Jump to content

Talk:Trayvon Martin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Infobox again

The prevailing consensus at this time is to Keep the infobox in the article. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In previous discussions pertaining to an infobox, a consensus was never reached to add one. Not every Wikipedia article requires an infobox. In fact, most articles don't. If the infobox contains only information found in the lead, it is a disinfobox. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the original discussion it was four involved and no real consensus on anything was made except that you wrote that you would not add one. I will ask for more input. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: Readers expect an infobox and it provides an at-a-glance summary of key information. The majority of our articles eligible for an infobox have one. This infobox provides useful additional advantages such as the key-value pairs and microformats such as birthplace, deathplace, bday and deathdate, which are used by third-parties to collect information from our articles. Those are good reasons to have an infobox and without good reason it should not be removed. Please see WP:OWNBEHAVIOR - a policy, not the essay you seem to rely on - for examples of why your arguments are cause for concern, particularly "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with user RexxS.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox – Serves no purpose here, and clutters up the article. Let the prose do the talking. We don't need any more "disinfoboxes". RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    "Serves no purpose" is an ownership argument and demonstrably untrue. The infobox provides key information at-a-glance in the expected place for anyone who simply wants to look up a simple fact about Martin. The disinfo argument relies on a a discredited essay, not policy or guideline. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support infobox – as it is needed, and it definitely does not clutter up the article. Instead it gives a good summary of the person.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
It is rubbish. It just repeats the information contained in the lead. It is ugly looking, and destroys the article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
That is your opinion. Give it a rest and let consensus work. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support infobox, - it is not needed but helps some readers, taking nothing away from others, like we include images although blind people can't see them. (I was against infoboxes - as redundant - in 2012, but learned.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Let the eccentrics in niche topics fight this battle over wiki-arcana to their heart's content. But out here in the real world, for a biography of a recent cultural event/person, it just looks absurd without a box. Adhere to community norm or provide a good non-IDON'TLIKEBOXES reason to exclude it. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Further, I see no data to support the In fact, most articles don't assertion of the cited essay, which upon reading just now I find to be fairly aggressive and only representative of an extremely minor point-of-view. Essays cannot dictate or instruct either, so its nutshell of "Do not add one if it does not provide any value to the article" is rather toothless. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The DISINFOBOX article is, intact, just an essay and not a wikipedia guideline. Infoboxes are useful for providing information at a glance. Someone looking up Trayvon's birthday or hometown for an essay can find this information easily in the info box, instead of hunting through the first few sentences. The vast majority of Wikipedia visitors are skimming pages for one or two details and not reading the entire article or even the entire lead.Brirush (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't even understand why we're arguing about it. As per WP:Infobox, an infobox provides a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout. Otherwise the reader has to plow through reams of copy to get to salient details. Yoninah (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox - and please see WP:AGF, as it is also a policy here on WP. Making an improvement to the article by removing an infobox is not an example of "ownership", but rather an example of the statusquo and my reading of WP:MOS - If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. The essay that I cited is clearly on point as well, because the infobox is just "unnecessary repetitions of facts already presented in the article's lead". Furthermore, there is no policy that I'm aware of that requires an infobox in a biographical article, it's just a matter of an editor's personal preference and !votes in disputes such as this. Obviously, I oppose an infobox in this article, but WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and one that I will defer to in this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    • ... example of the statusquo ... This article has had an infobox since November. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article ... The inclusion of an infobox is not a matter of "style". Alakzi (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
An infobox was added to this article first on 11 January 2014, then on 30 September 2014, 16 October 2014, 25 November 2014, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: AGF is not a suicide pact. Why should anyone extend AGF to your reverts when the very reasons you repeatedly offer - "unnecessary", "not required" - are documented examples of ownwership as I already pointed out: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." --RexxS (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The very reasons I repeatedly offer of "unnecessary" and "not required" are legitimate reasons, especially when you actually look at the info that is in the infobox. His full name, born, died, cause of death, nationality and citizenship are all included and easily found in the very first sentence of the article. It's not information you have to search to find in the article, it's not information that is buried elsewhere in the article, and it certainly hasn't been excluded, in fact, it's easily found in the very first sentence. And according to the guidelines for the parameters at infobox person, which is the infobox being used here, the parameter - "alma mater" is described as being for last-attended higher education institution. Martin didn't attend a higher education institution. Martin's elementary school and the two high-schools he attended, neither of which he graduated from, do not fit the criteria for the parameter, nor the definition of a higher education institution, and is being misused in this infobox. Additionally, being