Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

rules of evidence - past background RFC

(aka Ban on Martin/Zimmerman background text)

This risks WP:FORUM, but I intend this as a way to close out some of the previous forum discussions above.

Both federal and Florida law have significant rules of evidence controlling how past incidents can be included in a trial. For Flodria, in in a case such as this the relevant rule is

[All past issues for character evidence is prohibited except]

  • (a) Character of accused.--Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
  • (b) Character of victim.--
    • 1. Except as provided in s. 794.022 [ed. sex crimes, primarily child molestation], evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
    • 2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.

So, for the purposes of the full trial, Zimmerman's past assault accusations, and domestic violence will be off limits for the prosecution to bring up, unless Zimmerman tries to bring up evidence of a pacifistic/non-violent past

Martin's past is probably more up for inclusion under b.1 (by the defense) and under b.2 (by the prosecution)


In any case, I propose that we not include either one's past history/cases until they are specifically brought up at trial (and survive any objections). (Note that Zimmerman's stuff was brought up at the bail, and could have been brought up during the now cancelled arraignments, but that is not the trial, and does not mean it can be presented to the jury)

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. We are not a jury and this is not a trial. People protesting in hoodies aren't admissible in court either, but they're relevant here anyway. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Wnt. Our subject is broader than Z's guilt or innocence. Andyvphil (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Under WP:BLPCRIME the fact no convictions were found means that we cannot push this as proof of a violent past or tarnish his image further because the matter was dismissed. Martin is under the same protections, we have no action (by authorities) in the matter of his crimes and they are unrelated to the incident at hand. Unless, Martin really was on drugs at the time of the shooting we should not be synthesizing them just because media speculation has done so. If we are to put any comments in, let it all be cited that 'Media speculation...', something to show that it is not a proven fact. Even the judge dismissed Zimmerman's past behavior as being irrelevant to the case, and Florida law backs that assertion. And I think he and a good amount of other authorities on the matter are able to make that statement with enough weight that we should consider their words before adding that material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that BLPCRIME refers to "persons relatively unknown" which is clearly not the case here, and only says "serious consideration". Even so, it is an unfortunate policy. Wnt (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Serious consideration as in not to relate two unrelated events because yellow journalism does so? We have a judge making a statement about it being irrelevant to the case. Even if the speculation and synthesis is done by a so-called reliable source, they have been profoundly unreliable thus far. Everything with a pound of salt, I say. I'm sure we could argue that case at the noticeboard, after all nothing says 'reliability' when the same source also claims Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin while robbing the 7-11. The standards of journalism were not followed for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I think what you meant to say was that the judge found it irrelevant as to whether to grant Zimmerman bail or not, his decision was solely for that purpose and is not binding for the trial, although it is probably a good indicator on how he will rule at trial on this issue.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reliably sourced material, considered relevant to the article by a significant number of editors, should be included. I think such material includes the previous arrest of Zimmerman and at least some of the suspensions of Martin's. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that WP:BLPCRIME applies to this situation because: 1. George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin are both very *well known* at this point. 2. We are NOT "suggesting that [Zimmerman] committed a crime before a conviction is secured". We are referring to something that has *already* been completely processed by the criminal justice system. 3. We are not only not suggesting Zimmerman committed a crime before a conviction is secured, but we would explain that a conviction was NOT secured for the charges against him that were originally brought and were instead reduced to a misdemeanor (or whatever the case happened to be.) 4. In the case of Martin, he's NOT living. 5. Also in the case of Martin, we are talking about suspensions from school- NOT crimes. Emeraldflames (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support At the very least this will let us digest information and see how well it holds up over time. What we think is relevant may not be in 6 months Redredryder (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor should it be. We work by our own policies and procedures, not based on the speculation of certain editors as to what may or may not be admissable in court. Even if these things are never mentioned in court, they still might be useful to an article like this. This is a shocking proposal, in my view.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Under WP:BLPCRIME Also Chris and Gaijin have been consistently and historically correct in the evolution of this article; I trust their opinions as shown in what I read here everyday. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Relevant sourced information should include the prior "bad acts" of both Zimmerman and Martin in this article. Intrepid (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- we summarize reliable sources. They've consistently made the decision to report it and it has entered the international dialogue. We can debate whether the reliable sources behaved ethically, but we do no one any favors scrubbing what's being reported as relevant facts. Remember it's not just Zimmerman on trial, it's also the police and the prosecutors being investigated. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
As the truth about their past actions has been censored, more people have been assaulted by some still unaware that both Zimmerman and Martin had investigations by police for their prior suspicious, improper activities. Neither person came to the fight as a pure, innocent angel never before questioned for wrong behavior. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support WP:BLPCRIME ```Buster Seven Talk 06:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose because it's not our job to decide which background information is appropriate or inappropriate. Go with what sources have cited. There can be a broad introductory sentence that says: Various sources have cited the past actions of Zimmerman and Martin in reports about the shooting.... then say what has been reported. Otherwise we run into judgement issues of including or excluding certain facts based on what we think they mean. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not the judicial system. We have a duty to our readers to present the information. The MSM has pretty much given the world a snow job in their characterization of Martin as a smallish, happy-go-lucky black child who was simply walking home with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona ice tea when he was stalked and shot by a "white" man.--Hokeman (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Clarification. We can make mention of it, but must do so carefully. The previous information basically negatively connected Zimmerman to violence (the original states otherwise) and Martin to burglary, drug use and gang activity. As far as I am concerned the big question is. How in detail do we go? Zimmerman's allegation of violence is for pushing a plain-clothes officer during a matter at a bar, of which differing accounts and no convictions as the charges were dropped. Yet we have video of Martin involved and referring a fight and matters of drugs and violence from various sources including his friends honoring him specifically by smoking pot? The entire thing is highly negative and unrelated to the incident, but it seems that relevancy doesn't matter to many. We have no evidence to support that their past actions resulted in this incident, but then again the 'dirty laundry' is already out there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it is directly related to the incident, but I do believe it is relevant in how the media portrayed both Zimmerman and Martin in the initial reporting on this incident. There was really nothing out there yet for them to report on, so they resorted to "airing the dirty laundry" as you point out. Why shouldn't we let the reader know about the initial coverage and how Zimmerman and Martin were scrutinized by the media? Other high profile cases like this on WP have taken this approach and it seems like a reasonable compromise in this high profile case as well.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we should be careful in mentioning these events. Re: Martin's suspensions, I thought the New York Times did a generally balanced job of it towards the end of this article: article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/shooter-of-florida-teen-describes-assault.html Most relevant part being: Saying that the issue had become a distraction, Mr. Crump announced that Trayvon had been suspended from his Miami high school after school officials found in his bookbag a plastic bag with traces of marijuana inside. Mr. Crump said that he believed at least one other student was suspended in the episode. “What he was suspended for has no bearing on what happened on Feb. 26,” Mr. Crump said. “He didn’t do anything violent or criminal.” Later, The Miami Herald reported that Trayvon had been suspended two other times, once for truancy and another time for graffiti. While investigating the graffiti offense, The Herald reported, a school employee found jewelry, a watch and a screwdriver in Trayvon’s backpack. Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, confirmed those two suspensions in a brief interview. But he said that the truancy suspension was because of repeated lateness, not absences, and added that he had never heard anything about jewelry or screwdriver in a bag. “Absolutely not,” he said.Emeraldflames (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Funny thing is that is less then half the issues surrounding Martin's background which we know about. The refereeing fights and other matters of drug dealing and violence stemming from the videos and twitter, independent of the 'gangster' attitude displayed by other sources is out there to. Relevant? Crump doesn't think so and quite a few other notable figures in the case agree. I just worry about tying unrelated incidents together as a 'history of trouble'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose suppressing Zimmerman/Martin background cases: Wikipedia is not "trial by wiki" and so the text does not need to follow rules of evidence to enable a jury of peers to convict or acquit. The major WP policy which applies is policy wp:NOTCENSORED, where text mentioned in 2 WP:RS reliable sources should not be excluded, even if some readers have religious views which demand suppressing truth or police reports or school suspension confirmation. The term "encyclopedic" means "all-encompassing" and that is why text should even be included for the September 2011 arrest of a 17-year-old black youth who police said confessed to shooting 4 teenagers (3 wounded) after school in Miami Gardens, FL, where Trayvon Martin lived. Perhaps even mention that his mother said he does not shoot people despite his confession, and the teenager who was shot 4 times becoming "angry" about being shot. It should be noted that occasional shootings were very common where Martin lived, and if a black teenager is arrested for wounding 3 other teenagers near a school, then that school held a lunch-time walk-out into the streets, to protest that Zimmerman had not been charged when the black teenage shooter was charged, with 3 counts of "aggravated battery" when arrested in September 2011 (5 months earlier). Remember, WP is not wp:CENSORed. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Again I disagree with your analysis of the matter. Just like people protesting the proposed Muhammad article notes about the use of its images, WP:NOTCENSORED was invoked. However we are not arguing about 'objectionable or offensive' content, we are dealing with a matter which concerns two different policies. Typically, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:VICTIM which points to WP:WEIGHT further leading to WP:COATRACK. Though a section of WP:1E states this as well, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." I am arguing that this incident does not warrant an entire biography of largely negative information detailing every 'fault' in their lives when it has no relation to the event at hand. This article is about the event and what happened, it is not a double biography and incident all in one article. This is why the double bio info boxes were removed with the pseudo-bios. Let's not bloat this article with unrelated transgressions or pseudo-biographies serving only to destroy their character. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:1E or wp:WEIGHT does not override wp:NOTCENSORED: The key concept behind WP:1E is "whether or not to create separate articles" such as separate pages for Zimmerman and Martin, outside this article. There is no implied suggestion to censor all details about a person's life to only include the few moments during a notable event. The broader concept is to determine the wp:WEIGHT of text to include by considering if text has been mentioned in WP:RS sources, and more than 2 sources means definitely, yes. If sources state a person involved was the cousin of the President of the United States, then that goes into the article, regardless of whether some people think all those "reported facts" just bloat the article with the truth, negative or positive. Remember: the degree to which the sources describe something, over and over and over, determine the weight of inclusion of the sourced text. If only one source mentions something (negative or positive), then there might be debate as to inclusion, but when multiple sources mention something several times (and it is recorded, not gossip), then there are no grounds for exclusion. The policy wp:NPOV requires an article to maintain a neutral balance, by including more text, rather than removing text about some details. If the truth about Martin's 3 suspensions from his new high school during a 5 month period seems overly negative, then search in sources to see if they, somehow, offset that with a glowing positive spin, such as Martin had never shot anyone like his school classmates had, or such. The balance of wp:NPOV is determined by balance of negative and positive text stated in the sources, not whether some people think WP should avoid stating negative facts until the world writes the sainthood slant about the event. Please review the WP policies of wp:NPOV and wp:NOTCENSORED. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Please review? How about the fact that WP:NOTCENSORED does not even apply to the material. We are not self-censoring anything, what we are doing is trying to sort fact from fiction against a pile of speculation and lies pushed forth by the media. How's that 'race' matter looking now? Please, it is because of WP:NPOV that I'm so against tying Martin in with these allegations that have not been proven. I make a lengthy post below about it. While you make a straw-man argument about the allegations the fact of the matter is that no 'facts' are actually present for a great deal of the information floating about. Speculation is speculation, we have a pile of half-truths and I do not want to see those half-truths go in before we get the whole picture; every time those 'reliable sources' have been wrong in every matter except the names of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Every single piece of information has been reported as wrong. My skepticism is more justified then you believe. It is not about censoring, its about neutrality and verification. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if someone were to propose something specific to be included in the article then we can discuss how to phrase it in a way that addresses other editor's concerns. I'm not volunteering myself mind you- but someone else. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Put the original background text back into the article: Initially, just put the basics back into the article. Beware that people have been assaulted in anger because of lack of knowing that neither person was an innocent angel before the fight that night. Start with:
"Both Zimmerman and Martin had prior charges of misconduct from local authorities and had been investigated by police for suspicious or hostile activities. Martin had been suspended 3 times from his new high school, with the current 10-day suspension allowing his father to take Martin from Miami Gardens to stay with him up in central Florida, to get away from his homeboys in the hood. Years ago, Zimmerman had been charged with assault, but the charges had been dropped in cooperation with court-directed activities...."
There is no need to speculate about drug dealing, or racial hatred hinted by old videos or tattoos. Details can be added beyond that. Some people might not like the term "homeboys" so perhaps another could be substituted. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Another suggestion, include it in the initial coverage of the case by the media and that negates it being included as bio info.
Because the case received such extensive media coverage, both Zimmerman and Martin were intensely scrutinized by the media and past actions and details of both their lives were examined by the media. While none of these revelations of their past were related to the incident that night of February 26th, the initial coverage focused on these details and were reported in various media platforms. According to the various media reports, Zimmerman had been arrested in 2005 for resisting arrest, but charges were later dropped in that case and reports of domestic violence which resulted in restraining orders being filed, etc. etc. The media also reported that Martin had been suspended from school for various infractions that included a 10 day suspension etc.etc. (more details, less details, different wording, just another suggestion on how to include it)-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That looks good to me. I think that is the way to approach it. I also agree that, at least for now, the information should be limited to Martin's suspensions and not go into the blog-related stuff. I also agree that 'to get away from his homeboys in the hood' may need to be reworded ;). Emeraldflames (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Reuter's article on Zimmerman should be used as it is pretty good for material and context. [1] "That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes." The actual incident has several accounts in which the undercover (i.e. plain-clothes) agent did not identify himself properly and other various inconsistencies, but this is probably the best description of it thus far. The second, "In August, Zimmerman's fiancee at the time, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. The relationship ended." This also says it was alleged; never proven. We must be clear about this matter. Martin's matter is a lot more speculation so I would prefer if we leave out the Twitter comments and various other allegations simply because while there is evidence to support it, the context and verification of that speculation is not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I like the Reuter's article as well for sourcing Zimmerman, but maybe not so much detail:
Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest of an officer after an altercation with an alcohol control agent. He avoided a conviction by participating in a pre-trial diversion program. The same for his domestic violence incident. As far as Martin is concerned, we have RS about his suspension's and we could just acknowledge that there was speculation (without providing specific details) attributed to social media platforms.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Your version misses a KEY fact, the officer was not dressed as an officer one would recognize. He was a plain-clothes undercover officer. This is not someone with the outfit and shiny badge, he was unrecognizable as an officer and there was dispute as to whether or not he announced the matter to Zimmerman before the issue occurred. For neutrality, we must mention that it was a plain-clothes undercover officer. Undercover officers do not wear the uniform when they are 'undercover'. It must be noted for context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, it can go in that way. It's not a key fact though, it doesn't make any difference whether he was plain-clothes or no-clothes or whatever, he was still arrested and charged.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I basically expanded on what had been proposed above and spliced in some of the information from the aforementioned articles. It's not complete and I haven't even proof-read it, but throwing it up here so we can have a framework that we all can work with:

"Due to the extensive media coverage the incident received, both Zimmerman and Martin were intensely scrutinized by the media and past actions and details of both their lives were examined by the media. While none of these revelations of their past were related to the incident that night of February 26th, the initial coverage focused on these details and were reported in various media platforms.
According to various media reports, in July of 2005 Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. Zimmerman disputes whether the plain-clothes officer identified himself. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes. In August of the same year, Zimmerman's fiancee at the time filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted.
The media also reported that, at the time of the shooting, Martin had been suspended from his Miami high school after school officials found in his bookbag a plastic bag with traces of marijuana inside and a pipe. Martin's parents' attorney Mr. Crump stated “What he was suspended for has no bearing on what happened on Feb. 26. He didn’t do anything violent or criminal.” Later, The Miami Herald reported that Trayvon had been suspended two other times, once for truancy and another time for graffiti. While investigating the graffiti offense, The Herald reported, a school employee found women's jewelry, a watch and a screwdriver in Trayvon’s backpack. Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, confirmed those two suspensions in a brief interview. But he said that the truancy suspension was because of repeated lateness, not absences, and added that he had never heard anything about jewelry or screwdriver in a bag. “Absolutely not,” he said." Emeraldflames (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Would this wording address some of the objections to its inclusion? Emeraldflames (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Rough consensus is vastly opposed and wants background allowed: By 27 April 2012, the vast majority of editors had advised to oppose the ban on the Martin/Zimmerman background text for suspensions and prior arrests. However, when I even tried to mention in the article that Martin had trouble with "school authorities" then that text was removed/censored within minutes. It obviously does not matter to some editors that most people want to include the Martin/Zimmerman background text into the article, and w:Verifiable, sourced text is being continually removed from the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:15/18:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. The background information on the two primary actors in this event is still covered by WP:BLP and I don't see where a vast majority exists, and additionally, if there are BLP issues, those need to be addressed first before material is added, not after. -- Avanu (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLP has been considered and does not prevent sourced background text from being added, whereas omitting that text is a policy violation of wp:NPOV to omit negative text in an effort to slant the article against the views of sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
It depends on the nature and context of the material being added, not just whether it is sourced. "including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic .... Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." -- Avanu (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Avanu is correct, but I'd like to make another point, which was dismissed without much thought. This is an article about an event and must follow WP:1E. Biographies of the subjects are not supposed to be detailed in full on such a page. Zimmerman should have a bio on his own page. Martin (if we can make it neutral) should have it on his own page. Adding negative information is not neutral. We would have to add proper positives which exist or shows how the 'negative' is often pulled out of context to frame Zimmerman in a certain way. This is why I've always been against the psuedo-bios, they do not belong in this article. Simple as that. Doing the biographies would destroy the balance and bloat the article beyond reason and violate those policies in the process. Those full bios or even pseudo-bios should not be here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The information re: the suspensions and the prior arrest of Zimmerman is mentioned in the article in a way that addressed most of the objections to its inclusion. It's under Media Coverage: Initial coverage. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The Zimmerman and Martin histories in the section are innuendo not related to the incident, except possibly for the last suspension of Martin which is only related because it is the reason he was in Sanford, hundreds of miles away from home. But that wasn't even mentioned in the article. Instead there is only the innuendo that Martin was attempting burglary, which doesn't make sense considering the circumstances. He was heading home to the NBA all-star game, carrying snacks on a rainy night without a burglary tool.
Zimmerman got into trouble during one year, 2005, when he was 21, but there is nothing in his history like that in the seven years since, where he apparently has a good record as a contributor to the community.
NPOV should not mean that both people should be treated unfairly. WP:BLP begins with "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." and also has "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning deceased persons. However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy."
The innuendo about both of them should not go into the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider it innuendo. They are facts- reliably sourced, and presented carefully. Some people find these facts more relevant than other people, but that is for the reader to decide- not editors. Emeraldflames (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
They're not presented carefully. It's innuendo. They're presented isolated from other facts in the backgrounds as if they have special meaning regarding the incident.
As a reader, that information gives me the impression that it is generally accepted that Zimmerman is inclined towards violence and a person like that could shoot someone without good cause; and that Martin is inclined towards burglary and that was probably what he was trying to do on the night of the incident; otherwise, why would these facts be presented isolated by themselves from the rest of the respective histories in an article about the shooting. As a reader, what do you get out of those two pieces of isolated information?
I think we should wait until any of this info appears with a definite connection to the shooting, if that ever happens. For example, in the trial it could be brought up, or afterwards an RS could discuss how the media treated the case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Many people, everyone here included, are well aware of what has been reported about Martin's suspensions and of Zimmerman's history. Yet, most people here are *not* convinced that Martin was out burglarizing homes that night, and are not convinced that Zimmerman gunned down Martin without any cause. Some people, like yourself, know these facts and simply consider them to be irrelevant. The relevance of this information can, and has, been argued in many different directions since it came to light.
To me, the question is, do we *exclude* information that a good number of people don't believe is relevant? Or do we *include* information that a good number of people believe is relevant?
If you think this information can be presented in a way that is more neutral, fair, or more balanced then I'm all for it. But, ultimately, your argument- and those of others- is that these facts ought to be simply removed from the article entirely. Facts that a wide variety of reliable sources have reported on. The Zimmerman arrest/restraining order have *already* been brought up in the hearing last week. Martin's suspensions are *already* a big part of the "public conversation"- and of great relevance to those who feel the media portrayed Zimmerman unfairly, or Martin unrealistically. Wikipedia loses credibility when it doesn't even *mention* reliably-sourced facts that are *already* well-known. Emeraldflames (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems like you ignored the points I made in my last two messages. BTW, I can be convinced to change my position. But you need to address my points. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Rules of evidence — break 1

You believe the information is presented as isolated facts which imply some special importance or consideration. It was suggested that they be introduced in the way they are now (under the media section) to address certain concerns. I'm not opposed to the information being presented in a different place or including other information in the same place. Again, I'm open to other ways of introducing it into the article or providing additional context. You believe we should wait until any of this info appears with a definite connection to the shooting, for example, it being brought up in trial. Some of it has already been brought up in the legal proceedings. I think the information should be included now because of this, and the other reasons I mentioned. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That kind of message I can work with. I'll look at one of your promising points first. Regarding the info that was brought up in the legal proceedings, could you give a link/source and suggest what you would like to include. Perhaps it could go in the pre-trial section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/04/george-zimmerman-bail-hearing-today-at-9-am-et/1#.T53fz6tYsT8 and http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_398.shtml are two I found. I think what is already in the article in the Media section re: this is sufficient. But if we were to put it in the pre-trial section as you suggest, then I supposed it could be rewritten in that format instead. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you give the excerpts from those links that has the info you would like to use? Also, here's two links to the transcripts of CNN's telecast of the bond hearing, if that's of any help.[2][3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's an idea: Make proper pages out of those redirects and create a biography for each of the subjects? I'm partly inclined to do so myself at the risk of probably ruffling more then a few feathers in a single act. Its bold probably too bold, but these pesky arguments about biographies and irrelevant information. The details are is still worthwhile background information, properly sourced and widely reported, they just need to be given a proper place. My argument is more of a 'not here' rather then a 'never', the matters of BLP and the rest are not as important as staying on topic. I believe everyone's concerns can be safely laid to rest if we do that. For weeks I've made this clear point, avoid the pseudo-bios (including the previous negative incidents) and just make a proper biography for them both! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a good article. How to nominate?

