Jump to content

User talk:Nil Einne/Sandbox 2/Archive 1

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

Trayvon Martin

Suspension

Suspended from Michael Krop Senior High School in Miami-Dade, Trayvon, 17, went to Sanford with his father to visit the father’s girlfriend. The family won’t say why the teen was suspended, but said the trip to Central Florida was in part designed so the father and son could spend time together getting Trayvon focused.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708185/embattled-sanford-police-chief.html#storylink=cpy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcecola (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the following Orlando Sentinel article, Michelle Kypriss, Trayvon Martin's English teacher at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in Miami, stated that Trayvon Martin was suspended for tardiness, not for misbehavior at school: Trayvon's parents and the school have both come forward to inform that Trayvon was suspended from school for 10 days for possession of marijuana in mid-February. The parents go on to say that the suspension was over a plastic baggie that contained only marijuana residue. Juliawarhol (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-tension-20120317_1_shooting-death-english-teacher-uncle

76.123.133.211 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)SuspensionSpecificier

Now according to this Miami Herald article, Trayvon Martin was suspended for being in an unauthorized area on campus, not for violent behavior:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html

76.123.133.211 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)SuspensionSpecifier2

This information is relevant to this article because it explains why this young man was out-of-town during a school day. The explanation for the 10-day suspension is not official but hearsay from an English teacher who did not issue the suspension. However, if true, it can provide an anecdote about a youth who was suspended for being somewhere that he was not supposed to be. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter whether or not it was a weekend. The suspension explains why the young man was not at home with his mother on the Sunday night before a school day. In addition, the fact that the suspension was so stiff can be indicative of something more than the hearsay mentioned by the English teacher. The information does NOT present a negative POV, since nothing is presented but the facts and this is left to interpretation or investigation of the reader. Please do NOT remove this again. I will continue to add it until a consensus is reached. It is pure FACT and should be included within this discussion. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
BTW, you do not have any administrative rights to include whatever you want in the article and then request that any disagreements with your goals are disputed here. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Martin was serving a 10 day suspension is highly relevant. It explains why he was so far from his home on the night before a school day. It also possibly explains why he had feelings of hostility towards a neighborhood watch volunteer, ostensibly being representative of an authority figure. That fact he was so far from home is not worth stressing in the article. But, simply putting in cited details that he was serving a 10 day suspension is fair. (As for continuing to use a booking mugshot from an unrelated incident for which all charges were dismissed against an Hispanic multi-racial adopted by Jewish parents man, this certainly seems highly POV.) Neither of these two guys was angelic on the night of the shooting. Let the facts fall where they fall. But, let's not censor the article to make one look more sympathetic than the other. That appears to be racism, pure and simple, to filter the facts. I have to go with Ccchhhrrriiisss on this. Let's put in the facts and let the readers make their own opinions. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is an acceptable resolution. However, all of the information provided by the English teacher is mere hearsay. We don't have the actual reason why Trayvon Martin was suspended or why for such a lengthy period. Hopefully, something more substantial will be released that provides evidence from the school as to the exact nature of the suspension. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed from the article the claim that Trayvon Martin was an "A" or "B" student. We have nothing but hearsay that was taken from a short interview of a sympathetic family member. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. This particular claim was a statement made in an interview of one teacher who may or may not have inserted a POV regarding this. This young man had many other teachers and we have no proof that this claim can be substantiated. If we are going to include this, we can't include it as a "fact" but as part of a quote. That has now been included in the article. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Trayvon's apparent Twitter account (screen name: @ No_Limit_Nigga)[1], Trayvon may have been suspended for entering a school bus and then striking the bus driver. [2] This might merit some attention for inclusion in the article. These Twitter pics are circulating the internet and appear to be authentic. However, we have yet to see a credible or reliable source mentioning them. For now, we see blogs like this one: [3]. Does anyone think that this is worth pursuing? If true, it could substantiate a propensity toward violence on the very day he was shot and killed. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession. [4] Rcecola (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The article should be updated with the fact that Trayvon was suspended for marijuana. [5] Zimmerman claimed to police that Trayvon looked like he was "on drugs" and his suspension is clear evidence that he very well could have been. The picture of Trayvon that has been widely circulated in the media is a much younger Trayvon, where in reality he was a grown man, at 6'3" a likely imposing figure to the 5'9" Zimmerman. Jaws1932 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Who are you and what is your reason for spreading this offensive material? You know very well that none of what you posted is going into the article. I'm disgusted. Have fun with your "research" and theoretical questions. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 08:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
One thing you're probably going to have to deal with is a LOT of negative material coming out about ALL of the people who are involved in this case, not only Trayvon and George, but the various witnesses, parents, friends, police, the media, and more. While I think we need to stand on Reliable Sources and use care and judgement, my instincts at this point say that the longer this drags on without a clear resolution, the more the media will take opportunities to dissect each and every person's life that is a part of this.... and it will not be pretty. -- Avanu (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I added in the reason why he was suspended, finding many reliable sources do carry that information, and adding one reference to that, although you can do a Google news search and find many more. [1] Dream Focus 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed it - we're in the midst of extensive discussions (here and elsewhere on the page) about this and are trying to work it out here, having just come off of full protection because of this matter. Feel free to join in the conversation. Thanks Tvoz/talk 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Old photo and possible POV issue

Is there a more recent photograph of Trayvon Martin? The photo currently being used is from junior high school. The widely-circulated hoodie image is problematic in that it is supposedly two-years old and could present a negative POV (in regard to wearing a hoodie indoors). Is there an image circulating that might demonstrate his appearance at the time of the shooting? According to most reports, this young man was 6'3" at the time of the shooting. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You can see a newer photo here - apparently from his Facebook page. Gold teeth, tats.
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer
Definitely a different guy than the little kid the media has been advertising. Whether the photo meets Wikipedia criteria I don't know.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia always shows the more recent picture of the person. No reason to change that now. If this is the most recent picture of him, I say use it. Dream Focus 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Mention religious faith of Martin or Zimmerman?

What religion was Trayvon Martin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Mechanic?

This article is claiming that Trayvon Martin wanted to be an aviation mechanic. The only source is a biased tabloid article entitled Get Your Mind Right: What You Need to Know About the Murder of Trayvon Martin. The article is taken from the magazine Complex. This low-circulation and sometimes controversial magazine often does not pass the muster of journalistic integrity and this claim in particular is non-cited and completely unsubstantiated. I suggest that this claim be deleted from this section of the Wiki entry until it is substantiated by credible evidence. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Update?

Wikipedia is still using the photo shopped picture of Trayvon. Miami newspaper states he was suspended for Pot and writing graffiti. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paceace (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.newsmax.com/US/treyvon-suspended-neighborhood-watch/2012/03/27/id/433993 suspended 3 times and had screwdriver and womens jewelry police said were related to burglary.

Some Claims

Here are a couple claims I have heard and I wonder if anyone can verify these with evidence:
1) The location of the scuffle is not 'on the way' home from the store Trayvon was at, suggesting that he took 'the long way home' to walk by these houses despite the rain. Do we have google maps location of the 3 places?

He was being pursued by Zimmerman and felt threatened, so he had changed his route to try and get away from him.


2) Zimmerman was injured. (& to what extent?)
3) We know that Zimmerman has called the police many times, but how many times were these calls about black males? According to some sources, all his calls were regarding black males.

No, all of his calls were not about black males. He called about a large variety of different things, from kids dangerously playing in the street to suspicious figures to open garages. So many of his calls involved no sightings of people. QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


4) Why is the picture of Trayvon seem so dated? One article said that he was a 6’3 140lb football player, but the kid in the picture looks tiny. It sounds like some serious bias, Zimmerman is 5’2 correct? It seems like some people want to paint Trayvon as this little kid being attacked, when in reality he was over a foot taller and probably in better shape given their weights.

I don't know where you're getting this information, but Trayvon was a skinny kid. He weighed 140 pounds, while Zimmerman weighed 250 pounds--figures repeated in many many articles, including in reliable sources. I've never seen anything that reports that that is Zimmerman's height. Trayvon wasn't a football player at the time of his death. There is a photo circulating of him suited up for football, but that was from a few years back when he was a middle school student, and he was quite small in the picture, with skinny arms: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-obama-and-the-persistence-of-bias/ I can't find a single citation of Trayvon's height by anyone who is reliable. It's mainly people who are defending Zimmerman and no one has provided any sources for their claims. However, I bet they got their information from here or a similar site: http://rivals.yahoo.com/video/recruit-highlights-football/norcalpreps/Treyvon-Martin-Highlights-1-301188?NICK_NAME=&LEVEL=0&TIME=1274137162&SIG=b73b077f12707a0447c0b430d90fc8c1

That is a page about a kid in San Diego named Treyvon Martin (note: TrEyvon. Kid who was killed was TrAyvon) who graduated in 2011 and is 6'3" and 215 pound football player. Here's his picture: https://www.facebook.com/people/Treyvon-Martin/100001293407559 . People mentioning this height and weight seem too eager to defend Zimmerman to bother paying any attention to the difference between San Diego and Miami, between "class of 2011" and "class of 2013", spelling, and facts.QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


The photo was used, beecause that is the one being widely used in the Media. That may certainly be POV/sympathy pushing, but it is on the part of the media. In any case, if a better picture can be found, I am more than happy to upgrade to it. The only other one I have seen is the "hooded" picture of him, which may be a decent upgrade, considering that that is similar to what he was wearing at the time of the incident. It does appear to be a slightly older picture as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Trayvon was not carrying ID at the time and was initially a 'John Doe'. Parents provided the pic they had. Certainly didn't want to use his twitpic account photo (@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA[2])


5) Zimmerman went door to door warning residents to be on the lookout for "young black men who appear to be outsiders". Was this the description of the burglar in his neighborhood, or something he invented?

There were many different break-ins and suspicious activities. Some people were caught, some not. So there were suspicious people whose descriptions were unknown. By focusing only on black people as suspicious, and on focusing on black males collectively as suspicious, you can be sure to ignore any non-black people who might actually be criminals, and you will also be criminalizing innocent black men who are themselves crime victims, which is exactly what happened here.QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


I appreciate it if anyone could clear these up; if not for the wiki article for my own curiousness. --76.175.31.150 (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Zimmerman injuries, from the preliminary report at http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf , "Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of his head." He needed only minor first aid from Sanford Fire Dept units before the was transported to the police station. Doctree (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The police report gives Trayvon Martin's weight as 160 and George Zimmerman's height as 5'9" for whatever that's worth. At the time of Martin's younger football picture he very well may have been 140 pounds. ----Naaman Brown (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article should be updated to indicate that the police report states taht Trayon Martin's weight is 160 pounds. It appears that the 140 lbs is an incorrect/earlier weight. ITBlair (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is true and supportable that Trayvon Marton weighed 140lbs when weighed after death, that still does not mean he was 140lbs at the time of the fight. If Trayvon Martin died of blood loss from the gunshot wound, over 40% of his circulating blood volume would have been lost. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding#Blood_loss> . I suppose one could add at least 5lbs to 10(?)lbs to the 140lbs? Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The police report had him at 160 I believe, the 140 is coming from other sources. In any case, contradicting the police report without an RS doing it would be WP:OR and certainly adding a guessed amount would be. Regardless, I think it is moot, because the 140 is not coming from any weighing being done by the police, we do not have access to the autopsy. The police estimate was done visually only. At one point we had "Martin was estimated as weighing between 140 and 160" or something, but that has since been lost. We can pick a number if we think one is more defensible, or we can show the range of numbers reported, but we cannot do our own estimation. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

911 calls

I am not very familiar with using wikipedia, but I would like to bring up that the city of Sanford has released 911 recordings from the shooter as well as a few residents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I added a link to the article. VQuakr (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite the link I was thinking of, but I gave it a go and added a mention of the City of Sanford's official release of the 911 recordings and added a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should have a link to the city as well. I moved the reference to earlier in the paragraph, since the two sentences basically were duplicates. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with using Wikipedia as well, but aren't the claims that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin and that 2 shots were fired completely false? According to the witnesses in the recorded calls there is only 1 shot (listen to the call in the cited article - only 1 shot and the witness says 1 shot). Also, the article which is cited for Zimmerman apprehending Martin makes no mention of the fact. There is no evidence on how the confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman happened, but Zimmerman certainly has a history of pursuing suspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.164.135 (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In another call, Zimmerman claims to be pursuing Martin. 67.86.183.40 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, in that same call, Zimmerman does mention, twice, that Martin was running — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Placing the entire transcript of the 911 call from Zimmerman in the page would avoid (even) the appearance POV. Suggest we do that here.ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Errant material is being post here at an alarming frequency. Zimmerman used the police's non-emergency number to call the police. Simply Google "Zimmerman non-emergency" in the Google News section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.103.157 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read the results of that search, and I think the text is somewhat confusing but clear. The non emergency calls that are being referred to are not the call he made in relation to this incident, but other previous calls (for example, the "daily beast" article mentions 6 non emergency calls released - clearly zimmerman did not call the police 6 times over this single incident. So anyway - we could qualify the statements about previous calls to say a mix of 911 and non emergency calls, but I believe the description of this incident as 911 is accurate, especially considering thats what the police report indicates. -- On second reading some of the 6 may be talking about other peoples calls regarding this same incident. Do you have a specific source saying zimmerman's call was not 911? Gaijin42 (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Listen to how Zimmerman's call http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/911/call1.wav was answered, "Sanford Police Department, line is being recorded, [mumbled 'Dispatcher'] Schantz." That is how calls to a direct police line are answered. Listen to all six of the 9-1-1 calls, each answered with, "Nine-one-one, do you need police, fire or medical?" I won't discuss first question disagreements (my department's is, "Where is the emergency?") but virtually all PSAPs (public safety answering points) answer in similar manners. Zimmerman's call was NOT to 9-1-1. The pertinent calls are available at http://www.sanfordfl.gov in .wav format and http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-calls-audio/ in .mpg format. When I can, I'll convert the .wav to .ogg and upload. (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Doctree (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide verifiable references stating that this was a direct call to the police, not to 911? It should definitely be edited, if such references are available. (Even if it's just the audio + references that calls in *that area* are answered differently.) I'd think the calls themselves would be more encyclopedic, though, as far as uploading and including them in the article, so please feel free to do that as well! – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
No. Even original source at Sanford, FL web site puts the call under a heading of "911 calls." .ogg files of calls below. Doctree (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
News sources say Zimmerman, who served as a unofficial volunteer neighborhood watchman, made 46 of the 400+ calls made from that neighborhood to police on various incidents or events in the immediate past. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Time of police call by Zimmerman was 19:11:12 [7] Note: Link takes a bit to load as it lists all 911 calls Zimmerman has made. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)AndyB

About 2:10 into the 911 tape I hear Operator(O): "Are you following him?", Zimmerman(Z): "Ya.", O: "O.k. we don't need you to do that.", Z: "O.k.". About 4 seconds later the wind in the microphone was silenced. Presumably Zimmerman stopped following. In my opinion not including this in the section "Zimmerman police call" unfairly prejudices the probable defendant in a murder trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.120.222 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Add audio files below to this article (adding second [ at the front for proper display).

  1. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call1.ogg|thumb|Zimmerman call to police]]
  2. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call2.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call reports yelling 'Help']]
  3. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call3.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call; hear 'Help' and gunshot in background]]
  4. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call4.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call reports screaming and gun shot]]
  5. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call5.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call reports screaming 'Help' and gunshot]]
  6. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call6.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call reports gun shot]]
  7. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call7.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call; distraught caller]]
  8. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call8.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call]]

REASON: The calls are important elements of the event. The original releases can be and eventually will be removed from the City of Sanford web site. Copies of the calls in proprietary formats on commercial web sites may include advertising or garble the audio when distributed in Macromedia Flash format.

These are the .wav files posted on the http://www.sanfordfl.gov web site converted to .ogg and uploaded to Commons. Add the second initial bracket for correct display in the Article (My first attempt to post this list put 'Play' buttons here in Talk). I see no reason to modify existing text after audio files are added. Let readers listen and make their own judgments. Doctree (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note the 'help' on the calls were confirmed to be Zimmerman, and the witness who made the call confirmed he was being beaten by a man in a hoodie.--DeknMike (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Some have suggested the disputed words were "fucking coons", an ethnic slur used against black people, while others suggest it was "clueless", "course", or "punks" is nothing but unproven speculation and should be removed. Since when is Mother Jones a reliable and unbiased source? 68.3.103.157 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC) AndyB

number of calls/dates

According to the Orlando Sentinel "Slaying in Florida: Was Trayvon Martin's killer a vigilante or conscientious neighbor?" Zimmerman called police 46 times during EIGHT years of time not one year as noted in the Wikipedia. There is a possibility this may even be a longer period as ClickOrlando.com is reporting the 46 calls being since 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.103.157 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The various reports are not mutually exclusive. Technically he made at least 46 calls since 1985 (the day he was born). Unless we get a RS saying that within one year is explicitly wrong, or a breakdown of the dates of calls I am not sure what we can put other than what has been reported. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The calls have been since 8/12/2004... [8] Slow to load as the pdf has all of Zimmerman's 911/PD calls68.3.103.157 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)AndyB

According to the Atlantic, 46 calls had come in since 2001. The 2011 year number was a typo. [9] This correction is seen in a number of news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.239.135 (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Clear consensus to have the article remain here. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin → Trayvon Martin – This article was recently boldly moved [3] to Trayvon Martin. I undid this move, but would like to see a broader consensus established either way. This is a procedural nomination to encourage the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to oppose the move as well because I thought Shooting of Trayvon Martin was consistent with naming conventions of people famous for one incident. But then I did a bit of looking on WP and saw that it's rather haphazard. Nicole duFresne, significant only for her murder, gets an entry with just a name. Amadou Diallo gets Amadou Diallo Shooting. Abner Louima gets his name entry; Sean Bell shooting incident] vs. Emmett Till. Rodney King vs. Death of Vincent Chin. Jessica McClure and Yoshihiro Hattori are name only.QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the point of such a move, if someone wants to make a wikipedia article about Trayvon Martin, the let them do so. Otherwise, I believe this is an event that impacts more than just Trayvon Martin and should be its own article. (Just like the Super Bowl events are its own articles separate from the articles of the individual teams playing in it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ONEEVENT; Had Trayvon Martin not been killed in this incident, would he be notable enough to have an article? I suspect the answer would be no. In such cases, we (should) write an article about that 1 Event rather than the victim. What sources exist that discuss Trayvon Martin and don't reference the shooting? None, near as I can tell. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose per above. I originally created this article under just Trayvon Martin, and it was moved by someone else, and I think that was the right thing to do. This article will likely eventually expand to actually be more about zimmerman (if he goes to trial) than the victim. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Page was moved against the currently forming consensus. I reverted and warned the user. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Kindof wish I hadn't commented - now I can't move-protect the article. If it keeps getting moved and reverted, that's what I would recommend - if only until this discussion here is resolved one way or the other. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind - Reaper Eternal has now move protected the article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move To create more simpler view on the page and create a page for George Zimmerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nultiaaliyah1 (talk • contribs)
Creating seperate pages for martin and zimmerman would violate both WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"National outrage"?