a student is not an occupation, it doesn't fit the criteria for the parameter, nor the definition of an occupation, and again is being misused in this infobox. So, when you strip away the parameters that are being misused in this infobox, you are left with information that is easily found in the very first sentence, making the infobox "unnecessary" and "not required". My reasoning is based on an evaluation on the merits and/or potential usefulness of the infobox in this article, and the usage here appears to be a classic example of a disinfobox. Slinging around accusations of ownership because of my legitimate reasoning for exclusion, seems to me to be an assumption of bad-faith on your part as well. If the consensus is that a disinfobox is actually an improvement to the article and should be included for easily found information in the very first sentence of this article, and that parameters in the infobox should be misused, then like I clearly and unequivocally stated above, I will defer to consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
"Disinfobox" has no weight or bearing on this discussion, or any other for that matter. 1) It represents an extremely minor, bordering on fringe, point-of-view. 2) it is an essay pretending it is policy, as the language suggests that it is a rule to be followed, not merely guidance or opinion. 3) It makes assertions not supported by actual data. Regular editors who create/maintain classical composer biographies have largely been left alone in their infobox removals, so far. But if the No-Infobox acolytes are going to start spreading into more mainstream, current event types of topics and biographies, that's not going to fly, as infoboxes out here are the norm. If you wish to change the status quo on that, then it'd be wise to start a discussion first before trying to edit-war an infobox out of an article. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: "Unnecessary" and "not required" are never legitimate reasons for removing content from Wikipedia articles. They are clear examples of the Wikipedia policy called WP:OWNERSHIP and you really ought to read it and amend your behaviour, rather than throwing accusations of bad-faith at anyone who calls you out for it.
The criterion is whether or nor the content improves the article - as the infobox does in this case by providing the sort of key information that a visitor may be looking for, as well as the extra data that third-parties can make use of. Both Dictionary.com and Wikipedia define Alma mater as "a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated." Martin's high schools fit that definition even though he had not graduated. Most people would clearly understand someone who gives "student" as their occupation, and it's certainly common enough in the real world. There's no doubt that both those fields in the infobox supply useful information about Martin to anyone who was unaware of his background. Whether they rise to the level of key information is something to be debated on the talk page, but isn't a judgement that you're entitled to make unilaterally. All of the information in an infobox will normally be found elsewhere in the article. The whole point of the infobox is that it collects the key information into a readily-accessed place and also presents it in a format helpful to third-parties. Scattered information throughout an article in running prose meet neither of those two objectives. The essay you're so fond of is misinformation in itself, containing as it does factual errors and a lack of any wider view. WP:MISINFO makes it clear that you're doing nothing more than repeating a myth about redundancy, while overlooking the added value that the infobox brings to this article. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you find it to be useful or not. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people do find infoboxes useful, and quite frankly, the fact that some of the information is currently in the lead actually means that it violates the manual of style somewhat. You can't just oppose things because you don't like them or don't see a use for them, you have to consider Joe Public and other people as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Look, I explained my reasoning for exclusion of the infobox in response to a bad-faith assumption that my modus operandi was one of "ownership". You don't have to agree with my reasoning for exclusion as I don't have to agree with your reasoning for inclusion. That's the way talk page discussions work. I respect some editor's opinions and input on this discussion, and also respect consensus, and I will repeat for the third time now, I will defer to the consensus in this discussion.
On another note: If there is an overwhelming community wide consensus that the "vast majority of people do find infoboxes useful" and that it is "standard procedure" and the "community norm", then perhaps policies and guidelines pertaining to infoboxes should be updated and re-worded to reflect the consensus of the "vast majority of people". My understanding is that the placement of infoboxes in an article is on a case-by-case basis and subject to local consensus, and editor's were allowed to explain their reasoning 'for or against' an infobox on the articles talk page. But when I read dismissive comments like "People who have nothing better to do than whine about the existence of infoboxes really ought to find something better to do with their time" and that "It doesn't matter whether you find it to be useful or not", then I kinda get the feeling that I am basically being told to shut the fuck up, your opinion doesn't matter, and move along. I can certainly take a hint and I will gladly take my "extremely minor, bordering on fringe, point-of-view" and move along. Good day. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No matter how verbose your defenses are, the fact is you're out of touch, and your name seems rather apt right now. My comment below was more aimed at the other "no infobox omfg no way" voter here, who has a long history in this area IIRC. There clearly is community wide consensus that infoboxes are generally found useful, or they wouldn't exist in more than a few places. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support infobox - No logical argument presented as for why this article should not comply with standard procedure, which is to have an infobox. WP:DISINFOBOX neglects to mention that many articles predate the widespread usage of infoboxes (and have barely been touched since), or that they are too small for infoboxes to be necessary. This article falls into neither category. People who have nothing better to do than whine about the existence of infoboxes really ought to find something better to do with their time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There’s something rotten on this talk page