How do we nominate a Wikipedia article for "Good Article" status? I would vote for this one 'Shooting of Trayvon Martin'. Especially given the newness of the event in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixman83 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so hasty. Drastic changes may be needed. This Reuter's Story cuts against the tone and tenor of this Article with respect to Zimmerman.[4].True Observer (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a really fantastic article and worthy of inclusion in this article. Instead of jumping on the race-baiting bandwagon, that reporter really did his legwork and dug deeper than I've ever seen anyone dig before. 67.233.245.188 (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a good find, True Observer. Perhaps the reason some can't decide whether Zimmerman is white, black, hispanic, or other is because of the color of the tar and feathers people have been throwing at him. -- Avanu (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this article. Very informative. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Fascinating article. Turns out Zimmerman is actually black as per the One drop rule. Who knew? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I have seen bits and pieces of this in other articles, but the reporter did a good job of putting it all together to tell a story about Zimmerman you rarely see in the media.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad the dog matter has finally been investigated through a reliable source! I was starting to wonder if that the whole matter was swept under the rug. Also this gives quite a bit more detail into Zimmerman's actions prior to the incident which shows he is obviously not racist. I've been saying this for weeks, but you know the whole 'profiling' thing has been made up. There is a pile of evidence that directly counters Zimmerman as a racist, and I didn't know he was 'black' either by this 'one-drop rule', but the prosecution's affidavit is going to take a massive hit if this much is public... imagine what O'Mara has? Even his comments make perfect sense and Reuters ties up a lot of this in a neat little package with a bow, filling in the details which we've long heard about, but sadly missing important others. I was hoping for confirmation on the Sherman Ware matter though. Is Martin's background next? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure Martin's background matters to the same extent as Zimmerman's. Zimmerman was accused (by media, public, etc) of being a violent racist. The background is generally refuting that original description. Zimmerman not acting out of malice does not mean Martin must move into the "criminal" category. There is certainly some shady background in his history, but so far it is irrelevant to the case. Zimmerman has not made any specific allegations of how he was behaving suspiciously. If he does make such an allegation ("He was casing the houses"), then that background could possibly be relevant as evidence of a pattern of behavior. However, it is just as possible that there was no specific suspicious behavior at that time, and that Zimmerman was incorrect (but not acting with malice) in his suspicion of Martin. My personal take on the whole case : Martin was a kid, who has some troubled past, including possible criminal behavior. At the time of the incident there is no evidence or indication he was actually acting in a criminal or improper manner. Zimmerman saw him and was suspicious. This does not require malice, as I think the general suspicion may be justified from the recent crimes and issues in the area. Zimmerman called the cops (ok), followed martin (legal, but should not have). We do not know the actual start of the interaction. At some point they got into a physical altercation, and Martin got shot. Way too much hinges on the unknown minutes. If Martin was truly attacking him vigorously and bashing his head against the skull, SD was justified. (Conversly, Martin may have felt he was defending himself at the time depending on how the interaction started - Martin's hypothetical SD justification does not conflict with Zimmerman's - theoretically they could have both been is a justifiable self defense scenario). If his head was scraped as part of a general wrestle/fight, then it probably was not. Nobody knows for sure. (possibly not even Zimmerman from the heat of the moment). I think Zimmerman was wrong to create the situation in which self defense was an issue - but that the court is going to have a very difficult time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense was not justified - and therefore Zimmerman should be acquited, even though I think he is in some sense morally culpable for the situation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I found this appellate case from 2011, similar circumstances, same charge. [5]. Pay close attention to the paragraph beginning with: Florida courts have held that an impulsive overreaction to an attack or injury is itself insufficient to prove ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent. (emphasis added by me)-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yah, that is a good bit of info, but probably not linkable in the article unless some RS starts it up. Brings up manslaughter as the appropriate charge a couple of times, which would be much easier to prove. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It's definetely not for inclusion, I just thought it was informative.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Impulsive doesn't typically involve 45+ confirmed seconds of struggle before firing a gun in that situation either. Impulse denotes immediacy in the response. Same thing though, informative but not related and has not been brought up by experts because it does not relate to the case at hand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The time frame has nothing to do with an impulse. They could have been fighting for 15 minutes and Zimmerman suddenly had an impulse to shoot him. The case also shows that second-degree murder is normally committed by a person who knows the victim and has had time to develop a level of enmity toward the victim.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
While we're this far out to sea, might as well ask: do any of the "felony murder" sorts of theory apply? He's charged with "second degree felony murder", making it impossible to search for, but I don't know if that's the same sense of the term - what I mean is, could the prosecution argue that by following and physically assaulting Martin, especially if hate-crime elements are involved, that Zimmerman was engaged in the course of a felony, and so self-defense doesn't apply. As I understand, such laws are ridiculously expansive, even to the point that if two people hold up a bank and a guard shoots one of them the other can be charged for the murder. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Except for the fact that Zimmerman says he was attacked and that the prosecution has no evidence of how it started. They have also thrown out the hate-crime possibility because it was not a hate crime and would never hold up in court. Zimmerman is still protected under the SYG law unless malicious intent can be argued. Even then you have traditional self-defense when we have multiple accounts of Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him up. This is before forensics and other information is released, but if the prosecution has that evidence they would have stated so in the affidavit. We have sworn testimony that there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's statements, intent or the physical evidence by the time it was fired. Even Dershowitz makes strong arguments on how absolutely terrible this affidavit is! If this backfires we could end up seeing lash back on Corey who could lose her job if things go south from here. Dershowitz said she should be charged with perjury for her affidavit. The case is way different from what you are mentioning, it is widely criticized on all the main stream media that the charges will never stick simply because the basis upon which they are asserted are false and flimsy and do not actually constitute a single point addressing Zimmerman's rights. Perjury for the withholding of information positive to Zimmerman and not entering evidence for the defense is also a huge mistake and risks Corey's job simply because she has an obligation to enter evidence favorable to Zimmerman and she didn't. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Items from Reuters article of April 25: The article (Reuters120425) works as a source for several issues:
  • Gated community had 263 townhouses, with vacant units due to bad economy and climate of burglaries.
  • Gated community was 50% white (anglo), 20% black, 20% Hispanic, 10% other.
  • Some townhouses under construction (remodeling) had been vandalized.
  • Neighborhood watch had reported many burglary suspects as black.
  • Zimmerman had graduated with an Associates Degree from Seminole State but was completing final course credit during month of shooting, and was dropped from enrollment.
Because that article is so extensive, it could be used to justify even 1-source claims, although other sources should be found to support those. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a very interesting article but to include the following sentences in this article seems biased against Martin.

Zimmerman was alert to Martin because his behavior matched the profile of two breakins... Who says his behavior matched the profile, the reporter, Zimmerman, this sounds like this an opinion of somebody's, not a fact.
When Trayvon Martin stopped in front a house not his, at night in the rain, he fit the profile of previous breakins. Same thing, says who, sounds like more opinion and speculation.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Those two statements might be OR. I didn't see that info in the article, but it's a long article and maybe someone else could check too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Removed. The additions were poorly written and POV-ish. The Reuter's article can and should be used to source information not now in the article, but not in that way. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Evanh2008, Your removal of the whole paragraph was too abrupt and the reasons weren't specific or clear. Not good. Could you suggest how that paragraph could have been improved?
Regarding POV, on an article with this much attention and activity, I think POV will eventually be corrected, whether the POV is from adding or deleting material. Hopefully those who deliberately participate in POV editing will be small in number since it is a waste of their time and others'. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll list bulleted reasons for my removal of the paragraph below:
  • "Zimmerman was alert to Martin because..." is inherently speculation, if not POV. If it is speculation by the source, it should be phrased as "such and such said that Zimmerman was alert to Martin because...".
  • I'm not sure the specifics on each of the incidents where black suspects were spotted in the neighborhood were necessary. A short summary of those facts would be appropriate.
  • "When Trayvon Martin stopped in front a house not his" isn't even reflected by the source as far as I can tell. I have seen no source for him stopping, either, so that's either original research or a load of bollocks.
Again, some of this could be listed in the article with the Reuters article as a ref. You can edit the article as much as I can, so if you can integrate material sourced to Reuters in a more effective manner, go for it. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

zimmerman donations, bond, martin response

Saw a big story on the Today show today (live, haven't looked for an online copy yet)

Apparently zimmerman got 200k from his donation page. At the bail hearing he claims he was indigent (probably technically true as he is unemployed), story said that the Martin family said, that the judge asked him about assets and Zimmerman said none. Story said there may be a hearing to increase the bail. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

O'Mara was on AC360 last night and announced it then, he said they were going to shut down Zimmerman's site and he asked O'Mara what to do with the money in his PayPal account. That is when O'Mara found out about the money, he said he would tell the judge today in the hearing scheduled for today, basically the judge has three choices, remand Zimmerman back to custody, increase his bond or just let it stand like it is. Here's the link to the AC360 interview [6]-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Prior 2 lawyers had another website & Zimmerman broke from them with own website': That was the split when Zimmerman dumped his prior 2 lawyers, for whatever financial conflicts with them collecting all the money or other reasons. Sources confirmed website "The Real George Zimmerman" (URL: therealgeorgezimmmerman.com?) was him, and U.S. news reports announced the split. The lawyers press-conferenced that Zimmerman would not return their phone calls and emphasized his "location unknown" (like that would not be read as "on the run"), so naturally, Zimmerman was charged with murder the very next day. See source: NY Daily News 2012/04. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That was dis-proven as he was in contact with authorities, this was already mentioned when the warrant became public and he turned himself in. Speculation said he was in Arizona, doesn't mean it was true because he promptly turned himself in following the announcement. Do not insert speculation which was false into the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I would have expected someone to refute that news story because Zimmerman's statement was not ungrammatical to claim, "I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life." (last comma optional). As for "on the run" I think any in-contact authorities would worry (a lot) if a guy's 2 attorneys held a video press conference to emphasize that they had no idea of their client's whereabouts. No matter how in-contact the police were, that grandstanding fear has to make law-enforcement personnel wonder if they have been played for fools, while the entire world is watching the press conference. Get it in writing from your lawyer, beforehand, to promise never, ever to hold a video conference warning that you are nowhere to be found!! Is there a regulation which can disbar a lawyer for pulling that stunt? -Wikid77 (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The weekend that George supposedly disappeared was also Easter weekend. Seems a bit silly, but none of us know for sure what happened. -- Avanu (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I assume the lawyers made the point of announcing they didn't know because the police or court had ordered them to give up their client? They're "officer of the court", aren't they? Wnt (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems the arrest warrant was the next day. If you watched the prior 2 lawyers' video conference, it was almost as if they gloated to repeat, "no idea of his whereabouts" rather than have any concern for his personal safety (perhaps might be a current issue, ya think?). Hint: They never said, "Oh wow, when not returning our phone calls, we hope Mr. Z is ok, and we think he is still in contact with the police for help" (never said that). Instead, they were all smiles and seemed to relish in announcing that they had no idea (Oh.My.God.) where Zimmerman was now. ...with his new fund-raiser website excluding them. They showed zero concern about him being injured, if unable to call. Cross-compare behavior, just as when checking between source texts. -Wikid77 09:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

while your hypothesis is not out of the question, it is a big leap of faith to make. I am not sure why you are making it here, as as far as the article is concerned this would be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to get to that conclusion, and therefore is not acceptable in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:OR praise but check sources: Thank you for thinking I had stated amazing original conclusions, but WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH means that no sources state the same conclusion, not that I write something that some others do not know. Please understand that people can discuss events, with various conclusions and that does not automatically mean "wp:OR". While I am flattered that you think I am so stunningly brilliant, wise, and inventive that every idea I have must be an original-research revelation to mankind, instead, look first in written sources before awarding me with the distinguished conclusion of "Original Research" when there are many intelligent people in the world who have already published similar conclusions. For example, about the concerns of Zimmerman's prior 2 lawyers, see: ABC-News-510, which states, "Zimmerman's lawyers have quit the case after losing touch with him" rather than they hoped someone else could assure them Mr. Z is safe and unharmed; also the source states, "[lawyer] said that Zimmerman was not in Florida, saying, 'You can stop looking for him in Florida. Look much further than that.' Gee, I wonder how much further means not on the run. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:29/17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
"I wonder, I assume, cross-compare, 'like that would not be read'" - These are textbook examples of original research. His lawyers say that he was out of the state (which btw, is not actually in any of the sources you linked in this conversation). Nobody said on the run. on the run is original research. that you think his lawyers were trying to imply on the run, is original research. There are a myriad of reasons he could have been out of the state - safety (in fact this is directly said as the opinion of the lawyers, that he was in hiding for his safety), family, whatever. Also, since his previous lawyers have never been in physical communication with him - their statements about where he was leave a lot to be desired. Obviously he was not actually on the run, and probably not even out of the state since when he was actually charged, he was willing and able to turn himself in quickly. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Gaijin42, please read policy WP:OR about the meaning of "original research" – just because I explain a particular conclusion (even saying "I assume"), formed by my own reasoning, does not mean that it is "original" in the universe, and that no published source has stated the same conclusion. If you object to me (or other people) saying, "I think," then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. Again, start by reading WP:OR, as actually looking at words and phrases and trying to internalize that text into an understanding of what it actually states. Next, re-read the source I linked above; hint: "stop looking for him in Florida; look much further than that" means, "he was out of the state" in their words, and that conclusion is not WP:OR, it is a simple statement by definition. You are trying to make this much harder than it is in reality. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The sources do not say he was running. The sources do not say the lawyers were trying to imply that he was running. That is the original research. Lawyers saying he is out of the state is not running. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not just go straight to the source, and watch the press conference.[7] Uhrig states just a few minutes into the press conference that "We have a pretty good idea of where he is." Sonner says "I'm not going to say anything about where he is, I'm not going to reveal that now." "I'm not going to tell you where George is." Gee, I wonder if that means they know where he is, but they're not going to tell us. They "lost touch with him" because Zimmerman didn't return phone calls, texts and emails, Gee, I wonder if Zimmerman didn't want these guys representing him anymore, so he didn't respond to them. See how easy it is to draw a different set of conclusions based on the same press conference. There is no conspiracy here, no big mystery to solve, they resigned and what you "wonder" to be their motives for resigning are speculation that is irrelevant to the topic of discussion that was started here with the reporting of 200K in his paypal account.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Zimmerman registered website same day prior lawyers dropped him: Check the sources and see why the press reported Zimmerman's new website, separate from any fund-raising done by his prior lawyers. Hint: The press noted the 2 events are related, so no, they are not "irrelevant" in connection to each other. The simple fact that they claimed Zimmerman did not return multiple calls to them had raised the concerns about the events, regardless of any "speculation" from me. I am sorry you are upset about all these issues, but getting angry at me is an improper response. Just try to cope with all the issues, without censoring any. -Wikid77 18:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't get what you are trying to say here. Provide specific details with specific RS as to why the "concerns" and "issues" with his former lawyers resigning are relevant for inclusion into this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of the $200,000 from the website, the media made a minor point of acting like that was a LOT of money, using the term "raking it in", but honestly, given his current living situation with no employment prospects and having to hire attorneys, this isn't really much at all. I don't know if the media is trying once again to be biased, but as George Bush said, "fool me once, can't get fooled again". -- Avanu (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Defense and court costs in justifiable homicide cases can easily exceed $200,000. On TV O'Mara pointed out that at $400 per hour in a drawn-out case legal expenses can easily exceed $200,000. That is why Castle Doctrine and Stand Ypur Grpund were passed. It would be interesting to see who (by race and income level) have benefited from these laws. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article mention that police found women's jewelry, a screwdriver, and marijuana in Martin's backpack?

When Zimmerman called 911, he said he thought Martin was possibly a burglar and on drugs.

The Boston Globe reported:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/03/27/police_investigated_trayvon_martin_over_jewelry/

"Police investigated Trayvon Martin over jewelry... During a search of his backpack, the report said, campus security officers found 12 pieces of women's jewelry, a watch and a screwdriver that they felt could be used as a burglary tool... Martin had previously been suspended for excessive absences and tardiness and, at the time of his death, was serving a 10-day suspension after school officials found an empty plastic bag with marijuana traces in his backpack."

I think these things should be mentioned in the article, as it gives credibility to Zimerman's claims about Martin's suspicious behavior.

