not mentioning how valuable it was, is misleading

Opinions please. Isn't it downplaying it by saying "several" instead of a "dozen", and not mentioning how valuable it was? We're talking about silver and diamonds here, not just some cheap crap found at the dollar store. [2] If something is going to be mentioned in the article, it should be accurate. Can "several" ever mean a "dozen?" Dream Focus 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the trial is over, and Zimmerman was found not guilty, as he should have been. None of Martin's three suspensions (or this jewelery) were introduced as evidence into the trial. None of Zimmerman's prior bad acts were introduced as evidence into the trial. If anything, we should be summarizing both of their prior bad conduct, not expanding it with useless details. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

We're mentioning why he was suspended. This shows his character at the time. And perhaps he didn't walk straight home, but as Zimmerman said, was looking around at houses, sizing up the potential to burglarize. What Zimmerman did over a decade before, isn't relevant to his character now, it explained in a discussion on this talk page, he apparently drunk once and hitting an undercover officer he didn't know was a police officer thinking he was attacking a friend of his, and no charges filed, and it not an issue. Dream Focus 21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be focused on trying to illustrate a particular pov about someone's character traits, good or bad. Isn't this the same discussion we had above about an editor who was trying to insert a particular witnesses testimony to illustrate Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant. Your argument seems to indicate that you want this content, and the useless details, in order to "show his character at the time." Reliable sources aren't discussing this issue anymore, and neither should we, it's alright to maintain a summary of their prior bad conduct, as it provides a historical perspective about the incident at the time. But now we should be focused on removing and summarizing content rather than trying to illustrate a particular pov.

Agree with Isaidnoway. Even if Martin had done something even worse the facts would not indicate that Zimmerman would have known prior to the incident anyway. Arzel (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• What about accuracy? Should we say "few" when it was a "dozen? Should we not mention what sort of jewelry it was? What about the mention of the watch? Dream Focus 07:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference for connection of jewelry to burglary near Trayvon Martin's school. http://corygrambart.com/tag/burglary/ Request an edit to correct the statement in the page to reflect this new information. It might improve the page if the dismissal of the M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley is explained as coming from the internal audit surrounding Trayvon Martin's death.Galentravels (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is just a reposting of the "treehouse" post, word for word. Neither site is a reliable source. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin's jewelry

I would like to add to the section about the jewelry found on Treyvon Martin, the Miami Herald linked the jewelry to a break in near the school. You can see a summary of the story here:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.88.108 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That link was mentioned in a section above already. Does it count as a reliable source? Do other sources mention this also? Anyone search around yet? Dream Focus 15:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

ABC news reported the graffiti, jewelry and "burglary implement" in March last year. Martin's lawyers called the information irrelevant and a "conspiracy" intended to muddy Martin's name which may explain why it wasn't followed up by other media. Wayne (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The article in the linked blog is not acceptable because it does not meet the policy of reliable sources. What is it that you wish to add? Already half of the section on Martin is about his school suspensions, We need to be careful that we provide the same weight to his description as mainstream media. TFD (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a reliable source and the chief never responded to the inquiry to confirm the jewelry connection. If the chief responds to the inquiry and confirm the jewelry connection, then in my opinion its relevant. 107.207.24.155 (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC) The jewelry has been linked to a nearby robbery in the article I cited under the other jewelry post.Galentravels (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

All the FACTS as video on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.204.16 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good find. Perhaps we should list information which proves the claim of racism to be unbelievably stupid in this case. He once partnered with a black friend to start a business. His wife and him mentored and tutored minotirty children for free. When young black men broke into the home of his black neighbor, he gave that black woman a key to his home saying she could come over if she ever needed to feel safe. The article already has the bit about him protesting the death of a black homeless guy. Dream Focus 16:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see anything useful for the article that hasn't already been considered and has a reliable source. There is a violation of WP:BLP WP:BDP since the video claims Martin was a drug dealer. So I'm going to delete this section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: I deleted this section shortly after my above message and Dream Focus restored it approximately when posting the next message below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It quotes things from Martin's Facebook page. He doesn't claim anything, just shows what was posted by Martin or others on Martin's page. Dream Focus 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bob, but sources do not need to be NPOV or politically correct to be included. That being said, it only needs to be checked against RS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be objective, but this is a random self published podcast. It could be 100% correct , but it is not by any stretch of the imagination reliable (in wiki terms)(Along with the treehouse link from the previous section). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dream Focus, Please see this part of the video[3] where he claims that Martin is a possible drug dealer, hence violation of WP:BLP WP:BDP by linking to the video. As I said, I don't think there is anything useful for the article that is reliably sourced that hasn't been considered already. However, if you think there is, then present your suggested addition to the article here, along with a reliable source for the info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No violation of the rules to say he was a "possible drug dealer" in this context. "A possible drug dealer, suspended from school for carrying arond a baggie with pot residue" Facebook message he got some someone saying "damn where u at a nigga need a plant", asking for dope obviously. "Martin tested positive for marijuana use after his death. He had pictures of himself using marijuana and growing marijuana plants." "...and he told friends that he was bringing marijuana to Sanford". I believe Stefan Molyneux is a reliable source. Dream Focus 19:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree since I don't see a reliable source. Are you suggesting that the article should say that Martin was a possible drug dealer and give the Stefan Molyneux video as a reliable source? If so, go ahead and propose it and we'll see if it gets consensus. Here's my response in advance: Oppose per WP:BLP, WP:BDP and WP:SPS which says, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree entirely with bob. BLP applies to martin via BDP, but BLP also applies to Zimmerman, the police, the prosecutors, the jury, etc who are all subects of this information. Anything usable from this video is source able elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it will be okay in 7 months when BDP expires either. Just FYI. Anyone touting BLP related matters as objections to otherwise RSes could try to go out of it with the expiration of that coverage and this is to prevent a "re-visiting" in the future. After the last issue with MUG, its a fair chance we will be seeing this issue in the future so I want my response on record for this now and not later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re "Anyone touting BLP related matters as objections to otherwise RSes could try to go out of it with the expiration of that coverage and this is to prevent a "re-visiting" in the future." — First, I presume you mistakenly used the word "touting". Next, although I understand how the the two-years-from-death limit on WP:BDP applies for Martin info, I didn't follow the rest of your sentence, so could you clarify? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Touting was used correctly, where touting is " an attempt to persuade people of the merits of (someone or something)." and " an attempt to sell (something), typically by pestering people in an aggressive or bold manner". In this case it was double, aggressive pushing of BLP policy to persuade inclusion of the material. Moving on, matters tend to be discussed numerous times here; even the height/weight issue from before is being discussed again. Previously, I had to deal with the WP:MUG issue and I suspect we will see this same argument after the two-year mark has been hit. I was declaring my foresight and announcing that the problem with the source is not merely under BLP concerns, so it cannot be argued that this discussion is on BLP grounds when BLP no longer applies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think your point is that if there are WP:BLP reasons and other reasons for not using the video, then it is better to focus on the other reasons since WP:BLP will run out with time. I agree if the other reasons are accepted. Zhanzhao's message below seems to address other reasons well. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As above, there's nothing in the video that hasn't already been mentioned. And unlike other sources that pass the reliability test, there is no way to verify the authenticity of the claims. Attribution as mentioned is another big issue. How will this be written in the article? "According to a youtube video by XXXX, so and so is so and so..."? Rather than debate the inclusion of the video, why not find sources that back up any claim made within that isn't already in the article? Zhanzhao (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Because no RS says he was a drug dealer? The toxicology report did not mention codeine and any assertion that Martin was on "Lean" at the time of the incident is highly suspect. A verifiable, reliable source, not a mere assertion, is the burden for these contentious claims. I personally saw the blogsphere reactions from blogs like Wagist and Mother Jones as they went up throughout the year; and they are not to be used for contentious claims at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, I think there is some decent evidence that Martin was involved with drugs and in particular lean and pot - but the level of proof required for me to personally think it plausible is irrelevant to wikipedia. WAY WAY WAY too many missing pieces in the chain of "proof" that would assuredly invoke WP:SYNTH and WP:OR (once the obvious unreliable sources are excluded). Did Martin know about lean? Yes (assuming you dont think the texts/facebook are fake). Did he have some of the ingredients handy? Yes. Is that proof he was actually making lean? No. Did his autopsy indicate liver damage etc? (As allegedly consistent with lean/dmx use by the video) - Im not sure. I certainly haven't seen that discussed in any reliable sources. (And certainly none linking any damage to DMX). Is there strong evidence he was using pot, perhaps growing it himself? Absolutely. That he was dealing? Maybe, but much much weaker, and "dealing" is a term with many meanings. Is there evidence he was regularly habitually selling pot to others as an income stream? No. Is there a text message that could indicate a friend asked him for some pot? Yes. There is a VERY big gap between giving a friend some weed, and being a "drug dealer" (bradly construed laws on "intent to distribute" notwithstanding. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this discussion is heading, but to reiterate part of Zhanzhao's message, "why not find sources that back up any claim made within that isn't already in the article?" So, does anyone have anything to contribue in this regard? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Scuffle?