Something very shady, and in clear violation of Wikipedia’s Creative Commons license is going on here. Lukeno94 violated CC with his heavy-handed, political censorship of a discussion page, since as far as he’s concerned, anyone whose politics he hates is a “troll.”

According to this talk page, except for one “troll,” there’s been radio silence for two months, on an article that just two months ago, had to be locked down, due to “edit warring.” I find that inconceivable.

I am aware that some people at WP have the ability to not only revert edits, but send them down the memory hole without a trace, in violation of WP’s CC license. (I realize that some edits may legally be disappearable, for reasons of libel or national security, but I’m talking here about cases of pure political hatred.) I suspect that they are doing just that on this page.24.90.126.68 (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Whether or not you find it conceivable, there has been no wholesale removal of any content from this page or its corresponding article. Lukeno94 was correct in removing a comment from this page which has little to nothing to do with the content of this article and, if it belongs anywhere, belongs at African American, not here. Since you have restored it, I have replied to the comment above. By the way, in the future, please add comments beginning a new section at the bottom of any Talk page. Editors rarely look for newly added discussions in the middle of a page. General Ization Talk 11:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Uh, there is absolutely no way my actions violated the CC license; that has to be one of the whackiest claims I've ever seen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

When reading the opening line of the article, I noticed it describes Martin as a "17 year old". It does not seem like the correct way to reference him, even though the most publicized event of his life occurred when he was 17. Thoughts? Mfribbs Talk 19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

More accurately, the lead describes Martin as a "17-year-old African American", where "17-year-old" is an adjective phrase. Could you explain why you think this is an incorrect way to refer to Martin? General Ization Talk 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps because this article is billed as a biography, not a second recount of the incident, and his whole life did not occur while he was 17. If his age at death is necessary in the opening paragraph, it might be better stated as "who was fatally shot at the age of 17" or some variation thereof. 2600:1006:B112:31C6:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see the logic in that, although it should be borne in mind that Martin is only notable because of the events that occurred when he was 17, hence the weight given to those events in his biography here. The article is semi-protected; this means that Mfribbs is free to make any changes to the lead which they feel improve the article (see WP:BRD), although IPs currently cannot (though they can propose a specific change to the wording here on the Talk page). General Ization Talk 23:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% certain, but doesn't including the age in the lead violate the MOS? Regardless, I'm inclined to agree with Mfribbs and the IP here; the current wording is not fantastic, particularly since this is an article on the person, not the incident. It feels to me like the age is being used to push the anti-Zimmerman stance in a subtle way. Personally, I think the lead is pretty poor; the reference locations make it look like only two portions are referenced, and that someone just decided to cite everything related to the topic; the bit about where he was born and his schooling does violate the MOS (if I remember correctly), and the lead is too detailed even aside from that (no need to mention where he was buried in the lead, the social media thing is trivia and barely belongs in the article at all, much less in the lead). Quite frankly, the entire article is a little too detailed (far too much trivia related to his social media stuff, for example), although nowhere near as much as the lead is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Zimmerman wasn't told to not follow Martin