284rckq (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You left out the key fact in the article that you cite -- that police looked at the jewelry and found no link to any crimes.Msalt (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
That's true. But because his parents were divorced, the area where he went to school was not the same area that he was shot at, so the police in one area might not know about robberies in the other area. Also, the police don't know every single piece of jewelry that is stolen. Also, he did not tell the police the name of his "friend" that he claimed the jewelry belonged to. Also, he had a screwdriver. None of this is proof that he was a thief, but it is notable enough, when placed in context with Zimmerman's statements about Trayvon's behavior in the 911 call. 284rckq (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It does? Did Martin have these things on him when he was shot? Or did Zimmerman peer into Martin's soul and recognize that these things had been found on him in the past, and therefore it was likely that he was doing something bad?LedRush (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
No, he did not have those things when he was shot. But it does go in line with Zimmerman's claim that Martin was behaving suspiciously. 284rckq (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't. How do these past events affect how Martin looked to Zimmerman at a time when Martin was doing nothing related to those past events. If the toxicology report shows that Martin was on drugs, then that adds credibility to Zimmerman's claims. But just because I smoked pot a few years ago doesn't lend any credibility to someone's claim that I am acting suspiciously now. This whole line of argument has been mentioned before, and every time it is a huge failure of basic logic.LedRush (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Lending credibility: Because Trayvon Martin had been suspended for vandalizing property (lockers) in a restricted-access area, and also suspended for possession of MJ residue in a baggy, then those facts lend credibility that Martin might have been in areas which seemed like suspicious trespassing, rather than just perpetuate Martin as an innocent-faced 12-yr-old photo image with no known destructive or out-of-bounds behavior. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This very issue and discussion is ongoing up above in "rules of evidence--past background", if you care to join the discussion there and leave a comment or idea on how to improve the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I did a search for "jewelry" before I started this section, and it didn't show up. 284rckq (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This information is absent because it's not a bio on Trayvon, it's an article about a shooting. Martin tested negative for marijuana, so school records implying otherwise aren't really relevant to the shooting. This may change at trial of course. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with those who state that issues relating to Martin's character have been neglected and are relevant because they show motive. In the beginning when this first became big news, the MSM characterized Martin as a smallish, happy-go-lucky A/B honor student who was "stalked" and "hunted down" by a "white" man. Thanks to the resources of the information age, we know that Martin was suspended from high school, we know about his drug use, we know about his history of violence, we know about his obsession with gangs as evidenced by his tattoos and social media sites, we know about the jewelry and watch and burglary tools in his backpack. I feel that we, in the Wikipedia community, have a duty and obligation to bring this information to light in this article. It's relevant to the shooting because the events that precipitated the shooting include a brutal assault by Martin on Zimmerman--Hokeman (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
We have no such duty. Just because the media mischaracterized George Zimmerman does not mean we have a duty to make sure people 'see the light'. We are here to present a balanced and neutral tone, with regard for the Biographies of Living People policy, which in fairness includes Trayvon Martin because of his recently deceased status and living family members. We are not here to be a voice for the voiceless and downtrodden. If you would like to participate in advocacy, there are appropriate avenues for that. Since there is no clear connection between the shooting and the items in Trayvon's backpack, we should not include it in the narrative that relates to the shooting event itself. IF, and only if, you can provide a rational reason for it to be included in the aftermath, then by all means, present that rationale and your fellow editors can evaluate it and decide, but don't think it MUST be included, because honestly the BLP policy leans strongly against contentious material being added, not in favor of it. -- Avanu (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It is an entirely separate matter, and while BLP doesn't exactly apply, because of its importance we should still take extra care with what we insert into the article. Personally, I see no reason to have Martin's alleged burglary because no crimes or stolen jewellery matching that description were ever reported. A screwdriver is not necessarily a 'burglary tool'. We have negative reports of this and that, but using the words 'burglary tool' to denote a screwdriver is not a proper statement and I will not risk ruining Martin's reputation by bringing that connotation into this article. A spade's a spade, a screwdriver is a screwdriver, not a burglary tool. With the negative reports, Martin has ties to the Bloods and no actual evidence to support that claim. He's also said to be a drug-dealer rather then suspected user, and even still we do not actually know if he used pot himself! This is why I am so opposed to filling an article with half-truths that have not been followed up on. We do not even have one independent source to counter the alleged attack on a bus driver nor do we have anything putting that video of Martin refereeing a fight into context. If we cannot give a whole picture or actually directly link the matter, keep that stuff out of the article, the burden of evidence is only circumstantial and entirely negative. Just like the whole 'Zimmerman is white' or 'Zimmerman is a racist', I've been taking a stance for many weeks that he was not racist because of evidence directly contradicting those claims. We need to do this article right, it is our duty as editors to properly portray the facts from the speculation and the series of self-contradictory material into a proper jumble of reports. Several hundred false media reports are still floating around, doesn't mean we use them in the article. I.e. Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was robbing the 7-11. Just because it came from a 'reliable source' doesn't mean it is true. Reliable sources are well... not so reliable on this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
"The BLP policy doesn't exactly apply"? No, Martin is dead, so the BLP policy doesn't apply at all, and besides this is an article about an event not Trayvon Martin's bio. There is a mountain of substantial and competent evidence out there that supports Zimmerman's version of events, to-wit: the photo taken by the bystander 3 minutes after the shot was fired showing Zimmerman's bloodied and battered head, the report of the police officer who arrived 60 seconds after the shot was fired that mentions Zimmerman's bloody nose and laceration on the back of his head, the statement from the witness "John" who said that the big man in the white shirt had the little man in the red shirt on the ground and that it was the little man screaming for help. Now, as far as the issue of the screwdriver being described as a buglary tool, that particular screwdriver was a large flathead that had been sharpened flat on the end (like a pancake spatula); therefore, I think the description of it in the police files is accurate.--Hokeman (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
For the detailed description of the screwdriver, a link please. Thx. Andyvphil (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLP covers the recently deceased. It applies to Martin. Please give a source that states the screwdriver being used for burglary. It was not labeled as a crime and Martin was not found to be charged let a lone convicted. Its also irrelevant to this incident. Conflicting erroneous reports have gone out about Martin and Zimmerman, Martin was never a suspect in a burglary, it would be wrong to make that claim which wanted to attack his image. It was a screwdriver, not a crowbar or burglary tool and the difference is important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • WP has a duty to report per wp:NPOV: Actually, Wikipedia has a duty to report non-gossip background events, as required by policy wp:NPOV for presenting text balanced to match the relative coverage in wp:RS reliable sources. We cannot write an article about the RMS Titanic and simply state, "It was a new ship and the voyage was quite pleasant from 10 April 1912 onward, including nice church services on Sunday morning, 14 April" and stop there. Why not stop? Because all the sources said the ship sank. Hello? We cannot simply state, "Trayvon Martin was a high-school student in Miami Gardens, FL" and stop there. Why not stop? Because all the sources said he was suspended from school for the 3rd time. The Titanic sank due to an iceberg. Trayvon Martin was suspended from school due to alleged residue and a marijuana pipe found in his backback. Stop censoring the truth. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:10/14:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
While the pot thing is more likely to be true then other things revolving around Martin, it must be worded properly. Reports first were that Martin had a bag of pot. Then it was Martin had an empty bag with pot residue on it. Then it was Martin had a pipe and pot. Three separate accounts all conflicting with information about what it was for. Others state Martin was found smoking pot! Can you tell me which of the four are true? Even if you put the reference back in, what about the other matters, what about the video of the fight, what about the drug dealing, what about the gang involvement, what about the 'burglary', what about the fact Martin did not go straight home from 7-11? What about the fact Zimmerman isn't white, what about the fact the Zimmerman is black? What about the fact that Zimmerman was cited as the neighborhood watch, what about Zimmerman's role in preventing crime, what about the 'profiling', what about Serino's comments that nothing disproves Zimmerman's claim of self-defense? Until we can say this or this or that is true we do not put speculation into this article! It is not 'censorship' it is weighing speculation and unverified allegation against actual facts. No matter how much I go on about Zimmerman not being a racist, not even Reuters will change the fact in the public's eye, but you know what... Zimmerman isn't racist yet this article still tries to hang him out for it. For weeks I've stated this stance and you know what? I was right. I'm not out to right great wrongs otherwise I would have removed it, but level-headed editors will win out in the end. It is only a matter of time before more of the media's fabrication and lies crumble. Every single fact in this case has been misreported or false or a half-truth except for their names and that, my friends, is undisputed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
When details are contradictory, we should not hesitate to report that fact. Showing that there is more than one version of events going around is one of the greatest services an article of this type can do. It is better for an article to include an out and out contradiction than for it to shed one source at random, and better to have one version of the story than none at all. But of course it is best of all to note the contradiction and each version of the story going around, so that readers really appreciate that they need to use their critical thinking abilities. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
First, the BLP policy applies to every individual that is part of the content of this article. BLP is not just for a standalone biography of a person, it applies to ANY mention of that person in Wikipedia. Second, the BLP policy applies to Trayvon Martin just as much as the others based on several things. He is recently deceased and therefore covered by BLP directly. He also has living relatives affected by statements that are made about him so he is indirectly covered by BLP. Additionally, in the interest of a NPOV, both Trayvon Martin AND George Zimmerman should receive equal treatment within the article. That means if we leave something out about Zimmerman based on BLP concerns, we take care to balance this if needed for Martin. We're not here to advocate or take sides, but to describe the event and its aftermath in a fair and neutral tone. We shouldn't censor information, but we also should avoid material that is just sensational or trivial. We've gone over this so many times now, and I hope this clear things up, but if you need to, please go read the policies and guidelines again that govern content in Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Its not a matter of 'critical thinking' its a matter or policy, neutrality, verification, balance and context. As a I mentioned elsewhere on the page, keep the bios out, keep all the irrelevant negatives out that do not conform to the BLP policies. No conviction, no speculation to make the subject guilty. The 2005 incident on Zimmerman is used to portray him as violent and entirely negative, with the actual facts omitted. Same goes for Martin, the so-called 'burglary tool' was undue and non-neutral attribution of a screwdriver. So much negative information on Martin exists, but most of it is negative and tinged with malice or distorted to bring the reader to a negative conclusion about Martin. As these other matters are irrelevant they should go on a proper bio page, not here, this is the for the fatal shooting and its aftermath, not every little detail in their lives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman Personal Life

Reuters has an article that contains more information on Zimmerman's family, personal and early life that is not currently listed in his section that should be included. Particularly information related to his father (whom is not even mentioned. however, his mother is) and the like. It also discusses the reasons for the initial purchase of the firearm as well as other in depth and pertinent information related to Zimmerman's personal life. Would appreciate if someone with edit privileges could expand on this section as it is rather lacking given the breadth of other sections in the article. 71.180.6.204 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You know something? I'm looking at that article I'm really wondering where the reporter got his sources. So far these all seem to be from his family and Zimmerman. More so a number of these sources are anonymous. It really seems like he's using the "some of my best friends are black" excuse. Poppurrpop (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Except that the source is Reuters, which is one of the most respected names in journalism, and is 'based on extensive interviews.'--DeknMike (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
extensive interviews with people who are inherently biased in his favor(family for the most part). Also I want to note it should be mentioned Zimmerman LIED in court. On the 911 call he said he thought Martin was a teenager. In the bond hearing he said he felt he was around his age. Poppurrpop (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Zimmerman rethought the age after having his head bashed into the pavement. The confessed shooter Tyrae L., at Martin's former high school, who shot 4 teenagers near Carol City High School on Aug. 31, 2011, was also a 17-yr-old black youth but looks much older in his mugshot. Perhaps Martin's homeboys in the hood had taught him to act older. -Wikid77 11:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Also remember people can turn racist and they can turn violent. It's mentioned that he did "change" after his business failed, which was followed by assaulting a cop for arresting an underage friend(the charges were later dropped but only because he agreed to take anger management classes)Poppurrpop (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget the cop he 'assaulted' was plainclothes (not clearly identifyable as police) and was accosting George's friend at a bar, and he didn't know it was police until after the incident. "Anger management' sounds like a plea deal, since the police had not made their authority known until after the incident. --DeknMike (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I've tried pointing that out before, but some of the context and what actually happened to those charges has differing accounts of just how they were dropped, seems to go against the 'plea' portion because it would still be recorded under most circumstances, they had to be dropped without judicial order otherwise it would be on the record. Right? The important thing is they were dropped and he was not convicted, who knows if they actually had enough to even convict him? Differing accounts suggest Zimmerman was trying to help out someone 'accosting' his friend and the plain-clothes undercover cop did not make himself known to afterwards, some confusion yes, but the context of that matter is very important. Anything referencing the 2005 incident must carry that very distinction clearly, the officer was not in uniform and no announcement complicates the matter. Speculation follows from that point, we do not have a formal matter on why the charges were dropped and we cannot try to fill in those blanks with speculation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
According to the officer who arrested him he did identify himself and the actual arrest document was entered into evidence at his bail hearing.
"I identified myself as a state police officer and showed Zimmerman my badge and asked him to leave the area. He stated, 'I don't care who you are.' I again asked Zimmerman to leave. He stated the F-word and he said you. At that time I attempted to escort Zimmerman from the interview room and he shrugged away from me and pushed my arms away with his hands. After a short struggle he was placed in handcuffs and detained."
So, in order to provide a complete and proper context of the incident, it should be acknowledged that the officer stated in the arrest document, he did identify himself.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't mean he lied. At the time of the 911 call, he saw Martin from a distance. At the bail hearing he had already seen Martin close-up. This would be a reasonable explanation for the inconsistency. Intrepid (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Poppurrpop, you need some objectivity. Read the rest of the sentence: "Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, (plus) law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports..." Looks pretty unbiased. --DeknMike (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
"I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am." Doesn't sound like a lie unless you're just looking for ways to be rude. Zimmerman is 28 now and Martin was 17. What exactly is a 'little bit'? Who knows? Could he possibly be hedging ever so slightly out of guilt or fear? Possibly. But outright lying? No way. -- Avanu (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Avanu, obviously "the excuse"was used to get too things over. I thought he was older and I thought he may be armed:
I'm sorry I did not know he was that young, I thought he was a little younger then me, and I did not know if he was armed or not. I think that is the most important point he wants to get over.LeaNder (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Zimmerman's apology exactly tracks the questions Martin's mother said, in a TV interview shortly before the bail hearing, she would want answered if she were given an opportunity to ask GZ questions. I've seen this noted in RS, though I don't have the link to hand. The correspondence of questions asked to answers given is so exact that there's really no question that Z was responding to her interview. Andyvphil (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this section of Talk has derailed, I am going to reiterate that since George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin redirect to this article, it is only fitting that these sections be expanded upon with all available information related to the subjects of the article. This includes information that is not necessarily related to the legal case against Zimmerman or the altercations with Martin. The Reuters article notwithstanding, the lack of in depth personal information on all of these individuals is deeply disheartening. Especially since this is a rather high profile article.

Also, the period in "multiracial family". for the Zimmerman section, should be moved within the quotations like "this." (I know it is not universal but IMHO, it simply looks better. Deal with it, Britannia.) 71.180.6.204 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that MOS adjuration, most recently in a snarky NY Daily News article criticizing GZ's grammar in his website/plea for help. But it's the stupidest rule I've ever seen asserted, and up with it I will not put. What's in quotes should appear in the source (except as amended with ellipses and square brackets and such) and any trespassing punctuation should be expelled. And will be, in any text I edit. Andyvphil (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I am with you, it is a really, really important information that he bought the gun for a aggressive stray dog, BIG BOI, the pit pull terrier. It will enormously humanize him with all the people out there that fear dogs.  ;) LeaNder (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The reason why we have redirects is because it's not accepted they are notable enough to have a standalone biographical article on wikipedia. Therefore covering them in the same way we would in standalone article goes against the reason for the redirects in the first place, i.e. it's not going to happen. If you want to propose we make seperate articles on them, then do so although I suggest you read all the previous discussion first. Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Other black classmates looked older: The other 17-yr-old black youth, Tyrae L., who confessed to police in shooting 4 teenagers when walking home from Carol City High School on 31 August 2011, looked older in his mugshot (age 16: http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Tyrae_Lane_5809901/). This might be a cultural, peer attitude of gruff appearance, rather than looking like a 10-year-old child photo, which is difficult to keeping smiling like a bright-faced innocent around homeboys 7 years later. Teenagers can change a lot in 7 years. -Wikid77 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Police told Zimmerman to "get a gun" after his wife was chased and cornered by an unrestrained pit bull. Also, Zimmerman is part black.

In that same article, Reuters said police told Zimmerman to "get a gun" after his wife was chased and cornered by an unrestrained pit bull. I think that quote should be mentioned in the article, because it's notable that it was the police who had suggested that Zimmerman acquire a gun.

The same article also says that Zimmerman "has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather." I think this information should also be mentioned, because the article already mentions race.

284rckq (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Another informative article, [8] . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason for buying the gun is definitely relevant and should go in. The black roots are probably relevant provided the story has some impact on public perception of the shooting. (If nobody knew or cared about his precise racial background it wouldn't matter) Wnt (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Judge's comments from the bench

I would think that if the judge comments on things that have been reported in the media, we could use his words as a 'reliable secondary source' in terms of analysis of those items. We have a debate going on up above about whether to include past bad acts by Zimmerman or Martin, and a couple of those were addressed in the bail hearing. The judge granted bail and didn't go with the $1 million proposed by the state, and didn't go with the lowball number of $15,000 proposed by the defense either. I'm not suggesting we infer from his actions, but if he commented on something specific, like the anger management class Zimmerman was ordered to take (which he did comment on that), then it seems like it might fit the definition of a secondary source analysis. -- Avanu (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are links to transcripts of the CNN telecast of the bond hearing.[9][10] What are the excerpts you'd like to use? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The past acts have already been inserted into the article by another editor, they are in the sub-section of Initial coverage under Media coverage. I recently used one of the transcripts that BobK has listed above for a reference when the prosecutor disputed the allegation by Zimmerman that the undercover officer didn't identify himself when arresting him. The prosecutor entered the actual arrest document into evidence and quoted from the document at the hearing. I think the judge's analysis could be relevant to Zimmerman's past acts if presented in the proper context. Some may argue that it is too much detail, but the focus of this case has shifted to the court proceedings and the judge, along with the prosecution and defense will all be central players in this case.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no "actual arrest document". The police officer writes an Incident Report when he has a chance to get around to it, usually long after the incident took place. This "essay" is usually self serving. The fact that he wrote down that he identified himself as a police officr has nothing to do with the price of oranges. It's his word against Zimmerman's.True Observer (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

The "actual arrest document" was a warrant for Zimmerman's arrest and it was entered into evidence at his bail hearing. It would seem the officer's word was more persuasive than Zimmerman's as he was arrested and charged.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, Re "Some may argue that it is too much detail, but the focus of this case has shifted to the court proceedings and the judge, along with the prosecution and defense will all be central players in this case." — Here's what is in the article about the bail hearing.[11]

A bail hearing was held on April 20 and the Judge ruled that Zimmerman can be released on a $150,000 bond.[1] Zimmerman was released on bail from jail at 12:05 a.m. April 23, 2012. He was fitted with an electronic monitoring device which can reveal his whereabouts in real time.[2]

Here's what's in the article about a part of the bail hearing presented by the prosecution, regarding two incidents that occurred seven years ago.[12]

According to various media reports, in July of 2005 Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. Zimmerman disputes whether the plain-clothes officer identified himself. According to the arresting officer, he did identify himself and showed Zimmerman his badge and asked him twice to leave the area.[3] He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes. In August of the same year, Zimmerman's fiancée at the time filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. [4]