Isn't calling the reactions to the incident a "national outrage" way over the top? I mean sure, it's a controversial case but it's not "the new Emmett Till" or anything even quite as big. Just an unfortunate incident in which a man of colour killed another man of colour in an act of (alleged) self-defense. 80.187.201.33 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it's national (or even international, the guardian.uk coverage and all) attention while the outrage seems to be from social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion, in line with the suggestion above, would be to change the term from "national outrage" (which can imply that the outrage is held in common by the nation) to "national prominence" or thereabouts (which merely suggests that this is now a story that is getting national coverage).Voxrepublica (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Or it could just be mentioned that the case gained some attention in the national media resulted in (some) controversy. That will suffice. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I changed the phrase to "received international attention". BrainyBabe (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Received international attention? Not that I'm aware of... the article only excists on the English wikipedia and in my country, it was not given a single mention. For what it's worth, I say you need some major foreign sources before you mention "international attention". What's wrong with just "national attention"? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not an extensive list, but BBC and the Guardian (both UK media) have been covering this event as well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/trayvon-martin-death-story-so-far?newsfeed=true and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17452878 as well as a couple Australian and Canadian press have put out articles as well as the federal government started to get involved. (although I'm loathe to post these gaudy and long links and start to overload this) Darter9000 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this is international attention: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/0,1518,822746,00.html http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/tod-eines-teenagers-in-florida-was-machst-du-hier-1.1314889 http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/fall-trayvon-martin-das-opfer-ist-schwarz-der-taeter-ein-weisser-latino-11691307.html http://www.oe24.at/welt/bauernebel/Hobby-Cop-erschiesst-schwarzen-Teenager/60221502 http://www.news.at/articles/1212/15/322448/us-teenager-doch-notwehr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.175.33 (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
More evidence of International Attention: Folha de São Paulo, one of Brazil's leading newspapers: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/1064464-eua-investigam-morte-de-adolescente-na-florida-apos-peticao.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.35.76 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Definitely international (UK perspective) Kittybrewster ☎ 17:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anyone is doubting international attention at this point. The question is how to qualify it. outrage etc can be POV. I think attention is sufficient for now. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

National Outrage Fueled by Media Speculation is more appropriate. Quite a few of the news "stories" are inconsistent with the "facts" they are providing. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC) AndyB

While possibly true, definite WP:OR unless a WP:RS reports it, and that type of meta reporting is fairly unusual unless this case takes a sudden turn for the unexpected (zimmerman completely vindicated somehow?) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Section on Police Department

Can we get rid of the entire section on alleged racism in the police department? It's quite irrelevant to the shooting itself, and certainly walks a fine line of neutrality. If the police were involved in the shooting, this would be incredibly relevant, but in terms of the investigation, what exactly do other isolated incidents involving other officers in this police unit have to do with this controversy? Let's keep this article about the facts of the shooting & facts about the two people involved, and move the allegations of racism in the police department to their own page.

We don't bring up every instance of alleged racism in the NYPD when there's an alleged racial incident in NYC, and this case is no different. Mpdude8 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The alleged racism is a significant part of this stories notability, both in the "walking while black" aspect, and perceptions of the police's not pursuing this case as aggressively as might some want. These perceptions may or may not be reasonable, or justified, but they are real, and very notable. The section should stay. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Multiple reliable sources references the history of alleged racism of the police department in connection with the shooting. Whether the wider complaints about an institution merit inclusion in the article about a specific incident is probably a case-by-case determination based on what comes up in the coverage of the source materials. But besides that I think the NYPD analogy doesn't fit for a couple other reasons. The Sanford PD is a much smaller institution than the NYPD. Furthermore, a specific officer involved in a past incident was supposedly involved in the investigation of this incident. Furthermore, the investigation of a shooting definitely belongs in an article about the shooting. To view the investigation as disconnecting with the shooting article would be extremely, extremely inconsistent with how other deaths investigated by authorities are treated in Wikipedia articles. --JamesAM (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Story has changed from Zimmerman getting out of his truck and being attacked to walking back to his truck after chasing Trayvon and then getting attacked. Recent quote is attributable to the police chief and is an (AP) story. "The police chief said Zimmerman claimed he was attacked by Martin after he had given up his chase and was returning to his truck." [10][11] 68.3.103.157 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)AndyB

The whole section of Allegations of Racism looks 100% better. Good job.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"myfoxorlando" source?

Is there any reason why the account of the witness who said Trayvon was beating Zimmerman and Zimmerman was crying for help has not been more widely reported? The only source for this story comes from MyFoxOrlando, from February 27. I would think that this would be a rather important mitigating factor in this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.81 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Because this witness told a different story to the police and the account does not match up with other people's accounts. This would indicicate the witness is unreliable, and the fact that there is only one (reliable?) source isn't very promising either. I say we better leave it out. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If the source is reporting it and the source is reliable, then it should be included. And it looks like it is. It's not our place to determine the reliability of a witness, just the reliability of the news source.Luminum (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Then also mention how she told an entirely different story to the police, one that matches Zimmerman's description of the events. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The citation says:

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

"Man shot and killed in neighborhood altercation". MyFoxOrlando.com. 14 March 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2012.

Another source mentions Zimmerman's red jacket. This could be a case of OR. This article and this witness is not saying who is who. What wording should the article say? Suggestions? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman bleeding from his face(nose) and back of head along grass on the back of his jacket has been reported by The Orlando Sentinel numerous times.68.3.103.157 (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Andy B

How is that source reliable? It provides an account that is mentioned nowhere else, it attributes a quote from Tracy Martin that is mentioned nowhere else, it says Zimmerman is 25 when he's 28, and it claims he's in the Neighborhood Watch when he isn't. The article has two errors and two unsourced uncorroborated points - which is impressive given that the article only has four points. --70.50.237.250 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen this account by this witness reported by a reliable source anywhere else either. However, Timothy Smith, the first officer on the scene to come in contact with Zimmerman stated in his report that he observed that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass as if he had lying on the ground and that his nose and the back of his head was bleeding. He also stated in his report that he overheard Zimmerman say that I was yelling for help, but nobody would help me. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report" http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf Naaman Brown (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the witness mentioned in the Myfox news article is their person "secret witness", so please mention that an unnamed secret witness said so, dont put him/her in line with witnesses that have been officially confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.38.251 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

As confirmed above, this is an article about the event, not a biography of the victim - there is ample precedent for this approach, as in Death of Caylee Anthony, 2011 Tucson shootings and many others. Accordingly, it would follow that the appropriate infobox is not the biographical "person" infobox, but instead one for "news event". I do, however, think it is appropriate to add a section that tells readers more about Trayvon, which includes the sourced material that had been in the infobox. (And in any case, we don't have a second infobox on the shooter.) I'm changing it back to the "news event" infobox which would be expanded to reflect arrest and trial when that happens. Do other editors agree? Tvoz/talk 00:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a published guideline or policy which says so? I am fine with an "event" infobox, but think there can also be infoboxes for the principle actors involved. I read through the infobox manual of style, and it says nothing about multiple infoboxes being not allowed. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Just saw that you had changed the infoboxes again - didn't mean to revert without discussing - it was an edit conflict and I missed that. Sorry. I don't know offhand what the policies are, if any, but I have worked on or looked at numerous articles about similar events, and have not found precedent for multiple infoboxes like that. Actually it's more than one article - I mentioned two above, but will look into it further, and see what others think. I did add a biography section about Trayvon which I think is helpful and makes sense in terms of the subsequent flow of the text. Let's see what others think and meanwhile I will look around and see what I find. I do recall objections to a double infobox on the Caylee Anthony article, but I'll see what else is out there. I doubt it's hard policy, but I do think we want to be careful about changing the focus of this article from the crime to the individuals. Tvoz/talk 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Event infobox is the proper protocol for shootings and other such things. And we don't use more than one infobox in an article except in exceptional circumstances, so that idea is right out. SilverserenC 02:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is unusual, and if a case develops then the event may take priority. However, for now a lot of the interest in the article is coming from the two actors, their respective races, etc. While this information certainly does belong in the article prose, I think having some shortcut infobox is not undue. I would certainly not object to a hybrid event infobox that had sub-sections for victim and suspect details, but I do not know if such a thing is possible. (just did a search and found Template_talk:Infobox/Archive_2#Nested_Infobox will work on something along this vein. @Silver Have a policy/guideline to that? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
But are any nested infoboxes in use? I haven't seen any and I'm not sure this makes sense here as Silver said. It's the event and its aftermath that warrants the article - I think that has to remain our focus. Tvoz/talk 06:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Neighborhood Watch Manual

It's stated throughout this article and in various news items that Zimmerman went against guidelines from some kind of neighborhood watch manual. However, its claimed earlier in the article that he wasn't a registered member of any such watch. It seems the manual in question is from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, but I'm not sure how him violating the rules of some organization he's not even part of is relevant to this event. The terms quoted from this manual are pretty strong (e.g. to suggest he categorically shouldn't have done x, y, z) so it seems like unnecessary POV, especially if there's no concrete link to this case. The source link supporting this in the article is dead anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it for now. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

With respect, since Zimmerman was acting as a self-styled one-person Neighbourhood Watch, he did indeed have an obligation to follow the rules of such groups. That he may not have formally associated himself with the national organization does not detract from his duty to follow the rules. As the saying goes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Because Mr. Zimmerman's entire justification for cruising around his neighbourhood in an SUV tank as a vigilante and for regularly reporting black people for walking on public sidewalks is his alleged participation in Neighbourhood Watch, the formal policies of that group are not at all POV but are highly relevant.
When a police officer shoots anyone on duty, he or she is immediately suspended from street patrol and placed on desk duty or on mandatory leave. I find it amazing that Mr. Zimmerman, as the acknowledged aggressor and shooter, was not himself detained by the local Florida police nor tested for alcohol and drugs in his system, as his speech on the 911 call was apparently quite slurred. I heard that the innocent victim, Trayvon Martin, was in fact so tested posthumously. I'm not sure why User:8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 was unable to check out the source link mentioned. It worked fine when I tested it just now, so I'm restoring the deleted info. I hope you now better understand the need for this section.
— Objectivesea (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
My objection (perhaps due to ignorance of the status of neighbourhood watch in the United States, so feel free to correct my assumptions if so) is that I imagine individual neighbourhood watch groups are free not to associate of the National Neighborhood Watch Program, and are free to create their own rules and guidelines by which they operate. Surely an individual may found an independent neighbourhood watch organisation whose guidelines recommend patrolling armed to the teeth, if they so desire. Really what I'm questioning is the authority of the National Neighborhood Watch Program in this case. Are their guidelines enshrined by law? If not I still don't see why their advice on the matter is relevant. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
the organizations standards are not enshrined by law, and the town was not under a legal obligation to follow the organizations standards or join the organization. However, a significant amount of the defense of zimmerman revolves around his role as the neighborhood watch "doing his job", and the vast majority (OR) of such orgs in the US _ARE_ members of the org, so it is important to qualify that zimmerman was not acting under the criteria/rules/authorization/relationships that many people would automatically assume they were by saying "neighborhood watch". Gaijin42 (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it might be fair to include an opinion like that in the article, but the current phrasing seems to imply that he's committed an inherent sin by not abiding. It could be done in a more neutral way.
Quoting guidelines abstractly without making clear that they are 'just' guidelines (however popular) would seem to introduce an inherent bias (assumption of authority or officialdom) in the mind of a reader who is unaware of the nature of the organization. Perhaps we might say something like:
"Zimmerman has been criticised for not following widely supported guidelines for neighbourhood watch patrols set by the National Neighborhood Watch Organization, which advises that participants not patrol armed or intervene in suspected criminal activity [cite manual/news sources]."
Acceptable?
8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to take it further and remove the whole paragraph. Unless Zimmerman's involvement in a neighborhood watch program becomes relevant from a legal perspective and is discussed in reliable sources, we just have a quote from a primary source are are synthesizing the suggestions that 1. He was in violation of some guideline and 2. The violation was relevant to the shooting. As written, a reader not familiar with U.S. neighborhood watch organizations might think that this was some sort of professional organization with authority and/or legal regulation.
Incidentally, I just removed the first sentence from that paragraph, which was not supported by the citation given. VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed! The Neighborhood Watch manual has no bearing on the case, and is just fluff trying to show Zimmerman violated some make-believe rule book created by one organization, a rule with absolutely zero legal standing. If you want the rule book in, find evidence Zimmerman received a copy of the rule book. Otherwise, it's trying formulate a make-believe connection. According to an official release by the city of Sanford, which was sourced by CNN, Zimmerman did no violate any laws by being armed. Remove the entire section. Zenmastervex (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
About a decade ago a guy at a party tried to impress his friends by setting himself on fire. He died. His friends described him as an amateur stuntman, and some news sources ran with that, and described the incident as a stunt gone wrong. Other, better, sources briefly explained that he was not in any sense a stuntman, by profession or training, but merely a guy who liked to pull dumb stunts. They went on to explain the rules that real stuntmen follow when performing flame stunts in order to avoid unnecessary risks of harm to themselves and others, and how this guy did almost everything wrong.
I bring this up because the better news sources you folks are second guessing have included discussion of the official Neighborhood Watch guidelines for an important reason. When Zimmerman's defenders describe him as a 'neighborhood watch member', if the press does not then point out that he was not a member of Neighborhood Watch but merely a guy took it on himself to watch his neighborhood, they run the risk of misleading the public into believing that he was better trained than he was, that he was working under the supervision of and in closer cooperation with the police than he was, and also run the risk of allowing his actions to tarnish the reputation of NW. They also run the risk of misleading the public into believing that chasing down and tackling people is the policy of the nationally respected NW. For these reasons this information should remain where it is. To remove it is to lie through omission. 71.189.63.114 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It's made clear that he isn't affiliated with any organisation, I'm not sure how there could be any confusion over the matter for a reader. I'm still of the opinion that the NNWO guidelines don't belong here any more than any other 'suggested best practices' publication does that may or may not agree with his actions. I don't think it's a big deal for neutrality if the opinion in question is included in the article if properly supported/cited... so long as it is made clear that it is an opinion and not any kind of official stance. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is an RS discussing these issues in detail. I think we can use this source to get rid of the OR, and manage to include both sides of this particular issue fairly. http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization.php?page=2 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Ridiculously biased article The City of Sandford released an official statement stating that Zimmerman was not acting as part of Neighborhood Watch when the shooting occurred. However, the neighborhood watch manual which states that volunteers are not permitted to be armed remains in this biased article. I see an obvious attempt to show Zimmerman as the bad guy here, first by showing that he wasn't supposed to be armed, even though he had a legally issued CCW license, and then by showing he acted outside of his bounds. Regardless of if the Neighborhood Watch Program has regular patrols or not, they also do NOT have the power to determine when a person is allowed to be legally armed or not. PICK A SIDE: Either he was legally armed, which makes the neighborhood watch section irrelevant, or we need to add some reference to the neighborhood watch section that says even though they're not "permitted" (laughable) to be armed by the neighborhood watch program, Zimmerman was not acting within the program when he called in Martin as a suspicious person.
Furthermore, the article at the top states Zimmerman was not questioned by the police. THIS IS FALSE. If you read the police report as referenced on the article, look on the bottom of page 3. The report states Zimmerman was transported to the police department, placed in an interview room, and then interviewed about the incident.
THE BIAS HAS TO STOP. YOU ARE RUINING WIKIPEDIAS CREDIBILITY. Zenmastervex (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Has there been a source that claims the neighborhood watch had organized patrols? I agree that quoting a nonbinding, nonapplicable neighborhood watch manual is unnecessary in this article and can give a false impression of relevance. VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The entire neighborhood watch manual needs removed. Zimmerman may have self styled himself as a member of the neighborhood watch, but there is no evidence to suggest he ever received a copy of the manual quoted in the article. There are no laws in place to organize a neighborhood watch, nor are there laws against any member of the neighborhood watch being armed. However, by quoting this manual, the implication is the rules applied to Zimmerman. They did not, and he was well within his legal bounds to be armed. Zenmastervex (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Note I've fixed some reply fragmentation/indentation issues in this section. Somehow it was out of whack and made little sense so I've tried to set the originally intended indentation again. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he was allowed to be armed or not. The issue is that Zimmerman claimed to be the leader of the local Neighborhood Watch - which the term can merely be descriptive of a role, it is also more notable as the actual name of an official program that is linked to law enforcement agencies. When he claims to be affiliated, he is borrowing its credibility. Thus we have to note that he is in fact unaffiliated with the program, and that his behavior is notably different from those in the program. To do otherwise would be a disservice to those actually in the program. --70.50.237.250 (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He didn't claim to be affiliated with the NNWO or to be complying with their guidelines, as far as I know. He claimed to be a member of a neighbourhood watch, which is a generic term. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman as "Suspect"

Zimmerman hasn't been named as a suspect in a crime at this time, correct? The word "suspect" next to his photo should be changed or removed. --166.20.224.11 (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Offically it's still self-defense and not murder, the case is under investigation as we speak so this could very well change soon. However, as of now, we should not a call Zimmerman as suspect for neutrality reasons. It's still just an incident, not a crime. Not yet. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Zimmerman description - "Shooter" should work nicely, since he admits to shooting Trayvon Martin. He told police that he shot Martin in self defense.ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Describing him as the shooter would be fine - there is no doubt that Zimmerman is the shooter after all, as he said so himself. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The Neighborhood Watch section that claims Zimmerman declared Zimmerman was known for being strict and that he went door to door asking them to be on the lookout for "young black men who appear to be outsiders" is unsubstantiated. The article cited says nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinTA27 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a couple of articles that describe him as a "suspect." For example: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/21/MNGR1NOF8T.DTL --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Still, we cannot describe him as a suspect until he actually is declared a suspect by law enforcement. He's likely a "person of interest", but that's a vague term and nobody official has declared him as such yet. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, suspect is not accurate. There is no suspicion. He did it. The question is only if it was justified/self-defense or not. Eventually other words like assailant, perpetrator, defendant, etc may be appropriate but those will have to wait until/if something official happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.--Alice in Wonderland
Why wait for the grand jury to hear evidence when there can be a trial in the media court of public opinion? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Size difference