I have removed the obvious lie, "(despite being told not to do so)", which was repeated thousands of times on blogs, especially in the first half of 2012 and probably later as well. The comment alluded to the conversation between Zimmerman and the 911 dispatcher: The dispatcher actually said something like "We don't need you to do that [follow him]". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin Aside from actually being publicly exposed by the 911 transcript even in early 2012, the 911 operator was not a law-enforcement official, and she didn't have the authority to 'order' Zimmerman to do (or not do) anything. Frysay (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And I have restored this fact that is sourceable to Zimmerman's own statement to the authorities, among others. The "never was told to not follow" is a fringe myth found in unreliable sources. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It is laughable that you (Tarc) refer to what Zimmerman was told as being "this is a popular fringe meme found on fringe websites, but in reality, even Zimmerman himself noted in his statement that he was told not to follow". Your duplication of the word 'fringe' shows that you are nervous about the truth. Quite the contrary, the actual 'fringe myth' was the claim early on blogs (and even the news media) that claimed 'Zimmerman was told not to follow [Trayvon Martin].' The transcript of the 911 call proves what was actually said, and has done so since little more than 1-2 weeks after the incident itself. The illegitimate motivation for people originally misrepresenting the conversion as having told Zimmerman to NOT follow Martin was the need to claim that Zimmerman had done something wrong. As for your claim that Zimmerman himself admitted something to the contrary, first I note that you don't cite a specific quotation showing this to be true. (Even if it were false; you could quote numerous news report repeating the media falsity in the first few weeks; you should be able to cite Zimmerman's ostensible 'admission', too.) Second, Zimmerman's recollection of what the 911 operator actually said could easily have been befuddled by being distracted by being involved in the incident itself. He only heard the statement once (in person), and he may very well have heard the alternate lie hundreds of times on news media and websites. Faced with such a blatant misrepresentation frequently repeated, it would not be at all surprising if Zimmerman himself began to doubt his (true) recollection, and might have believed the falsity he repeatedly heard. There is also no guarantee that Zimmerman actually heard all of the words uttered by the 911 operator: Cell phones are notoriously difficult to understand at times. Frysay (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not engage with single-purpose IP editors, sorry. Tarc (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by a "single-purpose IP editor". My login had apparently just logged out, so I have logged in again. Frysay (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The police department's official website had a question and answer section on it before. They answered this question saying the 911 operator said they didn't need him to follow, not that he shouldn't, and the 911 operator was not a police officer and couldn't order anyone to do anything. Dream Focus 01:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Are you following him?"
  • "Yeah"
  • "OK, we don't need you to do that"
That is, by any sensible interpretation of the English language, a warning to not follow. Whether there was the authority of law enforcement behind the warning to not do it is not relevant. Tarc (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok... but what reliable source states that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after that point? Not the one provided in the lede of this article. VQuakr (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? 1) it is in this source, At the core of this, for many people, is this particular passage where the dispatcher tells Mr. Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon Martin. And at that point, many people say: How is it possible that he's acting in self-defense if he's pursuing someone after having been told not to? but its also in hundreds of others. One can dispute how to interpret/spin "dont need you to", but there is zero question it was said, and that Zimmerman continued onward after that and away from his car.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
there is zero question... that Zimmerman continued onward after that and away from his car. Ok, what is the source? VQuakr (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It's possible the source is http://www.npr.org/2012/04/03/149919309/zimmermans-lawyer-dont-rush-to-judgement However, it repeats the lie that 'the dispatcher tells Mr. Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon Martin'. It also uses the loaded word, 'pursue'. I think the term 'observe' would be more accurate. And the assumption in this quote (by Michael Martin) seems to be that somehow, people aren't entitled to open their eyes and look and see what others are doing. While, hypothetically, it would be possible to actually 'pursue' Martin in an arbitrarily aggressive fashion, there is no indication that Zimmerman actually did something like that. Frysay (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I think you are missing the point. That NPR interview is with Zimmerman's lawyer, who doesn't directly contest that the dispatcher asked Zimmerman not to follow (which, as Tarc points out, is pretty clear). No where that I see in that source, though, is any indication that Zimmerman continued to follow after saying "ok." VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your second sentence above: No statement that Zimmerman acted in any particular fashion after "ok". However, lawyers are famously cautious about wording, and answering questions, especially questions from non-lawyers.. He himself might have been unaware of all the details at that early point, and didn't want to over-state the case. The lawyer was not obliged to contest an issue raised by a (biased) interviewer. I don't see the point in using the lawyer's seeming failure to repudiate that matter as being somehow significant. Frysay (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it is a "warning not to follow". It is a polite reminder that the 911 call (and the operator) doesn't constitute some implied requirement onto Zimmerman that he act analogous to a policeman. There are good reasons for this: Liability issues, for instance. A 911 operator knows that he/she doesn't KNOW, for sure, what is actually happening. No visuals. She can't be sure the 911 caller knows everything, or knows it correctly. Any instructions she gives (like, 'do not follow that thug!', or 'follow the thug!') might later have unintended consequences. But, almost certainly she has been trained to excercise extreme caution, and I don't disagree that what she actually said, "we don't need you to do that" is a proper cautionary statement to make. The problem is that you are trying to misrepresent what was actually said, as if she said something different. Frysay (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it is... is, unfortunately, an opinion. Your opinion doesn't matter; what reliable soures say matters. Tarc (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Except that the 'reliable sources' can be and were frequently wrong in this early stage. It's not surprising that biased media-types listened to the 911 call, and 'heard' something different than was actually stated. And, they frequently expressed this falsehood in the weeks after the incident, millions of quite-ready-to-be-biased people got the wrong impression. How many people were falsely told, by that media, that Zimmerman was 'told', 'instructed', or 'ordered' by the 911 operator 'not to follow Martin'? Many, many millions. Frysay (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That is your interpretation of the events, which fall into the minority on this matter. It was an instruction, not a "polite suggestion", the souring on the matter is accurate. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Some sources say one thing, others say another. Doesn't matter though, since no reason to have that in this article. I agree with its removal. Dream Focus 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, I am not saying it would be improper to refer to the many media organizations as having falsely claimed that Zimmerman was 'told', 'instructed, or 'ordered' 'not to follow Martin'. This grand, gross misleading of the public actually happened, and it was presumably significant to the development of the public controversy. (People got angry because of what they heard in the news, even though it was false.) But it WOULD be improper, quite improper, to accept those media organizations take on the meaning of the 911 operator's words as if they were correct. They were not. WP is supposed to be encyclopedic, right? Lies occur, but they shouldn't be presented as if they were true. No doubt you could find hundreds of sources which, at some point, claimed the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. But we now know the truth. Frysay (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Why haven't we included the dialogue with the police dispatcher in the Trayvon Martin Article?