Would you care to comment about their relative sizes in the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bob, I don't understand your question, can you be more precise?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Just any thoughts you have regarding their relative sizes. If you don't have any thoughts in that regard, you can say that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I think his point is, the arrest information about something that happened years ago, has more coverage than th arrest information for the event we are actually trying to cover, and therefore there may be an issue of WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
What I was saying is if we start adding the judges comments on something like this, that may be too much detail for some, as it could look cluttered with his comments.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Not to be argumentative, but wasn't the matter of violence dropped even before Zimmerman avoided it, as the charge was 'resisting arrest without violence' or some inane wording like that? From that charge the actual matter was dropped then. Wouldn't that be more proper? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You raise a valid point, the initial charge was resisting arrest with violence (a felony), so technically the wording is correct in the paragraph, but the way I understand the pre-trial diversion to work is that you must have a misdemeanor charge in order to be accepted, see this link under "eligible" (n)[13]. I'm thinking that the charge was reduced to resisting without violence in order for Zimmerman to be accepted, but he had to successfully complete the program or be sent back to court for further prosecution, "Successful compliance results in a dismissal of their charges while unsuccessful compliance results in a return to the court for continued prosecution". [14]. The source cited for the paragraph says exactly what is in the article, but I have seen the misdemeanor charge reported as well, so if you found a RS with the misdemeanor charge, then that would clear up the confusion, because you can't actually get into the program with a felony resisting arrest.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's a source that says his charges were reduced to the misdemeanor charge and gives a slightly different version of the events. [15] The source says Zimmerman shoved the officer who was questioning (not arresting) a friend for alleged underage drinking at a bar. This version coincides with the officer's version who says he attempted to escort Zimmerman from the interview room. Undercover officers often go to bars on "sting" operations to curtail underage drinking, it's likely he asked the underage friend to a room where he could question (interview) him about his age and that's when Zimmerman entered the picture. We know there is more in the report the officer filed because at the bail hearing, the prosecutor said he was only reading the "pertinent" part. When the document gets released (I think the judge will release them, partially redacted) we will get the full story.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"DE LA RIONDA: Ma'am, I provided the actual arrest document to the court and also to defense counsel. But I want to read to you a pertinent part. It states the officer to the affidavit, the arrest warrant -- I'm sorry, the actual arrest warrant states, "I identified myself as a state police officer and showed Zimmerman my badge and asked him to leave the area. He stated, 'I don't care who you are.' I again asked Zimmerman to leave. He stated the F-word and he said you. At that time I attempted to escort Zimmerman from the interview room and he shrugged away from me and pushed my arms away with his hands. After a short struggle he was placed in handcuffs and detained." Questions: 1. What is the interview room? Didn't the incident take place at the bar? 2. Zimmerman was handcuffed. Isn't that the same as being arrested? Why was an arrest warrant necessary? You can be arrested without a warrant. When arrested for speeding, they don't have a prior arrest warrant. 3. Under what authority did the Officer have the right to tell Zimmerman to leave the area?True Observer (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

1) Interview room is confusing/ambiguous, but that could mean the room at the bar where they were doing the interviews. Not necessarily an official police location. 2) handcuffed is not the same as arrest. It is a type of "detainment" or "custody". (see Escobedo v. Illinois, Miranda v. Arizona and Terry v. Ohio for details on what custody is and how it differs from arrest) It is not uncommon for people to be detained, handcuffed and then released without arrest or charges. (For example, in high crime areas a stop and frisk, or even a traffic stop might result in a handcuffing while they run plates/ids on the logic of protecting the officer) This can in fact go much further than being handcuffed. You can actually be taken to jail and put into a cell for a day or so as a person of interest without it being a formal arrest. However, I do not think in this case we have the level of information to make a determination based on the evidence - We have to fall back to the official statement of if he was arrested or not. 3) If the police were in the process of conducting an investigation or interrogation, and Zimmerman was interfering with that, they definitely have the authority to have him leave the immediate area and not interfere. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Refs [[16]] 843.02 is obstruction without violence (what zimmerman was eventually charged/downgraded to, and is the part that makes the order lawful (as not following it would be opposing/obstruction) 843.021 specifically addresses the possibility of being handcuffed without being arrested. 843.06 might also be used as "must follow police orders".Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a need to get to the bottom of "arrest warrant". Either Zimmerman was arrested at the bar, in which case an arrest warrant wasn't needed. Or, he was arrested after the Officer filed his Incident Report and the State Attorney filed the information resulting in Zimmerman's was arrest.True Observer (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

An officer can "place someone under arrest" without a warrant in hand if they have probable cause to believe a crime has occured, they are then transported to the jail where they are placed in a holding cell, the officer then fills out the "arrest warrant" and his statement as to why he arrested the individual and it is forwarded to the state attorney's office for a determination of charges to be filed or not. Here's an example: You're cruising down the highway and you are speeding, an officer stops you for speeding and sees a pipe in the ashtray, he has probable cause to believe it is drug paraphernalia and can arrest you and take you to the station and then fill out the actual warrant and forward it to the prosecutor.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone is placed under arrest, why is a warrant needed? The Officer has to prepare some document to give the State Attorney for him to decide on what charges to file. But if the person has already been arrested, why is an arrest warrant needed? In the murder case, the officer could have arrested him for murder but didn't. Later based on an Affidavit from a police officer, the State Attorney filed charges and Zimmerman was arrested. If he had already been arrested at the time of the shooting, then no arrest warrant would have been needed. It appears that Zimmerman was not arrested on the night of the bar incident but later the officer filed an "Incident Report" based on which the State Attorney filed charges and then Zimmerman was arrested.True Observer (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

While interesting, this level of analysis is clear WP:OR. If we are to put something into the article regarding this it needs to be based on reliable secondary sources, or a very explicit primary (He was arrested on date X) Further, I think your level of analysis/information is WAY overkill and WP:UNDUE unless this becomes a major issue at trial. He had some past. some people think it was important, others don't. But this level of nitpicking on the order of events from something that happened 7 years ago and is only used as a character reference is not needed in this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Except for the simple fact that this was a major point of contention in the bond hearing. The State certainly considered it important having devoted so much of the hearing to the bar incident and the events that followed.True Observer (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The arrest warrant was not a major point of contention at the bail hearing. The reason they brought the incident up was to try and persuade the judge that Zimmerman had a propensity for violence and could be a risk if he was released on bail. If you follow the line of questioning where this warrant came up, the prosecutor only used it to impeach Zimmerman's wife and her testimony when she said he was not a violent person and the officer did not identify himself. That is the only reason the warrant was even brought up. They didn't debate whether he was arrested that night or sometime in the future. Did he have a propensity for violence was the issue at hand in the bail hearing. I agree with Gaijin42 that this is just nitpicking and is pointless to even discuss.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The contents of the arrest warrant certainly were a major point of contention. The officer wrote down something. Where, what and when he wrote it down, we still don't know. The officer's credibility is at stake. It's his word against Zimmerman's. The time of arrest and filing of charges all go towards the officer's credibility. Officers do write self-serving reports. Shedding light on what he did and when he did it would certainly help decide whether to believe him or Zimmerman.True Observer (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The contents of the arrest warrant are a major point of contention with you. They were not a major point of contention at the bail hearing.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire Zimmerman family and Zimmerman himself disputed what the officer wrote. The State was trying to keep Zimmerman jailed because of it. So, it was a big deal. This Article is incomplete without fully addressing this issue. At a minimum, there is need to obtain copy of the "arrest warrant". Moreover, this whole trial revolves around a violent act. The bar incident is perfect to find out about Zimmerman's prior violent tendencies.True Observer (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As a complete aside 843.20 might be relevant to the case, depending on what martin can be proved/shown/implied strongly enough to have done, but has not been discussed yet afaik. (I just came across it randomly while looking up the information above) - complete OR/speculation, and there some obvious counter-arguments to be made about why this law does not apply. (not on the way to official biz, not designated by police, etc)
843.20 Harassment of participant of neighborhood crime watch program prohibited; penalty; definitions.-- (1) It shall be a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person to willfully harass, threaten, or intimidate an identifiable member of a neighborhood crime watch program while such member is engaged in, or traveling to or from, an organized neighborhood crime watch program activity or a member who is participating in an ongoing criminal investigation, as designated by a law enforcement officer.

It looks like the article's treatment of the incidents in 2005 is a needless digression and misleading. It gives the impression that Zimmerman is presently a violent person because he shoved a plain-clothes officer in a bar when he was 21, seven years ago. If it's not meant to give that impression, then what's the point of giving it so much space in the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is the "shove"? The officer placed his arm on Zimmerman to escort him out and Zimmerman shrugged his arm away with his hand. This is shove? The point being Zimmerman wasn't violent in 2005 either.True Observer (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The same argument could be made about "needless digression and misleading" pertaining to Martin's suspensions and the women's jewelry as well. This had been an ongoing discussion about including either ones past action's since this information was first released in the press.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Re "The same argument could be made about "needless digression and misleading" pertaining to Martin's suspensions and the women's jewelry as well." — If you feel that way, then what do you think we should do about it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If there are BLP issues that still exist or other concerns that editor's may have with the way it is presented in the article, maybe we should remove it until we can reach a consensus about whether to include it or not, or how to present it in a NPOV that is satisfactory to all editor's involved. I think we will see it included eventually, but the context of how it is presented seems to be the issue here. I agree with your impressions now with the present way it is worded.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I was having a discussion in another Talk section with Emeraldflames who put in the section, so we might wait to see if that editor has something to say here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the whole point of the pseudo-bios already decided? I believe this was being brought up as a notice for a faq for the page simply because the matter had been decided so many times. Removing the POV pushing and fact altering was a good call by Isaidnoway. Wikipedia should not be a bastion for lies and speculation touted as fact, the 2005 incident was so wrongly reported that out of more then a dozen versions which exist, we still cannot properly explain the situation. Its like the Duke Lacrosse case, we should not have each 'false' version of the events simply because X erroneously reports it. Most importantly, we should not be aiding the inclusion of false material when the truest account exists in records and reliable sources such as Reuters. Besides, as both incidents are irrelevant to the shooting they do not simply belong here. While the defamatory material is widely reported, if we must include it, do it properly. I do not think I can remain silent if we do not handle this matter with the utmost care. I'd prefer that these other situations be made on their respective bio pages. This page is about one event, not their entire lives. I believe we should actually gather consensus to make a Zimmerman and a Trayvon Martin bio page so we can properly give it the context and detail both individuals require. They individually meet notability now. I have 10 pages worth of material on Zimmerman and about 6 on Trayvon Martin, I think we could do proper articles on both individuals and simply refer to the incident on this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind moving/rewriting the past suspension/past arrest stuff to their respective bio pages where a more thorough/balanced/whatever job can be done. However, I support it remaining in this article until those bio pages have been created. My primary concern is that the information exist *some*where.
A good number of people simply want the information to be censored because they believe it to be character smearing, yellow journalism, or otherwise irrelevant. That's valid, but that's *their* POV. Other editors strongly disagree.
I don't know exactly how Wikipedia works, but we have tried to establish consensus re: this several times. We've asked other editors to comment on it. A rough consensus seemed to be established above, but since then, two editors have removed the information again because they don't believe the information is relevant.
Basically, I'm all for including this information in their bio's, but I prefer not to see this information continue to be censored from Wikipedia readers any longer. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is deliberately trying to censor this information from getting into the article. And I don't see a need for urgency to get it in the article 'right now'. I think it will eventually find it's way in, either here or at biographies like Chris suggested. But the concerns of presenting it in a NPOV should be looked at and discussed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus for the inclusion of the proposed information. In fact, I see strong resistance to its inclusion. Furthermore, the edit got key facts wrong and presented them in a POV manner. Purely in terms of what was said at the bond hearing, the information is far too detailed for such an insignificant event. Shoehorning it into a media section is WP:UNDUE and a BLP concern. Wikipedia rules are pretty clear on this point. If there isn't consensus on this type of information, it doesn't go in.LedRush (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
My understanding was that information was *included* by default, not excluded. Whatever the case, you managed to keep in the 'negative' stuff about Zimmerman. Anyway, unless there is another step in the Wikipedia process where someone or some group comes and makes a decision on the issue, I'm going to leave it to others to fight about. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please reread my edit. I took out substantially negative and undue information about Zimmerman, shortened it, and made it NPOV. Please be more careful with your accusations. LedRush (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You mentioned BLP and a lack of consensus. There has been plenty of resistance to inclusion of Zimmerman's history as well, so why did you leave that part in? And why did the BLP issues you mentioned only apply to Martin's background, and not Zimmerman's (even though he is actually living)? It just seems to be inconsistent to me. Out of curiosity, is there any scenario you could imagine where the information re: Martin's suspensions could be included in the article or in his bio? Emeraldflames (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Please see my edit again. You know, the part where I remove the anti-POV stuff about Zimmerman. Where's the AGF>LedRush (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith, which is why I asked you if there were a circumstance that you would consider it appropriate to include Martin's suspensions. I'd like to reach a consensus of some kind. We reached a consensus up above, albeit localized among the editors talking at the time. The main point being that there are a good portion of editors (and readers based on comments) that think the prior arrests and suspensions are relevant in some way to understanding this event. Many sources, from the New York Times to the Miami Herald have reported this stuff, and I'd like to find a way to reflect that in the article. You mentioned several objections to the way it was included. Is there a way this information can be included that would overcome those objections? Emeraldflames (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I, and many others here, have objected to the completely irrelevant mention of pot possession unless a toxicology report indicated that he was on drugs at the time of the shooting. Similarly, the only way the tools/jewelry stuff would get in is if there was evidence of some sort of illegal activity involving theft at or around the time of the shooting. I don't see how the truancy info could ever be relevant. As for Zimmerman, his stuff involves actually arrests and court orders (unlike Martin who has no record). It can go in as long as it is NPOV and brief, which is why I edited down his section and dramatically changed the wording, which placed way too much blame on him. I think this has been hashed out repeatedly, but a consistent and vocal group of people argue the points over and over again until the other editors stop paying attention.LedRush (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Zimmerman incidents in 2005, I suggest we move them from the media section to the Pre-trial section and reduce them to one sentence as part of a summary of the info and testimony at the bond hearing, and note it was introduced by the prosecution. After we make the move of the one sentence, we can also add to the summary very brief mention of some of the other info at the bond hearing, noting what was introduced by the defense too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with further reducing the amount of this info.LedRush (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
In the Initial coverage section, I kept the introductory sentence and trimmed the items about previous incidents involving Zimmerman and Martin respectively.[17] For now there is a complication in moving the Zimmerman part to the Pre-trial section before we can agree what to do with the Martin part. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
If the best that we can do is just provide one sentence to describe their past actions, without putting them in context as to what actually happened, remove it. These sentences sound totally biased against both individuals.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought the first sentence helped to mitigate that. Also, by minimizing the space that they have minimizes their importance and the attention they'll get. If it's just deleted without a consensus we'll probably see the inappropriate previous version coming back. For now, I think this is probably more acceptable to most editors than the previous version, but you never know for sure. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence doesn't even have a RS and never has, it was tagged with a cite needed, but an editor removed it. Zimmerman was charged but was never prosecuted, so that is completely biased, and Martin's one sentence bio makes him out to be a dope smoking burglar. If we are going to include past action's of someones life, you can't do it properly or fairly with one sentence, it needs to be removed imo.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right about the first sentence, so I deleted it.[18] Regarding the other sourced sentences, more reason is needed. The brief mention of the two incidents doesn't seem so bad. They're limited in the article to just two sentences here. They're not mentioned in other parts of the article where they would be more significant, like the lead or the shooting section, for example. Also, Zimmerman's incident is portrayed as just a shove seven years ago, and Martin's is offset by a large section on hoodie march, Skittles, etc. I am definitely against how the previous incidents were presented previously. Too much space generally and it gave more space to defense of Martin regarding his incidents than Zimmerman for his incidents, which seemed relatively lame as in "Zimmerman disputed" the claims, so it's not clear why you would want to repeat that. Considering the support in a previous Talk section for keeping the info in the article, for now I think these brief reliably sourced mentions of those incidents are OK as long as they aren't given more space. If you want, you could try adding some offsetting positive things about both Martin's and Zimmerman's background to the section, keeping it brief like the material about these incidents. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that one sentence can properly or fairly put the past incidents into the context that is needed to explain them. Zimmerman's charge was reduced to a non-violent offense and he successfully completed his pre-trial diversion program which the court allowed him to participate in. How does leaving out all this relevant iformation pertaining to this past incident justify one sentence saying he was charged with a violent offense. And Martin's father stated the traces of marijuana in his backpack was not related to the shooting and disputed the allegation of women's jewelry and the screwdriver. The previous version at least provided some context to these past incidents in their lives. If these past incidents can't be represented properly or fairly in this article, they should be removed and not be reported on at all.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, adding more about it would be a digression, only give the items more importance, would not be helpful especially if the additions are one-sided, and just deleting them doesn't seem to have enough support. BTW, you didn't respond to the idea of adding positive info from their pasts. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Leaving out important details about Zimmerman's charges and just saying that Zimmerman is violent is biased and unfair to him. I simply don't understand why we would say he is violent and leave it at that. I just don't get why we are being biased against him. I just don't get it. My response to adding additional info is quite clear, put the charges in context as to what really happened or remove it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think adding a few more details would hurt. I don't think adding a *lot* more details would hurt, either, but since there are some that object to its length then maybe a compromise in the middle. Emeraldflames (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"the delay in charging Zimmerman"

This phrase, in the last paragraph of the lead, is not appropriate as it assumes he should have been charged in the first place or that charging GZ with something was inevitable. The long-form correction would be something like "those who had decided that GZ was guilty were upset that it took so long to charge him", but that's not very elegant, is it? Thoughts, anyone? --Kenatipo speak! 01:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Good observation. Changed to: "The circumstances of Martin's death, the delay in deciding whether to charge Zimmerman, and questions about Florida's Stand Your Ground law received national and international attention." Intrepid (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
There's also "the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman" which reflects what the sources cited say they were upset about.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Great, that's better. Changed to "the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman" Intrepid (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Good work, guys! Elegant, factual and NPOV. Thank you! --Kenatipo speak! 03:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"The lead homicide investigator on the case, Chris Serino, recommended charging Zimmerman with manslaughter."