To my perception, "scuffle" connotes a minor conflict like children have on the playground. I found this wiki on it:

"A scuffle is generally a fight that isn't big or intense enough to be called a brawl." Yet a head was being bashed on concrete -- that is not to me a "scuffle." I suggest a different word be used, maybe "physical conflict" or altercation. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC))

Autopsy section should include medical examiner's court testimony on THC

Regarding the level of THC and its metabolites in Martin's blood, the article currently states:

"Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science, stated that the THC amount was so low that it may have been ingested days earlier and played no role in Martin's behavior."

There was, however, different direct testimony at trial regarding this issue — from Dr. Shiping Bao, the medical examiner who conducted Trayvon Martin's autopsy. There are many links about this available on the web- here is one link, followed by an excerpt:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10169761/Trayvon-Martin-had-marijuana-in-system-night-he-died.html

"Dr Shiping Bao, the medical examiner who carried out Trayvon's autopsy, told the court last week that he had changed his mind about the drug's potential impact, having initially said it was too small an amount to be significant. "Marijuana could have no effect or some effect," he said."

The issue of Martin's THC levels and their potential impact on his behavior is controversial, but given the existence of direct court testimony from a state witness responsible for the autopsy, this information should be included in the article for the sake of completeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.35.183 (talk • contribs)

• I think him using lean regularly was what caused his behavior. Reliable sources have already stated that and shown quotes from his Facebook account clearly indicating he was a frequent user. Plus the medical examination report showed signs of DXM[4] in his liver. Dream Focus 08:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What you think is irrelevant. The Lean stuff has not been discussed in any reliable sources. The autopsy says "fatty metamorphosis" which is most commonly associated with alcoholism, and the autopsy says nothing about DMX, nor has any reliable source commented on that. Martin's use of THC is (or was last time I checked anyway) in, in the section on his suspensions. It is also in the trial article under the testimony of that witness, where it most properly belongs. Applying the opinion of one witness (even if we find him personally credible) to color or inform the overall incident would be WP:UNDUE particularly since that testimony was not actually presented to the Jury, but only proffered. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the whole Lean/DMX issue. But maybe it's time we re-visit Koblinsky's opinion in that section. I can see an argument to exclude his opinion for being WP:UNDUE, in light of the judges ruling in favor of the defense concerning the behavorial effects of marijuana and whether or not it influenced Martin's behavior that night. His opinion that Martin's level of THC played no role in Martin's behavior was challenged in court and the judge ruled that the defense could present expert testimony saying it created "some level of impairment." Koblinsky is certainly entitled to his opinion, and he may be right, but should we leave his opinion there implying that it is the definitive opinion about whether or not Martin's level of THC factored into Martin's behavior that night.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we could reasonably quote each of the medical witnesses who commented on the possible effects in the autopsy section, but we must be careful to not give any of them undue weight or indicate which one is "true" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, you want to just cut Koblinsky, and use the experts from trial? Another possibility is we not include any analysis/opinion and just let the results stand alone. Also, while we're on this section about his autopsy, the last sentence in the first paragraph about the physician who reviewed the report for the Sentinel. We have fresh sourcing on this issue from the trial, should we trade that out? I think they basically reached the same conclusion, didn't they, that Martin could have "possibly" remained conscious for a little while after being shot. I recall the defense stressing this point, but I don't remember the prosecution's pov about it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman's Identity

I know that this has been discussed, but why is Zimmerman being described as a "mixed race" Hispanic? The man identifies himself as Hispanic and so does his family as they have confirmed, so why on earth are people deciding otherwise? This type of behavior I think is disturbing and I mean no offensive to fellow editors. If he identify himself as Hispanic, then that's what he is. I would also like to point out to a previous editor that insist that he is white that his mother is obviously not from the European continent. White Hispanics are from the European continent, but his mothers ancestry, just by looking at her, is not. In fact, Robert Zimmerman described his mother as Afro Peruvian on the Bill Maher show because his great grandfather is Black. Look, Obama describes himself as an African American despite the fact that his mother is white, so who are we as editors of this article to make up our own opinions of what Zimmerman really is? Last time I checked, Obama's page doesn't describe him as the first 'multi racial' president so why Zimmerman? I think that this is an attempt to link Zimmerman to the term White to keep the narrative that a White man shot an unarmed Black teen and it needs to stop. Take he 'multiracial' description out of the article because its unprecedented. Rob3gd (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We as editors are definitely not allowed to make up our mind on anything. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The issue is that his race/ethnicity have been repeatedly described in this manner by reliable sources, and they win, regardless of our opinion or logic. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wait, so what ever NBC (who edited his calls) and ABC ( who put out a phony tape of him not having injuries) and other media outlets who made up their own facts and initially reported him as a White male is right because they are "reliable" sources and they said so? So Zimmerman's family, Drivers License, and his registration card aren't reliable sources, but NBC IS? Do you get where I'm going with this Gaijin? Rob3gd (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I do. But yes, that is the way wikipedia works. Where Z or his family have opined on their ethnicity or race, if that was quoted by reliable sources, we can certainly add that information in to balance the information we have. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC

If the unpresidented term 'mixed-race' isnt removed, then whats the point? I believe I know where your coming from but Zimmerman's family, his drivers license, and registration card are primary sources and you would think that primary sources are sources that Wikipedia would want first when writing articles, not an article from ABC or NBC (unless it was the only source available, but we have Zimmerman's legal sources.)Rob3gd (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• You can't give undue weight to sources that have been proven to be bias idiots just trying to make up a story. Rob3gd makes great cases on why obviously he is a Hispanic, and this "mixed race" thing is nonsense. The race baiters just tried to make it a black and white issue, so called him a white guy first, then a white Hispanic. Dream Focus 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So let's resolve this everyone once and for all with this question, should we keep the 'mixed-race" Hispanic description that ABC, NBC, and other media outlets use to describe him or should we use Zimmerman's legal primary sources that describe him as simply Hispanic (Drivers License, Voter Registration Card, and family) Which ones are more reliable to use to describe him?107.207.24.155 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to re-read undue. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public"- The "white hispanic", "mixed race" etc is the way he is almost exclusively described in reliable sources. (And frankly, they are technically correct. Hispanic is an ethnicity, and white is a race, and he is both). However, I am in absolute agreement with you that this is biased, PC, bullshit. but WP:SECONDARY sources take precedence over WP:PRIMARY ones, particularly in a BLP article. These are major policies with very wide very strong consensus across all of wikipedia, and we cannot make new rules up for this article because we disagree with the results the rules lead to in this situation. Im sure there are reliable sources discussing the bias involved in this terms usage, and we should discuss that bias in the media bias section of the article. @rob3gd : wiki policy explicitly says to prefer secondary sources over primary ones, directly in opposition to your argument above. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As for race, he would be Peruvian, not white. Just as Obama is African American, not White. If what NBC and ABC say is more important that actual and factual primary sources, then, well, no wonder why my professors say that Wikipedia is not allowed as a source in my papers. The opinions of others is more important than facts, love it. 107.207.24.155 (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Peruvian is defiantly not a race. This is part of why we rely on secondary sources. Our personal interpretations of facts are subject to great confusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Coming from Peru makes the person Hispanic. Dream Focus 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It makes them Peruvian. Hispanic or not would depend on ethic influence from spain/portugal. non-spanish speaking indigenous peoples are not hispanic for example, even if the country that they live in is generally Hispanic. Conversely, completely caucasian people are often Hispanic (Everyone who lives in Spain for example). Or completely black people as well (Many of the people in the Dominican Republic for example) But beyond that, it completely ignores his fathers ancestry which should be included as well (unless you are advocating the one-drop rule?) User:Isaidnoway's arguments below are much more persuasive. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• So, three people want the "mixed race" thing removed, and one person thinks it should remain in the encyclopedia despite being inaccurate, giving undue weight to the proven bias news sources. Anyone else have an opinion, please state it. Dream Focus 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We have multiple secondary sources saying that Zimmerman self-identifies as Hispanic, [5], and [6], and [7], and [8], and [9], and [10], and [11], and [12], so that should squash any WP:PRIMARY concerns. And there is nothing in policy that prevents us from using these RS to change that sentence to read that "Zimmerman identifies as Hispanic" - if there is consensus to change it. There's also nothing that prevents us from attributing the terms (white-hispanic, mixed-race, etc.) to the RS using those terms, elsewhere in the article. This quote from Zimmerman in the Orlando Sentinel article pretty much sums up Zimmerman's perspective on this issue: "Every time I see my photo, I ask myself, 'What is a white Hispanic?' I've never heard that before," Zimmerman told his sister, Susie, in Spanish during an April 22 phone call from the Seminole County Jail. "They can see in my photo. There is nothing white about me. I don't understand."-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

[A side comment, I just added to the lead the footnote from the section "George Zimmerman" that describes the uncontentious specifics of Zimmerman's ethnic background. I think it will help regardless of the outcome of the discussion here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)]

Instead of using a contentious label like white Hispanic, Hispanic, or mixed-race Hispanic, consider not labeling his ethnicity in the lead, but rather describing it.

"George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old whose ethnic background is part white and part Hispanic, was the neighborhood watch coordinator ..."