I am new to editing on Wikipedia but have been a continuous financial contributor. Trying to figure out why the police dispatcher comments to Zimmerman haven't been included in the article. Can we get this included? My suggested edit is as follows:


As Martin returned from the store, he walked through a neighborhood that had been victimized by robberies several times that year. Zimmerman, a member of the community watch, spotted him and called the Sanford Police to report him for suspicious behavior. Upon hearing from Zimmerman that he was following Martin, the police dispatcher commented, “Ok, we don’t need you to do that” to which Zimmerman acknowledged by responding “Ok” per the 911 Transcripts. Despite this dialogue there is evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin. Moments later, there was an altercation between the two individuals in which Martin was shot in the chest.


I think the above information is important to include in this article. It would be information that I would want to know and feel generations researching this years from now should have as it adds additional insight into the crux of some of the controversy in this case. I've pasted below the relevant text from the transcript and one source from which you can find the complete transcript.

Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah. Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: OK.

[1]

4Aries17 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)4Aries17

This article is about Martin, not the shooting. The article on the shooting goes into more detail. VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/last-minutes-trayvon-martin-911-calls/

Update the facts

Zimmerman was not injured he had scratches. His subsequent criminal behavior is relevant, because you have not submitted evidence that there were excessive robberies in that specific area (show the data if it is true). We can not assume Zimmerman thought he was a burglar, especially given the fact we now know Zimmerman has a combative personality. Please remember Trayvon is not here to express his side of the confrontation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.110.193.214 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trayvon Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

street culture

I just undid a (good faith?) disambiguate which took the street culture dab page, and sent it through to African-American_culture (one of the existing targets of the dab)

I undid this per WP:NPOV and WP:EASTEREGG as conflating "street culture" with the entirety of African-American culture seems like a no-no.

Anyone know of a better target article for that type of link? possibly Hip_hop#Culture? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin Photo

I find it extremely hard to believe that this is the best photo that wikipedia can come up with of Trayvon Martin. The photo is offensive, distasteful and reeks of racial bias. It's interesting that wikipedia would choose to depict Trayvon Martin as a thug and choose not to depict George Zimmerman as a murderer?

I have supported this sight monetarily...future support is doubtful.

Timothy J Chambers Pastor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.244.125 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% how can we get the photo changed? J.Adubofuor (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done This was a case of vandalism; look at the history on File:TrayvonMartinHooded.jpg. It's been fixed now. VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trayvon Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor Spelling Mistake

In the sentence "According to Salon, close to five thousand people attended the March, while other media outlet's estimated the supporters to be in the hundreds," the word "outlet's" should be "outlets", without an apostrophe. Aurora mc (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Post Mortem: the Wikipedia article credited with the massacre -- this article.

According to a manifesto[1] posted by Dylann Roof the day of the Charleston church shooting,

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day.

I cannot avoid the conclusion that if this article left him unable to understand what the big deal was, that it fundamentally failed in its educational role. Wikipedia seeks to be neutral, and also to teach the subject -- so the big deal should have been apparent, even to someone listening with a deaf ear.

So the question is: what background and context can we provide, to make it more apparent why this was viewed as a big deal, why people felt so strongly that this was indeed definitely a murder rather than a self defense. I'm not saying I want it biased toward one side, but we should be able to understand and to some degree empathize with all points of view held by large groups of ordinary citizens, why they feel they way they do. I don't claim to have the answer here, but we should ask the question. Because this is not the last manifesto that is going to be written that mentions Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Not our job to control how people feel. I am anti-political to put it mildly, and feel this article favors Martin more than George. It leaves out a great deal of information that makes Martin look worse. I say leave it as is now, unless others weigh in on this. It will never have proper balance because it has been over politicalized. Super (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You can assume some basic knowledge of social media

At several points in the article, concepts related to Twitter are explained unnecessarily in a very patronising way. I suggest the following changes:

On social media, the name "Trayvon" was tweeted (mentioned in posts to Twitter web feeds by users of the service) more than two million times in the 30 days following the shooting
-> On social media, the name "Trayvon" was mentioned in posts to Twitter more than two million times in the 30 days following the shooting
Martin, known under the nickname "Slimm" on the social media site Twitter, had tweeted (posted to Twitter feeds)...
-> Martin, known under the nickname "Slimm" on the social media site Twitter, had tweeted...
The Miami Herald verified the account was Trayvon Martin's by cross-referencing tweets (Twitter posts)...
-> The Miami Herald verified the account was Trayvon Martin's by cross-referencing Twitter posts...

109.180.164.3 (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made these changes but that only scratched the surface, as the article in its current form is very reader-unfriendly, in my opinion. I may come back to it later if I have time. Cheers! StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for improving those bits. I agree that the article really needs a great deal of work - on appearance alone one can see that, it's an ugly wall of text. I see that there was a deletion discussion four years ago, and the result of no consensus seems inexplicable to me, as it seems very clear that notability thresholds are not met. The subject of this article would never have been mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources but for the awful circumstances of his death, and that rightly has an article. I would suggest that someone relist the article for deletion, and put anything encyclopaedic that isn't already there into the article about his death. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trayvon Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is Trayvons height & weight emphasized?