This claim was flatly contradicted by Chris Serino in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency 70.233.137.43 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is covered in the "Police" section with his contradiction as well as the media reporting that sources told them he had recommended charges.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman MySpace

An old MySpace page of GZ has emerged which is a current hot topic of discussion. Although it appears there's no dispute it's his, as with other matters on both him and TM I think it should stay out until and unless it's well established in RS it's significant to the case. For the same reason I'm not bothering to provide sources. Nil Einne (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd choice. http://www.google.com/search?q=myspace+zimmerman+mexican&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe= Andyvphil (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist, myself. I think that if someone hears that Z made racially charged slurs against Mexicans (pretty much a quote from the second Herald article, as I recall) he should at least, if he comes here, be able to find a link to some source of fact. Which in this case is that he was afraid of hitting one with his car because they tended to impinge on vehicle space -- I'm not sure if I'm to imagine rural hwy at dusk, or an urban sweatshop letting out (Manassas, VA?) -- and that he was afraid of them producing knives without provocation. Signs of paranoia is relevant, but it could just be that he was making an exaggerated extrapolation from real experience, for effect. He doesn't attribute the car denting, which he did not see, to Mexicans, so I think that there isn't much of a case for the media to renew his honorary membership in the KKK. Not that that stopped Crump, or the site that found the page ("proves he's a racist").Andyvphil (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Couple of research topics

(1) Timeline says Z was released from custody circa 10pm. I have myself seen this asserted. But on the stand at the bail hearing I believe both GZ and Bernie de la Whatsis agreed that he had been released after midnight. (2) NBC claims the 'identical' edit of Z's call was performed in Miami by separate groups of 'Today' and NBC6 individuals. So I sorted that out to agree with the source I had up. [5] But I know there were some web instances, as yet unmentioned, that were corrected w/out any acknowledgement that it had been done except update date. Anyone care to sort this out? Andyvphil (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ive seen midnight in many sources, never seen 10. The last thign I read on NBC6 is that they recieved the edited tape from the netwrok, and then wrote their own transcript based on that, and therefore were not aware of the audio edit. If there are additional stories saying they did audio editing, I have not seen them (but not saying they don't exist). In both cases, Im not sure it really matters. 10 vs 12 is not a big deal. re NBC, I think we have adequate coverage of that particular issue currently, and the additional detail is not necessary. This is not an article about "edit-gate" - although conceivably a fork could be considered for it if fallout continues (as per rathergate etc). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the media contribution to generating a lynch mob atmosphere, and the evidence of their degraded editorial process, is very much a thread that should be covered completely in this article, at whatever length is necessary to give it due weight. We still haven't covered the NBC6 web pages where the errors were corrected without aknowledgement, and there's now the separate inexcusable edit by NBC6's ex-Univision gal, now fired, to the same tendentious effect. Andyvphil (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman head photos

I've gone ahead and added the intensification of the surveillance photo of Zimmerman's head. [19] I haven't pursued the bloody photo from the scene as of yet - my point with this one was to explain the incongruity that the video, now used as evidence of his injuries, was reported originally as showing no damage at all. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you've got a handle on adding photos, how about getting the "orange jumpsuit" (maybe (sic), btw -- the 1st Herald article on the 2005 MySpace page says, I believe, that Z is seen there in a shirt that color!) and crimson sweatshirt young-TM shots into the "misleading press" section? And I'd really like to see the DailyGrind(?) image #11 (crop of #10 group of relatives picture) for TM's bio rather than the wierd-angled backseat shot (of him wearing grills? not clear.). Just weeks prior to his death, he looks young, handsome, tall, middle-class, gently smiling... really, just what I think his bio shot should be, best foot forward and all. (And Z should maybe get the smiley shot there -- the first non-perp one, how long did the media refuse to switch? (edit: Why are we still running with a perp shot, even if a less misleading one?) The grill(e)s shots belong in a different section, about press narrative arc and backlash. Andyvphil (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I've run, again across the shot of TM I'd like us to use on his bio. From GLOBALGrind, #11 here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-trayvon-martin-pictures-20120328,0,3247003.photogallery. The Orlando Sentinal uses the head shot from this a bit, now, and maybe that's what we need for our bio section. Andyvphil (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
@Andy : We have somewhat of a choice of photos of Trayvon, because he is dead, and so the fair use exemptions are a bit more flexible. However, I think there is going to be a great deal of difficulty getting consensus on many photos of him. For Zimmerman, the only photos we have that we can use at this point are the two mugshot photos, because they are free. All other photos of him are copyrighted. If someone wants to go to the courthouse and take a free photo of him, then that photo wins automatically pretty much, or if he releases on to the public (unlikely). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, smiley George in a suit WAS released by his family, exactly for the purpose of substitution for perp shots. So that excuse for our using a perp shot definately doesn't hold up. And if we've got wider latitude for TM, why not use the headshot from the photo I've pointed to? The backseat shot, with maybe grills, is tendentious, so we've got a fair use claim to use a better one. IMHO. Andyvphil (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

release for pr purposes and fair use for a newspaper is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, so the fact that his family released that photo is meaningless as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Wikipedia needs actual public domain or creative commons photos, which that photo is not. Tis is an area that you will find a lot of sympathy and agreement from mthe editors, but the rules and wide consensus on the fair use of photos or not is pretty clear within Wikipedia. If someone were to go to the courthouse and take a pic and release it to the public, then we can use that, and that would be an excellent assignment for the guy who posts here from Sanford.. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

NBC fires another reporter

This edit is pretty ridiculous, its not even just cutting out the dispatchers question, which could (really stretching it) be considered ok by just shortening the call. This other edit moved entire sections of the call around to make things sound bad.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/lilia-luciano-fired-misleading-edit_b125484

with 3 firings, and the amount of meta-coverage about the editing incident, it might be worth a mini-fork for "edit gate", (or possibly a broader "media and trayvon") article, so that we don't overwhelm the main article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe our current text has too many firings (partially mea culpa), and there were some unacknowledged NBC6 web page whiteouts of the misleading "quote", too. Andyvphil (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not 'mea culpa' when you allow deliberate alterations and splicing of sections be synthesized as a single response. If Lilia Luciano was responsible for that creative splicing to make things look bad, then NBC can do as they wish, including firing her. In contrast to what the previous edits, this is far more serious, we have a national broadcast of dialogue being taken out of context to vilify an individual. What's next, altering records of Obama so he gives a 'speech' on how he eats dogs? By willfully altering the data and splicing statements together it is not 'mea culpa'. This is just further evidence of the media's failures and should be cited as part of the controversy. Though as this matters to BLP, we should not make a deliberate example and conform to BLP standards by simply refering to the matter as 'So far three NBC...' and leave the names out of it. The fact action has been taken is more important then the individual's names. Cite the source, but let's avoid making direct 'shame on you' in the articles, NBC took the action, but it is not certain of whether or not they are actually 'guilty' of the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I read the "mea culpa" as adyvphil taking the blame for WP:UNDUE on the topic, not a characterization of NBC's apology/responsibility. I agree with saying "as a result 3 have been fired" tho, and not specifically naming names. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
My mea culpa was not for WP:UNDUE, but for doing a drive-by re-edit that corrected an obvious error of conflation at the cost of possibly multiplying the number of firings through double-counting. I believe I followed the source, and the pre-existing text to the extent that I did not know it to be in error, but was aware there might be a problem, and asked for help in my edit comment. At least that's the way I remember it. I'm still not up to speed on this particular media atrocity, or series of atrocities, but WP:UNDUE is the opposite of my concern. If we're down to only three firings, somebody must have obliged me, partially. Andyvphil (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good source for the network (not NBC6) side of editgate: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/4/02841/64439 . Andyvphil (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Orlando Sentinel: Zim reportedly says TM "circled" him

This article has a lot of new information that can be incorporated into the article: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-03/news/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-source-police-department Emeraldflames (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dunno that there's a lot of new info. The hand-over-mouth thing gives us some clue as to what the prosecution might have meant when they claimed at the bail hearing that Z's accounts of the event might have internal problems... but really all you have here is Crump to that effect. And it's not an impressive claim. Given the way Corey misrepresented Z's call on the APC I wouldn't put it past her to take some verbal ambiguity and say GZ was had said at one point that TM had his hand over GZ's mouth during the entirity of the conflict, but we'll see. And, "circled"? As in cowboys and indians? That's the tease, but more likely TM had to go around ("circle") GZ's vehicle to get to the left end of the "T", but there's no suggested explanation, just more journalistic malpractice. So, what do you think WE can use? (Apart from a more detailed timeline of the event.) Andyvphil (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and apart from the "circling" tease, the last paragraph is another probable turd from a "reliable source": Several audio experts who have analyzed the 911 tapes for the Sentinel and other news outlets have said they believe it is Trayvon's voice — not Zimmerman's — crying out for help. However, Gilbreath testified that similar identification attempts by law enforcement were fruitless. I don't think that happened. My memory is that Gilbreath didn't say that law enforcement had made any identification attempts, but instead merely mentioned the broadcast "experts". (Is two "several"?) He might have said that Z exiting his vehicle was inconsistent with fear, but I'd have to check the transcript. At this point I sure don't believe anything the O.S. says without independent confirmation. Andyvphil (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a couple points regarding the Orlando Sentinel article.

1) According to the article, Zimmerman saying he called for help is inconsistent with Zimmerman saying Martin covered his mouth. Why didn't the article mention that Zimmerman could have been calling for help during the part of the fight when his mouth wasn't covered?

2) From the article, "Several audio experts who have analyzed the 911 tapes for the Sentinel and other news outlets have said they believe it is Trayvon's voice — not Zimmerman's — crying out for help. However, Gilbreath testified that similar identification attempts by law enforcement were fruitless."

Actually, Gilbreath testified that the Sentinel's analysis of the tapes did not give him any insight about who was crying out for help.[20]

O'MARA: Witnesses heard people arguing, sounded like a struggle. During this time, witnesses heard numerous calls for help. Some of this was recorded. Trayvon's mom reviewed the 911 calls and identified the cry for help and Trayvon Martin's voice. Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?

GILBREATH: Did I?

O'MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?

GILBREATH: The "Orlando Sentinel" had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.

O'MARA: Is that part of your investigation?

GILBREATH: Yes.

O'MARA: Has that given any insight as to the voice?

GILBREATH: No.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I stand substantially corrected. The FBI isn't "attempts", but that's quibbling. Andyvphil (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't the point, but rather that the Sentinel's analysis wasn't useful according to Gilbreath, which is different than the Sentinel article's characterization of Gilbreath's testimony. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Revewed the transcript you pointed to (#2), and #3 as well. Nothing about G saying Z leaving his vehicle being inconsistent with expressesd fear. On the other hand, the CNN analyst mentions a judge inquiry about gunpowder marks on TM that isn't in the transcript. Could have happened during a commercial break, I suppose. Andyvphil (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, those commercial breaks prevented me from saying anything about the circling not being in the testimony too. It might have been in a commercial break.
There was a #3 transcript? I wasn't aware of that and would appreciate it if you could give the link. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Same link you gave me, just changed "02" to "03" in the url. Bet "01" works too. Andyvphil (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it sure does. I got the first two parts of the telecast from the two links indicated as "George Zimmerman Bond Hearing" that are on the webpage http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2012.04.20.html . I didn't realize that on that page the link following these two bond hearing links was also part of the bond hearing. That third one, "Marco Rubio...", is your #3. FYI, we might be able to get any available CNN transcript by modifying the date in the url to the date that the telecast occurred. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's attorney sets up a Twitter account, Facebook page & website

http://usat.ly/JYMTHj Intrepid (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this merits inclusion, this is highly unusual for a defense lawyer in a high profile case to turn to social media sites, I would daresay it's probably never been done on a level like this. Having said that, maybe we should exercise caution and give it a couple of days to see if it backfires on them.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The official page on Facebook for information about the George Zimmerman Legal Case, administered by the Mark O'Mara Law Group https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase Intrepid (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The official George Zimmerman Website & Defense Fund, administered by the Mark O'Mara Law Group http://gzlegalcase.com Intrepid (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added this info to Section 1.6 George Zimmerman's attorneys. Intrepid (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources for criticism of affidavit

I'd like to discuss this one-sentence paragraph. The sourcing, to put it bluntly, sucks. First of all, this article deals extensively with living and recently deceased people and is thus subject to WP:BLP. There is no way that sourcing meets the bar in WP:BLP.

Even if one makes a dubious technical argument that the one paragraph in question is devoid of BLP ramifications, these sources largely fail even our general sourcing guidelines. This is a high-profile case where good sources abound. It's unclear to me why we're insisting on including this material without appropriate sources. The sentence also suffers from citation overkill, under the apparent (but mistaken) assumption that 7 low-quality sources are better than 1 low-quality source. MastCell Talk 18:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to use any of these refs?
--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of answering a question with a question: do you believe those meet this site's bar for sourcing?

The first and last sources support the claim that a single commentator (Alan Dershowitz) criticized the indictment. The Star Tribune is a good source (although its content still needs to be more accurately reflected as conveying Dershowitz's opinion); Mediaite is a poor, marginal source.

As to the National Review article, I question the current heavy reliance on partisan media in this article, and would prefer not to add to it. If that source is used, it should again be clear that it reflects the view of a single person, John Lott, who happens to be an outspoken believer in "defensive" gun use. MastCell Talk 21:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

First, let's address your question, "At the risk of answering a question with a question: do you believe those meet this site's bar for sourcing?" — Yes. If there is anything in policy that you would like to quote that says otherwise, I'd be interested in having you post the excerpt here, so we can look at it carefully. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You've answered my question. I explained my concerns about the sources above. Briefly, the Star Tribune is a good source, but the opinion expressed therein needs to be clearly attributed to Dershowitz, since he is the only apparent critic in that article. The other two sources are suboptimal; one is a partisan source (which are best avoided and already over-represented in the article), while the other is a blog. I'd be fine with the Star Tribune source, properly presented, but I'm going to register another objection to the current sourcing, which doesn't meet WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 00:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

this archived discussion has several more sources in this vein (including nytimes, fox, etc) , as well as some proposed text. Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_6#Article_still_missing_entire_.22other_side.22 Gaijin42 (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell, Frankly, your criticisms of the sources don't have much substance, especially since you have declined to use Wikipedia policy as requested. Your criticism of Lott as being too far right is refuted by his basic agreement with Dershowitz who is left. And blogs aren't prohibited by policy, only readers' responses to the blogs. And in this particular case, the Mediaite article gives the video of the original MSNBC telecast that it is reporting on, so its comments can be easily checked by the reader. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Blogs are clearly dis-prefered to reliable secondary sources, which there are plenty of. No reason to go to a blog for this. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
In this case, it seems that the only difference between the article in this blog and a non-blog article is that readers have a chance to respond to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
There are better sources available, and many of them. (see the archived link I included above). Why use a contentious source that there is dispute over? If you really want to mandate inclusion of this particular source take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and get a wider consensus on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) time, date (UTC)
BTW, it appears it isn't a blog. From the beginning of Blog,
"A blog (a portmanteau of the term web log)[6] is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order so the most recent post appears first. Blogs are usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group, and often are themed on a single subject."
And to answer your question of why use it if its use is contentious here, we don't have to. It contains a video of the original Dershowitz interview, which I think is useful. Also, I don't like the idea of suppressing the use of a source for fallacious reasons, which is not good for Wikipedia in general. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

why not just link directly to the MSNBC copy of the dershowitz video? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Even better, why not use the best available sources? Are we looking for the best sources we can find, or just for sources that agree with our viewpoint and barely slip past the lowest bar of adequacy? To be clear, I don't have a problem with citing Dershowitz's opinion as notable. I do have a problem with the ever-increasing reliance on partisan sources (hence my objection to the National Review opinion piece by a gun-rights advocate). And does anyone except me care that the clearly unacceptable sources have once again been reinserted, this time by an editor who hasn't even bothered to comment here ([21])? I'm not going to edit-war over it, but the editing behavior on display here is sub-optimal on a number of levels. MastCell Talk 16:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you in practice (for this particular example at least), but in principle the logic you just used would remove most of the sources used in the article. (Anyone think you really couldn't legitimately describe MSNBC, NBC, and CNN etc as liberal and gun-control advocates?) That the sources themselves have bias is just something we have to deal with, and cannot really avoid Gaijin42 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
MSNBC is partisan in the same sense that Fox News is partisan, and both are ideally avoided but potentially useable. On the other hand, NBC and CNN are reliable sources by this site's criteria. NBC and CNN are not "partisan sources", not in the sense of the National Review or Newsbusters or the dozens of other conservative opinion sites upon which this article is currently largely based. I completely reject that as false equivalence, and I'd be happy to take it up at the relevant noticeboards if you're intending that as a serious line of argument as opposed to playing devil's advocate. MastCell Talk 18:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Mastcell, Re your comment, "reliable sources by this site's criteria" — It would help if you gave the excerpt here from policy regarding "criteria". So far it looks like it's only your criteria. BTW, I've asked this before and if you ignore it again, well....let's say it's better to progress towards cooperation than confrontation. (Just realized that's kind of ironic considering the topic of the article.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The criteria in question are described in the verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline, with stricter criteria in WP:BLP. They boil down to a preference for sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

Blogs are deprecated but not categorically forbidden: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources... Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." The last bit makes clear a preference for higher-quality sources over blogs.

I'm not going to argue about the semantics of the word "blog", but will say only that Mediaite describes itself as "Huffington Post meets Gawker", and as a blog (if you Google "mediaite", the site's self-description reads: "Mediaite is a news and opinion blog and aggregator for the media industry.") Mediaite's disclaimer notes: "The information set forth herein may not necessarily be accurate or current", which is basically an abdication of the responsibility for fact-checking and accuracy set forth in our policies.

More to the point, I'm still at a loss for why there is such vehement resistance to the idea of trying to use high-quality sources. The crappy sources and blogs are still in the article, and instead of trying to improve the quality of sourcing, we're arguing about the dictionary definition of the word "blog", which is disheartening. MastCell Talk 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There are blogs and then there are blogs. I notice that some of the legal blogs being used here as references have been awarded by the liberal American Bar Association as "top 100" (or was it "top 10"?) legal blogs. Presumably this counts for something—perhaps that the attorneys commenting there are thoughtful and know something about the law they're discussing. --Kenatipo speak! 01:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It also occurs to me that we're not talking about facts here, we're talking about the opinions of lawyers. Does it make that much difference where the opinion was recorded as long as we indicate that it's an opinion? --Kenatipo speak! 02:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Many legal experts have criticized the affidavit of probable cause that was used to obtain the indictment of Zimmerman as legally deficient." As I noted in my edit summary, there is no possible BLP vio in this text. And that it is factual is demonstrated by the sources I've extracted from the original source, to a blog, provided by the original editor. And I might have added one or two. Anyway, it's basically unanimous, from left to right, that the affadavit is a POS. (The only purported analysis, by anyone with -any- claim to expertise, that disagrees, that I'm aware of, is by David French at NRO.) The main reason you don't want to stop with Dersh is that, while he's absolutely right in the Hardball interview that the Affadavit of Probable Cause doesn't begin to allege the elements of an actual crime (right, except that he thought it would be tossed out by a good judge, while in actual fact the criminal process in Fla is so degraded that the constitutionally-required first hearing is so strictly pro-forma that it's not unusual for Judge Herr to have ruled that the POS was perfectly OK just a minute after announcing that he'd just received it), his analysis in that venue (a TV show) is necessarily much inferior to what is available at, particularly, talkleft and emptywheel, but also practically every other written source. Mastcell prefers NBC ("he's black!"), CNN ("coons!"), ABC ("No visible injuries!") and all the media that kept Z in a perp suit for months. Welcome to WikiWorld ("Eeek! A blog! BLP! BLP!"). Andyvphil (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do prefer NBC, CNN, and ABC to random partisan blogs, but that's a preference solidly based on this site's guidelines and policies. I don't think you can dodge the issue by personalizing it. Gaijin42 recognizes, as I do, that "blogs are clearly dis-prefered to reliable secondary sources, which there are plenty of. No reason to go to a blog for this." In any case, I've asked for additional input from the reliable sources noticeboard, since I don't feel this discussion going in a productive or policy-based direction. MastCell Talk 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Mastcell, Thanks for the policy excerpts. Are there any excerpts from policy that support your objection to the Lott article in National Review? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to chime in here, sometimes blogs are a reliable source if something relates to them in a particular fashion. Such as Newsbusters reporting the NBC 'editgate', something noticed by Newsbuster and posted by Newsbusters is a better source then Fox News reporting Newsbusters's post. Anyone can spout policy, but a certain matter is always relevant, the source. If 'John Smith' says 'X' then we should use 'John Smith says X' as a source, we should not play hippy-hop with 'Fox News reports John Smith says X'. Acknowledgment and mirroring of a material by a source someone deems reliable is not preferable to the actual source of the information. In this case Fox News would be affirming the matter, not creating it. Another example would be to look in an Encyclopedia for the definition of 'Widgets' and that encyclopedia states 'According to <name> dictionary, Widgets are...' if you have that dictionary you should use that dictionary as the source. Just because someone mirrors or refers to it (the referee being a 'reliable source') should not trump the original source of the information. This is how that 'Neo-nazi's patrolling Sanford' got started, it was entirely false from a blog yet it went to the Washington Post and ABC blindly reporting the matter as true when it was false. Playing 'telephone' with sources is no excuse not to correctly attribute and definitively acknowledge a source. This is done for quotes, why is their push back on entire stories? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I'd like to get the phantom nazis story into the section on media insanity, whatever we call it. Andyvphil (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Media bias and malpractice