Recent pictures of Zimmerman show him being much less than the reported 250# to 260#. The photo's of each are very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.126.20 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the age difference, how do the two match up physically? Zimmerman looks like a pretty big guy. That is not a recent pic of Martin so does anyone know the height/weights of each at the time of the shooting. I think that is important towards providing a clearer picture of the perceived danger Zimmerman supposedly felt... or lack thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.175.240 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I have gleaned zimmerman was 250#, martin was 140#, but I am unable to find an RS at this point to source that. Martin we will eventually be able to get from the autopsy when released, but zimmerman is going to be tough to pin down an RS weight, unless it goes to trial I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Source [4]- Kittybrewster ☎ 17:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hrm, good find. Im on the fence as to reliability. While guardian is clearly reliable, this particular article seems kinda bloggy, and does not indicate any kind of sourcing for the information. Lets see if any other comments come in about if this sourcing is sufficient or not? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The police report puts Martin at 160 lbs and 6 ft tall. They left out Zimmerman's weight, but mention he was 5 ft 9 in tall. These are, of course, rough guesses made at the scene. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

proposed addition to the end of paragraph ...Martin was unarmed, and was carrying a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona brand iced tea. Trayvon has been reported as being 6 feet tall, and weighing between 140 and 160 pounds, while Zimmerman is approximately 5'9 and has been described as weighing 250 pounds. <refs> Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there information about athletic ability? Some reports note Trayvon was running, George only noted as following and walking. Other reports show a fist fight with George getting the worst of it (until the shooting). In shape & 160 is more powerful than 250 and not. --DeknMike (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Recent numbers put Trayvon at 6'3" 140-160lbs and Zimmerman at 5'9" and ~250lbs. Claims have been made that Zimmerman "ran after" or "chased" Trayvon down. This is highly doubtful because I am sure the much younger and lighter Trayvon should have been easily able to outrun the larger man and get away. Trayvon was shot in the chest, not the back, which indicates that he was facing Zimmerman at the time. Claims have been made that Trayvon was the one that attacked Zimmerman after being questioned by him. Jaws1932 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Joe Oliver in an interview with Orlando Local 6 Zimmerman weights about 170 lbs. The 250lb figure comes from a 2005 police report. Source http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Friend-George-Zimmerman-scared-for-his-life/-/1637132/9722180/-/e55273z/-/. Diii (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the change request, as it does have a big effect on relative threat, but I think a friend's opinion of his weight is not reliable enough. I think we need something more official, a drivers licence, or if he is eventually arrested, or himself gives an interview or something Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf In this report Martin is put at 6' and 160. Zimmerman is put at 5'9, and no weight is listed. He was at 250 on that old police report, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.207.97 (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand the idea here is to demonstrate the size difference. Rather than deal in specifics (height, weight, etc.) which can get stodgy, and is going to be tough to source well, just find a source that comments on the disparity and write a basic sentence to that effect. This has the added advantage of proving it to be a notable thing to comment on. --Errant (chat!) 11:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

T-mobile phone records

In about everything I've read, nothing made any mention of actual phone records from the mobile service provider. Nor does reference [11] make any mention of actual cell phone records. Does anyone know where that came from? Darter9000 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This story has the phone records and mentions them. I will add it as a ref to that section. http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017#.T2s4idkX5j8Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I see that there is a screenshot of a phone record, but T-mobile or their phone record is still not mentioned explicitly in the referred article. Is it ok to make mention of something that can't be explicitly found on the reference article?Darter9000 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You must have missed it. "Trayvon's phone logs, also obtained exclusively by ABC News, show the conversation occurred five minutes before police first arrived on the scene." Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone post cell phone records that show exactly when the call from Martin to his girlfriend was made and how long it lasted? This is crucial evidence as supposedly the girlfriend heard a verbal exchange between Martin and Zimmerman, but Zimmerman was apparently on the phone with 911 at the same time. That conversation was recorded and contains no such exchange with Martin. The ABC report showed an image of the girl's phone company record that says the call came in at 7:12 but does not indicate how long it lasted. Zimmerman's 911 call was placed at 7:11 and lasted 4 minutes and 7 seconds, and the last two minutes or so of that is of him explaining how police can find his vehicle and talk to him there. Police arrive at the shooting scene at 7:17 according to the responding officers, and 911 calls by others have been received in the interim, in one of which the fatal shot is heard. This sounds wholly inconsistent with the girl's claim that Zimmerman was chasing Martin and had a verbal exchange with him. 70.233.149.222 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did Zimmerman make a 911 call as well? I thought the only call he placed was the one to the non-emergency police line (the ones with the controversial comment and where he said he was following) Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant Zimmerman's call to the non-emergency line when I said 911. That was the only call Zimmerman made.70.233.146.113 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

archiving

As this talk page is growing very quickly, I plan on archiving out any discussions that seem to be not active anymore/resolved, and perhaps setting up automated archiving via MizaBot. Any objections? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Go for it...there really is too much old material on the page. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Archived several threads, and set up miszabot. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Although Miszabot was moved to the other tool server, Miszabot I at least doesn't seem to be completing (runs to E) so I've moved to ClueBot. I've never used ClueBot before so hopefully I've set it up correctly. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Police chief Bill Lee

Is he caucasian? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. (my opinion of looking at a photo of him. It has not been formally stated in any source as far as I am aware). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Has he stepped down yet? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
no. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
He has stepped down for now, but temporarily. Added it to the article with a ref. It's also irrelevant what race he is, unless that's specifically brought up in the investigation or by the media for some reason. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You might think it irrelevant. I couldn't possibly comment. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I certainly think it's irrelevant what race the police chief is, unless his race is brought up regarding this incident or any prior incidents... At that point, it would become relevant. (My *personal* feelings on this actually clash with my own edit, but that's irrelevant to trying to respect WP:NPOV; please speak up if you don't think I'm trying to be neutral with my edit.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I accuse you of nothing. I regard NPOV of wikipedia as sometimes a great mistake. I wonder if I could lift stuff from [5]. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012 (1)

I am submitting this request to edit this article. Thank you.


192.193.221.139 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please let the community know what specific edits you want to make to the article; I cannot tell what you want edited when you don't mention anything! Additionally, you can create an account and edit articles like this yourself in the future. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I think there were asking for a general permission to edit the article themselves, not really understanding what semi-protected means. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012 (2)

I would like to request that the infobox on the page be edited, replacing the childhood picture of Trayvon Martin with this more current picture of what he looked like: http://sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Trayvon-Martin-in-hoodie.jpg. The justification for the change would be that since this is an article about an event rather than a biographical article, a current photo makes more sense than a childhood photo.

For reference, the article this photo was taken from is found here: http://sfbayview.com/2012/trayvon-martin-justice-department-to-investigate-fatal-shooting-of-unarmed-florida-teen/. Also, this picture is on facebook (search "Trayvon Martin") and just about everywhere on the web (google image search "Trayvon Martin"), so I don't believe it will violate any fair use standards.

If anyone can find a current picture of George Zimmerman, I think editing that would also be a good idea.


Fungusfun (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)fungusfun

There may be POV issues with showing an image of Trayvon Martin in a hoodie, unless it was a recent picture in context relating to the shooting. (The photo on the article linked is about a "million hoodie march", so I'm not so sure that's quite neutral...) I would also certainly like to see a picture of Zimmerman that's not an old mugshot, for neutrality. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to upload that picture and get it past the fair use filters (using dead-person rationale?), then I am ok with it. Zimmerman is more complicated. That is the only picture in wide circulation of him, and as a living person wikipedia is more restrictive of the pictures that are allowed. If someone can find a newer picture of him that passes fair-use or licencing issues, that would be great, but in the meantime that is what we have. The mugshot certainly has issues, but there is nothing else available that I am aware of. The hoodie thing is nicely coincidental, but I dont think it has a big POV issue personally.

There is additional discussion of the pictures in the archive section if you want to see how I found these two existing photsGaijin42 (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If the picture in the hoodie can be confirmed as fairly recent, then I'd say that's acceptable; however, if it's more than a year or two old (given his age), then we may have a POV issue vs using a more-generic childhood photo. I really WOULD like to have more-up-to-date photos of both Martin and Zimmerman, but obviously we can't just make those magically pop up online... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the only NPOV to approach this would to use the most recent photo available for Martin, unless there is a huge discrepency in quality. There's a big difference between saying you were scared of a 13-year old and a 16-year old, regardless of the validity or believablity of such claims.LedRush (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

fungusfunI'm relatively new to wikipedia. What is involved with getting a picture "past the fair use filter"? I don't mind doing it if necessary, I just need to know the steps. And I agree with the post above that probably the only NPOV approach to this article is to use the most recent photo available (unless both photos are from the same year of his life or something). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.76.80 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems like this is being discussed, so I deactivated the template. If you need more help, please reactivate the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a new picture of Zimmerman in an article on the Orlando Sentinel website. They say it is more recent than the mugshot.(Sorry if I was supposed to make a new section instead of editing or reactivating this one, I'm still learning how all this works.) http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-23/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-job-20120323_1_robert-zimmerman-source-new-details It says "Orlando Sentinel Exclusive" in an overlay over the picture - does that mean it can't be used here? TyphoidHippo (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like it is their copyright and not likely usable here. Back to the hoodie picture, I think it is veering toward POV, especially since hoodies have entered the national dialogue on this case as suggestive of a threat - the motives to use this image may not be so pure on some people's parts. I think we should try to obtain another image, or go back to the previous, well-circulated one. Tvoz/talk 02:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: We can't use a copyrighted image on wikipedia for this purpose. If there is another image you'd like added to the page (ideally one already on commons, then feel free to propose it. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Another request

I am not wikipedia savy, but I've seen this info in several articles. here is one source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/44895.htm

"Aside from withholding the calls, the police department has also been accused of sending a narcotics investigator to the scene instead of a homicide detective, failing to administer a drug and alcohol test to Zimmerman that night, and not reaching out to Martin's girlfriend despite the fact that the pair were speaking on their cellphones minutes before the shooting."

There is no mention on this page of the type of detective originally sent. It's interesting and noteworthy in allegations against the police department... There are also several articles, quoting the girlfriend's lawyer, saying that the police did not originally ask her for a statement, even after they had the phone records. I am not providing one as I'm not sure how well developed that story is, and I don't follow it closely.

Apologies for my inability to edit :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.82.103 (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Florida Police Chief temporarily steps down

content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/fla-city-manager-to-discuss-trayvon-martin-case/1#.T2unk9XXt-Q Police Chief Lee steps down temporarily, saying that his role has become a distraction.Darter9000 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I added this earlier. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin#Against_the_Sanford_police (and please note if there's anything missing, or feel free to edit it!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Trayvon leaving home during halftime of NBA All-Star Game - Impossible

In the "Incident" section, this is mentioned. I know this is what his father said, but it's impossible, because the NBA All Star Game didn't start until 7:30 pm, which is the same time Trayvon was pronounced dead at the scene. I know it's been reported, so maybe it doesn't have to be removed, but it should be preceded by something like "According to Trayvon's father..." rather than presented as fact. --76.99.105.0 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Per [6], the game "started" at 7 PM. Still, I agree this is confusing since many sporting events don't start until well after the announced time (or we're stuck with pre-game stuff, or whatever), so I edited it to "during a break in an NBA game..." (since I have no idea when the game actually started/ended.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The game started at 7:30 PM <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NBA_All-Star_Game> It has been established that the nearest 7-11 was .7 miles away. To travel to and back would be 1.4miles. The first phone call was around 7:00 PM. Trayvon left home long before the game even started. It is possible the father didn't even know he left. We do know he didn't ask about him until the next day. 173.22.111.112 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)True Observer

Google maps has the closest 7-11 to the location of the shooting as 1.7 miles[7], maybe a little less if he cut through shopping plaza parking lots. Interesting he didn't stop in at WalMart, which was 1.1Miles, and on the way. Are we sure it was a 7-11?--DeknMike (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

More details about who George Zimmerman seems to have emerged

George Zimmerman: White (father), Hispanic (mother: peruvian), Black (other relatives) http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-is-george-zimmerman/2012/03/22/gIQAkXdbUS_story.html

(I can't make changes to protected articles) Darter9000 (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the infobox to include the sourced information. Thanks.
— Objectivesea (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


Consensus about conflicting charges against Zimmerman.

According to an article published in the Orlando Sentinel on March 20, 2012, "Who Is Crime Watch Volunteer, George Zimmerman?", they list his offense as "resisting arrest without violence". However in the section about George Zimmerman, it is listed as "resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer" cited with the reference of "George Zimmerman, Neighborhood Watch Captain Who Shot Trayvon Martin, Charged With Violence Before", an article on the Huffington Post published on March 9, 2012. A search of the "Orange County Clerk of Courts" website http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/default.aspx shows both charges listed. While the charge listed in the George Zimmerman section is factually correct, it infers that Zimmerman is prone to violence and assaulting (battery) law-enforcement officers and could be construed as biased against Zimmerman. More than likely, the first charge "with violence" listed as a felony, was reduced to the charge "without violence" listed as a misdemeanor, so Zimmerman could enter the diversion program.Isaidnoway (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Shut down Wikipedia

This is EXACTLY why Wikipedia should be shut down, or at least referenced as a blog instead of an "Encyclopedia" you have a current event that is constantly changing and yet Wikipedia is publishing an article as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.53.11 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The goal is for the article to contain only material that has already been published in reliable sources elsewhere. Is there information in the current version of the article that you believe is doubtful? VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Babies and bath water. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

fungusfun I noticed at the top of this article that there is a big box saying this is a "current events article" and that it may change often. It seems to me that is a fair warning that the article contains the facts reported to date, but may not contain the full/true version of the story (yet). This is clearly being seen as an important national issue, so it makes sense for it to be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.76.80 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


That is all well and good. However, Wikipedia reflects that it is an Encyclopedia. Publishing ANY article that is not complete, or completely researched violates this definition. I again state that Wikipedia is a blog, nothing more, nothing less, and should represent itself as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

err, Wikipedia isn't even good for PAST events!

Wikipedia is a great source for say scientific articles and fact based info (ie: if I want to find out the population or demographics of a certain town) where there is no real room for dispute. Here at wikipedia, disputes are basically settled by whoever pursues the edit war more relentlessly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.124.123 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I vote for this section to be deleted because is has no relation to the topic at hand ~~ Scheunemann.Joshua — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.14.233 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Who in their right mind would actually use Wikipedia for research purposes? It *is* a blog - it's bad enough we have poor teachers that allow their students to use it for reference for term papers. It may be good for a laugh but should, in no way, be used for actual research purposes. Use an actual encyclopedia for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.24.179 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Caucasian Multiracial Hispanic?

Why is this person called a "multiracial Hispanic" ???? Why no just multiracial ? Where was he born ? he does not have a "Hispanic¨ first or last name ! Please be careful with this kinds of stereotipe labels ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.72.36 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone's name does not determine whether or not he or she identifies as Hispanic. Neither does place of birth. The refs we have indicate that he identifies as multiracial, as well as Hispanic. How is this stereotypical? If the refs are incorrect, please point that out. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
I suspect the article calls him Hispanic because his father does:
In an open letter, Zimmerman's father, Richard Zimmerman, defended his son against allegations that his actions were racially motivated, stating that Zimmerman was Hispanic, was raised in a multi-racial family, and "would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever," claiming that the portrayal of his son as a racist "could not be further from the truth."
Can you provide a reliable source to show that the father is mistaken? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This actually brings up an interesting point, looking at the ref. He's described as Hispanic, growing up in a multiracial family. Previous edits noted adoptive Jewish parents, but I can't find reliable references to that for now, and I'm not sure that would even make him "multiracial." Perhaps we should just call him "Hispanic" instead of "multiracial Hispanic" for now, until we have a better reference? Again, this is a tricky distinction, especially when we're treading on WP:BLP grounds. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The situation is complicated. Zimmerman was adopted by a jewish family, seems to be racially latino and may self-identify as hispanic. He was identified as white by the police department. This is personally a pet peeve of mine, but it is what it is : the term hispanic in common usage in the US is not a race/ethnicity but more of a cultural identification (primarily based on language it seems), leading to people being white-hispanic, black-hispanic, latino-hispanic, multiracial-hispanic etc. Anyway, due to all of this, primarily being identified as hispanic by his father, and as white by the police, leads to a difficulty of identification in the article, so multiracial seemed like a good compromise. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Right; the Census Bureau considers "Hispanic" as a separate class that anyone can belong to, in addition to a primary race or identifying as multiracial. I suppose, short of an official declaration by Zimmerman or a source such as his parents, "multiracial Hispanic" might be the best definition. However, "Hispanic" may be better, since we don't really have a "primary race" or whatever, but then we get into POV issues and the like, so I'm certainly not comfortable making such a change. Any editors with more experience are free to chime in on what he race he should be described as, but I feel comfortable leaving it as "multiracial Hispanic" for now. It seems like the best description, barring any new information. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Can people please cite that he was adopted before claiming it? It taints the discussion. I've only seen rumors on the internet, until that is actually ever confirmed, it should not even be considered. Currently we know his mother is Peruvian/Latino/Hispanic and his father is Caucasian (likely of either German or Jewish decent, just judging by the last name). Diskotech (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Who is considered hispanic can differ from state to state or differ according to the requirements of the different organizations" from Wikipidea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#cite_note-4

Was he born in any Latin Country ? Did he grew up in any Latin Country ? Does he speak fluent Spanish ?

AFAIK, multiracial hispanic is an oxymoron term that only has validity in a country like USA. How about calling him a Mulato Hispanic ?

You realize this happened in the USA? So this should be written with that in mind. There is a reason why there are White American and Hispanic and Latino Americans articles on Wikipedia Diskotech (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and there is also a White Hispanic and Latino American Page. Hispanic does not imply any race. Period. Hispanics can be pure white. As most South Floridian hispanics are (pure white). Most Cuban-Americans are overwhelmingly pure white. Again, you have repeated this "hispanic-implies-multiracial" thing at least 5 times, and its not true. Go to the Cuban-American page and click on demographics.

From Wikipedia "Mulatto denotes a person with one white parent and one black parent, or more broadly, a person of mixed black and white ancestry"

How about "Mestizo Hispanic ? From Wikipedia also "Mestizo is a term traditionally used in Latin America and Spain for people of mixed heritage or descent. In some countries it has come to mean a mixture of European and Amerindian, while in others, like Venezuela, mestizo still retains the original meaning of being mixed without specifying which admixture. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.70.244 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have grown in a Jewish family. And he does not seem to have a lot of African or Amerindian. Why not "White Hispanic"

Note: AFAIK, Racial Profiling is WRONG ---- no matter how is justified ---- and is not Scientific either, is just a social contruct that has been the root of many unfotunate incidents like this one ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)#Current_views_across_disciplines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.70.244 (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post has an article, stating that neighbors identify his father as a white male. His surename is likely Jewish: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-is-george-zimmerman/2012/03/22/gIQAkXdbUS_story.html

"Multi-racial hispanic" is NOT a proper way to describe someone. Being a hispanic by DEFAULT usually implies that you are multi-racial to begin with. This article is being biased. Diskotech (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggest you take yourself to the Cuban-American article and look at 'demographics.' 80% of Cuban-Americans are white, not multiracial. And they are still hispanic...