Why isn't Zimmermans height & weight listed as well? What's going on with the emphasis with the watermelon drinks? Ogmd.us (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

these articles are edited so often for different reasons it is often difficult to follow a linear narrative, but with regard to the watermelon flavored iced tea and skittles, the family attorney was the first to mention the things that martin had bought when addressing the media, as if that was his real crime, being a good kid buying those items. martin had been active on social media up to his death, and that was immediately combed through by media. martin had friends asking him for "tree", had many marijuana themed social media posts, other violence related posts, and someone had recently given him the recipe for "purple drank" (watermelon flavored arizona iced tea, skittles, robitussin). this is while he was suspended from a second high school for a second time (for burglary first time and paraphernalia with marijuana residue second time). in fact, the judge in the case barred the defense from introducting autopsy results related to marijuana, purple drank, and other intoxicant use from martin contributing to his mental and physical state. this is why these items are brought up in relation to the case. martin's height and weight and current photos were relevant contradictions to the childhood photos the family and media were disseminating of martin from when he was 13 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.192.194.174 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

stand your gound

stand your ground is mentioned over and over in this article, but was NEVER used as a legal defense in this case. stand your ground has NOTHING to do with this case. you can not stand your ground when on your back being beaten, as all witnesses and evidence confirmed. martin had actually returned to his father's house and was seen there and had avoided any interaction with zimmerman before leaving his father's house to seek zimmerman out for the subsequent attack. stand your ground refers to the absence of any obligation to retreat from an attack before shooting. according to all witnesses and evidence zimmerman was on his back and calling for help in the case before shooting and there was not any ability to retreat. in court there was a hearing specifically dedicated to this issue and zimmerman's legal team several times repeated they would NOT be using any stand your ground defense. i believe when i used my computer's search function on the article page, i got 13 returns for "stand your" and not one mentions that stand your ground played no role in this trial at all. this article is highly politicized for this and other reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.192.194.174 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That's right/ The unsourced claim that the police cited "stand your ground" is a flat-out lie and just another of a million instances in which Wikipedia mandates conformity to a laughably non-neutral point of view. Stand your ground had nothing to do with this case from the perspective of the criminal justice apparatus or in reality.

This article contains total bullshit, but, hey, that's what Wikipedia is these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:b11f:2f20:e927:ac80:86b9:95b5 (talk • contribs)

We mention SYG because sources do (there are actually more instances of "stand your ground" in the titles of sources than there are in the body of this article). The article clearly and explicitly notes that SYG had no role in Zimmerman's acquittal. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Bashing his head...

As per Wikipedia standards, I have already revert this addition once and am requesting discussion as it puts emphasis only on one side and doesn't appear to maintain an NPOV, specifically as this is a report from a single person which is also often contradicted by other sources. I have no issue if it's put elsewhere in the article but WP:UNDUE specifically in the lead. I'll also note that @Wikid77: has restored it a third time. This does not belong in the lead, as I stated previously and think that it should be removed until such a time consensus has been reached. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The added text was balanced, as Trayvon Martin was shot once, and George Zimmerman claimed it as self-defense because he thought Martin was reaching for Zimmerman's gun, per wp:RS source:
Matt Gutman and Seni Tienabeso. "ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting". abcnews.go.com. Zimmerman has claimed self defense in what he described as a life and death struggle that Martin initiated by accosting him, punching him in the face, then repeatedly bashing his head into the pavement" (in paragraph 2), and paragraph 12, "He later told officers his head was being pounded into the pavement and that he feared for his life, but that it was only when Martin seemed to reach for the gun wedges [sic] in his waistband that Zimmerman drew his weapon and fired directly into Martin's chest -- killing him.
However, we should also note Zimmerman had a broken nose during the incident, as NPOV text to balance when Martin was shot, Zimmerman's head was bloody and his nose was broken, as noted by medical examination at the time. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, you are totally missing my point and that of others: you are giving undue weight in the lead to a single claim by Zimmerman. It does not belong in the lead. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Pictures of Trevon Martin

The news media and many other sources of information (such as Wikipedia and Siri on the iPhone) continue to use an “undated Picture of Trevon Martin” that shows him when he was much younger to “create” a more controversial event. Why not use a picture of him near the time of his death since they are readily available? 