WP is accusing the media of malpractice now, seriously?? I have not seen any RS reporting any media outlet of committing malpractice in their coverage of this case. This seems to be a POV driven agenda accusing the media of malpractice without any RS to back up that section title. Furthermore, the CNN coverage of the "alleged" racial slur and the ABC surveillance video have been moved to this section as well. I do not see any RS referenced in this section indicating that CNN or ABC was biased or committed malpractice when covering these events, or any reference sourced indicating that NBC committed malpractice or that the old photos being used at the time were malpractice. If an editor wants to make a serious claim such as malpractice, then they should back that claim up with a RS, instead of pushing their POV agenda in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest another title for the section? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Was there something wrong with the previous title?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I changed the title. But if consensus forms for a new one, do not object to it moving to that. Just agreed it was obvious the "malpractice" title was pov. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I still object to CNN and ABC being included in this section without a RS referenced indicating their coverage of these incidents were "alleged to have been biased" as the section title indicates and the sub-section titles "against CNN" and "against ABC". Who is alleging that CNN and ABC were biased in their coverage, a RS or an editor? I can understand NBC being here as they edited a tape and there was widespread coverage on the "editgate", but I disagree with CNN and ABC being represented as being biased without a RS to back that claim up, the Daily Caller who first enhanced the video and called ABC out on it, didn't allege their reporting was biased.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, it's a matter of the title "Allegations of media bias", which is the only place there where the word "bias" appears. Would the title "Allegations of misleading reports" work for you? If not, what would you suggest for the title? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
My issue is that we have a section title indicating that there were allegations, whether it be bias or misleading, who is alleging this conduct by the media, WP or a RS. Like I stated earlier, I can understand NBC, as it was widely reported on about it being misleading. My suggestion would be to remove the section title of "allegaions of media bias", and leave "Initial coverage", remove "against CNN" and leave it under the sub-section title of "Reporting on Zimmerman call to dispatcher" and remove "against ABC" and leave sub-section title of "surveillance video". NBC can remain the same as it is. Just a suggestion for neutrality.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Re "My issue is that we have a section title indicating that there were allegations, whether it be bias or misleading, who is alleging this conduct by the media, WP or a RS." — "Allegations" seems to be a reasonable description of the articles. I changed from "bias" to "misleading reports" since I think you are right regarding "bias", which goes beyond being misleading. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the "allegations" altogether since there is no RS indicating there were any allegations that their reporting was "misleading". I left the section title of "Initial coverage" and deleted "against CNN" and "against ABC" and left their sub-section titles. I left NBC the same. The reader can decide if their reporting was misleading or biased, we should retain a NPOV when naming section titles.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the edit you made. It doesn't seem quite right, but I'll think about it some more. Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The opinion that media bias and malpractice, akin to the Duke Lacrosse case, has been on obvious display is both widespread and accurate. Denying that the accusations exist is simply insane. E.g., http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/media-malpractice_636993.html, and many others. Andyvphil (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but caution against using the term malpractice, a term which has meaning in the legal and medical communities, but not in the media. The First Amendment essentially gives the media wide latitude to botch the story, provided they don't run afoul of libel laws. The source you cite is using the word figuratively, which might not be apparent to all readers. Fletcher (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that malpractice is a widely understood term of art. It should stay out. The structure of the article needs to be assessed as well. Just removing keywords, ie: media bias, doesn't address all the possible POV issues. Care needs to be taken to not coatrack in Media bias in the US. I need to think about this more...ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree the term is used figuratively in that article and just because it is that guy's opinion doesn't mean that it should be WP's opinion. I don't see anything insane in retaining a NPOV. We let the reader decide if the media was biased or misleading and don't try and push a POV agenda.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
You've been editing this article for a while. I can't believe that you haven't noticed that the media has taken some criticism for accepting and running with Crump's story that a racist perp chased down and executed baby Trayvon, and that the criticism is very much that the media has been biased. Nobody is saying that Wikipedia has to agree that the coverage has been biased but there is something pretty putrid going on in WikiWorld if we can't take notice of what's in front of our nose. NPOV isn't ignoring the existance of POVs you don't like. Andyvphil (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
What you say is going on in front of our noses, has been ongoing now for decades. This is nothing new, the news media was turned into opinion driven agendas a long time ago, my friend. You can call it biased, misleading, malpractice or whatever you want, but we shouldn't take that approach in an encyclopedia format. Our agenda is to take what the RS are reporting on and deliver it to the reader in a NPOV, without taking sides. We let the readers decide for themselves if the media is biased or misleading in their reporting. There is no doubt in my mind that the initial coverage of this shooting helped form a perception of Zimmerman and Martin, and there are still those who are "looking for the big scoop". I just don't think it is necessary for us to include every single instance of their opinionated agendas. We acknowledge it and move on.
As far as Crump/Sharpton are concerned, I advocated early on about including their role in this media frenzy that enveloped the country. Crump knew from the very begining about Trayvon's suspension's but yet he let the media "dig" it up, so they could feign outrage about it, Tracy Martin knew that Trayvon had attacked Zimmerman days after the shooting because police had told him, but yet this information was "divulged" by the media as well. Crump has orchestrated the flow of information as he sees fit and then plans press conferences to bloviate about how every little detail they report on "blows Zimmerman's account of events out of the water". Now, having said all that, it is important to remember this is all WP:OR and highly speculative to say the least and will never make it's way into this article due to the inflammatory nature of it, but yeah, I'm not blind, just merely prudent.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
"We acknowledge it"? Where? Maybe I missed it. Or do you mean here, out of sight of the unwashed masses? Andyvphil (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Luckily, we, the editors of Wikipedia, don't have to accuse the media of anything. We have the media itself to do that for us. There are widespread reliable sources that talk about the bias that was exceptionally prevalent in this incident, and it is in fact absurdly obvious to anyone who is even half awake. HOWEVER, despite it being obvious, the way in which we characterize the bias is still something that we must return to reliable secondary sources to provide analysis. By the way, the word 'malpractice' discussed above is completely inappropriate in the context of news media. -- Avanu (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: we already have someone from the Washington Post describing the NBC edits as "high editorial malpractice" — see the section "Misleading edit". --Kenatipo speak! 03:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, use of the word 'malpractice' is not limited to the legal and medical professions. Look it up at merriam-webster.com. --Kenatipo speak! 03:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, and many words can be used in non-normative ways. You usually see it in the papers of high school kids who don't know how to write and pull out a thesaurus in an attempt to sound smart. You might notice that in the article on Yellow journalism, we don't see the word 'malpractice' one time. A word like malpractice in relation to something so subjective as news coverage is that it often doesn't clearly fit. Sure, some action might have been biased, or unethical, but did it rise to the level of 'malpractice'? In the United States, we're pretty much free to say almost anything unless we start making threats of violence. So while I think it was fine for the Washington Post to use the term "high editorial malpractice", after all, writing gets boring unless you color it with interesting phrases, its not a responsible section header for Wikipedia unless the term comes into common use, and it hasn't. (And by the way, in that Merriam Webster definition, the initial definition even mentions a physician as an example, but nothing else.) -- Avanu (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Avanu, you are simply mistaken. The term is in common use and has been for years. There's even a movie with the title Media Malpractice. If it's an accusation to say that the media are guilty of malpractice and bias in covering this incident, then it's an accusation to say that water is wet. --Kenatipo speak! 02:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit "cleanup and clarification"

In part of a recent edit of Isaidnoway,[22] there was the change from,

"considered Martin's behavior suspicious because he was walking between the townhomes rather than on the street or sidewalk"

to

"thought that it was suspicious that someone was walking by the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk".

What does the source(s) say regarding "walking between the townhomes" vs. "walking by the town homes"? Please give excerpt. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quote from Zimmerman's father: “Because there had been a lot of break-ins in the area, he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk, but they'd be walking right behind the townhomes.” There is a common walkway 'behind' and between the townhomes where the incident took place, however, so the way it's written now might mislead those that aren't yet familiar with the layout to think that Martin was walking somewhere unusual. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Both versions could be improved on. BTW, I incorrectly understood the "between" version to mean between individual houses. Maybe we should quote the source's phrase "right behind the townhomes". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
[Edited for clarification on source] Sorry about that, it is my fault, I forgot to change the reference from MSNBC to MyFox Tampay Bay Orlando who originally did the interview with Robert Zimmerman. Here is the actual quote he gave to FOX 35. "he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk. That he'd be walking between the town homes." I have no idea why MSNBC or FoxTampaBay changed the quote, so I went with the original source instead of a secondary. I deleted MSNBC and added myfoxorlando. Here's the actual interview. [23] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I listened to the video at the link you provided, and it corroborated the quote in the msnbc article mentioned above, i.e. "right behind the townhomes". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to clarify the situation some more.
  • In the Fox video at 00:32, Robert Zimmerman says, "Because there had been a lot of break-ins in the area, he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk, but they'd be walking right behind the townhomes."[24]
  • In the text of the Fox Orlando article which has the video, it does not directly quote Robert Zimmerman but there is the text,
Because there has been a lot of break-ins in the area, Robert said George thought it suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk on a rainy night -- that Martin would be walking between the town homes.
Robert Zimmerman did not say, "between the town names".
  • In the text of the msnbc article, the correct quote of Robert Zimmerman from the Fox video is given, "Because there had been a lot of break-ins in the area, he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk, but they'd be walking right behind the townhomes."[25]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
So, what do you think, between, behind or by, which one do you think? Do you think readers would watch the interview or will they just read the text. Either one is fine with me and I think technically both are an accurate description of the area where he was walking.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I changed to "behind" etc.[26] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

mary cutcher's rambling

She has repeatedly given two different accounts to the media -- one where she claims the first time she sees zimmerman he is straddling the body of trayvon, and then other times she says the first time sge sees him he is pacing near the body stadning up obviously. They can't both be correct. This article here claims BOTH in the very same article, almost trying to explain her own schizophrenic version of events. either we remove the straddling claim or add "at other times she stated that he was pacing blah blah, whatever". She's also said she was coming out of the house, and others where she was not. She seems to change her story constatnly. She also says "after she heard the shot blah, blah" but other times claimed she heard two shots. It doesn't suprise me the police have said her current claims are inconsistent with her sworn testimony to the police: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/04/witnesses_mary_cutcher_and_selma_mora_offer_their_account_of_what_happened_the_night_trayvon_martin_died_.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How about the fact she never saw what happened? I mean seriously, its on the 911 tape. Last time I tried to deal with the matter wasn't pretty, but yes, it is an obvious contradiction and obviously contradicts the 911 call. Thus far she has given three different accounts on record, and probably a fourth on the undisclosed police report. Deal with it if you can, but I don't want to quibble over details, her accounts, as self contradictory as they are, probably will end up staying. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2013

The sentence in the first paragraph, "George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American,[Note 1] was the appointed neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martin was temporarily staying and where the shooting took place.", should be rewritten to say that Zimmerman was the "self-appointed" neighborhood watch coordinator.......

Mackaroni (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done He was not self appointed. He was the only volunteer, but he was selected through the normal neighborhood watch program, and was officially recognized as the coordinator. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
See this story (which was used in a ref in our article, specifically about his watch status) : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/trayvon-martin-death-spotlights-neighborhood-watch-groups.html?_r=2& Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

News on SYG hearing and on Witness 8 (Trayvon's friend)

Here are a couple of developments that should be worked into the article somehow, it would seem. News reports today say that the defense has passed on the SYG hearing, and that it also presented evidence that Witness 8 (the friend on the phone with him that night) lied under oath, as she did not miss going to his wake and funeral because she was at the hospital, as she had testified.

Zimmerman self-defense hearing no longer in April Psalm84 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Per your source "However, he did not say that Zimmerman, 29, was waiving his right to an immunity hearing, explaining that they may choose to wrap such a hearing into the trial or pursue one separately." So it is just a rescheduling of the trial so far. Not sure that is worth inclusion at this point, per our consensus to use a higher level of summary. The stuff about witness 8 might be included in the "Witnesses" section in her paragraph, but I think we should avoid it in the pre-trial section until it actually has an effect on her not testifying, or her testimony being questioned. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Also per this source provided above, it says there was the possibility and may have lied about her whereabouts. It doesn't sound like it was definitive that anything was proven yet, but it sure looks like they may, which would definetely be worth inclusion. I agree we could wait a little bit longer and see what develops with the SYG hearing and/or trial date.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
There are better articles [27]. "Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, the state's most important witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie, it was revealed Tuesday.... prosecutors had to publicly acknowledge that their star witness had lied under oath and had to answer questions about what they intend to do about it. Whatzinaname (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
But what she lied about is currently not in the article. Her paragraph in the witness section only details the conversation she had with Martin the night of the shooting, and the source referenced above says "there is no indication the woman lied about what she heard on the phone the evening Trayvon was shot". We don't mention anywhere that she said she was in the hospital at the time of the wake/funeral. This piece of info would have to be added to put what she lied about in context. I'm thinking that maybe we should break witness #8 (the girlfriend/friend) into a sub-section under the witness section. She's a pretty important witness for the prosecution and I think there will be even more developments concerning this witness and her credibility.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

long term i agree, she will probably need her own section. Also agreed that this is basically a credibility issue, especially when combined with her previous issue of misstating her age. We have similar "not directly relevant to the case, but raises credibility issues" content on Zimmerman, so I guess we have a precedent for it. Also, this is getting more coverage and buzz than I had originally expected. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Both of these developments do seem to merit mention in the article. The SYG hearing, which the article says in the lead will begin April 22, has been bypassed. One article says that Zimmerman might have the hearing within his trial, but the April hearing will not happen. The NY Times article says this:

George Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin, is all but certain to take his case directly to a jury on June 10 and skip a highly anticipated pretrial self-defense hearing, his lawyer said Tuesday.

And on the Witness 8 development, that's a major development. She is the prosecution's chief witness. It might be enough to say that in some parts of her sworn testimony, not related to the actual shooting, it's now been shown that she lied. CNN has an article on this: Chief witness in Trayvon Martin case lied under oath.Psalm84 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Im convicinced that the Witness 8 thing is notable enough for inclusion now, as the story is widely repeated, along with the analysis of it possibly affecting the witness credibility. Regarding SYG, all of the sources specifically mention that the SYG defense could still be reaised at trial, so this is just a timing issue imo. At most it merits a one sentence inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the latest edit concerning witness #8 attributed to The Daily Caller is the best way to include this, some context needs to be provided to let the reader know that in her initial sworn deposition, she made the statement about being in the hospital. I think one sentence would suffice for the SYG hearing as well, as the trial gets closer, we are going to see alot more of these hearings beforehand and I don't think a blow by blow detail is needed again.
I can't believe CNN headlined their article "chief witness", there is no prosecutor in the world that would rely on this girl as their chief witness, they used her in the affidavit to advance their theory of Zimmerman "following Martin", but when they found out she had lied and has credibility issues, I'd be surprised if they even call her as a witness.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The hospital claim was also made by Crump per the CNN transcript I just referenced, when she was first brought to light, which is probably why she later testified about that, to try and keep that story consistent. WP:FORUM forthcoming. The big question in my mind is why lie about it at all? Is there some reason she didn't go to the wake that would be better off not said? (she wasn't really a girlfriend? She had been told to stay away? Other girlfriends etc?) Some of the more conspiracy minded sites out there have made claims that maybe the person on the phone (who said they were 16) was not the same person that showed up for later depositions. (Either through intentional subterfuge, or there are just 2 different girls involved that are being confused by lawers/media). no matter what the actual situation is, it seems like just a huge unforced error whoever lied or got the story screwed up. Also, I just listened to the recordings of her with crump, and 1) they are horrible quality and 2) she makes a horrible witness.
Without her as a witness though, they are down to just the 911 call, which is ambiguous as to how long zimmerman did attempt to follow, and cuts off significantly before the fight. If they don't have any further evidence to bring, this is just a huge waste of time and money, but I could see them going through the motions just to avoid public outrage of dropped charges. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

social media subpoena ordered

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-trayvon-twitter-facebook-20130306,0,822138.story Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Allegations against Zimmerman: biased and confusing paragraph

Zimmerman was accused of being motivated by racism[3][184] and of having racially profiled Martin.[3][144][327][355] During early media coverage of the incident, Zimmerman's call to the police dispatcher was edited by NBC, shortened such that it appeared that Zimmerman had volunteered Martin's race. The unedited audio recording proved that the police dispatcher specifically asked about Martin's race, and only then did Zimmerman reveal that Martin was black. NBC apologized for the misleading edit and disciplined those involved.[356]

The way the paragraph is written (opening statement and illustration) suggests the call to the police dispatcher is the reason why Zimmerman was accused of having racially profiled Martin, implying therefore a misleading by NBC of this accusation. This is a biased and confusing paragraph. This article sets as part of background of the shooting: On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burglarized. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest.

This enlightens a reason why Martin was assumed to be a burglar by Zimmerman based on his race and appearance (young black man) and another reason why Zimmerman was accused of racial profiling and this reason is not related to NBC tape. Shouldn't this be added to the paragraph so it doesn't seem as if NBC holds the foundation,accuracy,strenght and credibility of the allegations against Zimmerman? Just for a more neutral writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.108.227 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

While your supposition regarding Zimmerman's motivations is logical, it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is no misdirection regarding NBC, everything is 100% factual and sourced. how those facts are interpreted is up to each reader. Zimmerman did call. He was specifically asked race before he said the race. NBC edited out the question, along with a bunch of other spin that increased the racism angle of the story. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You post MISLEADING/FALSE comment on Witness 8

You misleading wrote:

On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that Martin's girlfriend had lied under oath, when she falsely testified that she had been in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral."

Yet, the fact is, the only "lawyers" using the word "lied" is Zimmerman's lawyers. The source you use makes the claim:

"prosecutors acknowledged that their star witness, the 19-year old former girlfriend of the late Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, lied under oath."

But your source has no source for any Prosecutor actually saying witness 8 "lied."

Factually speaking, the Prosecutor has used the word, "mislead" - not the word "lie."

Legally, there is a huge difference between "misleading" and "lying" which might explain why the Prosecutors have NOT said, nor admitted that Witness 8 lied. Legally, misleading is not perjury but lying is perjury.

I find interesting that no other "outlets" making the claim that the "Prosecutor" said she "lied" are extreme rightwinged blogs, like the Daily Caller and Breitbart.

If YOU cannot find a direct quote from the Prosecutor actually saying Witness 8 "lied" then this wiki blog is even less credible than I originally thought.

To date, the Prosecutor has only said Witness 8 gave a "MISLEADING" comment - which explains why Witness 8 has not been charged with perjury.

Interesting that you use wiki to push unfounded comments from rightwinged blogs. Something tells me wiki was not set up to be used a tool of propaganda from rigthtwinged blogs or leftwinged blogs- but - whatever. Betsyrossmadison (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have specific suggestions on how to improve the article, then you are welcome to make that suggestion[s], but leave your personal opinions out of the dialogue. Making demands for an edit and your diatribe is not helpful in editing this or any Wikipedia article. Thank you.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, My specific suggestion, as is indicated in my comment is that you use facts as opposed to false, untruths and misleading information riddled in your wiki page here. Anything less makes this wiki blog of your have zero credibility.

You do NOT have a direct quote from the Prosecutor "admitting" witness 8 "lied" and neither does the rightwinged blog you use as your source.

FACT: 1) Prosecutors did NOT "admit" that Witness 8 "lied" -- and it is deceitful to make that false claim.

2) You do NOT provide a direct quote from the Prosecutor "admitting" witness 8 "lied" when you falsely claim "On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that Martin's girlfriend had lied under oath -- all you have is some rightwinged blog as a source.

3) Archives from Orlando Sentinel show that the only lawyers saying witness 8 a "lied" are Zimmerman's lawyers.

You tell me that making "demands" for honesty and truth in this wiki blog of yours is not helpful and you say my "diatribes" are not helpful. I have no "diatribes" I am engaged in outlining your misleading information.