Note 1. Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is a Hispanic from Peru. Zimmerman's ancestry includes an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I support this. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would merely point out that Hispanic is correct too. Zimmerman has identified himself as Hispanic and we have sources to support that. While the above version is "technically" correct, I would argue that Zimmerman is aware of that "technically" correct definition and he is certainly aware of his parent's lineage. And when he was given the opportunity to identify himself (drivers license, voter registration) he has chosen to self-identify as Hispanic and that is just as equally important, if not more important than how the media has "technically" identified him as.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Florida drivers license application has among its "race/ethnicity" categories "Hispanic" and "White".[13] The Florida Voter registration application has among its "race/ethnicity" categories "Hispanic" and "White, not of Hispanic origin."[14] So Zimmerman didn't have the choice of the category "part white and part Hispanic" with a footnote like we have, which he might have chosen over those on the applications. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, some articles have recently come out about how Zimmerman's race/ethnicity has been portrayed by the media and others, and that info might be considered for adding to the article.[15][16][17][18] (There's others; here's the google where I got these from.[19]) --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed there is already a section CNN and "white Hispanic". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just offering an alternative re-wording based on Zimmerman's own self-identification and RS in support of. Look, we have had this race/ethnicity discussion about Zimmerman numerous times, but I don't see anything wrong with using Zimmerman's own POV about his race/ethnicity in the lead and expanded discussion (media's description) about his lineage, in possibly?, his bio section. I also think that in his interview, with Hannity at 35:10 where he specifically addresses his parent's lineage, and explains his 'reasoning' for identifying as a Hispanic, is a very compelling argument for using his POV in the lead about his race/ethnicity.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a good argument. All I can suggest is that you give the wording that you propose in a form like I gave previously, and we'll see what editors think. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping it simple:

George Zimmerman, a 28 year old Hispanic, was the neighborhood watch coordinator...

Any further discussion about his lineage - by Zimmerman, family, media, etc. can be included in a section to be determined. I think his bio section would be a good place to give a basic outline of his families lineage, and maybe use another (existing??) section for discussion on how the media portrayed Zimmerman's race/ethnicity throughout this incident. As always, any thought, comments or suggestions are welcome.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK so if its technically right to mention that he is part "white" and "Hispanic" in the intro, then will someone go to Obama's page and introduce him as the first president who is part white and black. I don't mind his description of his ethnic background in his Bio, just not in the introduction. I think that in the intro, just like Obama's, it should simply say Hispanic while we keep details of his background in his Bio section. Again, I don't see Obama's intro paragraph introducing him as the first president who is white and black nor him being the first "white African American" president. I think this is pretty simple, but for some reason this is becoming a "complicated" issue that's pretty straight forward. 107.207.24.155 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Isaidnoway, I like his above revision and the point of keeping the details in his biography section. Who's going to make the change? Rob3gd (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just wanted to chime in and make clear that "white", however ill-defined, is a racial category. "Hispanic" is an ethnic category. One cannot be "part Hispanic" and "part White". One can be a white Hispanic, a black Hispanic or a mixed-race Hispanic, and so on. They are two separate categories. One can't conflate ethnic and racial categories, they are not the same. One could, however, be, for example, part-Italian part-Hispanic white, or part-Italian part-Hispanic mixed-race, or even part-Italian part-Hispanic black. These are acceptable, but white/black/mixed race never takes the place of Hispanic, which is a separate qualifier.

A white Hispanic, for example, might be a white Cuban or an Argentine of European descent. There are many, many Hispanics who are just as "white" in skin tone as those from the Nordics. A black Hispanic might be a Afro-Cuban. And a mixed race Hispanic is usually known as a mestizo, which is what the majority of Mexicans identify as. This is a tricky business. But is important to get it right. RGloucester — 📬 21:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverted improper undo by Isaidnoway

I have reverted (manually) Isaidnoway's undo of a factual/grammar correction I made to one of the sections earlier. The revision corrected misinformation pertaining to Trayvon Martin's height and weight, as well as accounted for an article on Snopes detailing how those figures were part of an internet hoax. Isaidnoway reverted that edit, saying only that it was "not a hoax" but without providing any citation or discussion here to back it up.

Isaidnoway has also indicated repeatedly here in talk that he is strongly biased in favor of George Zimmerman and believes he should have been acquitted. While people with opposing viewpoints are welcome to participate on Wikipedia, there is an expectation that they will not allow their personal biases to influence their edits. These articles are supposed to be based on facts, NOT on personal opinion. Isaidnoway has made it clear that he has an agenda and I believe that agenda is very strongly influencing his edits to a point where the factual accuracy of the article is being jeopardized.

Isaidnoway, if you believe a revision should be reverted, simply inserting a personal opinion in the edit comment is not sufficient, particularly on an article about a contentious issue such as this. Given the circumstances and your recent patterns, I must ask that you not unilaterally revert anymore non-vandalism edits without first starting a discussion here on talk to explain why you think they should be removed. You can also make use of the many templates that are available to flag certain sections that you believe require review.

Either way, it's fine that you have a strong opinion on this subject. But unilaterally altering the article to make the narrative better suit your position is not acceptable behavior on your part. I will revert any future unilateral reversions made by you to this article unless you've attained some sort of consensus here or the revision was blatant vandalism. I'm not interested in debating George Zimmerman's guilt or whether or not Trayvon Martin "had it coming". All I'm asking is that you not engage in advocacy editing and show respect for your fellow editors by following proper procedures when evaluating other revisions. Sir kris (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the original edit that Sir kris made June 29, 2013 [20]. And here's Isaidnoway's revert also on June 29, 2013 [21]. Isaidnoway's edit summary was "What Martin's parents said his height and weight to be was not a hoax."

Sir kris, Would you care to address Isaidnoway's edit summary for the revert? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) FYI: I don't need your permission or a consensus to revert or add content to this article, see WP:BOLD. (2) The original edit there was sourced to CBS News and The Seattle Times. Here are the relevant passages from the two sources:

his family said he was actually 6-foot-3 and weighed at most 150 pounds.

his family told CBS News that he was 6' 2" and between 140-150 pounds.

If you had bothered to read the sources, you would have seen that these varying measurements were from his family. So, the two different measurements that were reliaby sourced to his family are NOT A HOAX. Now that you have inserted this Snopes content along side the other two sources from CBS and TST, you have created the impression that his family was involved in some sort of hoax. Like you said, alternate viewpoints are welcome, but don't insert them into already sourced content to distort what is already there. (3) Additionally, any of the involved editor's who have worked on this article will also tell you that I have never been an advocate for George Zimmerman. More often than not, I am accused of being biased in favor of Martin. Having said that, the jury found Zimmerman not guilty and that's that. So, in closing you would do well to remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA as there was nothing whatsoever improper about my revert. Thank you and have a nice day. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much reason to have all that extra stuff in there to confuse people. I think the edits in question made by Isaidnoway are better for the article. -- Avanu (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

FCAT

Trayvon's English teacher, Michelle Kypriss, described him as an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness.[21] But his mother worried that he had failed the FCAT, the test required for graduation in Florida high schools. Suziesiegel (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

He missed so much school how did he get good grades at all? Some schools do give football players passing grades for doing nothing, so that's probably it. Dream Focus 17:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. If you can't keep ignorant, off-topic speculation to yourself, please don't participate. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We are discussing something that is in the article now, and information that seems to contradict it. I gave a possibility is to why both facts could be true. Dream Focus 18:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You made an unsourced allegation about someone who is protected by WP:BDP, and by association an unsourced allegation against his teachers, who are protected by WP:BLP.And frankly a nonsensical allegation at that. He played middle school football. There is no evidence he played in high school. Further, "missed so much" 3 suspensions over a high school career is not so much that one would be expected not to graduate. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Various sources do state Trayvon Martin missed 53 days and attended 38 days out of the school year before being shot. He was suspended once for skipping school wasn't he? And I didn't mention any of his teaches by name, so its not a BLP violation. Dream Focus 18:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think that this subject is relevant to the article, then please propose some actual content supported by appropriate encyclopedic sources. Otherwise, please stop posting and review the talk page guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any proof that his teacher is telling the truth, and not just saying something to make him sound good? Are there any school records we can verify? What did his other teachers say? How could he be an A and B student if he failed his basic state test? It isn't that hard to pass. Are we giving undue weight to what one teacher said? I propose removing that sentence entirely. Dream Focus 19:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a serious neutrality problem. Remove all information that could possibly be negative about zimmerman. Remove all information that could possibly be positive about Martin. Add as much negative information about Martin as possible. The teacher's opinion is the teacher's opinion, and we cite it as such. There can be no weight issue on that topic unless there are alternative statements (there arent). One sentence in the giant article is certainly not undue. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is this person's opinion valid enough to be mentioned at all? And please assume good faith, and address what I said, not attack the person saying it. Dream Focus 20:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are chronically misusing this talkpage and violating the talk-page guidelines, not to mention more stringent policies such as WP:BLP. Calling you out for doing so is not a personal attack. I am assuming good faith—I'm assuming that you're misusing the talkpage because you're not familiar with this site's guidelines, rather than because you've chosen to intentionally disregard them. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

He "majored in cheerfulness"?? What does that mean, and how is it in any way relevant? Boneyard90 (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is beyond biased

I mean seriously come on where do I begin. It includes like 5 unsubstantiated stories of post-verdict violence without proving they happened. It claims the media misled people about B29(she acquitted him because she confused manslaughter with 1st degree murder), it doesn't mention that B37 said she believed trayvon said "creepy ass cracker" but that Rachel Jeantel was otherwise not credible, among many other things. I understand wikipedia is mostly libertarian/pro gun but come. Turtire (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