WilyWally (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

why is "@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" at the top of the page instead of somewhere under the "Digital footprint" section lol

Thought it was a joke edit when I first noticed this yesterday, came back today and nope... still there. I see people debating the use of the word "watermelon" to describe a tea flavor in the article, but not the fact that the first thing you see at the top of dude's wiki is NO_LIMIT_NIGGA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxaahh (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Request to have typo corrected in Biography of Trayvon's page

Hello,

The following sentence appears under biography:

Martin had wanted to fly or repair airplanes and in mid-2009, enrolled in "Experience Aviation", a seven-week program in Opa-locka, Florida, run by award-winning aviator, Barrington Irving said that Martin was a polite youth "[who] reminded me of myself because I had a strong interest in football until I fell in love with aviation."

Please change this sentence to (difference in bold) the following:

Martin had wanted to fly or repair airplanes and in mid-2009, enrolled in "Experience Aviation", a seven-week program in Opa-locka, Florida, run by award-winning aviator, Barrington Irving. Barrington Irving said that Martin was a polite youth "[who] reminded me of myself because I had a strong interest in football until I fell in love with aviation."

 Not done It already says that, no need for bolding. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel Gilbert called “The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud That Divided America.”

 Has this already been discussed?  It seems odd there is no mention here. Here is just one reference. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-zimmerman-sues-trayvon-martin-s-family-100-million-damages-n1095916 Can we add something about this? Sthubbar (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

please change the picture to the more accurate and more widely used photo of Martin smiling. the hoodie photo is used to falsely portray Martin as dangerous or a thug and suggests bias towards Zimmerman's primary defense in the case --- that Martin appeared suspicious because he was wearing a hoodie and was the aggressor Thedbeaudoin (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

please be more specific. Please give us an image to replace instead of saying to use another image. Starzoner (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. If you want to change the picture, you need to make a specific suggestion of one from Commons, and such a picture must be appropriately licensed; see there for more info about that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Rachel Jeantel

Why is there no mention of the primary witness Rachel Jeantel? 2607:FEA8:10E0:1A00:DD23:6494:75DE:7324 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

She is not the subject of this article. She is mentioned at Shooting of Trayvon Martin, where there is more relevance. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

George Zimmerman is Caucasian not hispanic american!! 2601:200:8101:1940:943D:895E:C537:4339 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

please change the picture to the more accurate and more widely used photo of Martin smiling. the hoodie photo is used to falsely portray Martin as dangerous or a thug and suggests bias towards Zimmerman's primary defense in the case --- that Martin appeared suspicious because he was wearing a hoodie and was the aggressor

Please change the picture in the article to the more accurate image of Martin smiling. The image being used is meant to falsely portray him as a dangerous thug, or an aggresor. There are better pictures that can be used. Such as the one featured in this website:

https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/trayvon-martin

https://www.biography.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cg_face%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_300/MTE1ODA0OTcyMDYwNjczNTQ5/trayvon-martin.jpg

In addition to that, keep the original photo but move it to a lower portion of the article. Caption it with something like "An undated photo of Travon Martin, the photo makes him appear more suspicious and was used in defense of his killer, George Zimmerman."

2603:7000:1F00:6B91:7CAE:92CD:9E31:6823 (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Is that not the point of an edit request? To establish a consensus? 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:7CAE:92CD:9E31:6823 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Not really, some can be done immediately, depends on the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I've set the template to answered as it advises doing so if a request is on hold awaiting user input, of which I would classify awaiting consensus building to count as such ;P. If a more experienced editor disagrees with this they are welcome to undo it. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
FlightTime, per the template instructions, Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. There are plenty of talk page watchers will see the discussion and chime in. Leaving it open just clutters the list that the patrollers see. Also, feel free to chime in at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests#Requiring verbatim suggestions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Straw poll on merging to Killing of Trayvon Martin

It has been 3 years since the last discussion about merging this article took place, and from a review of that AfD, it seems there was ultimately a decision to keep by the nominator. The salient points on keeping were that 1. the article Killing of Trayvon Martin is now too long, and 2. that there has been substantial and continued coverage of Trayvon Martin independent of his role in the titular incident. However, I don't think this is necessarily correct. For 1, per WP:TOOLONG, it would be perfectly appropriate to split off the article if it were of substantial notability in of it self. This ties to point 2: that Trayvon Martin is notable outside his death for reasons independent of his death. To qoute @Ad Orientem:, who made the 2019 AfD nomination, I don't see how BLP1E #3 applies here unless you are taking such an expansive interpretation that every victim of a sensational murder would qualify for their own article ... I am not seeing how the rest of his life is relevant . I myself do not see how the rest of his life would be necessarily relevant beyond providing background information on Trayvon Martin. To survive on BLP1E#3, there needs to be substantial coverage of Martin in contexts outside his shooting. I don't find evidence of that. The book mentioned in the AfD, Rest in Power: The Enduring Life of Trayvon Martin, is ultimately notable because of the nature of Martin's death. Furthermore, the book discusses largely the impact the shooting has had on the lives of Martin's parents. The book is notable in itself as it was favourably reviewed by notable publications, but would not necessarily be sustained and significant coverage of Trayvon Martin, being that it is a one off book, and is written by his parents. The other coverage mentioned, the speech by Barack Obama, is similarily not substantial coverage of Martina as an individual, but rather coverage of his death by shooting.