I suggest the racial profiling be dropped for both the victim and the victimizer .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.70.244 (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line: Jewish-dominated Wikipedia editors don't want to let this guy be associated with Jewishness in any way, as though the racian identity of his biological parents has more to do with his behavior than the identity of parents who raised him from birth. Instead, we will fruitlessly fill up this talk page forever and a day while the article tries to states that this horrendous individual is white or caucasian and Hispanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.69.138 (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is being contested and no one is discussing on here. I am being threatened to be banned, simply for stating the facts. yet people are not following wikipedia policy! Those editing "caucasian" please talk here. Diskotech (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here are my facts: you cannot call him a "multiracial Caucasian." I don't personally care if he's "multiracial" or if he's "Caucasian", whichever the facts supports. I do NOT support "W/M" from the incident report being used to determine "Caucasian", however. Seems to me he's multiracial... But hey, if you have the facts to call him Caucasian, cite them. The only citations we have are to Hispanic and multiracial backgrounds. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 08:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

he's been called both white and hispanic. He has a hispanic mother and a white father. his surename is jewish or german. Caucasian Hispanic would be the proper term . It'd be best to get rid of multiracial. This makes more sense as there black hispanics etc etc Diskotech (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you want to get down to logic with just those statements (aside from growing up in a multiracial family culturally, etc)...he'd have to be called a "White/Unknown Hispanic." We don't know what his mother's race is, other than being "Hispanic." Seems to me that "multiracial Hispanic" is the most logical description, absent any other, since that's all we really seem to have references for. I don't know what these "4 references" you keep referring to are, since I joined this edit war near the end of it. If they exist, put them back in with your edit. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 08:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Mother is from Peru. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017819414_zimmerman23.html and i found an appropiate wikipedia article to link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans and my articles are cited right after the caucasian hispanic, again do not assume i did not add those. look up ALL my edit history before assuming things Diskotech (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We can just describe Zimmerman as multiracial and drop the "Latino\Caucasian\Hispanic" part altogether. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315,0,1716605.story; his own father describes him as Hispanic, and having grown up in a multiracial family. Based on that, I'd say we have to describe him as Hispanic. Since Hispanic is considered a qualifier along with another race, and since he's of mixed ancestry, he is therefore a multiracial Hispanic. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Correct. I fully agree with you. But other people seem to be hellbent on describing Zimmerman as either Caucasian or Jewish, for reasons I do not quite understand. I believe the safest way to go is describing Zimmerman as just multiracial. People reading the article can click on the source and read it themselves. We could also add a note saying that Zimmerman has been described in various ways (Hispanic, Jewish, Latino, Caucasian, etc.,) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
because his father is white and his surname is jewish/german? police have identified him as white. many sources have claimed he is white. it is like you're living in a different world. Diskotech (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

multiracial hispanic is redundant. Hispanic is multiracial. Do you guys not understand that? This is why i stated it'd be best to link to the Caucasian Hispanic article i pointed out. Seeing as there are "Black Hispanics" as well etc etc Diskotech (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So I guess this page [White Hispanic and Latino Americans] needs to be deleted, and the demographics on this page [Cuban-Americans] must be wildly confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.21.199 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
If Hispanics are by definition multiracial, as you claim, then there cannot be black or white Hispanics, just darker and lighter Hispanics. This is original research, Diskotech, your own personal interpretations. Zimmerman has a Peruvian mother and a Caucasian father, and this makes him multiracial. Or, even more likely, just biracial. And while Zimmerman may sound Jewish, we have no sources saying he is, do we? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as being Jewish goes...well, we do have that statement from his Jewish adoptive father calling him "Hispanic," and since he's of multiracial origin, well...hmm, that might be a multiracial Hispanic! :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

is he really adopted? source? Diskotech (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if he was a Black Hispanic, then we'd call him that. He's of mixed origin and Hispanic, thus again, he's a multiracial Hispanic. Please seehttp://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf "federal standards mandate that race and Hispanic origin (ethnicity) are separate and distinct concepts and that when collecting these data via self-identification, two different questions must be used." In other words, it's standard in US legal/governmental terminology to refer to someone as both Hispanic and multiracial, unless that person specifically identifies as a person of the Hispanic race (rather than ethnicity.) When neither are specified, we just assume "Hispanic"; we don't even have to assume the "multiracial" part yet, from the Census definition! But then, going on his parentage, he's multiracial, and therefore a multiracial Hispanic. (Since we CAN depend on the Census Bureau definition of Hispanic origin being a qualifier in addition to race.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I never claimed he was jewish (others have however), I just simply stated that it was a possibility. This is why I mentioned Jewish AND German. Zimmerman surname has German ancestries as well etc Census definition is in a constant state of flux, look up the rules decades ago. In fact, the term hispanic is disputed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic It is stated as incomplete. The reason I mention white and black hispanics, is because originally Hispanic was used to identify those with Latin and Spanish ancestry. The Spanish are white. But then slaves were brought into the continent and suddenly you had black hispanics... it is very messy label, to say the least. This is not even including the Portuguese (Brazil) and Italian (Argentina) impact. Diskotech (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Constant state of flux?? It has been at least 50+ years that Hispanic was not recognized as a race on the censu. Seriously, thats considered a constant state of flux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.21.199 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We know his mother his Peruvian and that Zimmerman grew up in a multiracial family. How can you describe someone who is of at best only of 50% white ancestry as Caucasian? He's of mixed ethncity, not Caucasian, however you twist or turn it. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Hispanic is in flux, but his father has described him as Hispanic in his released statement. That is the most definitive statement we can have. Then, going by his origin, he's multiracial. Who cares about his surname? It is likely his adoptive parents' surname, but it's pointless to even speculate on that, as surname does not determine race/ethnicity. Thus, again, he is Hispanic (as described by his father) as well as multiracial (as derived from his mixed ancestry), which are mutually allowed by CURRENT Census Bureau guidelines. (Which are about the best set of guidelines you'll find consensus for using to encyclopedically define an "American", realistically.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, i ask you provide ACTUAL proof that he is adopted. People keep throwing that around without EVER citing that. Only rumours. The police described him as White? The police report is filed as "white", people have called him white. His father simply stated that he was Hispanic, to prove a point out he was multi-racial, and not just a certain race. Thus debunking the claim that there was racial tension (which is kinda silly, because regardless of race, it can be considered a hate crime). He never denied he was white either. So you would only be assuming, ultimately. Diskotech (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, simply his parents, then. (You do make a good point about throwing around adoptive, after a bit of Googling.) It doesn't matter if he's adopted or not though, and the surname is irrelevant. His father describes him as Hispanic, and makes no mention of whether or not he is white/multiracial/Jewish/"just Hispanic"/whatever. We do not have a more authoritative source than that. The rest of my points stand as well, irrelevant of whether he is adopted or not. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not as if the Sanford police has the world's best track record, and the fact that they call him\called him white does not make him white. I don't know whether or not Zimmerman was adopted, but we do know he has a Peruvian mother and, presumably, a white father. That would make him either biracial or multiracial. The fact that Zimmerman would be adopted or not doesn't suddenly mean his mother is no longer Peruvian and Zimmerman is no longer a man of mixed ancestry. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You can easily take an open letter out of context. Read it within the context that the fact that they are accusing his son of a racial hate crime, thus defending him by pointing out a background. Again, police described him as white, no one has ever denied that he was NOT white. The fact that you are assuming he is adopted goes to prove my point that you are inclined to "assume", in my opinion(you have yet to provide any solid proof that he is adopted. i have yet to hear any reliable news outlets report this, but yet plenty of rumors. there is a rumor going around that hispanics love to change their name to european acenstry surnames as well... will we be including that too? That's just silly. I mean come on, there is a standard here). Diskotech (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I never said Zimmerman was adopted at all, I said that whether or not he is adopted is irrelevant because it does not change his ethnicity. He is the son of a Peruvian mother and this of mixed descent. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
that specific reply in regards to adoption was not directed to you. i'm aware you didn't. 2001:db8:: and others have however Diskotech (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted that your point about adoption was correct (there's no evidence of adoption), but as Mythic Writelord points out again, it's completely irrelevant. Please stop using irrelevant points that others AGREE with as points of contention, as that gets us nowhere towards forming any sort of consensus. Please form a factual rebuttal to not using Census rules to define him as a "multiracial Hispanic", based on his racial origins and his father's statement that he is "Hispanic." 10:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:db8 (talk • contribs)

Stop using irrelevant points? What? You and others are the ones point out adoption! not me! I am pointing out that this DISTRACTS and TAINTS the discussion, as people begin to make ASSSUMPTIONS. I been sticking to the facts. And again, multiracial hispanic was never used. He used those words separately. Implying he was not just hispanic. They also pointed out that he had black relatives. Which anyone can take out of context. Does that make him black? etc etc Again, no one denied he was White and again, hispanic is multiracial. you also have to consider that people use hispanic via various definitions, as pointed out by the wikipedia article itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic Diskotech (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"Hispanic is multircacial"... Wtf are you talking about? Hispanic means having roots in Latin America. It implies absolutely nothing about race. It is like saying is a "Southerner" (w.r.t southern USA). If I say "my friend Billy is a Southerner" it doesnt tell you anything, at all, about Billy's race. If I say "my friend Billy is a Hispanic", it doesnt tell you anything, at all, about Billy's race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.21.199 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing about adoption; I conceded multiple times that *you are correct* to not point out supposed adoption. (But it's irrelevant again, so YOU also need to stop bringing it up.) Yes, the word "Hispanic" was used by itself by his father. But again, his ancestry is obviously mixed. Again, the best reference we have here is the Census Bureau guidelines (the other other "guidelines" you give seem to just be assumptions.) Those guidelines state that Hispanic is a general ethnicity that can be applied with a race, such as "multiracial." But I give up on this editwar for tonight. You've reverted the page 7+ times, please read WP:3RR and consider taking a break if you feel you need to revert past that, while discussion is still taking place. 10:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You said it yourself: Hispanic is multiracial. Those are your words, Diskotech. So then why describe him as Caucasian? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman is described as Hispanic by his father. His father is described as Caucasian American, his mother as Latin American and he grew up in a multiracial household. (Some?) Police reports have described Zimmerman as Caucasian. What is wrong with the description of multiracial? We can drop the Hispanic part altogether. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Put in a reference to being adopted by Jewish parents. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


Why is the race and ethnicity of Zimmerman's parents so important to stress? If Trayvon Martin was adopted and raised by white parents, there wouldn't be any less allegations that this murder was racially motivated. 147.106.161.169 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Jewish in this context can only refer to a religion. Jews come in all colors. And I agree with the IP. If Martin was raised by White Jews would it make a difference? PLUS. All those sources do not say what that sentence in the lead says. so it is a case of not in source. --41.177.75.39 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow - does anyone in this thread understand the concept of sourcing and not making assumptions based on names, faces and prejudice? Really hate to disappoint all of those clamoring to say he was adopted by Jewish parents - this is a total fantasy made up by people who have no facts. According to this Washington Post article, published on March 22 and added to this article as a reference on March 23, the facts are that he is Catholic, a former altar boy, and his parents - a Peruvian woman and a Caucasian father - are his birth parents, and Catholic. Oh well, you'll just have to come up with some other place to spew incorrect stereotypes and prejudices. Tvoz/talk 07:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Sighs. Listen very carefully. I'm NOT gonna belabor this nonsense with you all. The fact is that Zimmerman is Caucasian, and officially considered so. You think that "white" has to be red-headed or blond haired people with freckles? FAIL. There are "dark whites" in the world. Also, for that matter, there's such a thing as "white Hispanics" too. (Andy Garcia, Ricky Martin, Cristina Aguilera, etc) My point is that his mother was not black looking. Again, Zimmerman is basically a white dude. You are whatever your father is anyway (sperm blood etc....though some people have that backwards...another debate.) But to say idiotically that "Zimmerman is not white" in your edit comment is POV madness and stupidity, and is just plain inaccurate. Even if his mother was sorta "darkish looking" it doesn't matter. Zimmerman is basically a white dude, and identifies himself as such, and is counted as such. Also, again, in general, NOT ALL "Hispanics" are "brown" (though lazy sloppy types like to many times stupidly think that, per their brain-washing and ignorance of history, or vision problems or whatever). Some are white (I mean LILY WHITE), and some are "brown", and some are even outright black. But you can't go around saying that Zimmerman was a "Hispanic" (in any full-fledged or basic sense) if A) his father was white, and (as sexist as this sounds it's just a biological fact) you are whatever your father is, and he has his father's last name, and his mother was NOT a black or dark brown Peruvian, but just a general olive type looking one maybe. The most you can say is that Zimmerman is PART "Hispanic" (whatever that word means anyway), and basically Caucasian. Zimmerman looks like a dark white dude. I know some Greeks and Croatians and Armenians who look just like Zimmerman. And many Jews who look like him. It's WHATEVER. He's white (basically). Get over it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll go along with your argument if you (a) explain what your claim that "you are whatever your father is" means and (b) cite to an authority for the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charredbarn (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Twin Lakes security

Something not available in the public information seems to be, How did TM get back into Twin Lakes? Did a guard clear TM to re-enter the grounds, did TM call his father's girlfriend's house via a gate phone and get buzzed in, or was TM in possession of a card/key/remote control? I just want to put the questions out there, as I'm sure someone else can answer some. knoodelhed (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Disregard the above. The address quoted in Officer Smith's report is behind a gate located at South Oregon Avenue and Twin Trees Lane. In Google Street View, it can be seen that there is no guard post there and the gate is of a type operated by other means. knoodelhed (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Police Arrival

The police report (Twin Lakes Incident Report) also states that the officer overheard Zimmerman saying that "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me". Shouldn't all statements by the first police officers on the scene be included as well to portray a complete and accurate description of the events observed and overheard at the scene after police arrived? I think it is relevant because Zimmerman claimed self-defense and this statement by the officer would be admissable in a court of law if he should ever be charged.

In reference to the Anderson Cooper interview with the witness, the sentence that ends with "knees pinning Martin on the ground" is not factually correct. According to the cite referenced, she actually said "knees on top of a body" and when questioned by AC, further clarified it by stating "straddling him". Pinning Martin on the ground is quite different than straddling him. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

from Partial Report Sanford PD (Agency report number 201250001136) 2/26/2012

statement of officer Timothy Smith

Report Date: 2/27/2012 3:29 Reporter: S25894 Smith, Timothy Clearance: 0 Open Report Type: S
On 2/26/2012, at approximately 1917 hours, I responded to 1111 Retreat View Cir in reference to a report of a suspicious person. As I arrived on the scene, dispatch advised of a report of shots fired in the same subdivision.
I was advised by dispatch that the report of shots fired was possibly coming from 1231 Twin Trees Ln. I was then advised, after receiving multiple calls, that there was a subject laying in the grass in between the residences of 1231 Twin Trees Ln. and 2821 Retreat View Cir. I responded to 2821 Retreat View Cir and exited my marked Sanford police vehicle and began to canvas the area. As I walked in between the buildings I observed a white male, wearing a red jacket and blue jeans. I also observed a black male, wearing a gray hooded sweat shirt, laying face down in the grass.
I asked the subject in the red jacket, later identified as George Zimmerman (who was original caller for the suspicious person complaint), if he had seen the subject. Zimmerman stated he had shot the subject and he was still armed. Zimmerman complied with all of my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waist band, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.
Shortly after securing Zimmerman, Officer Ricardo Ayala arrived on the scene. I advised Officer Ayala that I had not made contact with the black male subject laying on the ground. I observed Officer Ayala make contact with the subject and attempt to get a response, but was met with negative results. Shortly after this, other officers began to arrive on scene along with SFD Rescue 38 who began to give aid to the subject laying on the ground.
Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending Zimmerman, I over heard him state: "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me." At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place. Once Zimmerman was cleared by the SFD, he was transported to the Sanford Police Department.
Zimmerman was placed in an interview room at SPD, where he was interviewed by Investigator D. Singleton. Zimmerman was turned over to investigations and this was the extent of my involvement in this case.
The Kel Tek hand gun that I collected from Zimmerman was placed in to evidence under TS-1.
Smith, Timothy S25894

from "Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf" at http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

details that don't show up in the nightly news:

  • Zimmerman was wounded about the head and received first aid at the scene.
  • The officer observed Zimmerman's back was wet and grassy consistent with him being on his back on the ground.
  • Zimmerman complied with officer's orders, was handcuffed, and disarmed.
  • Zimmerman freely made statements without questioning.
  • Zimmerman was taken to the police station for interrogation.

---Naaman Brown (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Seminole State College Enrollment Withdrawn

Consensus to add this? According to the Orlando Sentinel, Seminole State College withdrew Zimmerman's enrollment on March 22, 2012, and released this statement:

"Due to the highly charged and high-profile controversy involving this student, Seminole State has taken the unusual but necessary step this week to withdraw Mr. Zimmerman from enrollment," according to a statement from the college. "This decision is based solely on our responsibility to provide for the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman."ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is part of this unfolding story, but shouldn't we preface it but stating that he was attending college and what classes he was taking? The statement alone would seem out of context if we didn't provide a preface. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. In fact, I question the accuracy of press reports that Zimmerman in fact 'took' criminal justice classes, and wonder if they stem from the statements of Martin's parents that they were told by police that he had. The parents also reported they were told that Zimmerman was squeeky clean, which we now know he wasn't. My understanding at the moment is that Zimmerman was working on an AA degree with an interest in taking criminal justice classes and becoming a police officer. I haven't encountered anything substantiated beyond that. I'll research further today. That said, even without a preface, his being kicked out of college due to the incident and it's sequela is an element of the aftermath of the killing.ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the word 'instigator' in the sentence; "However, the instigator of a confrontation cannot claim self-defense", is prejudicial because it implies that it was a deliberate act to goad someone into a confrontation. It is up to a court and/or jury to decide if it was deliberate or not.

I think a more neutral statement that conveys the point would be:

"However, a person cannot claim self-defense if they created the environment in which the confrontation took place in". Isaidnoway (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2011 exception is not relevant to this specific case. There is no reliable source cited that says Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. The only way this exception would apply in this specific case, according to the statute quoted, is if Zimmerman stated to the police that he made physical contact with Martin and then indicated to Martin he desired to withdraw from the confrontation. The cited reference does not quote the Sanford PD as saying that Zimmerman initiated any physical contact with Martin.

This 2011 exception would be relevant in an article about Florida Gun laws or in an article about Stand Your Ground laws, but in this specific case, it is not relevant.

Including this 2011 exception in this specific case speculates that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and physically attacked Martin and then as he was returing to his vehicle, Martin attacked him and Zimmerman shot him in self-defense.