And it also ignores many viewers who felt the prosecution blew the case on purpose. Turtire (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

While your opinions are ones that are held by some people, they are not widely reported in reliable sources, so cannot generally be included. The episodes of violence are verifiable to the news stories we cite. b29's confusion is plausible, but unsourced by any reliable notable commentators. "blew on purpose" is as well, a common sour-grapes reaction ive heard, but has it been discussed by any reliable sources? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should edit the article to correct what you think is wrong and add what you think is missing? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than using secondary reliable sources, what "proof" do you think we should require to prove the incidents of violence actually happened? Sources also show that B29 was misquoted by many sources, not being confused, but using a layman's definition of killing rather than a legal one. It is not our job to show Rachel Jeantel as a credible witness or otherwise, but to faithfully sort out what the secondary reliable sources have to say on the matter. It has nothing to do with being libertarian or pro-gun, but simply being willing to focus on facts and, as a community, sort out what is relevant to this article and what is merely unneeded or biased fluff. Next time you have a complaint about content, bring more than simply opinion to the party. Bring well-sourced and reliable information. -- Avanu (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well in the news reports I've noticed no suspects were found and they all seem to have said the same thing. For B29 she said she thought the state had to prove intent to kill or that george zimmerman had planned to kill Trayvon when he got out of his house. As far as Rachel Jeantel goes, B37 said she believed her when she said Trayvon said "creepy ass cracker" but otherwise found her not to be credible. I've seen many also comment on this on the dr.drew show, anderson cooper, and Piers Morgan. Turtire (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

On a personal level, I agree that b29 was confused about the law, but I have not found reliable sources discussing this confusion. (There is a difference between discussing her interview, where she mentions this, and discussing her possible error in representing the law). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Jose Baez and Jean Casarez discussed this on CNN and some others talked about it on FOX. I also think we should mention fake riot videos that we put online. http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/riot.html http://o.canada.com/2013/07/14/miami-riots-not-real/ Turtire (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any links to specific stories you would cite as references? I don't think the fake videos are especially notable, they haven't received significant coverage - a minor hoax, covered only by blogs. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading change

Concerning this change. [22]

On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men's race without first being asked by the dispatcher.

On four of those calls, Zimmerman reported what he called suspicious-looking people in the area, all of whom, he told the dispatcher when asked,[64] were black males.[65][66]

• This could mislead people into thinking race mattered. Everyone arrested for criminal activity in that area were black males. So its not really relevant. Dream Focus 14:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The first version is better. Clarifies that he was specifically asked about race before describing it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Race does matter (to the responding officers). That's why the dispatcher always asks for the person's race, so they can give an accurate description of the suspect to the responding officer. They also asked Zimmerman what he was wearing and how old would you say he looks. All standard questions they ask everybody who calls in a suspicious person report. It's not like the police only asked Zimmerman those questions, they ask everybody the same questions. So in Zimmerman's case, the call would have gone out describing the suspicious person as - a black male in his late teens, wearing a dark hoodie, jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes, last seen in the vicinity of Retreat view circle. A complete description provided by all the questions the dispatcher asked. By just highlighting that specific question the dispatcher asked, seems to imply that is the only relevant question. A more accurate and NPOV sentence would read; Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered a description of the men without first being asked by the dispatcher.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Because of the altered 911 call of NBC already detailed in the article, its important to note that he didn't he didn't mention race until it was asked. Dream Focus 17:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's also important to put the whole thing into the proper context, he didn't mention any sort of description until it was asked. The point being that Zimmerman responded to all the questions he was asked, and the dispatcher didn't ask just one specific question about the suspect's race, he asked additional questions for a more accurate description to give to the responding officers. Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong by answering those questions. If you're trying to offer a counter point to the NBC altered call, then this content would be better suited in that section, wouldn't it?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::It[23] doesn't look like a good edit and resulted in a confused version, awkwardly written, with some of the refs not supporting the text. I'd suggest reverting, and then Dezastru can propose the changes on this talk page to get agreement before restoring any of it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bob K31416 says some of the refs do not support the text. I'm not sure what the discrepancy that is referred to is, so I can't respond to that without more details. Dezastru (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In your version[24] (see paragraph 4) the first sentence refers to 7 calls in the preceding 6 months, but in the second sentence ref[65] refers to 5 calls in the preceding months (no specific number of months) and ref[66] refers to dozens of calls in the preceding months (no specific number of months) and says that 6 of them were released by the Sheriff's office. However, your text of the second sentence retains the premise of the first sentence that there were 7 calls. Also, ref[64] says that there were 7 calls in the preceding 6 months with 5 (not 4 as in your text) about suspicious persons. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The version I posted reads:

During the six months leading up to the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police telephone line seven times.[63] On four of those calls, Zimmerman reported what he called suspicious-looking people in the area, all of whom, he told the dispatcher when asked,[64] were black males.[65][66]

The calls Zimmerman during the 6 months leading to the shooting were (ref(63)):

1. Aug 3, 2011 - black male unknown to Zimmerman (1st)

2. Aug 6, 2011 - black males unknown to Zimmerman (2nd)

3. Sep 23, 2011 - (someone's garage door open)

4. Oct 1, 2011 - black males unknown to Zimmerman (3rd)

5. Dec 10, 2011 - (a person with whom Zimmerman had had a business dealing)

6. Jan 29, 2012 - (children playing in the street)

7. Feb 2, 2012 - black male unknown to Zimmerman (4th)

The number of calls given in ref(64) – the Michael Isikoff (NBC News) report – is erroneous for the purposes of our article. In that report, Isikoff says: "An NBC review shows that since August, Zimmerman called police seven times, five times reporting his suspicions about young men in the area. But he never mentioned the men's race without first being asked." The "five times" reported by Isikoff is not relevant for our article because the kind of suspicious people we are discussing in the article is people whom Zimmerman said he did not know. That's the relevant category because Trayvon Martin was a person Zimmerman did not know. All of the calls Zimmerman made during the 6 months prior to the shooting to report suspicious people he did not know were for black males, as shown in the call logs (Aug 3, Aug 6, Oct 1, Feb 2). Zimmerman did also make a call about another male, on December 10, and perhaps Isikoff included that additional call in his count to get to five, but Zimmerman at least had some knowledge of that person, and even knew his name, so that call isn't relevant. The only reason the Isikoff article was kept in the version I posted was to source the point that Zimmerman had not mentioned the races of the people he was calling to report until he was asked. I would not object to removing it.

Ref(65) and ref(66) document that those four calls for suspicious persons that Zimmerman did not know were all for black males, as indicated in the version I posted.

Ref(65), published June 29, 2013, says, "Also Wednesday, jurors listened as prosecutors played recordings of five calls Zimmerman made to police dispatchers in the months before the shooting. In four he was reporting suspicious people — in each of those cases, the subject was black." Ref(66), published March 19, 2012, refers to "the months that led to the fatal shooting" without giving a specific number of months, then says, "in four of the recordings Zimmerman called police to report 'suspicious' persons -- all of whom were black -- in or near the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood." Yes, these two articles say "in the months before the shooting" rather than giving a specific number of months. But remember that the Police Department had destroyed the audio recordings of calls made more than 6 months earlier; so, since ref(65) and ref(66) are about extant audio recordings, some of which were played for the jurors, we know that the period of time being discussed in those articles is no more than 6 months. And the call logs documented in ref(63) tell us what all of the calls were about for the whole 6 months. Dezastru (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the first version is that it makes no mention that ALL of the suspicious-persons calls Zimmerman made during that period were to report black males. The version proposed by Isaidnoway (Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered a description of the men without first being asked by the dispatcher) is not an improvement in that regard because it also leaves out this essential fact. That Zimmerman's calls were all for black males was noted by the Sanford Police Department in 2012 (a noteworthy point in itself, since the police should know better than any other source what were typical patterns in that community for calls made to report suspicious persons) and by the prosecutors during the trial, and it was widely reported in the news media. Yes, police dispatchers routinely ask the race of the person being reported for all suspicious persons calls. And Zimmerman would have known that since he had called the police many times over the years, so saying that he didn't mention the race or other details until asked doesn't necessarily mean very much, as he knew he would be asked those questions and could give the information then. For that matter, whether he mentioned race at all when speaking with the police is not really the point because if the police had arrived in time, as he hoped, they would have been able to tell the race of the individuals themselves. The relevant point is that Zimmerman wanted to alert the police to the presence of what he considered suspicious people. So the central issue is what was it about all of these people that made Zimmerman consider them suspicious. Beyond that, saying that Zimmerman did not mention the race of the suspects until asked without explaining why the race of the subjects who were reported in the calls was a matter of discussion assumes more than a Wikipedia reader who is not familiar with the details of the shooting can reasonably be expected to know. (If you've been contributing to this article for months and have followed the case closely, then it may seem to make perfect sense to say Zimmerman only reported the races of the suspicious people when asked, without saying anything else about race in the section. But if you're just now reading the article and don't have detailed knowledge of the case, the way you are proposing the section be written will make no sense without more background information.) Dezastru (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• All the recent crimes in that area were committed by black males. You can't go insinuating he is a racist because no one from any other ethnic group committed crimes in that area. Dream Focus 19:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

to go all legal here, you are assuming a fact not in evidence. All of the crimes reported by zimmerman were by black males. A few possibilities 1) All crimes actually committed by black males. 2) All crimes occurring while Zimmerman was around by black males. 3) All crimes noticed by zimmerman by black males. 4) all crimes zimmerman chose to report on were black males. I don't believe there is any evidence to guide us to any of those particular outcomes, One could personally argue for any or all of them, but such arguments are completely unsuited as an argument for inclusion in wikipedia. We can only state what reliable sources have reported. To avoid leading someone to 1-4 inappropriately, it is best to be as objective as possible. All of the calls were indeed reporting black males, but he did not comment about their race until asked. Everything past that is conjecture, and it is up to the reader to put whatever spin on it they choose. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