I understand that this may be a controversial decision to bring to AfD for a 3rd time, so I'd like some opinions or perhaps counterpoints to the points I have raised. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 06:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  • FTR my views on this subject have not changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Two thoughts: 1. Nearly a decade has passed since this person died. BLP, including BLP1E, is clearly not relevant to Trayvon at this point. WP:BIO1E does apply, but its language and focus are more permissive. The first paragraph of that section are particularly informative. 2. Even if a strong policy-based argument for a merge were to be formulated, the emotions around this topic are still strong enough that the merge proposal has a 0/100 chance of resulting in a merge. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 Nov 2021

please change the main picture to the more accurate and more widely used photo of Martin smiling. the hoodie photo is used to falsely portray Martin as dangerous or a thug and suggests bias towards Zimmerman's primary defense in the case --- that Martin appeared suspicious because he was wearing a hoodie and was the aggressor.

Please change the picture in the article to the more accurate image of Martin smiling. The image being used is meant to falsely portray him as a dangerous thug, or an aggresor. There are better pictures that can be used. Such as the one featured in this website:

https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/trayvon-martin

https://www.biography.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cg_face%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_300/MTE1ODA0OTcyMDYwNjczNTQ5/trayvon-martin.jpg

In addition to that, keep the original photo but move it to a lower portion of the article. Caption it with something like "An undated photo of Trayvon Martin. Supporters of Martin believe the image was meant to makes him appear more suspicious and was used in defense of his killer, George Zimmerman."

2603:8080:F605:4078:91E7:F261:A9A3:9DC0 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This image was used on t-shirts[[2]] and placards[[3] by supporters of Martin, so I don't think it's fair to say it's falsely portraying him as anything. The fact that wearing a hoodie does not make someone a dangerous thug is a significant part of the story. JeffUK (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I asked to add that his supporters believed that the image falsely thuggified him, the same type of political party his supporters are tend to believe victims of police brutality are thuggified by the media, sometimes they are right, but that's not relevant to Trayvon's article. It's notable to include that perspective because it's part of the response. I'll provide sources in the future but for now that's what I have to say.
Also, isn't establishing a consensus the entire point of an edit request? 2603:8080:F605:4078:3DFD:A663:C795:1ADB (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
No the normal progression is for anything contentious is 1. Establish consensus, 2. Perform edit/make edit request. VQuakr (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

The method of death is incorrect as the case was Adjudicated and the shooter was found to have committed justifiable homicide. I understand this might not be a favorable opinion but seems slanderous to promote homicide. 68.102.124.32 (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Homicide just means killed by another human. I'm not sure what the issue is? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qiyamah19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor word edit

in the sentence "When Martin was nine years old, he pulling his father," 'pulling' should be 'pulled.' I'd change it but I can't, and it's really annoying. --131.91.4.32 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, IP! VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Changing the cause of death from homicide

To clarify, I am not arguing as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not. However, because of death is listed as homicide with gunshot wound in parentheses. While homicide comes from the Latin, homo, meaning man, and cidium, meaning act of killing, and it is technically correct, it can be misleading, since it is connotatively tied to murder. Missing it as the cause of death can be misleading to someone who doesn't read the full article, seeing that the jury acquitted him. Again, my issue with the word is not in its definition, but in a misleading connotation. I am not arguing about the justice of the event, simply the use of the word. 2600:1011:B16A:4089:64B6:DE96:76C1:ED5F (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

"Homicide" is accurate and matches the sources. There is no misleading connotation. We don't need to pander to those who don't understand what the word means and doesn't mean. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. People need to remove personal feelings. It technically wasn't homicides. Super (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Law and morality are not the same. The cause of death is listed as a homicide because Martin died as a result if Zimmerman shooting him, regardless of how you feel about it. June Parker (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The use of the word is homicide incorrect. A jury ruled the Zimmerman shot in self defense. Regardless of what anybody thinks Zimmerman was not convicted of homicide. Fromtheguard (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Zimmerman committed homicide in causing the death of Trayvon Martin by shooting him. He was found not to be legally culpable because the homicide was found by the jury to be justifiable as an act of self-defense. It does not cease to be a homicide because it was found not to be murder. General Ization Talk 00:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
On the Kyle Rittenhouse talk page, it's been argued very strenuously that we cannot say the jury found him not guilty due to self-defense. But I see that's a phrasing type which appears you consider apt for such a verdict. Do you have any suggestions about how we can arrive at a standard verbiage method for such references in the various articles? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
"Convicted of homicide" is not a thing. Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder 2 and manslaughter. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trayvon_Martin/Archive_2&oldid=1238421075"