Furthermore, the quote from the Miami police chief is not relevant to this specific case as well. It too would be relevant in an article about Florida Gun laws or in an article about SYG laws. Legal issues should only address issues that are solely relevant to this specific case. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Trayvon Wilson had the right to protect himself from the assailant, if George Zimmerman was the assailant, and by the Stand Your Ground Law, Trayvon Wilson had the right to hit Zimmerman and try to retrieve Zimmerman's gun. What do you mean there is no evidence Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. Trayvon's girlfriend heard their conversation, and Zimmerman admitted following Trayvon and was told not to follow Trayvon. There is only evidence that Zimmerman was the assailant and no evidence that Trayvon was the assailant. Daviddaniel37 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

Considering that Zimmerman's attorney has said that SYG does not apply to this case, is any of the information about SYG relevant now? Take out paragraphs in Legal Issues and replace it with this.


After the shooting, media reports had indicated that Zimmerman most likely would use the controversial Stand Your Ground provison in Florida's self-defense law. However, Craig Sonner the attorney for George Zimmerman was interviewed by Anderson Cooper on March 23, 2012 and stated that the Stand Your Ground law was not applicable in this case. He went on to say that this is self-defense and that has been around forever. The attorney also said he believed that Zimmerman's nose was broken and he sustained an injury to the back of his head that probably should have had stitches. Sonner assumed that Trayvon Martin was responsible for the injuries. Zimmerman has been cooperating with the authorities and has talked to them without counsel being present. Police have seized the gun used in the shooting and are holding it for evidence.Isaidnoway (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Partly done: I merged this text with the section in the article. Look it over, and feel free to re-enable the edit semi-protected template if you have additional concerns. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing not allowed

It's not allowed anywhere on the page. Why? With things changing in the event we need to be able to add/subtract text. leaving it this way means much more likelihood of inaccuracies staying up and staying up longer.

97.118.129.198 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)andet97.118.129.198 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to have a verified account. This helps prevent anonymous users from vandalizing this article, as it is a high-profile article that attracts all sorts, including people with bad intentions. This isn't to say you have bad intentions; it's to say that all anonymous users get caught when these pages get locked. CityOfSilver 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman Section

Consensus sought for removal of this sentence - "Zimmerman studied criminal justice for four years.[39]" This is not what the citation reports. Here is the relevant quote from the cited article: "In an interview with HuffPost on Thursday, Tracy Martin said that when he asked police why Zimmerman hadn't been charged, officers told him "they respected [Zimmerman's] background, that he studied criminal justice for four years and that he was squeaky clean." 'Tracy Martin said the SPD said' doesn't mean Zimmerman actually and factually took 4 years of college classes in Criminal Justice.ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for questioning that. However, the Tampa Bay Times (Florida) news report has stated, "Zimmerman, who was born in Virginia and studied criminal justice at Seminole State College, is the son of a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate..." (see: TampaBay.com...972). So, other sources are likely to support the 4-year claim. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
"Zimmerman, who was born in Virginia and studied criminal justice at Seminole State College, is the son of a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate and his wife, a long time clerk of courts, according to his application to the citizen’s academy". The original article is located here. Zimmerman stated he was taking CJ classes. That works. The 4 year part though, doesn't. The page is changing so quickly that I'm not sure it matters anymore. Cheers :)) ArishiaNishi (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Diversion Program

Article should have the mention of Zimmermen's participation in the Diversion Program removed. The court has rights to such information & it can not be released to the public. Please remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.88.231 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This information is cited to a freely available reliable source, and additional sources stating the same thing are readily available online. VQuakr (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

Your phrase "and followed Martin after witnessing alleged suspicious activity" falsely implies that Zimmerman's after-the-fact allegation is determinative that Zimmerman witnessed Martin engaging in suspicious activity. Your writer might not have been intending to imply that, but he did imply that, regardless whether because the writer was intending to say that, or merely because he's a sloppy writer. Better here would be "and followed Martin, allegedly because Martin was engaging in 'suspicious activity'." But better yet would be to avoid the entire issue of "suspicious activity" here, because that relates to the question of whether or not Zimmerman even had probable cause for accosting Martin -- and much of the evidence in the police tapes suggests that he didn't. So, on at least two levels, this phrase in your article is poor: It's atrociously written, and it brings in a subject that should either not be raised or else requires considerable amplification.

67.217.126.250 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I reworded the first sentence. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's still a bit awkward. How about this? "Martin, who was unarmed, had been walking to his father's fiance's home from a convenience store when Zimmerman called 911 and followed Martin, because Martin appeared suspicious to him.[10] Soon after, he fatally shot Martin during an altercation between the two." ArishiaNishi (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The text states: saying he witnessed what he described as "suspicious" behavior

If scare quotes are intended then that is unfair and biased.

If verbatim quotes are intended then it should properly read: saying he witnessed what he described as "suspicious behavior".

Please stick to facts and avoid needless emotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.97.37 (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"multiracial"

His mother being Peruvian does not necessarily make him multiracial. 15% of the people of Peru are White. If his mother is one of those 15%, then George Zimmerman is White and not multiracial. 67.1.58.225 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is clearly not an RS, but from the 2 pics of zimmerman Ive seen, I would say its obvious he is latino looking. Of course, racial designations are notoriously not scientific, so that may still be white in many peoples books. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Barack Obama is listed as "African American" after an enormous debate, which came down to the simple reasoning, "He looks more African American than caucasian." Zimmerman looks, without a doubt, Hispanic. People trying to call him Caucasian are only trying to force a narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.47.86 (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
That is actually not why Barack Obama is listed as "African American". Tvoz/talk 02:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
His father said Zimmerman grew up in a multiracial family and his mother is Peruvian. Need more evidence? We have a reliable source (sources, actually) and that's plenty of reason to describe Zimmerman as multiracial. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
What does his mother's nationality have to do with his race? There are white people in Peru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.21.199 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Then say he grew up in a multi-racial family. Which is not the same thing as being Multiracial. (if that is a real identity), when the police have an arrest card it probably would not say "multiracial".(Police say he is white) [8] BTW Jewish what? Ethiopian Jew, Arab Jew, Ugandan Jew? Which one. mixing religion and race is incompatible as an identity. Either way you are right on the R.S we only go with sources. but all the sources do not agree on this. [failed verification] huff says: "George Zimmerman, 28, who is white, and who police said admitted to shooting the teen in self-defense." --41.177.75.39 (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd further argue that since police reports describe him as 'white' and his father, who according to reports say is 'white', then argues that Zimmerman is 'Hispanic'. It would stand to say that multiracial would be fitting as a one-term description of Zimmerman's ethnic background. But I think that most reports have pretty much goes on the notion that Zimmerman has both white and Hispanic background, with his Hispanic background likely coming from Peruvian roots because of his mother's background.Darter9000 (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
@ Darter if you do that it would be called SYNTHESIS. which is a violation of wiki rules.--41.177.75.39 (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For Pete's sake! Quite saying that if one has a Spanish surname, then one is not white. Being "Hispanic" (whatever that means), or Latino DOES NOT distinguish one necessarily as being non-white. Mr. Zimmerman does not appear to be caucasian from the picture I have seen. His ethnicity is simply Peruvian Indian and white. Whether his mother had a Spanish surname or not is immaterial to his race. The Mulattos and Mestizos from Latin and South America have Spanish surnames because their ancestors were owned by European Spaniards, not because their European names bestow any kind of "non-whiteness" to them. Mike Tyson has an Irish name. The fact that he is black doesn't make every Irishman black. Geez!98.170.208.14 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanford Police Department (Florida)

There needs to be an in-text wikilink to the wikipage for this Sanford Police Department (Florida) , perhaps by hyperlinking one of the many occurences of the name of police chief Bill Lee. The wikilink needs also to be added at the bottom of the page under "See Also". Could someone with an account do this? Cheers. 124.187.117.80 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done partially. I wikilinked in the 911 section, but not in the see also, as I dont think it needs to be redundant. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for conflicting statements

Take out this paragraph:

The police took Trayvon Martin's body and stored it in a morgue, calling him "John Doe".[44] Martin's family accuses the police of not asking any of the neighbors if they recognized Martin.[45] According to David Horsey, they also did not check his cellphone to find someone he knew.[46]


Replace it with the following paragraph:

Immediately following the shooting, Trayvon Martin's body was transported to the morgue and was tagged as a John Doe. Trayvon's family criticized the police department for not identifying their son more quickly than they should have as his body remained in the morgue for three days labeled as a John Doe. The family has also stated that officers with the Sanford police department didn't ask neighbors if they recoginized Trayvon who had been staying with his father in the gated community.

I left out the last sentence pertaining to David Horsey and the cell phone. Police did not have the legal right to look at Trayvon's cell phone because he was initially thought to be the suspect, not the victim. So it is not relevant if David Horsey thought that in his opinion they should have looked at the cell phone. The police couldn't do it anyway. The paragraph to be inserted uses the same cited references, so they can remain the same. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The {{edit semiprotected}} template requires a request of the form 'please change X to Y'. I've deactivated the template since this is more of a question than an edit request. If you decide you want to change the text, detail how you would like the text to read, provide reliable sources for confirmation and reactivate the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I merged your proposed text with the article. I did not remove the note by David Horsey, since it is supported by the source, and as editors, we cannot engage in OR by coming to conclusions about the legal basis for Horsey's criticism. If you have a source which disputes Horsey's criticism, we can add that. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

new sources

Im going to bed for the night, so wont be able to edit, but here are some additional sources that have some new information

Details on zimmerman employment, family, and a new pic (but we probably cant use pic due to copyright/fair use issues imo) although it might be worth trying to fight this through fair use review boards as a newer pic, and much less prejudicial than a mugshot, if someone wants to start that process it might be a good idea. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-23/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-job-20120323_1_robert-zimmerman-source-new-details

new special prosecutor assigned http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-trayvon-martin-prosecutor-032412-20120323,0,790817.story

orlando sentinel "myths", based on talk with police dept http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-23/news/os-trayvon-martin-questions-20120323_1_sanford-cops-sanford-police-investigator-suspicious-death

local news discussing previous story, with additonal analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoKW7dl_dm0&feature=youtu.be

blog (clearly not RS) but has some additional alleged trayvon facebook photos, possibly flashing gang signs http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/03/23/george-zimmerman-and-trayvon-martin-what-we-dont-know/ clearly not pictuers of trayvon, but a different trayvon.

good luck night crew!

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


There's a new picture of Zimmerman, a more recent one. Look it up, sign up as a wikipedia member and upload it to commons. Then I'll add it for you or you can add it yourself. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we do not have rights to the new picture. The mugshot is public domain as a product of the government. The new pic would need to get justified under fair use rationale, which may or may not get through. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if someone would at least try, because the current picture of Zimmerman is outdated and to have a mugshot of him already, I dunno, doesn't feel right. Almost as if he has already been arrested for shooting Martin, which he hasn't. A more neutral image would be better. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama finally comments on the case.

The president of the United States has spoken in a press conference about the case, stating "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" and implying that everything will be done to make sure this is correctly resolved. That seems as though it is noteworthy to some degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.175.240 (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And Newt Gingrich promptly gave him the PIMP SLAP he so richly deserved for speaking in racial code 'he looks like me' in order to further denigrate the INNOCENT Geo Zimmerman. 99.185.56.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Newt Gingrich commented on the case too? Is so: you got a source for that, because it would be significant. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Please cite your sources, we're not going to be persuaded by statements without some sort of mention of it anywhere in the media... or even Newt's own website for that matter. Darter9000 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Shut the God Damned Fuck up about Newt Gingrich. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.216.155 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2012‎ (UTC) Wow... if that statement a bout Newt Gingrich does not prove where Wikipedia lays it head at night, nothing else will! Admit that Wikipedia is a leftist, political blog! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.53.11 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's lawyer

Looks like George Zimmerman has gotten legal representation now http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120324/NATION/203240338/Client-not-racist-attorney-Florida-watch-captain-says?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs 184.56.186.73 (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Obstruction of justice?

...Mary Cutcher, has said in a TV interview that "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling",[39] but police say that she gave an official account to them that agreed with Zimmerman's story.[40][41] Cutcher and her roommate told CNN journalist Anderson Cooper that their own account of the incident to the police did not agree with Zimmerman's, and that they had demanded that the police retract that incorrect statement.

I haven't followed this story close enough to know if this is referring to claims by Cutcher that an obstruction of justice occurred due to evidence tampering, but if their account did not agree with Zimmerman's story, why did the police say it did? Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There have been many witnesses who stated that it was the boy screaming not Zimmerman, but police have a witness by the name of John who says that it was Zimmerman. Also, witnesses who originally brought up the account to police that it was the boy screaming, police said No, it was Zimmerman, not the boy. It's questionable the job the Sanford police department has done. They seem to have immediately taken the word of the shooter as truth, when the boy is dead and many witnesses have pleaded for their testimony to be heard, which conflicts with what Zimmerman said to police. That's why federal investigators have taken over the case, put aside the Sanford State Attorney as well. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 21:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it seems obvious from information available they took the statement of an eye witness over those who "heard" something and were attributing the screaming to Martin. No one else has claimed to be an eye witness, just someone who heard something. They didn't just take the word of the shooter, they took the word of the shooter corroborated by an eye witness. Those who heard someone screaming for help would have no idea who was screaming and to say other wise is to assume their assumptions as fact. It's getting quite annoying how much weight is being given to those who admit to not seeing anything until after the fact and only hearing screaming for help. --64.207.240.90 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of unarmed deaths in Florida

Legal Issues section, 1st paragraph, last sentence: in the quoted source, I cannot find any reference that "All but one of those killed was unarmed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.52.103 (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

opening

"Trayvon Benjamin Martin (February 5, 1995 – February 26, 2012) was an African American teenager who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a multiracial man (white father, Peruvian mother)[4][5][8][9][10][11] in Sanford, Florida."

Let me go out on a limb and guess that the original title of this article was "Trayvon Martin" because editors tend to think that articles should be about people even where the real subject is an event. Let's change this opening sentence to make it clear that this article is primarily about an event and not a person. How about "On [date], George Zimmerman, a multiracial man (white father, Peruvian mother)[4][5][8][9][10][11] shot and killed Trayvon Benjamin Martin, an African American teenager, in Sanford, Florida." 72.229.0.95 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


See WP:BOLDTITLE. Tvoz/talk 08:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Cute, but you missed mine. See how I just edited it: the emphasis should be on the event - which is why upstream several days ago I was urging that we use an event infobox not the people infoboxes. Tvoz/talk 08:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Offensive language

"However, Zimmerman and his wife had mentored negro youths before."

Um...how has no one pointed this out yet? How is that still in the article? That's unreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.167.213 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