All crimes reported in the area were of black males. It lists the break-ins and whatnot that happened in various news sources, not just things he reported himself. Dream Focus 20:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What source are you looking at? Im assuming its WP:PRIMARY (police log or something)? Any secondary (reliable secondary) sources stating that conclusion/analysis of the primary? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re Dezastru's comment, "So the central issue is what was it about all of these people that made Zimmerman consider them suspicious." — He specified why they were suspicious in his calls and didn't say that they were suspicious because they were black. The fact that they were black is a false implication that he was racially profiling. One might ask, if he wasn't racially profiling, why were they all black? The answer may be that since the burglaries were previously committed by predominantly black men, these people who were suspicious for non-racial reasons, may have actually been burglars looking for victims. In any case, per WP:BLP we have to be careful not to make a false implication regarding racial profiling. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that Zimmerman called police to report suspicious people, he didn't call to report "black males." To put this in the proper context, it has to show that Zimmerman only called to report suspicious people and he responded to the questions he was asked. If the sources don't support that context, then the only answer is to stay as close to the sources that we do have and go from there.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We can agree that Zimmerman called the police to report people he considered suspicious, all of whom were black males. That's what the Police Department said. It's a point that the prosection noted during the trial. And it's what was widely reported in reliable sources. The version that I posted does not say or insinuate that Zimmerman was a racist, and it does not help our discussion to imply that it does. As far as that goes, it's doubtful that all of the readers of the article, or even all of the editors working on the article, would agree on what being a racist entails. That said, whether Zimmerman's actions amounted to racial profiling is a matter for readers to decide on their own, not for Wikipedia editors to decide. It is an objective fact that all of the people Zimmerman called the police about were black males, and suppressing that information is hardly neutral. It's presenting the information in a way that favors Zimmerman's account. Dezastru (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not racial profiling, that just ridiculous. He had black friends in the neighborhood, it 20% black, and didn't call the police every time he saw them around. You can't word things in a way that make it sound like that might be the case, trying to lead people to that assumption. Dream Focus 00:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

With what you want, there's still a false implication that Zimmerman was racially profiling, which isn't neutral material. Any suggestions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You've already decided that Zimmerman did not engage in racial profiling. But that's not our job as editors. Neither is it our job to remove from the article any information that we worry might lead some readers to conclude that he may have. We should be presenting the facts as reported by reliable sources and leaving it to readers to draw their own conclusions. Dezastru (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Dezastru, another thing to consider, as far as this case is concerned, is that most of the sources have shown bias and are in many ways unreliable. It would be one thing if the media was reporting this through diligent and careful research, but I've seen few sources in this case that actually spend the time to 'get it right'. I'm not suggesting that we simply use our own conclusions as a source, but we can certainly leave things out if they contradict our primary sources. -- Avanu (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources indicating objective facts - I might agree. Primary sources that are show evidence of something that people make a judgement call on? No. Using the primary source to impeach the opinion/conclusion of a reliable source is clearly WP:OR I absolutely agree that the media did an exceptionally crappy job on this event. But if they (collectively) make a conclusion that we disagree with, disallowing that is going to be tough - however, we can downgrade "facts" to "such and such a reporter gave his opinion that..." Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion, change the current version:

During the six months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police telephone line seven times.[64]On five of those calls Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men's race without first being asked by the dispatcher.[64][65] [Note 4]

(64) - Isikoff NBC News (April 5, 2012), In police calls Zimmerman only mentioned race when asked
(65) - Mandell, NY Daily News (April 6, 2012), Phone calls may help George Zimmerman
Note - Police Event Reports for calls made by Zimmerman (911 and non-emergency) Police event report for calls made by Zimmerman (911 and non-emergency)

to this version:

During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious.[Note] All of individuals he called to report were black males,(a)(b) although he never mentioned race during the calls until asked by the dispatcher.(c)(d)

(a) Hightower Associated Press via ABC News (June 25, 2013), Judge in Trayvon Martin case considers letting jury hear police calls
(b) Winter USA Today (May 17, 2012), Police: Zimmerman's encounter with Trayvon 'avoidable'
(c) Isikoff NBC News (April 5, 2012), In police calls Zimmerman only mentioned race when asked
(d) Mandell, NY Daily News (April 6, 2012), Phone calls may help George Zimmerman
Note - Police event report for calls made by Zimmerman (911 and non-emergency)
Dezastru (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Re “All of individuals he called to report were black males” — This is misleading because it implies that Zimmerman’s motivation for the calls was racial profiling. Examination of at least 3 of the 4 calls clearly indicates otherwise. The calls of Aug 3 and Aug 6, 2011 were for suspicious people who fit the description of subjects from the same recent burglary of Aug 3. The call of Feb 2, 2012 was about a person peering into windows who was caught days later with stolen property from a recent burglary, and was later found to have a history of burglaries in 2008 and 2009. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some suggestions on how we can reach a compromise. I've shown that the information that is currently in the article is inaccurate (that Zimmerman had made 5 calls to report suspicious people), so that part needs to be changed. Also, the section we have been discussing already indicates that several young black men had been seen in the area around the time that crime had occurred and that a young black man had reportedly been found with a stolen laptop. I don't understand how it is misleading to say that all of the individuals he had called to report were black males yet there is no issue with saying that some black males had been implicated in criminal activity in the area during that period. If race was not an issue at all, why is race mentioned in that part of the article? Why hasn't that part been written: "On February 6, workers witnessed two young men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burgled. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young man, which led to his arrest. Zimmerman identified this young man as the same person he had spotted peering into windows on February 2"? Clearly, members of the Twin Lakes community, the law enforcement officers involved in the case, the news outlets that reported on this case, and the people who have been editing this article and who included the current text of that section have believed that race was an issue in the events that occurred. To completely remove any mention of race out of an (understandble) desire to not portray Zimmerman in an unfair light is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What are your suggestions for how this part of the article should be written? And expanding beyond that point, what discussion should there be in the article more generally about racial profiling? Dezastru (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no possible reason to mention the race of the people he called and reported, since obviously their race had absolutely nothing to do with it. Dream Focus 17:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not to mention race in the article, it's whether or not to mention race in a misleading way. I've shown how your edit is misleading. If you think that mentioning the race of the burglars in the Feb 6 event is misleading, I'd be interested in your reasoning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This information has been exceptionally widely reported and commented on. Our conclusions about its importance are irrelevant. It is reliably sourced information, deemed important by the prosecution and the press. We can debate the most neutral way to present it, and allow the reader to make their own conclusions, but attempting to supress this information does not meet policy, and is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the press can make misleading comments. Our job is not to write news articles, but to present information as accurately as we can, keeping in mind the Wikipedia policy section Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."

So far there isn't consensus for including the material in this article. With regard to the prosecution's case, the appropriate place to consider putting such material is the article State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. Also, regarding your comment about OR, see the last sentence of the first paragraph of WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." It is the purpose of this talk page to determine what should or should not be in the article, through editors' expressing their own ideas and opinions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As an afterthought to my message to Desastru, please note that there is a section "Allegations of racism" where it was noted that Zimmerman was accused of racially profiling Martin. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly alleges that Zimmerman was racially profiling others, as you seem to think he was doing in the above 4 calls, then we can consider adding that source and info to the allegations of racism there. In any case, as I've shown in my message of 14:11 31 July 31 2013, your proposed edit is misleading. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the content currently in the article is not inaccurate. The content is reliably sourced and is accurate. The source referenced there says 5. Policy forbids us from changing it to 4 based solely on an editor's own WP:OR.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest deleting the paragraph. The accuracy of 5 is questionable and the paragraph doesn't seem very useful. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Note that the next paragraph is more useful on the topic of Zimmerman calling police regarding a suspicious person because it is better explained and occurs the same month of the shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the paragraph is a viable option if there is consensus for it, or WP:BOLD. I disagree about the accuracy and questionable description though, as that is what the source says (5).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Re the questionable accuracy of 5, see the list of calls in Dezastru's message of 22:42, 26 July 2013. It looks like the "reliable source" for 5 had erroneously included as a suspicious person someone who Zimmerman had business dealings with. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I did take a look at Dezatru's WP:OR and found it to be flawed in regards to Isikoff's reporting. Isikoff doesn't offer any insight on whether the people that Zimmerman reported were "known" to him or not, nor does he tell us which five calls he is talking about. Isikoff also had additional sourcing to reach his perspective on the calls, he listened to the actual conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher. The event logs are just generic data, if you look at the last two calls in the logs, which are the Zimmerman/Martin call, and then listen to the actual call (who hasn't heard it, right), the dialogue between Zimmerman and the dispatcher gives you a perspective that the event logs can't provide.