Isaidnoway, What is not helpful is your wiki blog, here, filled with false information and misleading information -- your wiki blog helps no one when it is riddled with misleading, false information. If your goal is to "help" Zimmerman, it won't as the Jury will not be reading your wiki blog during Zimmerman's murder trial. If your goal is to get out truth then you have some mistakes to correct. Betsyrossmadison (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated above, if you have an edit request to make, then just request an edit outlining how your suggestion would improve the article. As you seem to be unfamiliar with the policies and guidelines here at WP, here are some articles you may wish to read and some more information on how to interact with other editors on the talk page: WP:CIV, WP:RS, WP:EDIT, WP:TALK, WP:NOTFORUM. I have added two other references to the witness 8 sub-section from CNN and Orlando Sentinel.
The CNN reference states:
The state's chief witness in the Trayvon Martin murder case lied under oath, prosecutors say. The young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin when he encountered George Zimmerman lied about her whereabouts at another time, the prosecution told a judge Tuesday.
The Orlando Sentinel states:
They had to publicly acknowledge that their star witness had lied under oath and had to answer questions about what they intend to do about it.
We include what the reliable sources have said about this matter and that is what is reflected in the article. If the "prosecution told a judge" and "they had to publicly acknowledge it", then we are correct in saying that "they admitted it".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys try to keep it civil WP:Civil be kind to one another... If you want to establish a consensus For the article try WP:RFC --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I left a message on their talk page, and removed some of the very annoying double breaks above. I don't normally watch this page, so ping me if there is some issue with my reformatting. In the future please use paragraphs and no double breaks. Otherwise, someone will just hat the whole thing, and I really couldn't blame them. You might try reading WP:TLDR for your own benefit Betsy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Camrone11598 - wow dude! you are very disingenuous. Wait, no I mean you are EXTREMELY disingenuous.

Your CNN quote is not a quote from the Prosecutor. (nice try)

Your Orlando Sentimental quote is NOT a quote from the Prosecutor either (nice try)

Camron, betsyross was saying you have no direct quote from the Prosecutor to support the wiki page comment: "On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that Martin's girlfriend had lied under oath"

And neither one of your sources support the wiki page quote because neither of your sources are quoting the Prosecutor. Plus, neither of your source say that Prosecutors "admitted" witness 8 "lied." I don't man, seems like you might have an agenda.

I read your CNN and OSent source, and betsyross is correct when she wrote "the only lawyers saying witness 8 lied are Zimmerman's lawyers." Because in your sources the only lawyers who call witness 8 a liar are Zimmerman's and not the Prosecutor.

In my opinion, as a bystander, bestyross is correct and you with your disingenuous reply here, it is as if you even know bestyross is correct but you wanted to deflect and make it appear as if CNN and OSent had the Prosecutor saying those things when neither CNN nor OSent did any such thing.

If you cannot find a direct quote from the Prosecutor "admitting" witness 8 "lied" then the wiki page is wrong and that wiki page really does lose credibility. Seems some people on here really do not care about being honest when they falsely attribute quotes to people who never said what the false quote claims they said. Letskeepemhonest (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

First, let my preface my reply with that Camrone11598 did not write that reply, I did. And you and Betsyrossmadison seem to be unfamiliar with the way a Wikipedia article is edited, like I stated above, we include what the reliable sources have said about this matter and that is what is reflected in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

To - Isaidnoway You wrote - "We include what the reliable sources have said about this matter and that is what is reflected in the article. If the "prosecution told a judge" and "they had to publicly acknowledge it", then we are correct in saying that "they admitted it"", then we are correct in saying that "they admitted it" ... HA HA HA ... I am sorry to laugh at your comment there but no where in the sources you use do the Prosecutors "admit it".

From your sources, the Prosecutors never "admit" witness 8 "lied"

From your sources, Zimmerman's lawyers are the only ones quoted as saying witness 8 "lied."

"In fact, she lied," Defense attorney Don West said.

You don't even quote what the Prosecutor told the judge - (sigh) Hey, it isn't any skin off my nose if you want to have a wiki page that is low on the credibility stage, it's your deal.Letskeepemhonest (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know how to make this any clearer to you. Wikipedia is not saying the prosecutors admitted she lied, we are saying that the reliable sources reported that. CNN said specifically that: The young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin when he encountered George Zimmerman lied about her whereabouts at another time, the prosecution told a judge Tuesday. So, the reliable source is saying that the prosecution told (admitted) to the judge that she (witness 8) lied about her whereabouts. You can parse the language all you want, try to discredit CNN as a reliable source, squawk about agendas, but I believe the way it is written is compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for paraphrasing what a reliable source has reported. If you are unhappy with the language, you can always open up a WP:RFC and see what other WP editors think, or try to gather a consensus to change the wording.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Letskeepemhonest, I wasn't the one that wrote the CNN thing, I was just reminding every one to keep it Civil and to Assume Good Faith --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, Hey glad you were pinged over my double spacing. I really did not know that double spacing on the talk page was so frowned upon. Thanks for enlightening me.
I understand now, Editor-man, loud and clear,
on wiki facts are not important
on wiki providing false, misleading info is cool
on wiki doubling spacing is taboo
... I got it- thanks for the insight.
Oh, Editor-man, one more thing, I took a screen shot of this talk page with your admonishment to me on my use of double spacing while you completely ignored the false, misleading information your wiki minions produce. I did that so I can show our students exactly why it is we do not, under any circumstances, allow wiki to be used as a source of information. You know, wiki where facts are just not important - but double spacing is taboo.

Betsyrossmadison (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If I read your statement correctly ("our students"), Betsyrossmadison, I gather that you actually teach someone. Truly horrifying given the borderline illiteracy and, especially, the breaks in logic that characterize your writing. Apostle12 (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • In the first message of this section, Betsyrossmadison wrote,
"Factually speaking, the Prosecutor has used the word, 'mislead' - not the word 'lie.' "
and
"To date, the Prosecutor has only said Witness 8 gave a 'MISLEADING' comment..." .
Does anyone have a link to a source for the corresponding quotes of the prosecutor? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Witness 8

"Witness 8" is referred vto as "Martin's friend" (gender initially unspecified) in the first paragraph of the section. The next, one line, paragraph refers to "Martin's girlfriend" lying. The reader is left somewhat confused about whether witness 8, Martin's friend and "Martin's girlfriend" are all one and the same. Paul B (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is some confusion about what the exact status of their relationship was. Sources refer to her as both friend, and girlfriend. IOn her interviews with Crump when he asks if they were dating she replied "We were getting there". I have not read the refs for the specific statements you are refering to, but we may be just using whatever terminology is in those specific references. It would probably be pretty easy to get consensus on a general description to use everywhere. It may also be better to equivocate some and say something like "Witness 8 who has been described [by whom?]as Martin's friend or girlfriend". Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing some of the different RS throughout the article where she is mentioned, it's kind of a toss up. The APC refers to her as a friend, ABC News uses girlfriend, NY Times uses girl or young girl, Orlando Sentinel (recently) uses girlfriend and woman, CNN (recently) uses young woman, USA Today uses girl, O'Mara seems to like the term witness #8 or female. I think in order to avoid the whole girlfriend/friend label, we could use the generic and NPOV description of girl/woman/young woman to avoid the confusing labels.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that as the general description of her, but do think that at least once we should mention that she was described as a potential girlfriend (in her bio section probably). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable solution. I like what you said above "witness 8 who has been described as Martin's girlfriend/friend". If she testifies at the trial, maybe that question will be asked of her, among many other highly anticipated questions.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Request to question Crump denied

This IS important because his testimony would be very revealing:

On February 22, 2013, a judge ruled that the defense team for Zimmerman can not depose Ben Crump, the attorney representing the Martin's family.[7]

But according to Gaijin42: This is true, but really not that important in the context of the case. we have too much blow by blow detail. also, not NPOV to not include the rest of the ru...)

This questioning of Crump in the court case would be of GREAT importance. Discuss please. Kennvido (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We can guess that the testimony MIGHT be very revealing. Personally, I probably agree with that at some level. But that is a counterfactual. We do not actually have his testimony to KNOW that it is revealing. More importantly, we don't have it, so notable commenters cannot review it to TELL US that it is important. This is all pre-trial stuff. There are going to be tens and hundreds of motions throughout this trial. commenting on every single one that is approved or denied is not encyclopedic. We are not a court reporter. We have to wait til someone notable tells us something is notable. This was barely a blurb, even for the news sources that are heavily covering the trial. WP:ROUTINE. Its not even really about his particular motion, but more the precedent that we will cover every motion at this level without other evidence that it was actually important. Several of us have just gone through the article, and started removing detail at this level of detail. Also, the last bit of my edit summary was truncated by wiki. I was saying that it was POV only to include this one ruling as well. In the same hearing other things were ruled on, what criteria was used to select just this one? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
When I see stuff on this case, I live in the area, I do my best to update ALL the pre-trial stuff. But I agree with you that putting in every little thing should not be done. I think this is important though due to the fact it's the Martin's family lawyer and it could get sticky with the, to be sure, upcoming civil case and the family suing Zimmerman. Once this trial gets underway, you think the Casey Anthony trial caused people to go nuts and pick sides? Unfortunately, this be be a black white thing and it shouldn't... it should be color blind. As you know, sides are already picked. I for one will wait for the trial and do not have an opinion on who is right and wrong now before that trial. :) Kennvido (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we are mostly on the same page. I don't disagree with you that this could become important. Either in the trial, or in a civil case. But that is WP:CRYSTAL until it happens. We can edit at that point. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Kennvido (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman's defense team renewed their request to depose Crump, [28]. After learning at the last hearing that witness 8 had lied and after ABC released their audio recording of the interview, O'Mara says it is relevant to determine if there is additional misrepresentations. He also said that Crumps affidavit was not only incomplete, it was inaccurate. Something to keep any eye on, for sure.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The 2nd Paragraph is factually WRONG

The 2nd paragraph is factually WRONG.

Cutting in-between houses

A] Currently 2nd Paraghaph:

“While in his vehicle on a personal errand, Zimmerman noticed Martin walking inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, stating that Martin was "cutting in-between houses...walking very leisurely for the [rainy] weather" and "looking at all the houses."

Due to the use of quotation marks, currently, the 2nd paragraph falsely implies that Zimmerman "stated" to Sanford Police Department that Martin was "cutting in-between houses...walking very leisurely for the [rainy] weather" -- and that is factually wrong and is not supported by the actual Transcript of the Zimmerman to the Sanford Police.

B] To be factual, and stick with what the Transcript actually says, 2nd paragraph should say:

“While in his vehicle on a personal errand, Zimmerman noticed Martin walking inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, stating that Martin was "just walking around, looking
about.” and "looking at all the houses".

C] FACT:

1) Transcripts of Sanford Police Department’s Non-Emergency Number, show that George Zimmerman did NOT "state" that Martin was “cutting in-between houses ... walking very leisurely for the [rainy] weather.” That is simply false, wrong, and shows whoever wrote that either does not know the facts or does not want the facts out there.

2) Transcripts show George Zimmerman never, ever, ever even mentioned the words "cutting in-between houses...walking very leisurely for the [rainy] weather” -- never.

3) Therefore, to falsely put those words in quotations marks is factually wrong and causes this wiki page to lose all credibility at the 2nd paragraph.

D] IF: whoever runs this page wants to put the Sean Hannity interview in, they should do without misleading the reader. 1) The person running this page should put this wording in:

“Several months later, in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Zimmerman deviated from his statement to Sanford Police’s Dispatch and stated Martin was “cutting in-between houses ... walking very leisurely for the weather.” It should be noted that the houses are connected and thus impossible to physically cut “in-between” them.

OR: If the person running this page cares about facts, this wording could even be used:

“While in his vehicle on a personal errand, Zimmerman noticed Martin walking inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, stating that Martin was "just walking around, looking
about.” and "looking at all the houses.” However, three months later, in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Zimmerman deviated from his statement to Sanford Police’s Dispatch and stated Martin was “cutting in-between houses ... walking very leisurely for the weather.” It should be noted that the houses are connected and thus impossible to physically cut “in-betwe

en” them.”

Either the person running this page wants to use facts or not.

If not, then this page has zero credibility ... especially everyone in the world has read and/or heard the non-emergency Sanford Police Tape and knows this page is factually wrong.

E] My source for my comments are the actual Transcript of the Sanford Police Department non-emergency Tape

From the Tape:

ZIMMERMAN: "“Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a
real suspicious guy, uh, near Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can
give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or
he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking
about.”
DISPATCH: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.
DISPATCH: Did you see what he was wearing?
ZIMMERMAN: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or
sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring…
DISPATCHER: OK, he's just walking around the area…
ZIMMERMAN: "looking at all the houses.
DISPATCHER: OK

Again, notice, Transcript prove Zimmerman never, ever, ever, ever "stated" to Sanford Police that Martin was "cutting in-between houses." Betsyrossmadison (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)



  • Calm down, stop accusing people of trying to mislead, and work with people and things will work out better.
  • This is a very long and complicated article, and things get lost in the shuffle.
  • The Houses are connected in buildings, but there are spaces between the buildings, in particular the rows between the buildings where the altercation ultimately took place, as well as other breaks between the buildings. This is obvious to anyone who has ever seen an apartment building, or one who has looked at any of the scene photos.
  • He DID at one point say that on the Hannity show, so its not like we are making things up out of cloth, but you are right the 911 transcript is a better source for what he said/did.
  •  Done

--Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, March 11, 2013‎ - (I, Matthewi, added Gaijin42's signature since it wasn't added.)



Funny, you tell me to "calm down" when it is your wiki page that has so many factual errors and misleading information that your wiki page is not even credible.

FACTUAL ERRORS and MISLEADING INFORMATION from your wiki page

1) 2nd paragraph that I pointed out above. Due to your use of quotation marks, you falsely implied Zimmerman told SPD that Trayvon was "cutting in-between houses"

2) Your reply to me is factually WRONG: YOU FALSELY WROTE

  • The Houses are connected in buildings, but there are spaces between the buildings, in particular the rows between the buildings where the altercation ultimately took place

Your comment there is factually wrong.

Factual Documents prove the "altercation" did NOT happen in "spaces between the buildings."

In fact, Documents prove Zimmerman fatally shot Martin in the shared backyard area (not spaces between the building and not in-between houses) but rather a shared backyard area.

Martin's body was found in the shared backyard area NOT "spaces between buildings" and NOT "in-between" houses. Betsyrossmadison (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a source of confusion is the misuse of the word "house".[29] For example, in his interview by Hannity, I think Zimmerman meant "buildings" when he used the word "houses". --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)]

Dog and gun

3) The dog and gun story You mislead readers when you misquoted your source when talking about the reason Zimmerman got a gun and in doing so you falsely mislead the reader into think your misquote is a fact, when the source you use does not even conclude it as a fact.

For instance you wrote:

"Seminole County Animal Services officer advised Zimmerman to "get a gun" rather than rely on pepper spray to fend off the pit bull, which on one occasion had cornered his wife."

Yet, that is NOT what your source wrote because even your source did not have any idea if an officer actually said that which is why your source used the disclaimer "according to a friend"

The misleading way you wrote it, gives the impression that you know, as a matter of fact, that an Officer actually told Zimmerman to get a gun and kill his neighbor's dog - yet you have no idea if an Officer really did say that -- but you pretend you know it is a fact.

You have no idea if an Officer actually said those words and the article you read did not state that as fact which is why they responsibly wrote "according to a friend."

Your source wrote:

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

Like I said, you have no idea what the Officer said to Zimmerman because you have no idea if Zimmerman's friend is accurate or not. Did you even bother to call Seminole County Animal Services to see if that alleged advice is even protocol? I did.

After reading your misleading comments about the reasons Zimmerman's friend claims he got a gun, I actually, just now, took the trouble to phone Seminole County Animal Services and asked if I should "get pepper spray" to use on my "neighbor's pit bull" and the officer said, "it would be best if you use a walking stick" because "something visual that you can shake at the dog so it will back off." The Officer went on to say that "Officers use Asp Baton when confronted with dogs and/or other animals." Then I asked the Officer if I she thought I should "shoot my neighbor's dog with a gun" and the Office "no." The Officer explained "there are laws against shoot a neighbor's dog in the City limits" and "rather than shoot your neighbor's dog, we would prefer to send an Officer out to talk to your neighbor" and "anytime you are walking use a walking stick in case a stray dog or any other stray animal approaches you." The Officer concluded with "Officers use Asp Batons on stray animals, not guns. I advise you use a walking stick and not a gun."

If you don't believe me regarding my conversation with SCAS then I urge you to call Seminole County Animal Services and see for yourself. You will see, the Officer will advise you to use a walking stick not a gun.

My point: you have no idea if an Officer told Zimmerman to shoot his neighbor's dog, you have no idea if Zimmerman ever really told a friend such a story. All you know is that an anonymous person claims to be Zimmerman's friend and claims Zimmerman said that an Officer told him to shoot the neighbor's dog. Betsyrossmadison (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Height and weight

4) Your wiki page MISLEADING implies that your source has "Statements from Martin's family indicated they thought his height was 6′3″ (1.91 m) and his weight no more than 150 lb (68 kg)." Yet, the source you use does not even pretend to claim they actually spoke to the Martin family.

The author of the source you used does not say "Statements from the Martin family..." The author does not even say that she actually spoke to the Martin family. Therefore, you have no idea where she got that information yet you post it as if it is an actual fact.

When you misleadingly write "Statements..." the reader expects to be able to click on the link showing an actual "statement" from an actual family member.

The author of the source you gave used very vague wording and did not say the family gave "statements" nor did she say where she got the vague information as she actually wrote:

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

Notice, the author does not say "Statements from Martin's family..."

Also, notice, the author does NOT say who the Martin family allegedly spoke to.

Nor does the author say which family member allegedly said it.

Since you have no idea: who said it, who they said it to, or if it was even said; to be factual and responsible, you should have written:

An article claims (or reports) that the 'family said he was actually 6-foot-3 and weighed at most 150 pounds.'"

Or, what you could do is call the author to see where she got her information and then you could responsibly say:

"McClatchy journalist Francis Robels said she spoke with (so and so) and they said (such and such) when she reported "his family said he was actually 6-foot-3 and weighed at most 150 pounds."

Look, if YOU THINK the Martin family thought Trayvon was 6'-3" the least you could do is provide an actual source of the Martin family actually saying those words -- instead you took a vague comment from an article and then you misleading present it as if it is an actual "Statement" by the family - and it is not; thus resulting in your wiki page losing credibility.

All I am saying is, it is very clear that you are doing your best to leave out 'some' factual information and provide misleading information. It is wiki pages like yours, that leave out facts and include misleading information that schools do not allow students to use wiki as their source in research papers.

This is a wiki page - one would think you would be as actual and factual as you can. Yet you leave out facts and then include false comments and mislead readers into thinking your misquotes are fact which results in your wiki page having ZERO credibility. I admit, it is a shame your wiki page has no credibility due to your misleading information, because you have clearly worked long hours on it. Betsyrossmadison (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)



If you have specific suggestions on how to improve the article, then you are welcome to make that suggestion[s], but leave your personal opinions out of the dialogue. Making demands for an edit and your diatribe is not helpful in editing this or any Wikipedia article. It is also not necessary for multiple paragraphs when making a suggestion. Thank you.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)



Betsyrossmadison, regarding the comments you made about Trayvon's family saying he was 6'3", the current language I actually wrote. All I did though was change the wording around because the previous wording, to me, could be read by some to say Trayvon's was 6'3" before his death. The conversation is the the previous section on this page. As far as I know the family did say Trayvon was 6'3". Sources show that as well. If you know of a credible source that disputes that or think the wording should be change, please submit an edit request. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 18:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I added an additional reference there at that sentence from The Miami Herald which says his parents said his height was 6' 3" and his weight was 140 lbs. With the other reference cited there, this should suffice for clarifying what the parents thought about his height and weight. I also found a reference from CBS News [30] which says the family told them his height was 6' 2" and weighed between 140 and 150 lbs. It would seem the parents didn't know his actual height and were guessing, but I still think it is important to include their perspective that was reported by RS in the initial stages of this incident.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Matthewi and Isaidnoway You are wrong, you have no source that has any member of Trayvon Martin's family "STATEMENT" that Trayvon was 6'-3". You only know someone CLAIMS the family said that but you have no proof. Apparently a claim is all you need to pretend something is fact. Your standards regarding facts are very low.

There is a huge difference between the words "Statement" versus "Claim"

A Statement would be an actual quote (Statement) from a family member.

Definition - "STATEMENT" a specially prepared announcement or reply that is made public

Encarta ® World English Dictionary

A claim, is merely a report of something that may or may not have been said.