    • Respecting the identification of race: although _Negro_ translates _black_, the former and not the latter is the name of an actual race of people whose heritage (to 2.3 MA) very greatly predates the advent of other races on this planet; regardless the opinions of the ignorant, the truth is what it is, and Wikipedia ought not shy away from it in order to promote a partisan political agenda built on ignorance and ill will.
    • Worse yet, despite its popular and colloquial use as such, _African-American_ is not the name of any race whatsoever, but (at least from an anthropological perspective) a nonsensical jumbling of the names of a continent and a super-continent.
    • To kowtow to demands to change the language from Negro to African-American hurts not only the Negro people, but also both (a) undermines the credibility of Wikipedia and (b) lowers Wikipedia's standard for academic excellence to hackneyed partisan political rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.34.94 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I used black instead of african-american, although african american is used elsewhere in the article. You have some opinions about the term negro. I will not comment about the accuracy/value/import of those opinions, but will note that your opinion is clearly in the mnority of americans currently, and the word brings back segregationist feelings. This is entirely separate from the value of the word as an anthropological issue (see also Asian/Oriental). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

```

Edit request on 24 March 2012

Hi, I'm writing to request a change in the page "Shooting of Trayvon Martin." Under the section "Shooting" in the paragraph titled "Zimmerman Phone Call" the last sentence, which references citation number 44, says, "However, Zimmerman and his wife had mentored negro youths before [44]." The use of the word "negro" is completely archaic in the 21st Century. African Americans have not been referred to in that manner for several decades, and the term is considered an offensive one in 2012. Can you please have one of your established editors change that word to black or African American?

Thanks

Oldelta98 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Eh, so is the United Negro College Fund offensive? I'd say yes, but only because it excludes every other race and is therefore fundamentally racist. Clearly the people involved are calling themselves "negro". If they don't take offense, then you shouldn't take offence on their behalf. 208.118.18.229 (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Calls prior to shooting were non-emergency calls.

Press accounts shorten it to '911' calls. More accurate sources have said police non-emergency number. It's very obvious if you listen to the recording as 911 calls are answered with 'police, fire or medical emergency?' while the non-emergency police line is answered 'police department, this call is being recorded'. Unfortunately the press blurs the line but to be accurate, Ziummerman didn't call 911 to report Martin. Witness called 911 after the shooting, though. --DHeyward (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal Issues additional content

I suggest adding the following to the "legal issues" section: Florida's "stand your ground" statute provides a broader defense when a person is inside of their residence or vehicle. When outside of their residence or vehicle, the defense may only be used by a person "who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be."[12] If Zimmerman is found to have violated the federal "hate crimes" statute in the events leading up to the shooting, the "stand your ground" defense would likely be unavailable to him.[13] Garycal (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)garycal

Yes, and the stature also only protects those defending themselves against illegal use of force. That would mean that anyone who instigated a confrontation could not later claim "self defense" - which is rational. Note, too, that to use lethal force one must have a reasonable belief that his life is in imminent danger, the life of another is in imminent danger, or that there is an imminent danger of grievous bodily harm. Claiming the belief isn't adequate: "reasonable" means something. "Imminent" also means something. But I'm not going to do any edits of the body myself. 184.60.38.240 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is going to get interesting. Trayvon's girlfriend indicated that he expressed concern about a "strange man" following him, and claims to have heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?" In his capacity as neighborhood watch, Zimmerman was authorized to ask a non-resident why they were on the property, but it was Martin that initiated the conversation. Other evidence suggests Zimmerman broke off pursuit and was later jumped by Martin, leading to the struggle that ended with the gunshot.--DeknMike (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Possible Eyewitness to Incident

This section is inaccurate. It says:

"On March 24th, 2012, FOX 35 in Orlando reported that an anonymous source had told police that Martin attacked Zimmerman on the night of the shooting.[64]"

This is not true. The anonymous source told them that he saw them fighting, with what appeared to be Martin on top, but the witness made no claim to see the events leading up to the fight. In any event, the witness being referred to is the same witness referred to in a story shortly after the incident. The referred to article appears simply to be a rehash/spin of old material.

Here is the witness referred to in an earlier article:

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1phFMGCu4

Note the exact same quotes from the witness. This section should reference this article instead, as it is more accurate and does not contain the non-factual claim that the witness told police that Martin attacked Zimmerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtsanford (talk • contribs) 02:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012: Martin's father confirms voice calling for help not his son's

The following should be appended to paragraph 2 of the "Aftermath" section

"Martin's father confirmed to the police that the voice heard calling for help on the 911 tape was NOT that of his son."

See WESH 2 report, which they say was confirmed by police sources, at:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html

Brownwn (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done An in-person interview of the mother and father that aired on the Anderson Cooper includes the mother Sybrina stating:

“I believe that's Trayvon Martin, that's my baby's voice. Every mother knows their child, and that's his voice. “
And the father Tracy is sitting next to her and agrees. This live interview happened after your claimed source. Therefore, that information should not be added.
– Teammm Let's Talk! :) 05:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

SEE: http://www.andersoncooper.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-tracy-martin-sybrina-fulton-father-mother-justice-will-be-served/

Edit request on 25 March 2012 cause of death: gunshot wound

in the table, replace "homicide" with "gunshot wound."

"Homicide is not a proximate cause of death, rather, it is a value judgement placed on the cause of that wound. It is too early to say, absent a judicial ruling, whether the gunshot wound is best described by murder, homicide, manslaughter, etc.

Application of the label "homicide" at this point is prejudicial. This is simply improper use of the language.

Brownwn (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done You are incorrect. Homicide means a person killing another person, and does not carry any value judgement. Justifiable homicide, etc. homicide is not equivalent to murder etc. this is ofteconfused because police have homicide departments, which investigate killings, but when they determine it was not justifiable, they charge them with manslaughter or murder, not homicide. When the police kill a criminal, that is also categorized as homicide. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I believe Gaijin is correct. A homicide is a non-accidental and non-natural cause of death. It doesn't speak to the legal status of the person responsible. Possible outcomes of a homicide finding cause of death include justifiable homicide or capital murder. --DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
While technically that is completely correct, I think the problem is that colloquially in America "homicide" is used to mean murder (used interchangeably in the popular culture in fact) which is actually a subset of homicide. Since this is a rather charged word, I think at the moment we might be better off sticking with gunshot which has no implications attached. (I actually had made that change earlier tonight before seeing this exchange just now, but am of course open to discussion - wasn't edit warring.) Tvoz/talk 08:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Gaijin is correct, for the simple fact that homicide is defined as "a person killing another person". Zimmerman fired the bullet that killed Martin. That is unambiguously homicidal. Whether it is specifically MURDEROUS (or, more likely, an act of manslaughter) is an independent legal question. In any case, we should call it what it is - homicide. Let people who disagree with this labeling do their own research to understand why it is appropriate and still neutral. - Drlight11 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not... this situation is an intentional killing. The law and society see it as such. It is NOT unintentional or accidental per George Zimmerman's statement of self-defense. Homicide is a prohibited act in all societies. However, if Zimmerman can show it was a case of either his life or Martin's, then it could be 'excused' or 'justified'. Homicide as a term may seem prejudicial, but it is a very accurate description of what occured. -- Avanu (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a "manner of death" and then a "cause of death". The manner of death is one of 5 classifications; accidental, natural, suicide, homicide, undetermined. The cause of death depends on the classification such as suicide by hanging, overdose, etc. Homicide would include by gunshot, knife stabbing, etc. So, Trayvon's "manner of death" is homicide and his "cause of death" is by gunshot. As the table reads right now with gunshot, it is correct. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV / inflammatory wording.

There's a lot of unsourced claims that sound like a media beat up, such as him asking neighbours to be on the look out for 'young black men who appear to be outsiders', along with other various sentences within this article. As I know nothing about this matter, beyond the fact that a lot of this stuff is unsourced, or at best is sourced from a tabloidal style news site, I really feel that a bit of conservative editing should be employed for now as details clarify to retain neutrality of POV. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you not see the footnote at the end of the paragraph that you are quoting? These are words directly from the Miami Herald, a well-respected newspaper, not a "tabloidal news site" as you claim. Sourced and appropriate. Please check next time before accusing. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 08:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There are three pillars for a "reliable source", and sadly people have to keep repeating this all the time because of people like yourself who see "BIG NAME NEWS" and think that's sufficient.
The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
In addition, we also must worry about the Biographies of Living Persons standard for an article like this. So please don't sass another editor with an I know better attitude. Stick with policy here. -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Avanu, I'm quite familiar with both RS and BLP policy. The other editor accuses the article of being generally unsourced and specifies some wording, implying that it is unsourced, but which is directly sourced to The Miami Herald. Are you saying that this particular article in the Herald is not a reliable source? If so, I'd like to know why you and the other editor are drawing that conclusion. Tvoz/talk 17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources - Comparison to Emmett Till

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it's been raised in the general media, it would be appropriate in the 'reactions' section.--DeknMike (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No doubt whatsoever that he said "fucking coons".

Watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw Repeated multiple times. Nowhere close to sounding anything like "clueless", "course", or "punks". Rimmer7 (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a significant element in the mens rhea of the pursuit and killing of a black teen; waiting until a news article comes out saying it is merely putting off the obvious when in this case I doubt anyone would question the clarity of the comment. Further, Young Turks is as much as news source as a legacy media source. I would suggest including it, at present there is inflammatory unsourced stuff implying the shooter had a racial motive perhaps, or at least a prejudice. Those should be cleared up and replaced with something far more damning such as this. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

    • Actually, Zimmerman's alleged comment does not in any sense either indicate mens rea or suggest prejudice against a race of people; his comments do, however, seem to reflect frustration for his having been inconvenienced.
    • Whatever Zimmerman uttered, it is no more evidence of homicidal intent than is the frustrated husband who describes his wife as a "wicked bitch" (which also doesn't indicate he's a misogynist) or the exasperated wife who refers to her mate as a "whore-hopping dog" (which also neither indicates that she's a misandrist nor that either whores or her husband have engaged in bestiality).
    • Some people when injured through their own clumsiness or negligence are silent; others with various degrees of loudness utter "Ouch!" or some similar expression, but exclamations of "Fuck Me!" aren't as uncommon as mannerly people would like to believe. Nevertheless, no reasonable person believes the latter utterance is a genuine request: it's only purpose is to harmlessly vent and diffuse stress. 98.95.34.94 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We have to wait until a news article comes out. WP:V says that verifiability, not truth, is the criterion for inclusion. If you want to ask if The Young Turks is an RS, please make an entry at Wikipedia:RS_noticeboard WhisperToMe (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
If it was "obvious" enough for WP, there would not be dissension. You could argue those who disagree with TYT have ulterior motives, and thus are not reliable, but that analysis would run afoul of WP:OR. WP does not exist to posit arguments, only to record verified facts. - Drlight11 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you folks reading the article and looking at the sources, or are you just throwing comments here about what you think should or shouldn't be in the article without regard to what actually is in the article? We have this accurately and appropriately covered, with sourcing to Mother Jones which is a perfectly fine, reliable secondary source. Am I missing something here? Tvoz/talk 08:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
And PS - Young Turks is a cable news show which would certainly be considered a reliable source, but we don't need it here because we already have it covered from Mother JOnes. Tvoz/talk 08:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with all of Tvoz's points. The blurb is appropriate as written. WP is not here to make conclusions, just to report the verified facts, and the only verified fact is that MOST analysis finds the quote to be "f***ing c**ns". The audio is available on the page, it is up to readers who want to fully rely on WP to listen to it and form their own conclusions. From my perspective, though, it is so apparent to me he said FC that I have to believe dissenters are either trying very hard to give Zimmerman a fair chance of defending himself, or are otherwise desperately biased. - Drlight11 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


  • By the way, how do you have a "reliable source" for something that we cannot clearly hear or identify? I have a personal example where I was retelling a story to a waitress and mentioned that 'the manager of a Walgreens was a hassle'. The waitress gave me a very strange look and myself and the person with me asked her what she thought she just heard because her face showed that she was somewhat in shock. The waitress THOUGHT I said that the manager was an asshole. We all laughed about it, and went on. For all we know, as George Zimmerman was running, he had to climb over some cones obstructing his path and muttered an annoyed expletive about it, or maybe he didn't even cuss at all, and we just think it sounds like the F word. The point is... the audio is unclear, and if a source DECLARATIVELY says it knows what was said, it is probably just lying. We need to strive for accuracy in cases like this. The key part of this interaction is obscured, we don't know exactly what happened at the exact moment of the shooting. I will agree that he shouldn't have pursued this boy, and that it is a terrible thing that happened, but there's enough controversy without us having to add to it by hearing things that we can't verify and that no one can. -- Avanu (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot of speculation going on and I think the case is at a point where no new information may be forthcoming until court is convened. Even google's new headlines in regards to all this seem to struggle to reveal anything new and with lawyers and courts involved, there's gonna be a lot more things that can't or won't be said because of that.Darter9000 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a more fair and un-biased statement could just simply acknowledge the fact there is speculation about what he said, without using the inflammatory phrase "fucking coon".

-- Echo this sentiment. There is disagreement on the facts. Some people claim they here it, others claim confirmation bias. This is a disputed fact and must be described as such in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.239.135 (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A part of what Zimmerman said on the tape is unclear. Some have heard an ethnic slur while others dispute that contention. The alleged ethnic slur occurs at approximately 2:21 - 2:23, after he says back entrance, on the call.

At this point in the investigation there is no reliable source definitively stating that Zimmerman is a racist. In fact, there is more reliable sources stating that he is not a racist. His father stated he is not a racist. His neighbor Frank Taafe has said publicly that he is not a racist. A black friend, Joe Oliver stated publicly he is not a racist. His lawyer stated he is not a racist and had mentored a black youth before. On Zimmerman's initial call to the PD, he stated a "real suspicious guy" and then said "this guy" again before the dispatcher asked him specifically if he could identify the race of the guy, "white, black or hispanic". Including the inflamatory phrase "fucking coons" is bias against Zimmerman and gives the reader the impression he is a racist. The call to police is included in a link on the page and the reader should be allowed to make their own determination as to whether or not he made an ethnic slur.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What we have is an unintelligible remark that some have wanted to be a racial slur. In that he was heading back to his truck it just as easily could have been 'keys' or 'toes' or something unrelated. It is not the purview of Wikipedia to interpret what was said, but only to report and summarize the most accurate reliable source of what happened and was said. To say definitively what he said based on your own interpretation is OR.--DeknMike (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to be very careful about these things. When you have audio that is difficult to make out, if you've been primed by being told what you're about to hear, you are much more likely to hear it. And once you've heard it that's all you'll hear on repeat listens. I hear "coons", but I was told before I listened to it that that's what it said, so I cannot reliably attest to what the audio says.

I would also add that the Young Turks are not a reliable media source. They have included many false assertions in their material, including conspiracy theories such as Iran holding hostages until Reagan came into office to cause Carter to loose the 1980 election. They are more of an opinion/analysis outfit than a primary source for information. They don't even gather their information, so it makes no sense to reference them rather than the sources they reference. Mark Sanford (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Distance to nearby 7-11 stores

The closest 7-11 to the tract is on Rinehart north of the west lake, about 0.7 mi in a westerly direction. Other stores in the area are near First, over a mile to the north (7-eleven.com). knoodelhed (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What's your point - please be specific. Tvoz/talk 08:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This might help someone not familiar with the area better understand how long TM might have been away from the tract. knoodelhed (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. This is a talk page, not a place to make random comments with no context or purpose. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

witness/eye witness and such

If any witnesses are talked about in any capacity, it should be made clear if these witnesses were actually EYEwitnesses -- people who saw something versus those who only heard things. Whatzinaname (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Ethnicity"

I was going to edit the article, but apparently that is blocked for now. The opening sentences refer to Mr. Zimmerman as being of "mixed ethnicity," and parenthetically note that he is of "Latino and white." This implies that one cannot have a Spanish surname and be white, an obvious absurdity. Latino and white can be synonymous, so to say that one is a mixture of "Latino and white" is like saying one is a mixture of "Oregonian and white." Mr. Zimmerman does in fact not appear to be caucasian, and I understand his mother is Peruvian. If his race is important, then the article shoud state that he is of mixed ethnicity (Peruvian Indian and white).98.170.208.14 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as the U.S. census goes, "white" is a race while "Hispanic" is an ethnicity. Being a white Hispanic person is neither multi-racial nor multi-ethnic. Currently the article says multi-ethnic, but I see no reason why should stay that way. Simply saying he is white and Hispanic presents the same information without forcing an incorrect adjective into the sentence. Chris3145 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed Obama quote to focus on parental, not racial aspect.

The Obama quote, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" is not as good as "When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this." Out of context this could be used as a racial matter. Which was noted in a statement by Senior White House adviser David Plouffe. [9] Both quotes are valid, but for the purpose of context and trying to convey the correct sense of the tragedy as not a racial one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? This is all about Race. Nothing else. WTF does parenting have to do with any of this? You're just cherrypicking there. 76.239.30.197 (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Saying that it's only about Race and nothing else would be speculative. While the parental aspect has been advocated by a statement from the White House, you'd need some sort of reference that would suggest that the White House meant something different. 184.56.186.73 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
However, the majority of the news outlets have used the 'he would look like Trayvon' quote, and for us to not use it is a disservice. It is permissible to link to the full speech, or to a newsworthy interpretation that the comment is not racially-motivated. It is not permissible for us to make that call.--DeknMike (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the problem here is in using either part of the full quote. Neither is what the president was trying to say. What he was trying to say, he did say, in the entirety of the quote. By paraphrasing it in either direction you are diluting it. Both sentences should be used with a link to the full speech. Requesting this change. 99.146.22.217 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Use the full quotation, no brainer. 76.101.18.118 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama quote in lead

I know it's about the tragedy, but is his quote really needed? I mean it just seems so random, the entire lead talks in general about the tragedy then, BAM! A quote by Obama. Wouldn't a quote by the boy's parents be more appropriate for the lead and move the Obama quote to like a "Reaction" section? CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 20:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. It fits perfectly in the paragraph where it is, describing the reaction and attention of the case, and doesn't disrupt anything. The only way I can see it being disturbing to a person is if the person can't stand seeing an Obama quote, which I'm sure is unreasonable for a person to feel. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 21:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel it's out of place, can't there be a quote from someone closer to the tragedy in the lead? Maybe Al Sharpton who's actually been there at rally's or the boy's mom or dad. Not Obama who's only heard details while he's busy running a country and a re-election campaign. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 21:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The President of the United States released a statement regarding the recent deployment of federal investigators from the Justice Department to this case. I disagree with your characterization because this story has become a highly emotional and centered story in the country, and the President, as Head of State, has a duty to ensure the well-being of and the order in the public. The quote is worth noting where it stands. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 21:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I get that he's head of state, I do. But that doesn't change that he himself personally wasn't connected to the tragedy. A quote from a person it affected would be better suited and move Obama's quote to a new "Reaction" section. I'm not saying get rid of it, just move it to where it can be grouped with other reactions. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 21:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it should taken out of the lead but I do agree that it should be added to a reactions section, probably the Official Statement section. I'll add it. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I saw it there as well, it does seem out of place for a statement by the President. The President didn't address the nation about this shooting, he was asked a question by a reporter and he responded. His statement should definetely be included, but there has been alot of other high-profile people making statements as well. I think a new section under AFTERMATH could address some of these things. For instance the Miami Heat put out a picture of the team all wearing hoodies in support. Diddy, Frank Ocean, Nelly, Roland Martin of CNN, Jane Velez Mitchell of HLN, Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC have all wore hoodies on the air in support. The Million Hoodie March led by Al Sharpton could be moved here as well, instead of in the racial section. Other cities like Philadelphia, Portland and Atlanta have all had hoodie rallies as well. College students at Newark and other colleges have done the same. Even a group of congressional staffers appeared on Capitol Hill wearing hoodies in support. Geraldo Rivera has made controversial comments about the hoodie and sparked a debate about stereotyping people who wear them. In addition to the President's remarks, the current crop of GOP candidates all released statements as well. It's something to think about, isn't it? Oh, I forgot about the petition at change.org calling for his arrest and the controversy with The New Black Panthers stating they were going to do a citizen's arrest.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Also agree it should be removed from the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I had removed it but since I did it was re-added. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 02:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Took it out of the lead, will see if it sticks. It might work in "Investigations and other official statements" where it can be given some context. AIRcorn (talk)