Here are some more sources talking about five calls; [25] - [26] - [27]. These are the five call dates, 8/3/11-8/6/11-9/23/11-10/1/11-2/2/12, the prosecution used. They seem to agree that there were five calls in the last six months as well. Take note that one out of their five dates is different than Dezatru's OR, so we really can't know which five Isikoff was using in his report either.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we could straighten this out if we could listen to the call of 9/23/11. Do you know of any links for that? One possibility is to get a video of the televised courtroom proceedings for the day when the tape was played in court. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that when Isikoff listened to the calls, he was specifically looking for when the dispatcher asked him; Are they white, black or hispanic, and Zimmerman's response. Isikoff heard that question asked of Zimmerman five times out of the seven calls and reached his conclusion that Zimmerman never offered the race without first being asked. Here is a list of seven calls, but one of them is the Martin call. They're not dated, but number 6 is the Sept. 23 call (garage door) and from listening to them, it appears the Dec. 10 call is not there. If you exclude the Martin call, and use the remaining six calls to listen for the above question about their race, then on five of those he is asked that question. This is from The Orlando Sentinel and they use six calls and say that four of those calls were to report suspicious persons, which is in line with Dezatru's OR. We could use the Sentinel's report instead of Isikoff, or add it to offer another viewpoint, or just delete this content like you suggested. I know we've veered way off topic here with our OR, but isn't the point, regardless of whether it is four or five, that Zimmerman never offered their race without first being asked.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Attaboy

I just read this article for the first time. IMHO, it REALLY does a good job of covering the subject. Congratulations to those who have worked on it. Lou Sander (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Synth in first two sentences of section "Descriptions of Zimmerman's..."

I had partially reverted an edit of Dezastru previously for SYNTH by deleting the first two sentences of the section Descriptions of Zimmerman's ethnicity in news reports. I see the editor restored it with an added ref, so it appears that the editor is trying to comply with policy. Unfortunately that didn't address the problems so I started this section to clarify and discuss the problems in the two sentences when I reverted again. Please note that in cases like this where there is an objection to an addition to the article, the objection should be settled on the talk page, either with the objecting editor or through consensus, before the material is restored. Thanks.

Here are the two sentences in question.

"The initial police report on the shooting described Zimmerman as white. Early news media reports which mentioned Zimmerman's race also referred to him as white."

The first sentence is about the police report, which is not a news report and thus does not fit in this section about news reports, unless it is being used to make an implication about news reports. It appears that the implication is that the early news reports thought Zimmerman was white because of the police report. This may or may not be the reason or reasons that the 4 given sources had for saying he was white. As far as I can see, none of the sources said that they used the police report to make that conclusion and thus this is SYNTH. Also it is SYNTH because none of the sources said that the news reports generally said he was white early on. Please see the policy section WP:SYNTH which states,

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

Again, please note that in cases like this where there is an objection to an addition to the article, the objection should be settled on the talk page, either with the objecting editor or through consensus, before the material is restored. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to delete the police report that reports him white because it isn't news, then we need to delete his voting records that report him as hispanic for the same reason. Or we could keep in all relevant information, and just change the section title to not refer to "media reports". The remaining refs repeatedly refer to him being white in the initial police report and that being the initial source of confusion, so I am unsure of your reasoning.

• Public records show he consistently identified as Hispanic, but the only time he was listed as white was in the Feb. 26 Sanford police report. That is the story most people heard.
• "And a problem surfaced early in these first accounts. Though the initial police report on Martin’s killing listed shooter George Zimmerman as white, he self-identified as Hispanic on both his driver’s license and voting records."
• Soon however, it became obvious that sorting out racial dynamics in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin would not be simple. Police described the shooter, George Zimmerman, as white. His father called him a "Spanish speaking minority" with many black relatives and friends.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• With all the media coverage about this, the section does belong. I'm looking at the police report, and where exactly does it say Zimmerman is white? [28] That's the reference given for that information. The article linked to shows where they list the race of Martin and the witnesses, but not Zimmerman. Rather odd. Anyway, to the original question, did the news media report he was white because of the police report saying that on it somewhere? If there are no reliable sources saying this, then it is misleading to indicate that was the case. I agree SYNTH is violated here. Need to word it different. I also find it ridiculous the police report wouldn't list his race on it properly, in a nice orderly chart like they have Martin and the witnesses in. Dream Focus 15:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

They do. In the tables, one of them is George Michael Zimmerman, and the R/S (Race/Sex) is listed as W/M (White/Male). It is also listed in the narrative section "Smith had a white male, later identified as GZ in custody" and"observed a white male in a red jacket" Did you not just see the 3 quotes that I linked from references we already use discussing how the police report called him white, but that conflicted with later information? DreamFocus, you are 10000% entitled to your opinions in this case, but attempting to remove any information that you think is unimportant is really outside the bounds. Let our readers evaluated the evidence in the same way you do, and come to their own conclusions. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I see it now, in the chart after all the witnesses are listed. Why wouldn't it be up top? My mistake. And I didn't say remove it because it was unimportant, I said I agreed with Bob that it violated synth so we needed to "word it differently" to avoid that. Under the law, hispanics can be listed as a victim but not as the alleged attacker, at least that's how they do it on the federal stats. Not sure if the state does it differently. Is it just two things to circle, black or white, or do they allow them to choose other things? I know when I went to school everyone was counted in the black white count, the teachers doing that every year, and anyone not black or white just had to be counted in one of those two categories. That could explain the problem. Dream Focus 15:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We can see at least 3 choices in this report. B, W, and O (Other?) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not synth : In the initial national breaking stories

• Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African-American teenager, was shot and killed in a gated community in Florida late last month by a white neighborhood watch captain, according to police.
• And a problem surfaced early in these first accounts. Though the initial police report on Martin’s killing listed shooter George Zimmerman as white, he self-identified as Hispanic on both his driver’s license and voting records. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And in any case, the entire issue of WP:SYNTH is not an issue here. We do not combine statements. We make two separate statements. Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtapositionGaijin42 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 has made a number of excellent points. Let me add to the list of quotations that Gaijin42 posted above by noting that one of the cited sources that BobK31416 deleted was published March 8, 2012, helping launch national media coverage of the story. That report says in its first sentence, "Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African-American teenager, was shot and killed in a gated community in Florida late last month by a white neighborhood watch captain, according to police." (emphasis added) Another report, from March 23, 2012, says, "Zimmerman was identified as a white male in a Feb. 27 Sanford Police Department report posted on the city’s website. His father, Robert Zimmerman, described him as 'a Spanish-speaking minority' in a March 15 letter to the Orlando Sentinel." And the Associated Press article by Suzanne Gamboa from March 29, 2012, which is still in the article, says, "Neither Zimmerman nor his family members were available to comment about their family history. Beyond what’s in the police report, Zimmerman has yet to give his side of what happened the night of Feb. 26...." Multiple news reports from March 8 through March 14 said that Zimmerman was "not available for comment" or that a phone number registered under his name had been disconnected. Dezastru (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the useful responses. I'm working on reconciling the various ideas that have been mentioned. In regard to that, there was a quote (I think it was a quote) that was mentioned by Gaijin42, "And a problem surfaced early in these first accounts. Though the initial police report on Martin’s killing listed shooter George Zimmerman as white, he self-identified as Hispanic on both his driver’s license and voting records." Could someone give the source for that quote? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: I just found the source.[29] --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a possibility that adds the info about the police report to what is currently in the article. I think the part about the early media reports is essentially already there.

"The initial police report indicated Zimmerman was white, although Zimmerman had personally identified as Hispanic on his voting records and driver's license (and had told the police while being questioned about the shooting that he identified as both Hispanic and white). His Hispanic ethnicity was not revealed to the public in early media reports, when Zimmerman had gone into hiding and no one was speaking to the media on his behalf."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Content wise, I am fine with this, but think it needs some C/E, as it is a bit run on. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The two previous versions which include citations for some of those early media reports are better. The shooting occurred February 26; the initial police report was written February 27. The interview during which Zimmerman told the police he identified as both white and Hispanic took place three days after the shooting – and two days after the initial police report was written. The wording of this last version implies that Zimmerman had told the police he identified as both white and Hispanic prior to the initial police report being written. (He may have, but we don't have any source saying that he did.) Dezastru (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree that we need to be accurate, and the proposed text itself contains some WP:SYNTH based inaccuracies. Much better just to juxtapose the individual factual statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Tea and Skittles

I think the article should have a section on the items Martin bought at the store. Some coverage says it was "iced tea and Skittles". Apparently (from stuff I've read but can't quote right now) it was really Arizona Watermelon Juice and Skittles. The "tea and Skittles" has been used by Sharpton and others to paint Martin as a sweet innocent. (Redacted) Lou Sander (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This is of no consequence. It's a shame Trayvon wasn't sippin on some sizzurp because the last thing you want to be doing is running around in the rain and fighting. He probably would've been chillin with some Triple Six in the background watching the All-star game. †TE†Talk 01:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Bags of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea were also used as protest symbols. Martin was reported to be returning from a 7-Eleven convenience store with these items when he was shot,[242][243] although the beverage he purchased was actually an Arizona brand fruit drink.[244]