Definition - "CLAIM" - to say, without proof or evidence, that something is true

Encarta ® World English Dictionary

YOU WROTE in your wiki Blog:

Post mortem reports gave Martin's body length as 5'11" (1.80 m) and his weight as 158 lb (71.67 kg).[39][40][Note 2] Statements from Martin's family indicated they thought his height was 6′3″ (1.91 m) and his weight no more than 150 lb (68 kg)

Factually, by definition, you do NOT have "Statements" as by definition, you have "claims" of something they SAID

Factually, you do not even have "claims" that Martin's family gave any "statement" on Trayvon's height

You do NOT have a source that names anyone single person in the Martin family claiming Trayvon was 6'-3"

The Miami Herald did NOT claim a Martin Family member told them Trayvon was 6'-3"

Currently, your wording in your wiki page is misleading as you falsely claim there is a "Statement" from the Martin family saying Trayvon is 6'-3" and there is not. If you truly want be responsible in reporting facts, what you should have is this:

Post mortem reports gave Martin's body length as 5'11" (1.80 m) and his weight as 158 lb (71.67 kg).[39][40][Note 2] Seattle Times reports that the Martin family indicated they thought his height was 6′3″ (1.91 m) and his weight no more than 150 lb (68 kg

Why would you think Zimmerman's perspective is less important than the Martin family's? I would think Zimmerman's perspective of Trayvon Martin was extremely important and Zimmerman's written testimony. You could have simply put

"I saw a male approximately 5'-11' to 6'2" casually walking in the rain looking into houses. - George Zimmerman Feb 26, 2012 sworn statement.

Seems someone is going to great lengths, with no facts, to make the false appearance that Trayvon Martin was 4 inches taller than he was. Betsyrossmadison (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To - Isaidnoway

Seems you were not correct to claim you had "statements" from the Martin family indicating they thought his height was 6'-3" after all. Your source that, reporter Frances Robles, just told me on Twitter that she was "not present for the interview" and she was not able to tell me which family member said that, if any.

My Tweet to her:

eagle17765 3:18 PM - Mar 11, 2013
"Robles-UR archived article: Trayvon Martins "family said he was actually 6'-3" can u tell me which Martin member told U that?"

Her Tweet Reply back to me:

Frances Robles
"eagle17765 I was not personally present for that interview."
3:24 PM - Mar 11, 2013

Since she was "not personally present for that interview" then you do not have any "statement" whatsoever from the Martin family regarding his height, in fact, based off of her Tweet you do not even know for sure if anyone at all from the Martin family even said that.

Feel free to check out her Twitter account for that Tweet exchange.

As for the Miami Herald, no where in their description of Trayvon Martin's height do they use anyone in the Martin family as being their source

Trayvon was 6-foot-3, 140 pounds, a former Optimist League football player with a narrow frame and a voracious appetite. He wanted to fly or fix planes, struggled in chemistry, loved sports video games and went to New York for the first time two summers ago, seeing the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty and a Broadway musical, The Addams Family. He hoped to attend the University of Miami or Florida A&M University, enamored by both schools’ bright orange and green hues.

If you think the Martin family's perspective is so important, then you should at least make it known that you do not have any statement from them and neither do your sources.

I agree with betsyross above, why do you think Zimmerman's perspective of Martin is less important than the Martin family. The way you worded it in your wiki page, it is as if you want to take a dig at the Martin family for not knowing how tall their son is because you wrote :"... they thought ..."

Which I think it looks like you were trying to take a dig at the Martin family in this talk area when you claimed they were "guessing" his height as if they don't know how tall their own son is, give me a break.

To refresh your memory, in this talk section you wrote

"It would seem the parents didn't know his actual height and were guessing" -Isaidnoway

I don't know, to me that sounded like for some unknown bizarre reason you are trying to take a dig at Martin's family. Letskeepemhonest (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We include what the reliable sources are reporting and in this case, I believe that what we currently have in the article is reflected appropriately according to the sources listed there for that sentence. The Seattle Times specifically says: his family said he was actually 6-foot-3 and weighed at most 150 pounds. The preceding paragraph before the one you quoted from the Miami Herald says this: As the nation grapples with the killing of an unarmed black teenager wearing a hoodie, his parents patiently offer the simple details of Trayvon’s life... Then the next paragraph, which you quoted above, offers those details which include his height and weight. Even your definition of "statement" says this: reply that is made public, so in this case, the families reply which was made public by the reliable sources is what is reflected in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Isaidnowy, With all due respect, I am just curious, did you fail to read Letskeepemhonest's talk discussion? I only ask because Letskeepem just gave you proof that your source did not ... I repeat, did NOT hear any member of the Martin family give any "statements" you falsely claim in this wiki blog because your own source Tweeted "I was not present during the interview."
Your source twitter exchange that you seem to have not read:
eagle17765 3:18 PM - Mar 11, 2013
"Robles-UR archived article: Trayvon Martins "family said he was actually 6'-3" can u tell me which Martin member told U that?"
Her Tweet Reply back to me:
Frances Robles (YOUR SOURCE)
"eagle17765 I was not personally present for that interview."
3:24 PM - Mar 11, 2013
Link to Twitter exchange - https://twitter.com/FrancesRobles/status/311241367235985408
Do you understand what it means when your source writes, "I was not personally present for that interview" mean? (HINT: it means your source has NO personal knowledge of any "statement" by any Martin family member regarding Martin's height, which is why your source did not claim that the Martin's made a "statement" as you falsely did/do. It means you have a blatant mistake on your wiki blog.)

:::Isaidnoway, you reject facts just to keep blatant malicious mistakes on your wiki blog makes no sense, unless you have an Agenda?

Maybe some people would find it interesting if the Martin's had to "guess" at their son's height, but you have absolutely no proof what they thought their son's height is because:
i) one of your sources, Frances Robles admits on Twitter she did not present during any interview with them, and
ii) your other source, the Miami Herald does not even claim nor infer that the Martin's provided them with that information. Therefore, it is not an interesting side-piece of information because you have no proof that it is even remotely true. And that says more about you than it does the Martins.
It might serve you well if you look into the mirror and figure out why you have a strange desire to intentionally forge a malicious false, misleading notion that the Martin's had to "guess" (your words) at their son's height when you have zero proof to cement your malicious notion. You might want to look deep in yourself to see why it is that you so badly want to dig at the Martin's and make it appear they were "guessing" when you have zero proof of any such thing.
Your own source admits that she has not seen nor heard any "statements" from the Martin family regarding their son's height. (See Twitter exchange). It is almost as if you do not care that you have no proof to support your false claim that the Martins made "Statements" giving their son's wrong height -- as they did not make any such statements and you have no source anywhere that supports your false claims.
Therefore, since there is no proof the Martins ever made any such "statement," I hope you will look deep inside yourself and ask yourself, why do you, after LetsKeepem used your own source to prove that you have no "statements," why do you still refuse to correct your blatant errors on this topic? Thus far, your actions indicate you are not interested in facts. Your actions show you prefer to mislead and give false quotes just so you can claim that Martin's parents had to "guess" at their own son's height, which Letskeepem proved that you have no idea what you are talking about. I mean I cannot think of any reason, except malice, that would cause you not to want to correct your blatant mistake.
Your rejection of your own source admitting, on Twitter, that she did NOT hear Martin's family make any statements and did not read any statements from the Martin family says a lot about you -- and you should really look in to what that says about you (it isn't good) and it is one more reason why your wiki blog on this subject has lost credibility.
You put Zimmerman's perspective on Martin's height at zero, which is perplexing since he was the person who followed Martin from his car and clearly Zimmerman's perspective of Martin's height would be more important that night than the Martin's - yet you do not even mention Zimmerman's perspective ... hmmmm ....
Now, perhaps even you can understand why real schools that educate people with real facts do not allow their students to use wiki as a source (HINT: wiki does not care about facts as wiki has a reputation as being a spot where people blog whatever "Agenda" they decide to spout - and your refusal to correct your blatant mistake, underscores that reputation. Good luck, I hope you look inside yourself before you get eaten up with whatever is eating you up.

Betsyrossmadison (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

::Dear Isaidnoway

In your reply to "Letskeepemhonest," You would be well advised to re-read that section where you wrote in your reply "the next paragraph, which you quoted above, offers those details which include his height and weight. Even your definition of "statement" says this: reply that is made public, so in this case, the families reply which was made public by the reliable sources is what is reflected in the article"
You failed to comprehend the Miami Herald paragraph you cite as the Herald paragraph you cite and Letskeepem explained to you, does not ... repeat ... does NOT claim the parents gave them (Miami Herold) the information.
Notice the complete paragraph you cite does not even pretend to claim that the Martin family gave the Miami Harold the quote so you are 100% wrong (again) when you falsely claim that the journalist who wrote that said it was a "Statement from the Martin." As factually, they did not even mention the Martins when that journalist wrote that.
Let this sink in, the Miami Herald paragraph you cite is clearly, without any doubt a "STATEMENT FROM THE JOURNALIST" not a "statement" from the parents -- do you understand the difference? The journalist wrote that, and the journalist did NOT say they got that info from the Martins. That makes that paragraph a STATEMENT FROM THE JOURNALIST, not from the Martins, get it?
From the Miami Herald - the paragraph you cite
"Trayvon was 6-foot-3, 140 pounds, a former Optimist League football player with a narrow frame and a voracious appetite. He wanted to fly or fix planes, struggled in chemistry, loved sports video games and went to New York for the first time two summers ago, seeing the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty and a Broadway musical, The Addams Family. He hoped to attend the University of Miami or Florida A&M University, enamored by both schools’ bright orange and green hues."
Do you see anywhere in that paragraph where the journalist who wrote that claims the Martins told them that info? No, because the journalist does NOT claim that.
Please show me where, in that Miami Herald quote you see the journalist claim the Martin's told them that? Their names do not appear anywhere. That means that paragraph is a "STATEMENT FROM THE JOURNALIST" and is NOT a statement from the Martin family.
Your other source, the journalist at the Seattle Times told Letskeepem on Twitter that she did NOT get that information from the Martin's because she Tweeted she was "NOT PERSONALLY PRESENT FOR THAT INTERVIEW"
Factual bottom line
1) The Miami Herald source YOU USE and you cite is a STATEMENT FROM THE JOURNALIST not a Statement from the Martins.
2) The journalist, Frances Robles, who was your other source, admitted on Twitter she did NOT get the "height" information for the Martin family. That means you have zero ... ZERO ... proof to your blatantly false claim that the Martins gave "statements..." on Trayvon's height.
Do what you want, if you want to keep false, misleading information on your wiki blog, so be it. But just know your wiki blog is not supported by facts and when your wiki blog rejects facts, sadly, it becomes a laughing stock.
Fact is, neither one of your sources support your false comment that YOU WROTE. You wrote that the Martins gave "statements ..." not your sources, but YOU and you alone and you have no proof to support your claim.

Sincerely, Betsyrossmadison (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is where I must remove myself from this discussion as you don't seem to know how to engage in a civilized manner. I believe the way it is written is compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for paraphrasing what a reliable source has reported. If you are unhappy with the language, you can always open up a WP:RFC and see what other WP editors think, or try to gather a consensus to change the wording. There are also numerous boards on Wikipedia in which you can take your concerns to as well, see WP:DR or WP:RSN or in the alternative see WP:HELP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Betsyrossmadison, goodness, I'm just checking back and see this conversation is going nowhere. I might very well agree with your point, but to be honest, because of your rants I only read about 20%-40% of what you wrote. Had you engaged in a dialog rather than a diatribe I would have read it all. The entire reason I would tend to think Trayvon's initially reported height/weight of 6'3" should say is because many people think that's how tall he was. I would want it included to show that he was *NOT* that tall. Specifically telling people that there were claims that he was 6'3" but those claims are wrong is the oppose of someone wanting to "make the false appearance that Trayvon Martin was 4 inches taller than he was." Guys tend to exaggerate their height. Your rants don't help your cause. Wikipedia as a whole has an agenda for true. I'm with Isaidnoway by being out of any conversation with you, though I never really started it. If you want something to change in the article, you need to submit a full edit request of what should be changed, how it should be changed and references for me to pay any attention to it. I wish you well and hope you'll consider interacting with other editors appropriately. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 09:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Update: Isaidnoway wrote in a section above, "Re-worded whole paragraph to provide a better understanding of the varying heights and weights, while making it easier for the reader to view."[32] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussion

I reverted Bob K31416's edit of opening up the discussion that was closed due to a sock-puppet and their disruptive editing. The user was consequently blocked for WP:SOCK and for WP:DE. The discussion was closed with the request of "Please do not modify this discussion" and "no further edits should be made". If an editor wishes to read the closed discussion they can click on the "show" button and read it. If there is something in the closed discussion they wish to discuss further, they should start a new thread as was requested in the closed discussion. I don't see any valid reason for opening up this gigantic wall of uncivil disruptive editing on the talk page.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this section after I left a message on your talk page. I'll copy most of that message over here.
Regarding your edit,[33] I don't think it's proper for you to use the template "Archive top" to close the discussion. As I mentioned in a previous edit summary,[34] please see Template:Archive top, which states "When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."
Also, please note that I wanted to comment on parts of the closed discussion, for example the misuse of the word "house", etc, and I'm working on possibly more comments. It's awkward and inconvenient to try to work around the situation of closed sections. So I undid the improper closing of the discussion and made some comments. Note that if Betsy wanted to continue, she could just start another section outside the closed sections with the possibility of annoying some editors if she wanted to, so the closing doesn't seem worthwhile. Also, the closing may look like suppression of discussion that some editors don't like, using Betsy's tone as an excuse. Not to me because I AGF, but possibly to others, for Betsy or others may claim that this archiving is an example of how the process of editing of this article is biased or incompetent. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I understand how opening up a gigantic uncivlized discussion with disruptive editing and personal attacks, regardless of how it was closed, benefits this talk page or any editor associated with Wikipedia. Are you saying that you would have preferred that another editor besides Gaijin42 closed the discussion, you just don't like the way he closed the discussion, you wish to encourage other editor's to engage in disruptive editing, or what? Betsy was blocked for WP:SOCK and WP:DE, so apparently "Betsy's tone" did factor in that decision when Betsy was blocked. If Betsy or others feel like there is biased or incompetent editing in an article on Wikipedia, you certainly don't go about trying to prove it by disruptive editing and personal attacks on editors. Like I told Betsy in the discussion, there are boards on WP in which you can take your concerns to and other avenues for WP:HELP as well. I can only speak for myself, but I did WP:AGF at the beginning of the discussion, but when it became obvious that Betsy was engaging in sock-puppet like behavior and disruptive editing and personal attacks, then I'm not sure how you can justify AGF at that point in the discussion, hence I extracted myself from the discussion.
I believe Gaijin42 did the right thing by closing the discussion for disruptive editing and personal attacks, and I believe the editor's and/or admininstrative staff were right in blocking Betsy for this behavior as well. I believe it is important to send a message to editor's if you engage in this kind of behavior on a talk page on any article, you will be blocked and the offending discussion on the talk page will be closed as well.
I also believe if that other editor's wish to view the closed discussion, they can simply open it and review it and if there is something they wish to discuss, they start a new thread. I support the closure of the discussion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The sections currently look OK for discussion and I'm reviewing the part about Witness 8 for possible further comment. Do you recognize that according to the instructions quoted from Template:Archive top in my previous message, you improperly closed the discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. If you are concerned about Betsy returning, I'll try to handle the situation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I recognize that "regardless of how it was closed" (properly or improperly), it was the right thing to do and I support the closure of the discussion. I also don't follow the logic of "the sections look OK for discussion". If an editor was to believe that this is an ongoing discussion, where they think they may receive a reply from someone who can't, because they have been blocked for sock-puppetry and disruptive editing, don't you think that it would be courteous to inform an editor that they are about to reply in a discussion where the editor has been blocked and has no chance of responding. And why encourage an editor to respond to this editor's rants and raves. That is one of the reasons it was closed, was to prevent further editing and from being modified. And if the editor is un-blocked, an open invitation to pick up where they left off. I believe my suggestion of opening a new thread to discuss any topic from the closed discussion is the most prudent form of action.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I was the last one to leave messages and users are welcome to respond to me. BTW, I thought Betsy was blocked for only 31 hours a few days ago.[35] --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am striking the comments that were specifically directed towards me per WP:PERSONAL. I believe the master and/or sock-puppet's comments were not about the content of the article and how to improve it, but rather a personal attack on the editor. The comments were derogatory and directed specifically at me.

Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.
Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.
Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

This master and/or sock-puppet accused me of acting with "malice", which I consider a serious accusation not backed up with any serious evidence.

This master and/or sock-puppet accused me of wanting to take a "dig at the Martin's", which I consider a serious accusation not backed up with any serious evidence.

This master and/or sock-puppet also made the following comments that are insulting and disparaging to me:

  • "Your rejection of your own source...says a lot about you -- and you should really look in to what that says about you (it isn't good)..."
  • "Good luck, I hope you look inside yourself before you get eaten up with whatever is eating you up."
  • "Your actions show you prefer to mislead and give false quotes..."
  • "you reject facts just to keep blatant malicious mistakes on your wiki blog makes no sense, unless you have an Agenda?"
  • "It might serve you well if you look into the mirror and figure out why you have a strange desire to intentionally forge a malicious false, misleading notion..."
  • "...you have no idea what you are talking about. I mean I cannot think of any reason, except malice, that would cause you not to want to correct your blatant mistake."

The above quotes were taken directly from a nine paragraph rant that was specifically aimed at me. Then immediately following the nine paragraphs, there is about 11 or 12 more paragraphs from the master and/or sock-puppet that specifically starts out with "Dear Isaidnoway:" which goes into another rant specifically aimed at me and peppered with comments like; "You would be well advised..." and "You failed to comprehend..." and "you falsely claim..." and "Let this sink in..." and on and on it goes.

So, with all due respect and assuming good faith on your part, I fail to see how opening this once closed discussion "looks OK for discussion".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It also appears from comments left on your talk page concerning this closed discussion, there is no consensus to re-open this disruptive closed discussion. One of your concerns noted was that it would be awkward and inconvenient for you to be able to leave a comment. I don't see how opening a new thread as I suggested above would hinder your ability to still comment on a specific topic you think might be worth further discussion. I would think a new thread would be welcomed and easier to navigate than the disruptive closed discussion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly regret that there has been all this trouble, and if I had anticipated this, I probably wouldn't have entered the discussion here after Betsy's block, or around that time. I seem to recall similar situations where a person with little experience has made suggestions in a belligerent manner, but it didn't result in this much turmoil. It may have been because of a difference in the personalities of the experienced editors, but who knows. So again, sorry for butting in, and if Betsy returns, I'll stay out of it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I recall those other similar situations too, and those disruptive discussions were closed just like this one was closed. It has nothing to do with personalities of experienced editors. It's about creating an editing environment that encourages a constructive dialogue on the talk page with a goal towards improving the article. It is unacceptable to personally attack an editor and being civil towards one another is a standard of conduct that helps produce a pleasant editing environment for all Wikipedians.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "George Zimmerman's bail set at $150,000". CBS News. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
  2. ^ "Florida city doesn't accept resignation of police chief in Trayvon Martin case". CNN. Retrieved 23 April 2012.
  3. ^ "Transcript of Zimmerman's bail hearing". CNN. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
  4. ^ Francescani, Chris (April 25, 2012). "George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting". Reuters. Retrieved 27 April 2012.
  5. ^ http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/25/2767769/nbc6-fires-local-reporter-in-editing.html
  6. ^ Blood, Rebecca (September 7, 2000). "Weblogs: A History And Perspective".
  7. ^ "No deposition for lawyer in Trayvon Martin case". WFTV TV. Retrieved 23 February 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_9&oldid=1085915833"