I utterly disagree - the intro summarizes the article and the reaction is a major part of the story; when the President comments on a story it is very significant and I believe it is appropriate for the lead. Tvoz/talk 03:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reaction of the President along with anybody else's reaction should be included in the Aftermath part of this article. I agree it is significant and should definetely be included, but as you point out the intro is a summary of the article and the article is about the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and the lead should only state the summary of the actual shooting.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead. He is unrelated to the subject and made a comment on the shooting; for a lead paragraph which is summary of the article the entire quote should not be included. The current version is better, but not perfect. Looks like some over wikifying, but it could be fixed up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MUG

"Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)..." Charges were dropped and the incident wasn't related. Policy dictates that it should be removed. 66.235.46.168 (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not obvious in the way the photo is presented that it is a "mug" shot. It is a photograph that is available, and has been widely used in media reports. It would be nice to have a better photo. If you like, we could photoshop the orange shirt to be a different color, but I don't see a particularly disparaging image. Maybe it should be renamed, rather than being "mugshot" and the caption might be removed. -- Avanu (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not even know it was a mugshot until it was reported in the media. I think the only reason they were using it is because it was the only one they could find at the time. I have only seen two others. One of him at a pary, and one at mediaite. A newer one would be nice though. 173.218.45.224 (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trayvon-martin-shooter-is-a-forensic-loan-review-analyst-and-new-details-on-george-zimmerman/

It's obvious to anyone who has ever watched the news since at least the 1980s that this is a mugshot. It is also obvious from the filename. 67.233.246.222 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the photos, however I do strongly question the inclusion of ht, wt, nickname, and parents. How is that justified, especially the height and weight? Gandydancer (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the photo of Zimmerman per WP:MUG; I'm not sure why the other profile information is justified like weight or height. I'll leave it for now, but I think it should be deleted as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See the section on size difference (above in this talk page) for more depth into why height / weight is relevant. In order to establish a self defense case one of the considerations is would a reasonable person feel similarly threatened. In this case, the shooter is over 100 pounds larger than the deceased whom is a minor. 99.146.22.217 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

He has not yet been charged with a crime and height and weight which are irrelevant to the matter of the shooting. It unencyclopedic or necessary information. Why not Lady Gaga's weight and height? I'd say the same thing about religious beliefs. Not once have I heard that his religious beliefs influenced the public outcry, but yet that is here too. Which is why I am against the inclusion of such material. But this is getting off topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


Here is a less inflammatory picture of Zimmerman published by a Florida news outlet. http://www.trbimg.com/img-1332543851/turbine/george-zimmerman-20120323 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.17.243 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody please put this picture of Zimmerman in where the other picture was? It is indeed a much better picture of him and less prejudicial than a mugshot.

As for people's comments about why the various bits of information in the infoboxes was necessary--those are actually standard fields within the infoboxes. It's not odd to include them at all, it's common. QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

QuizzicalBee - first, this edit summary by you is quite wrong - the infoboxes were not removed by a vandal, they were replaced by me with an event infobox which I think is more appropriate for an article about an event, and this is being discussed on this talk page, above and below this thread (presently #9 "infobox" and 59.1 "infoboxes" and perhaps in other threads). An "infobox person" of course could include data like height, religion, etc, but you are missing the point that the infobox-person is not appropriate for this article, and that form is causing all of these disputes. The infobox should be a snapshot of what the article is about - in this case, a shooting - not a history of the people who were shot or did the shooting. This is not a biography. And it is further complicated by the inherent problems in the photos that have been used with people seeing POV on both sides. Tvoz/talk 17:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The stand your ground law also applies to Martin, not just to Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was following Martin and the law doesn't apply to him, it could still appy to Martin, allowing him to defend himself against Zimmerman intruding on his space. So, it seems to me that the stand your ground law will make it more difficult for Zimmerman to defend himself against a charge of unlawful killing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting speculation. Do you have any references for this? Also, any references on how the law would apply to Martin initiating the altercation? Reports and the Zimmerman call indicate he was following from a distance, that Martin approached him and spoke before running away, and that Zimmerman broke off pursuit after the dispatcher asked him to. Second set of calls do not mention who initiated the final altercation, though some reports say Martin jumped Zimmerman when Z exited his vehicle to check a street sign, and after taking a beating Z retrieved his weapon and fired at his attacker. Police report so far has justified this account.--DeknMike (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the whole SYG section should be revised to merely show that in the initial stages of when national media picked up the story, they were the ones who speculated that SYG may be used in this case and has since sparked a debate about those kind of laws, specifically in Florida. Zimmerman's attorney has gone on record stating that SYG is not applicable in this case and they will be relying on a self-defense strategy. My legal take on this is that the prosecutor will only have to show that lethal force was not justified in the shooting and since Zimmerman is the one who created the environment in which the confrontation took place, he cannot claim self-defense. I think the Sanford PD made a mistake in relying in part on the anonymous witness who said he saw Martin beating him up and Zimmerman was the one yelling for help. He didn't say he saw Martin using lethal force against Zimmerman, and it would seem that Zimmerman was in control of his weapon since he managed to get to it and shoot him.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012

I suggest that the very old picture of George Zimmerman be updated to the one that is available Here. I don't know where we can find this picture that would pass a copyright test, but I think its very important that we update his pic to a more recent one.

The quality of this article is quite low with a picture of Zimmerman almost 6 years old. Having the same exact picture as the major news media is not as important as current and more accurate content to the ethos and credibility of Wikipedia. Visavismeyou (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the mugshot for now. That other photo might make light of the situation with the big toothy grin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
TY Chris, I didn't consider that, but I think you're right. I will hunt for another one. Visavismeyou (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone put it back up, but might go to a greyscale to avoid the prison oranges. The highschool photo is probably copyrighted as per discussion on IRC with editors. [10] So its probably not okay to use even if edited. No real good picture of Zimmerman has been released; which for the sake of WP:MUG I'd just keep it off because the policy is clear as pointed out by the previous editor. "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)..." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Greyscale is a good idea and could be temporarily used until a better pic is found, Trayvon's pic seems to be greyscale as well.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now someone has removed Martin's pic. I converted Zimmerman's to greyscale, but it doesn't change the fact it still is a mugshot. I'll hold off, as anyone can greyscale a picture. Don't want this to turn into an edit war. Just want to meet policy as noted by the editors above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, greyscale is not a good idea for the same reason the photo of Zimmerman with the "toothy grin" is not a good idea. The "tone" and "connotations" of the toothy grin photo are inappropriate given the subject. The same is true for the mugshot. The mugshot implies criminality when Zimmerman has not been charged much less convicted. Moreover, even in greyscale, the mugshot is not neutral. It shows Zimmerman at in a bad light, probably at his worst, and with a dour, unpleasant expression. And it's still mugshot, and one taken for an arrest not a conviction I might add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.17.243 (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Caption common photo as 5 years old or such: Any photo is likely to be debated or disliked for potential bias, so just counter a major bias in the photo's caption, such as stating, "(photo of 5 years earlier, 2007)". Remember, Wikipedia's wp:NPOV does not strive to achieve utopian Platonic "Fairness" but merely reflects the balance of major opinions in sources, and hence, if many sources show a mugshot, then that's what Wikipedia shows, rather than a recent "glamor shot" by "Photos to Make You Like Mother Teresa in Court". Wikipedia's efforts at fairness should reflect what the sources say, not personal opinions of ultimate fairness. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

infoboxes

We have a clear problem about the photos - whichever way we go, we are at the risk of POV - the hoodie picture making Trayvon look dangerous, his younger photo being misleading because it is of him younger, having only a photo of Trayvon in a hoodie and none of Zimmerman, Zimmerman's mug shot suggesting criminality, etc etc.

The fact is, this is not a biography of either individual, it is an article about an event. That is how it is correctly titled, and now that is how the first sentence correctly reads. Accordingly, we should follow the same approach and use an event infobox. (And, double infoboxes are rarely used.) It's not perfect, but it is much closer than the bio boxes which do not correctly address the subject of the article. We should look to see how we can tweak the event templates to make one fit this situation better, but we are better off avoiding the POV issues that the "infobox person" creates. All information and refs that were in the old boxes are in the text.

Comments? Tvoz/talk 04:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I expected push back with the other editors suggesting its removal on WP:MUG, but your solution is better. Also solves the issue of useless and unrelated information about height/weight/religion and so on. Glad to know that I am not the only one to feel that Martin's photo is questionable like Zimmerman's mugshot. Both pictures and the previous infoboxes are best kept off this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Tvoz's point about the hoodie making someone look dangerous. He looks harmless to me; where do you infer any presumption of danger? I also don't see why anyone would object to the picture of the assailant, whether shown in colour or greyscale. It is a legitimate picture of a person taken on the occasion of a previous apprehension; his previous history of assaulting a police officer would seem to be extremely relevant in the current case. Let's restore both pictures.
— Objectivesea (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you've not had to deal with certain segments of the population who see anything "urban" as threatening. Where "urban" means anything they've seen in a rap video. Seen quite a few blog comments that essentially say, "he was wearing a hoodie in warm weather, that means he's looking to rob/kill someone!" And that's the polite version. I've read much worse, all based on his appearance. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You don't understand why anyone would object to a mugshot of Zimmerman? Do you understand the difference between an arrest and conviction? Zimmerman is a living person who never been convicted of any crime. You don't appear to understand how the law works. A previous ARREST six years ago that resulted in no CONVICTION for a crime is not relevant to this article. Given that Zimmerman is being accused of a criminal act here, the mugshot unfairly criminality when it has not been established Zimmerman has done anything wrong here (yet). You are also wrong on the facts by the way. Try to be more careful. Zimmerman did not assault a police officer. That is a misleading way to describe that incident. Zimmerman was arrested for resisting arrest WITHOUT violence for a scuffle in a bar that had to have been pretty minor given the authorities dropped the charges against him. If people want a less than ideal photo of Zimmerman in this article until a good one is discovered, use this one. While imperfect, it's more recent and not prejudicial and inflammatory.

Here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.17.243 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of restoring both pictures until new pictures are obtained. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 08:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MUG is clear that Zimmerman's mugshot should not be used. Simple as that. For the two other pictures I have found, one is job applicant looking with a big grin (bad for article) and the other appears to be a high school photo. Even if you are in favor of it, policy is clear that it is a mugshot and even the picture filename states it. He has not been convicted of a crime. He was not expecting to be photographed and the very circumstances surrounding this photo, even if it doesn't 'look bad' still is. The county oranges is well known and his picture is that of the arrest, not a neutral or willful photograph. The picture is best left off as it could me misinterpreted as a guilty look rather then a neutral one. Secondly, Trayvon Martin's is not a mugshot, but it is not exactly as thuggish as other circulating. While certain media outlets (Fox News) went so far as to attribute the hoodie to thug action a minority of people will take it as that while the majority will not. Fox News aside; the picture is not overtly thuggish and while it is a picture of the subject and it is used properly, the opinion of this and other pictures of Martin are questionable to them. I say go back to the single incident infobox rather then the double bios, so much of the information is unnecessary in regards to this incident as mentioned before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the mugshot is very problematic, but until a better picture can be found, I think it should be included as the only picture we have. There is a ton of controversy about zimmerman's race (see the ongoing edit war of including lation/hispanic or not), and I think a pic is extremely instrumental in showing his race to allow readers to judge for themselves. I would go so far as to say this increases the fair use rationale of other pictures, but others would have to weigh in on that. I have no objection to the "toothy" picture. Frankly, I think someone is going to object about every possible picture taken and we aren't going to be able to find the "perfect" picture. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris has it right: this is an article about an event, not a biography of two people. The appropriate infobox to use is an event infobox, not person infoboxes, and what we've had is back-and-forth between people favoring one photo or another as the lead infobox photos, an argument that won't end because people see the pictures in different ways. I think we have to restore the event infobox, and discuss here the adding of photos in the body of the article that become available, but are not the lead. Many of the changes that were made in the infoboxes in the last day are repeats of previous arguments about the photo or the size details or the nickname etc - this all can be avoided by 'leaving the "news event" infobox in place. There is ample precedent for this approach - see Death of Caylee Anthony, 2011 Tucson shootings and others. Tvoz/talk 17:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Youtube

This goes for all of Wikipedia too, but why can't you do a code like this and have a video pop up?

<youtube>frin56cl8:</youtube>

Just wondering, as that seems bizarre for me that such an advanced internet resource cannot even display videos. Be peaceful. Be a Dalai Lama. (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia software (wikimedia) is capable of displaying videos. Wikipedia has disabled it by choice. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
We rarely link to YouTube videos. Most are either not reliable sources, or are copyright infringement. On the rare occasion a YT video has a legit place in an article, we treat it just like any other [[WP:CITE|citation[/url]. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

New details

I found this article about Trayvon that portrays him in a little different light that we have seen in the mainstream media. Not sure if the site itself is a reliable source, but the links in the article seem to point to reliable sources such as twitter, myspace, facebook and google cache.Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wagist blog post

No, actually none of those are reliable sources - facebook, twitter, myspace and google - and Wagist, as a blog, is also not considered a reliable source, so this would not be an acceptable source. It's all speculation and what we would consider to be OR anyway - he had a tattoo of his mother's name is some kind of evidence of something? There is enough to contend with here from reliable sources. We also should be mindful of BLP policy - yes, recent deaths are covered by our policies, especially when there could be implications regarding living relatives and friends. So I'm collapsing this section. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That link also takes you to this http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012 which seems like it might fall in the Reliable Source category. Apparently the local news station spoke with a witness who claims to have clearly seen most of the actual altercation. -- Avanu (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Eye witness testimony which fits with official police point of view and so far the only eye witness testimony in the case. Backed by other claims from the police, the lawyer and sources that state Zimmerman suffered injuries during a fight before the shooting. A second eye witness hasn't had their police statement released, from reports. Considering we have reports that even Martin's father stated the voice on the 911 tape was not his son. Considering the medical attention Zimmerman recieved their clearly was a fight before the shooting, Zimmerman didn't just go out and execute Trayvon Martin after the 911 call. The previous blog post, is OR and is not verifiable, it must be fact-checked and reported by a reliable news source; BLP issues abound with that site. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That link to the myfoxtampabay.com story "witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman" is just a rehash of a story done by FOX Orlando on Feb 27. http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1phFMGCu4 If you listen/read carefully, you'll note that the witness never makes a claim to who initiated the fight, just that he saw a fight in progress, so the claim of "attacking" in the later story is highly questionable. Really makes me question FOX Tampa Bay in fact as a "reliable source", since all they did was take an old story and add the "attacked" spin to it. 69.105.119.162 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The infobox

Can we make up our minds what infobox we're gonna use? I'm tired of loading the page ever 20 minutes or so and finding a different infobox. I'm sure it's confusing the readers too. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 08:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The info box list his cause of death as homicide. That is not correct language. There is a "manner of death" and then a "cause of death". The manner of death is one of 5 classifications; accidental, natural, suicide, homicide or undetermined which can be found here, under the section titled Forensic autopsy which specifically states that "In United States law, deaths are placed in one of five manners". The cause of death depends on the classification such as suicide by hanging, overdose, etc. Homicide would include by gunshot, knife stabbing, etc. So, Trayvon's "manner of death" is homicide and his "cause of death" is by gunshot. Change cause of death to manner of death or change gunshot to homicide.Isaidnoway (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Considering the SYG law and the fact charges have not yet been released I'm opting for cause of death as gunshot, but manner of death not be homicide. Placing it as homicide when no official charges have been brought would accuse Zimmerman of a crime for which he has not been convicted of. Three days ago another instance of SYG law hit Florida where a man shot another man and while that is listed as 'death by gunshot' no charges have been filed in that case either. Homicide implies legal ramifications others will state it as 'justifiable homicide'. The manner of death is best left out for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
CG - the cause of death is definately "the killing of one human being by another", which is the verbatim definition of homicide. There is no question that Treyvon is dead, neither is their any question that Zimmerman killed him with a shot from a handgun. The only question is whether or not Z is liable under the law for the killing. Self-defense is what's called an "affirmative defense" which, if correct, absolves one of responsibility. Please do not confuse legal culpabilty (not yet determiend in this case) to the known and accepted fact that one human being killed another - homicide. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I specifically mentioned that point in my own comment. The association of homicide to Zimmerman could be misinterpreted that Zimmerman has been charged with homicide when he has not been charged with any crime. While classification is logicial and proper, the term homicide is negatively associated with the crime of homicide. Even if you leave the manner of death out, the cause of death can be substituted without using the inflammatory term of homicide. Its like arguing the definition of piracy, the term depending on legal matters can both mean actual historical piracy or someone making a copy of CD. One carries the death penalty the other doesn't. Let's not go asserting material which begs for misinterpretation and jumping to conclusions about the case before charges are pressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
CG - I strongly disagree with your reasoning. This is not a question of conflicting or misinterpreted facts, such as might be the case in a single-car collision with no witnesses - in other words, why did the car crash? What was the cause? The simple, undeniable truth here is that Treyvon died as a result of a homicide - he was killed by another person. And refusal to view that fact correctly, distorts the preceptions of the readers. If you are concerned that the term "homicide" might be misinterpreted, then the correct thing to do is to link to something which explains the word. Homicide is not a word which varies in meaning based on context for "cause of death"; it does and only means "the killing of one human being by another". It's improper to hide from the most correct usage, simply because you feel that some people might misunderstand it. I do not misunderstand the word "homicide" and I doubt that anyone interested enough to read this article will either. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is 100% homicide, without a single question, or shred of doubt. Not all homicides are criminal. It is absolutely not misleading to say trayvons killing was homicide. That says nothing about the guilt, culpability, etc of zimmerman. [[11]]. All self defense killings, war deaths, executions, police shootings, etc are homicides. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Homicide" is a legal term, and carries legal connotations. Not everything you list is always a homicide. Manslaughter is the term used for unintentional killings. Equating every human-caused death with homicide is stretching the definition of the word. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
HTF - You are spreading disinformation. Homicide means "the killing of one human being by another". If you can't accept this simple fact as true, then you should recuse yourself from editing this article. Please stop fixating on legal culpability, that's not the issue. The issue is that that the word "Homicide" means "the killing of one human being by another". Read the link http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+homicide provided by Gaijin42. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Which infobox format to use

There are two separate questions: one is which infobox template should we be using and the other is what details go into it. I have made the point repeatedly that this article is not a biography of two people, it is a news event - like Death of Caylee Anthony, 2011 Tucson shootings, and others. We are running into problems of POV regarding the photos and arguments about what details belong in the infobox, and much of this can be avoided by using the proper form, which I think is the news event template. No one has advanced an argument against that here - canwe please have a discussion? Perhaps we need to get some outside advice on this. Tvoz/talk 17:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Use neither - this is not a biography and the bio boxes are inappropriate, the homicide/death infobox has problems too. Use {{Infobox news event}} - although there is no real need for an infobox. They tend to cause unnecessary argument. --Errant (chat!) 00:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Use the event Infobox or no infobox. This is not a biography, it avoids issues with photos and two infoboxes quite frankly look ugly. Reading through some of the discussion above there has been no good argument put forward for the individual infoboxes. AIRcorn (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both - I'm fine with no infobox too, or the news event one. Anyone else? Tvoz/talk 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Aircorn and Tvoz. Nil Einne (talk)

Where does the father's fiancee live?

"During a break in an NBA basketball game on TV, Martin left his father's fiance's home in the gated community of Twin Lakes to walk to a nearby 7-Eleven convenience store to buy some Skittles."

Can we have a citation for the claim that the fiancee lived in the gated community? Nothing I have read in news reports suggests that the fiancee lived in the gated community but only that Martin was passing by the gated community on his way to his father's fiancee's house.

By the way, "fiance" is misspelled (unless the father is gay). 72.229.0.95 (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that Zillow notes the property values range from $80K to roughly $130K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.120.111 (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Original research and meaningless to the story. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

The first paragraph in the section Aftermath should include "investigators from the Sanford police department" instead of just "investigators". It is still being investigated by other agencies and this generic term is confusing. Tracy Martin's claim of the police responding that Zimmerman had a "squeaky clean record" has been disputed by a statment on the City of Sanford's website, and should be included to provide balance to the claim of Tracy Martin . The Sanford PD stated they knew about Zimmerman's past record.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Extraneous Information