It says "Arizona brand fruit drink" instead of "Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail"[30]. Because he is black, you can't mention anything to do with watermelons, that why they keep saying something else. Rather ridiculous really. Dream Focus 04:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so it should be OK to mention watermelon. Another "no-no" that generally goes unmentioned is the fact that many people and many stories refer to Mr. Martin as a "boy". Formerly such reflerences caused great offense. Lou Sander (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe there have been any significant discussions regarding censorship of either of these two terms. If there is censorship, it is self censorship. We can certainly describe the drink accurately and completely, but further comment towards Lean or towards stereotypes would be very quickly out of bounds. Describing him as "a boy" is different than describing him as "boy", and you are actually likely to get objection from both sides on that point - Martin supporters will bring up the racial tones. Zimmerman supporters will say that boy invokes the "youthful" mis-portrayal per the earlier photographs etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that people who formerly would have objected to the term "boy" in any black-male-related sense are these days calling Martin that, arguably correctly, in an effort to emphasize his youth. Kind of incongruous or ironic, or whatever. Maybe the term has lost its offensive nature, though watermelon references may not have. Lou Sander (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to find reliable source that says Arizona Watermelon and Skittles are specific ingredients in Lean/Purple Drank. Maybe some sort of law enforcement or medical journal that covers trends in drug use. Most sources talk about Sprite and Jolly Rancher, but there are many that indicate a move to Watermelon Juice and Skittles. The trouble is that most or all of the latter are blogs or other things that maybe aren't so strictly reliable. Lou Sander (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. I'd be more interested in why Trayvon was talking to (Redacted) on his cell when calling the police could've saved his life. For the record, that also has no place here. †TE†Talk 05:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Even by the incredibly debased standards of this talkpage, his thread stands out as sickeningly ignorant. MastCell ^Talk 05:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This should be hatted as a attack on the deceased. †TE†Talk 05:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The talkpage, or just this thread? Either way, you're right. MastCell ^Talk 06:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source has specifically discussed the libation he purchased and its conjectured link to drug culture, tere is no reason to be discussing its inclusion in this article. I don't know why, however, that MastCell is complaining about this entire talk page, because as I have noted before, the regulars here have succeeded, IMO, in creating an excellent, neutral article on this topic. Cla68 (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

While it is true and evident from Martins autopsy and Facebook page that (Redacted). If someone can come up with that evidence maybe through his social media accounts or find a decent reliable source, or even a popular urban blog, then I would say that its admissible. Rob3gd (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Martin made or used the drug, or that he intended to make it, Arizona and skittles are not the typical ingredients one would use, and of course one needs cough medicine. Sprite or Mountain Dew and Jolly Rancher are more common. The story is popular on fringe sites, and so far the Guardian has reported on that. So far though mainstream media coverage has been slight, so it does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm offended that someone would censor my above comment. I thought this is what were supposed to do, talk about the article's possible inclusions without censorship. First, HLN's Dr. Drew, who is a real doctor who specialize in drug use, said that Trayvon's liver had damage consistent with the main ingredient of "lean" and that it was excessive. Second, Trayvon admitted to using lean on his Facebook account and even asked a friend how to make it again on Facebook. So the above poster is wrong, Trayvon did in deed use lean. Now the problem here is that lean is typically made with jolly rancher or skittles candy, along with soda such as sprite. After doing some research, I could not find any evidence that Arizona watermelon fruit juice is an ingredient nor is it a popular one. Rob3gd (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Does it matter what candy or soda is used? Are there reliable sources that can be referenced to his Facebook page talking about him using Lean? And even if he did use it, you don't know he was going to use those ingredients he got that night, he could've just been planning on drinking and eating it. If you find reliable sources talking about him being a user of Lean, then that should be added, but no reason to mention he was getting soda and candy that night which might've been used in making Lean, since that's original research. Dream Focus 10:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There's lots of Internet material about watermelon juice and skittles being popular ingredients of lean, but so far none that I've found is in sources reliable enough to use in this article. I'm looking for that (possibly nonexistent) reliable source. If such a thing is found, then the Martin/lean/shooting connection could possibly be considered for inclusion in the article, IF there are reliable sources about that connection.

A difficulty in finding the desired watermelon/skittles/lean source is that much or most information that is current "on the street" in the drug culture isn't covered by easily-found reliable sources. Certainly without reliable sources for any of this, it can't go into the article. We have to stop at the reliably-sourced fact that what Martin bought was Arizona Watermelon Juice, not tea. Lou Sander (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear about something: there is no chemical reason why you would mix cough syrup with vitamin-C-fortified 10% juice with "100% all natural flavor", nor sugar-corn syrup-citric acid-palm oil candy. It would only be a question of killing the taste. A die-hard could argue that there was an urban legend ten years ago that highly acidic soft drinks and/or citric acid could convert DXM to DXO [31] but trying to stretch that to explain how watermelon flavored drink and sourish sugary candy are part of some drug recipe ... when you don't have the drug? It is some kind of myth. Or more likely, a clever manufactured debate invented by some product placement professionals who highlighted the brand names in the first place, but alas, I have no source to prove that. There's probably more evidence for the sinister Elders of Zion. We can and should cover popular myths but we don't actually need to believe them! Wnt (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• One again, someone has censored the post of others on this talk page. Opinions please. I don't want to get into an edit war with this person. [32] Was this not relevant to the discussion we're having? Dream Focus 17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a forum for discussions you feel like having, and WP:BLP (including the WP:BDP section of it) applies to talk pages as well as article pages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• The conversation parts you censored were discussing the article itself, what information could be added, and should it be there. Perfectly valid to discuss here. Dream Focus 18:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• No, the "discussion" was about whether something sourced only to "Apparently (from stuff I've read but can't quote right now)" and "(through tweets, as I recall)" should be added to the article. The answer is, patently obviously, no. And one doesn't need to repeat the unsourced claims here in order to establish that. So if it's unsourced it doesn't go here, either. Take it back to the blogosphere if you or anyone else still has a burning need to discuss how it's "ridiculous" that (you believe) certain things can't be said "because he is black" and all the rest of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To repeat, no reliable sources have been cited in this discussion for alleging that Martin was making or using drugs with the items he bought at the 7-11, or that he had been using such drugs the night of his death. This is not a forum for general discussion about Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. The policy is very clear:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

and

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

and

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.

Dezastru (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• None of what you quoted is relevant here. I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this. Dream Focus 23:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  Could you explain why you don't think that what he quoted is relevant? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

opinions of others : Your proposals and edits to this talk page are gross violations of WP:BLP WP:OR WP:RS WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE and many others, and if you persist in this line of effort it will not end well for you. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

another opinion of others: Usually when editor's are discussing content to be considered for inclusion, you expect to see some reliable sources to support the proposed content, especially when it's controversial content. You would also expect to see an argument for how the proposed content would be an improvement to the article. So far, there has been absolutely no reliable sourcing provided to back up any of this biased discussion, so what's the point in having a discussion about content that you can't even provide reliable sourcing for?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

mixed race description

I notice that the article describes Zimmerman as a "28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic". So I went and looked up Barack Obama. That article describes him as follows: "the first African American to hold the office". It seems to me when describing a person's race that the same convention for describing that race should be used. Either Zimmerman is "Hispanic" or Obama is the "first mixed race African American to hold the office". Obama had a White Mother and African Father. Zimmerman had a White Father and Hispanic Mother, and the language he learned to speak first was Spanish. My understanding is that Zimmerman considers himself hispanic, while Obama considers himself African American. The distiction with Zimmerman seems to be a rather odd and racist distiction? Valwayne (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC) valwayne

Good point. The media did give just as much coverage to Barack Obama being half white, but its not in the lead of his article. Perhaps in the lead we section of this article we should just call him Hispanic. Dream Focus 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The race and ethnicity of the participants of this event, were crucial to the media narrative, and public perception of this event. In addition to the coverage of his race/ethnicity, there is significant meta-coverage ABOUT that coverage, and the effect it had on the case. We should not be whitewashing the article to fit one pov or narrative, but be giving complete coverage of the event. Zimmerman was widely described as just plain white during the initial flood of controversy of the event, and frankly that is why anyone knows about this case we should not be hiding important details later. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore, we shouldn't rehash this issue every time a WP:SPA with this comment as their only edit (It makes my WP:SPIdy sense tingle!) decides to attempt to inject their pov. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You do NOT have the right to erase someone else's post [33] simply because they are a new editor or you don't want to discuss what issue they bring up. So far, three people want the lead to say Hispanic only, with the other details later on in the body of the article. Isaidnoway makes a rather good case for that below. Dream Focus 18:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The distinction is that the current description of Zimmerman is the media's portrayal of him. The difference between Zimmerman and Obama is their notability and also the media has always respected Obama's right to self-identify as African-American. In Zimmerman's case, he became notable only because of this incident and was initially mis-identified as being white. Even after the media found out that Zimmerman had previously self-identified as Hispanic on his drivers license and voting registration, and then in a nationally televised interview where he specifically identified as a Hispanic, the media still refused to respect Zimmerman's right to self-identification. There is adequate sourcing to change his description in the lead to Hispanic and still cover how the media described him in the body of the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative phrasing:

George Zimmerman was the 28-year-old neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martin was temporarily staying and where the shooting took place. The son of a white father and a mother from Peru, Zimmerman self-identified as both white and Hispanic, although media reports initially described him as only white.

Putting it this way acknowledges his self-identification while noting that early media reports portrayed him in a different way. It also follows the way that most reliable sources have been describing him over the past few months. Since this is for the lede, the information provided should be concise; the details are covered in a section in the body of the article. Dezastru (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

He did not self identify as white. He said otherwise.

"Every time I see my photo, I ask myself, 'What is a white Hispanic?' I've never heard that before," Zimmerman told his sister, Susie, in Spanish during an April 22 phone call from the Seminole County Jail. "They can see in my photo. There is nothing white about me. I don't understand."

[34]

He said other things as well. He is just a Hispanic, that it. There is no possible reason to call him anything but Hispanic in the lede. We don't do that for Obama or anyone else in this situation. Dream Focus 22:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The quotation you just cited says that he objected to being characterized as a "white Hispanic." It does not say he did not identify as white. In fact, the same Orlando Sentinel article you link to includes an exchange between Zimmerman and a police investigator in which Zimmerman said "yes" both when asked if he is Hispanic and again when asked if he is white. Dezastru (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he identifies as white, he was just answering the questions with a simple yes or no answer. Dream Focus 23:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading reporting after the verdict

This section keeps getting added in and removed. I don't see any discussion for it.

In his July 26, 2013 column, Slate journalist William Saletan accused several major news organizations of editing interviews with "Juror B29" to make it appear that she maintained Zimmerman had gotten away with murder when she had not actually done so.

I believe this should be in the article. We already list how the NBC edited the 911 call, and ABC edited footage of Zimmerman's head to hide his injuries. Why not list this also? They did clearly word things to make it sound like she said something else. You have a reliable source saying that too. Dream Focus 16:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

First, per wp:bold, discussion is not needed to add anything; second, the material used to be in the article for a good couple weeks until it was removed without discussion.--Froglich (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the diff when the editor re-added this section, he also attempted to add material about cough syrup and making lean in another paragraph not related to the re-added section. My revert was for the attempt to add material that has no consensus, which is the only material I saw added, my bad. Dezatru has since removed the other material.

I have no issues with WP:BOLD, but I do find it ironic that the re-added section, which accuses the media of misleading reporting, does the very same thing by not accurately reflecting the author's opinion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2013

71.56.227.54 (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC) This bio is not correct. The use of words like Misleading should not be used. Your editors should not use bios words in describing this event. I am not surprised if Zimmerman wrote this himself.

 Not done No actual edit request. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hispanic and white

One of the sources used for the article, a source whose reliability no one has challenged, reads as follows:

"You're Hispanic, right?"

"Yes."

"And white?"

"Yes."

"And Peruvian?"

"Yes."

Sanford police Investigator Chris Serino questioned Zimmerman about his identity three days after he mortally wounded the unarmed black teenager.

The questions came up as Serino, who is Puerto Rican and Italian-American, delved into the 28-year-old man's attitudes about race and ethnicity.

Zimmerman's responses offer a glimpse into his multifaceted self-perception. It was a perspective that differed greatly from the one that had been playing out across the country.

Based on that, the following line was included in the article: "[Zimmerman] had acknowledged to police during questioning about the shooting that he was both Hispanic and white." This version as well as a previous version ("had told the police while being questioned about the shooting that he identified as both Hispanic and white") have been challenged as being "misleading." Zimmerman clearly said that he is white, and that he is Hispanic. So how is including this information in the article misleading, particularly when it is included in a section that deals with confusion in the media over how to describe his background? Dezastru (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He also said he was Peruvian. Do we include that as well? Stop taking things out of context. He didn't say he identified himself as white, in fact saying later he identified himself only as Hispanic. When they ask you these questions you just answer yes or no and get through them. Why would this bit need to be in the article? Dream Focus 22:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We do say in the article that his mother is Peruvian and he has Afro-Peruvian roots. If you feel we also need to say he told the police he is part Peruvian, we can do that, but not sure that that is necessary, since Peruvian is encompassed by Hispanic, in his case. When did he say he only identified as Hispanic, not white? Dezastru (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the source you linked to. Its clearly there.

"Every time I see my photo, I ask myself, 'What is a white Hispanic?' I've never heard that before," Zimmerman told his sister, Susie, in Spanish during an April 22 phone call from the Seminole County Jail. "They can see in my photo. There is nothing white about me. I don't understand." Public records show he consistently identified as Hispanic, but the only time he was listed as white was in the Feb. 26 Sanford police report. That is the story most people heard.

See? Simple. He said there is nothing white about him. Dream Focus 06:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I understand your argument. I don't agree that that negates the line that was proposed for the article, because he still did tell the police he was both white and Hispanic. However, as I have been thinking about another case involving self-identity that is lately in the news, I am not going to argue the matter further. Dezastru (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does the article not say that Martin was unarmed?

That Martin was unarmed is a key aspect of this case. Had Martin had a weapon at the time of the shooting, the response of the public and the coverage by the media would have been very different. It's likely that the case would not have attracted national attention, and there would be no Wikipedia article on the shooting. The fact that Martin was unarmed was widely noted in the media coverage of the case. So why was a mention of his having been unarmed removed from the article? Dezastru (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we should say it (probably in the lede), but due to the self defense plea, and not guilty verdict, we must be very careful not imply lack of being armed as something more than a simple fact. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the passage: "Following an earlier call from Zimmerman, police arrived within two minutes of a gunshot during an altercation in which Zimmerman fatally shot Martin, who was unarmed. Zimmerman was taken into custody, treated for head injuries, then questioned for five hours." There's nothing more there than saying that Zimmerman shot Martin and that Martin was unarmed. Simple facts. Dezastru (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Good work, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? I thought he was "armed" with the pavement that he beat Zimmerman with... 70.66.253.198 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) You don't say somone DIDN'T have something, is why. There's a universe of things he did not carry with him. Are you going to name them all? 68.195.91.15 (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the article, I see that it does say that Geraldo Rivera said, apologizing, that he had "obscured the main point that someone shot and killed an unarmed teenager". The supporting source cited for that goes on to quote Geraldo as having said, " “[M]y own family and friends believe [that] I have obscured or diverted attention from the principal fact, which is that an unarmed 17-year old was shot dead by a man who was never seriously investigated by local police. ...". That may have been the "main point" by Geraldo's lights and the lights of his family and friends, but does it have due weight for mention outside of that context? WP:BALASPS would seem to be the relevant part of WP policy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• No reason to mention he was unarmed. Zimmerman had no way of knowing that, and you don't need to be armed to be dangerous. He didn't report him because he thought he had a weapon, he reported him for acting suspicious. Dream Focus 09:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason to report he was unarmed is because of the self defense killing. If Martin was armed, the result would have been obvious. Since he was not, we must look at deeper levels of evidence (as the trial did). His being unarmed is incredibly notable, covered by tens of thousands of sources, and is a major point in the initial controversy of this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am for adding that he was unarmed as well. In regard to self defense, it likely makes a difference to note this. If the argument is "it is implied that he was unarmed", the article will sound incomplete. I do not think saying it is an attempt to vilify Zimmerman, who has been deemed not guilty... Wisdomthatiswoe (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Self defense has nothing to do with someone being unarmed or not. He could've killed him bare handed as he pounded his head into the pavement. Dream Focus 17:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Two teens recently killed a WWll vet and they were "unarmed" when they beat him to death. This is evidence that you don't need to be armed in order to kill or cause great bodily harm. Saying that Martin was unarmed, I think, is misleading, especially if the evidence suggest that Martin was the physical aggressor. Rob3gd (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, if the article is to say he was unarmed, that fact should be closely coupled with the fact that he was shot while beating up on Zimmerman. IMHO many sources use the "unarmed" fact to paint Zim in a bad light and Martin as an innocent. Wikipedia should not stoop to that. Lou Sander (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rob3gd and Lou Sander. It is misleading to mention Martin was unarmed, especially in the lede. Dream Focus 17:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lou Sander. To state that Martin was "unarmed", and leave it at that, is one of the most misleading aspects of the controversy. If the article states he was "unarmed" in the lead, it should include context: "unarmed attacker" or "unarmed assailant". - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture

... or Perceptions.

Trayvon Martin is constantly being invoked for all kinds of perceived injustices from racial-profiling to stop-and-frisk. Zimmerman as the "wannabe cop" who fits the perfect boogeyman of legally armed non-black men in America. Somewhere along the line we've even witnessed wildly-successful and intelligent celebs draw comparisons to the brutal torture and murder of Emmett Till. Why I have no idea. In light of this, we should take away from some of the hoodie, tea and skittles stuff and move to more lasting political exploitation of the characters involved. A lawsuit and settlement by the Martin family against the HOA where Trayvon died should also be noted. Thoughts? †TE†Talk 21:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• The lawsuit should be mentioned there. Dream Focus 23:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The lawsuit IS mentioned already in the "Martin Family Response" section. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Damn, don't know how I missed that. One less thing to worry about. †TE†Talk 03:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The case is also being used to compare and contrast with the three black and latino youths who killed a white man (and had "Black Power" images on their Facebook pages) because they "were bored". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.253.198 (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)