Does the sentence in the first section "Many people, from civil rights leaders to public officials – including Reverend Al Sharpton,[19] President Barack Obama[20] and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi[21] – have made public comments or released statements about the shooting." really need to be in the article? I am sure there are many other people that have spoken out on this topic. It just seems that a sentence like this begs for the neutrality question. Dolomite501 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This sentence is 100% better than the previous one and is factually correct. I see no bias in the way the sentence is written.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that many other people have spoken out, but these people are either exceptionally notable, or will potentially have an impact on the direction the case takes, and so their statements are significantly notable. Also, in the lead, no content of their statement is included, so that is certainly not causing any neutrality issues. If you want to expand some pro-zimmerman quotes, which are well soured, and preferably from highly notable people, into the statements area, then feel free. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Joe Oliver would be a good source as a family friend. He commented on the matter of race specifically in regards to Zimmerman. Zimmerman may be painted as a cold-blooded racist killer in most media, but the facts of the case and eyewitness testimony, his attorney and the police reports all report another side of the story. For a man who cried for days after the shooting and who received medical attention for his wounds whose uttering of 'coon' has been heard as 'goon' and whose own community has had a rash of criminal activity, Zimmerman seems to be an overzealous defender who got into a situation he was incapable of handling and ultimately ended up killing Treyvon. Here are some links. [12], [13], [14] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Joe Oliver has been the only voice really defending Zimmerman in the press recently and gave a revealing Interview with George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America on Monday.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
A quote from oliver is already in the defense of zimmerman section. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Right - the point in the intro is about high profile public figures who have made statements about this and it has proper weight. Comments by family friends are properly handled in the article and should be added to as found, but they are not relevant to the sentence in the intro which is NPOV and clear. Tvoz/talk 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

They always make statements. It's a good platform. Not really relevant unless they say something that gets picked up as notable or controversial. In the lead it is just name dropping. --Errant (chat!) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Info Box is Misleading: COD should be Justifiable Homicide

There are different types of homicide, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable and accidental homicide, among others.

Given that Zimmerman was released because the police could find no evidence to contradict his claim of self-defense, why shouldn't the COD be described as Justifiable Homicide?

Anyone?

In the interests of precision and avoiding giving the reader misleadning information, I propose the info box list Justifiable Homicide as the COD until there is a reason not to. Or, in the alternative, I propose the info box use language such as "disputed shooting," or something to that effect, in the COD field.

Even though there are different types of homicide, it common parlance the word Homicide connotes murder.

72.37.249.60 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We definitely can't state "justifiable" in the COD as it has yet to be proven. However, I understand the IP's concern. Technically, "homocide" covers criminal and justifiable and, on paper, may seem NPOV. But I think most people equate homocide with criminal homocide, not justifiable homocide. Seeing as this will not be resolved until either a trial is completed or there is a semi-final decision not to attempt a trial, I don't think waiting for the courts to define the term is a great option. Do we know how similar incidents were treated? "Shooting"? I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is that homocide is NPOV and accurate, so we shouldn't change our policies based on the ignorance of the readership, but I think it is a question worth exploring.LedRush (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The first step should be determining whether the word "homicide" is even technically accurate. People seem to be assuming (reasonably enough) that it is. But who, exactly, other than layperson wikipedia editors and journalists who are not legal, police, or criminal specialists have deemed the Martin shooting a homicide? What is the source this word applies? So far, no one has given any evidence that the word homicide should apply here. In most states, the local authorities put the "cause of death" on the death certificate, and the local authorities in Florida have not issued a death certificate for Trayvon Martin, or stated his official cause of death. Although your suggestion to look at similar incidents is a good one, I doubt the use of the word homicide in other articles will be helpful. Most encylopedia articles dealing with homicides document events that are resolved rather than ongoing. It's a real problem because the main reason this event is noteworthy is because the type of homicide is under dispute. 72.37.249.60 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is why we should say the cause of death is "gunshot" and not get into the weeds about the meaning of "homicide". This is discussed elsewhere on this talk page - the definition of homicide (the killing of one person by another) is apt, but it is a loaded term as it is colloquially used interchangeably with "murder", and would need to be qualified. Since we must remain neutral on whether this was murder, justifiable, accidental, or any other form of homicide, we are better off using the neutral description of the cause of death in that field - gunshot - until this is adjudicated. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

i am ok with gunshot or homicide, and homicide is 100% correct, but I do see gunshot as less problematic. Justifiable homicide is completely wrong until an official judgement has been made from someone (or until statue o f limitation expires without charges perhaps?) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The statute of limitations on murder in all but one state is indefinite (meaning, there is none). I think an "official" end to the investigation with some kind of statement that it was justifiable homicide should be enough. However, gunshot is best in the infobox regardless.LedRush (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
good point on statute of limitations. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree gunshot is a good choice. It's accurate and neutral. 72.37.249.60 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The cause of death in gunshot wound. Anything else is someone's spin.75.21.147.150 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The cause of death is fatal gunshot. The manner of death is homicide. Read this article on WP under Forensic autopsy.Isaidnoway (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If a person is dead, fatal is redundant. Also, he died from gunshot wound. Gunshot could cover someone having a heart attack because of a gunshot and dying.True Observer75.21.147.150 (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Again as per previous discussion, my belief is that we make it neutral until the official report comes out. The term is inflammatory and does create perspective. Homicide as a dictionary definition and homicide in the court of public opinion and perspective is radially different. We have cause of death and that is the only thing that matters. I'm all for gunshot being cause of death and no mention to murder, homicide or anything which could misrepresent that Zimmerman has not yet been charged as such. Lets not confuse medical terms which carry legal ramifications; Zimmerman has not been charged with homicide and editors have been striving to keep the inclusion of such terms off this page until such a charge has been made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


Gaijin42, my impression is that there is a consensus here that the term "gunshot" is the most appropriate term *at this time* for the COD field. You said yourself you are OK with either. Can I ask are you going to change it? 72.37.249.60 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: Nevermind; I see someone changed it.72.37.249.60 (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


I am the one who put "homicide" in the infobox, and I am OK with changing it to "gunshot," although no one disputes that it was a homicide. I should point out that before I made that edit, it said "shot by George Zimmerman."Bellczar (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

new details in zimmerman account

New details in what zimmerman described happening. If true, would be a plausible self defense "motive". I think this should be broken into its own section to distinguish it as zimmerman's alleged version of events, vs things that can be objectively shown from the 911 calls timeline etc.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_arizona-iced-tea-suv-unarmed-black-teenager

 Done (self) I added this section, but others can clean it up if they dont like my wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Reuters article be added as a reference http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE82O0F820120327

The Article states that in Zimmerman's account to the police he said that Trayvon Martin slammed his head into the sidewalk multiple times, broke his nose, and attempted to grab his weapon.ITBlair (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One more reference to add. It restates what the Reuter's article states. But notes that a "Watchman" corraborates Zimmmerman's account (i.e., that Trayvon Martin was hitting him). ITBlair (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon was suspended for marijuana possession

This was just reported by Associated Press and the major news outlets. Should be included towards the beginning where the suspension is discussed. --166.20.224.11 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)  Done Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this is relevant? I feel like histories of physical violence by either party is borderline, but fair game. But offenses like this seem prejudicial and without help to article. If this becomes a key piece of the puzzle, sure, let's include it. But right now this looks like a tangential piece of information introduced to make it look like the kid being shot had it coming.LedRush (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, to explain why he had been suspended for 10 days from school. Quis separabit? 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
So it is necessary to explain a fact that is itself unnecessary. Not the most convincing argument I've heard...LedRush (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything from the school teacher should be deleted because she has been caught lying about the cause of suspension. We have only her word about Trayvon's grades. She can testify as to the grades she gave him and not anyone else. True Observer75.21.147.150 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is POV to portray trayvon as squeaky clean if he wasn't, (same goes for Zimmerman and getting arrested in 2005) and it is relevant to the case since that is why he was in sanford to begin with. That said it certainly is not an offense deserving of the death penalty. I don't think we can qualify the teacher's statement as "lying", as she might not have been directly involved with the suspension, or the official cause for suspension may differ from the actual cause (they could have but tardy on the records to avoid a permanent record?) In any case, we don't know. But the teacher definitely does know hew own opinion of how Trayvon acted while in her class, and that is a relevant character witness. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think silence on an issue is the same as presenting someone as squeky clean even if they're not. It just seems to me that this information does not add to a reader's understanding of the incident.LedRush (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought the point of wiki was to report facts, not be biased. I could be wrong though. People already view this wiki as being biased against Zimmerman. Now there is a question of if something that has been recorded by multiple sources should be included even though it is a fact? In my mind having the facts stated is what makes wiki different from the media that has already determined him to be guilty. I can only hope that the administrators here decide facts are more important than bias against zimmerman even though it may attract more people. Forgot to sign inLunaspike (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be wrong to selectively remove information that portrays someone in a negative light or removes key information leading up to the incident, if Zimmerman's previous arrest and release without conviction belongs here why not the matter of resulting in the lead up to the events. It is being reported and it was initially suspected in previous blog posts, but those were shot down for OR and unreliable sources. [15] "Ryan Julison, a spokesperson for Treyvon’s family, confirmed reports that surfaced Monday blaming the suspension on a plastic baggie found in Trayvon’s bookbag. When school officials examined it, they found marijuana residue. Under Miami-Dade school drug zero-tolerance rules, that was enough to pull Trayvon a suspension." While it has no bearing to the shooting, it is the reason why he was suspended which is a matter leading up to the event and is currently covered by the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The reasons are simple and obvious: not all facts are relevant, and not all facts are listed in every Wikipedia article. For each fact listed in an article, it needs to be reliably sources. (this one is). It needs to be relevant (this one doesn't seem to be). It cannot put WP:UNDUE weight on an issue (this seems to be undue). Furthermore, this isn't a biographical article, it is an article about an incident. Biographical information relevant to the incident or basic information about the suject is fair game, other information isn't. To me, this clearly falls into the latter category. It is WP:UNDUE and prejudicial. If he had been caught for fighting, or any other "violent" offense or reason, that may shed light on this topic. I just don't see how traces of pot in his bad is relevant at all, other than to smear a dead boy's name. (In case you're wondering, if Zimmerman had been previously kicked out of school for pot possession, or for wearing an anti-abortion tee-shirt, I would not want to include that information for the same reasons.)LedRush (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Then you agree the parts mentioning Zimmerman's past should be removed unless they directly include violence? Lunaspike (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, unless they are things like domestic violence or resisting arrest, they should be removed. We shouldn't care that he has committed IP infringement, violated noise ordinances, or had a ponzi scheme. But for the ones that involve violence, they should remain (assuming all other criteria above are met).LedRush (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is also POV to just include Zimmerman's original assault charge without including that it was reduced to "resisting arrest without violence", a misdemeanor, in order for him to get into the pre-trial diversion program. Both charges are listed on the Orange County Court of Clerks website where the source originated from.Isaidnoway (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, if he was charged with one crime and it was pleaded down, both pieces of information must be included. You can't say wahat he was charged with and not what the end result was. That would unfairly infer guilt of a charge greater than what he was convicted.LedRush (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We have other issues that point to assaulting a bus driver that has also been reported which is a violent offense. The problem is that those sources are not as reliable or given the same weight because they were not carried by the media and reported by a family spokesperson, who is recognized to speak on behalf of the family. It leads up to the incident and is not the same as an arrest with no conviction from six years ago, but it does serve to note why he was visiting and that he was visiting partly because he was suspended for 10 days. The suspension is tied to the reason why he was visiting. NPOV seems to be drastically for Treyvon Martin; even including the claim to become an aviation mechanic or engineer. How is this undue in comparision? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If he was there because he just learned that his father had HIV and wanted to be with him, would we say that? No, we wouldn't because it's irrelevent. (unless it became an important part of how the case was being reported, that is. Even then we'd have BLP/BDP issues.)LedRush (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait--are we serious? Are there people here actually maintaining that he was shot because he was walking down the street instead of being in class because he was suspended from school for having weed? Well, then I guess it was his own fault! I'm removing those phrases as undue weight. It has nothing to do with anything, unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that the weed is somehow relevant to his being black and wearing a hoodie, and thus sufficient reason for being shot. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The doping suspension explains why the police ordered a toxicology test on Martin but not on Zimmerman. As it turns out, the police had a good reason for ordering that test. The information belongs in the article because for this reason too. 72.37.249.60 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Really? Do you have some sourcing that says the police somehow had access to why Trayvon was suspended and therefore got them to drug test his dead body and not Zimmerman's live one? (And calling it a "doping" suspension is a bit overboard.) Tvoz/talk 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


I dont think anyone is saying having pot justifies being shot. He was out of town, at his father's fiancees home due to the suspension, that is clearly relevant to the article as for the reason why he was there. That does not make it his fault. Once suspension brought up, its a small next step to say why, and provides two valueable points towards the article 1) no trouble/squeaky clean image - again not justifying his death, but no reason to make him a mary sue. 2) Zimmerman's police call said "he is on drugs or something" - if MArtin has a history of drugs, then Zimmermans theory becomes more plausible, and could have had an effect on MArtin's behavior during the encounter. Obviously when we get a toxicology, that will be better to validate, but no reason to not give the readers very widely reported information. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not relevent why he was there at all, other than to say he was at his father's. Whether or not you were suspended from school, you aren't in school at 7:30 pm and you can visit your father. It doesn't inform the article at all. (If it turns out that he was actively on drugs at the time of the shooting, then we could reconsider. But it is laughable that if he wasn't on drugs at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman's statement is more justified because of a past pot suspension...like people walk differently once they've gotten in trouble for misdemeanor pot possession). It merely explains information that doesn't require explanation. If we want, we can take this to the BLP/BDP board, but the information should not be reinserted until there is consensus to do so.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Gaijin, you are suggesting that his suspension for having had some weed is a possible explanation for his having acted in a way that makes Zimmerman's vague statement sound reasonable? Who are you, Nancy Grace? Zimmerman doesn't have a theory--he had some statements. It is not our job to find and add the information that makes them more plausible. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The marijuana is relevant because reliable sources felt it was relevant enough to report it regarding the case. The family attorney said on TV that the marijuana is not relevant and for NPOV that should be included also with a reference. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No. We are not the news. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Would you care to explain your comment using Wikipedia policy? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Read WP:NOTNEWS. Also of interest, WP:UNDUE, pars. 1-6, and WP:SYN for the argument for inclusion proposed by Gaijin. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Re "Read WP:NOTNEWS. Also of interest, WP:UNDUE, pars. 1-6" — I read them as you suggested and they didn't seem to be useful here. Perhaps you could give the relevant excerpt(s)? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason Trayvon was suspended has no relevance to or impact on why he was killed. Placing speculative, irrelevant information in the article is WP:UNDUE and nonsensical. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 20:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to give the excerpt from WP:UNDUE that supports what you wrote? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
OK; take it to the board then. But please remove the inflammtory and irrelevant information on Zimmerman's five-year old arrest record too. If the accused's past record of physical violence is relevant, as LedRush keeps suggesting, then the fact that Zimmerman has never been convicted of a violent crime, *or even prosecuted for one,* should decisively settle the issue in favor of removing this information. 72.37.249.60 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to read what I wrote again. Both incidents involved violence and should be mentioned. The article already mentions that he was not convicted of resisting arrest.LedRush (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it should stay for the same reasons I gave that the marijuana info should stay. We may revisit these points when the article becomes more mature and may need trimming when all the information is accumulated. For now it is a breaking story that has significantly more information to come. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


as this [16] (or [17] one) shows there are 40,000 (12k for second search) gnews sources talking about trayvon and being suspended marijuana. This passes the notability and RS bar by a ridiculous amount. BLP obviously does not apply, and I have never heard of BDP, but assuming it is real, I don't see how it could be possibly construed that this did not pass whatever bar is set. We should certainly not be putting OR/Synth in to the meaning of this (as I did in my talk argument, but note did NOT put into the article), but hiding the information so that readers are not able to make those same decisions/thoughts for themselves is also a form of POV editing.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

←Gaijin, something happened to your edit above. This discussion is hard to break into without edit conflicts, but I want to add that I agree completely with LedRush's and Drmies' and Teammm's positions in this thread. ONly include well sourced material that has relevance to the subject of this article, which is the event. This is not a biography of these individuals, we should not be using those infoboxes, and we need to not treat it as a place for "breaking news". Tvoz/talk 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, read more about WP:BDP. It applies to recent deaths and information that affects living people.LedRush (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you're referring to this part of WP:BDP.
"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. Questionable material that affects living persons should be removed promptly."
AFAIK, no one has questioned whether the marijuana info is correct, not even the Martin family. In fact, the Martin family spokesman is apparently a source of the marijuana info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have read bdp, and think it also does not apply. The information was released BY his living relatives, and therefore is not impacting them adversely. and even if it was, I think this information would pass the stronger BLP bar, given the amount of coverage it has. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be reported why he was suspended. It isn't up to the reporters of facts to decide whether or not something is relevant or not. I would say that it is *arguably* relevant, in that it could be considered indicative of his background or 'character' to some degree or for another reason. It is *arguably* irrelevant, in that some may not find it useful at all in understanding the situation. Some may not find it relevant, but some may find it relevant. Who are we to decide for the reader what is and is not relevant? Let the reader decide if its relevant to them or not. This is Wikipedia, not a court of law that needs to decide what is relevant. This applies to things that there is no consensus as to relevance. (Unambiguously irrelevant would be reporting the barometric pressure on Christmas Eve in Mexico in 1931.) Emeraldflames (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection

This going back and forth is unproductive. There are suggestions above for taking it to the appropriate venue, the BLP noticeboard, given the WP:BLP/WP:BLD issues. Full protection of the current version, which does not include the material under discussion, is warranted given the dictum of BLD, "Questionable material that affects living persons should be removed promptly." In my opinion, this is questionable enough, and affective enough. I have protected the article for three days, which should be enough time to hammer something out. Good luck to all. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin is dead, so how does BLP apply? Truthsort (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:BDP, a subset of WP:BLP.LedRush (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not go arguing amongst ourselves and attacking one another. Zimmerman's comment about him looking like he was on drugs is not evidence and carries no weight. The toxicology report I doubt would even mention whether or not he was under its effects when the incident occurred. It would fall under WP:OR to even make the arguement. Wikipedia concerns itself with facts, not making a case. If this article is intent on stating characterizations of Martin and Zimmerman, which it seems to be the case, the suspension for possession of an illict substance should follow the line about his suspension accordingly. The time of the incident was not during school hours, but his visitation was partially due to his suspension. The opening line from CBS is all we need to give reason why he was in the area. [18] "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him about it." The reason why he was suspended which resulted in his father wanting to spend some time about it be filled with the actual reason and not skip over it because it is negative. This suspension and his father's desire to spend some time with Trayvon put him there for those reasons and while he was there the incident occurred; a matter further detailed that Treyvon was not a resident of that gated community. It is important because of cause and effect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The arguments and rationale being given for not including the marijuana information justify removing this entire passage. These are unproven allegations with no bearing on this incident: "Zimmerman had a previous charge in 2005 of "resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer"[33] while interfering with the arrest of a friend. He subsequently entered a pretrial diversion program, which is not considered a conviction on his criminal record.[34] Zimmerman had previously been accused of domestic violence by an ex-fiancee (Veronica Zuazo), who had filed for a restraining order against him. Zimmerman counter-filed for a restraining order. A judge eventually ordered them both to stay away from each other for at least one year.[35]." 72.37.249.60 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have refuted this opinion above. Short version: Reporing on a violent incident with info about past violence is relevent. Past non-violent info meant primarily to disparage an individual is not relevant.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not reporting on a violent incident. It's reporting on *unproven allegations* of one. Were the claims that Zimmerman committed violent acts proven or not? 72.37.249.60 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made a request at WP:RPP requesting unprotection, and a post at BLP regarding the appropriateness of the marijuana if people wish to comment at either. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We should treat the matter with the same care as if it was BLP, the problem however is that the family actually circulated the statement that his suspension was for marijuana. "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him about it." [19] Policy dictates that it must be verified and reliable, while negative, it cannot be anymore verified and reliable as coming from the family and the school itself. I believe this article should stay semi-protected for the time being. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

The article at the end of the paragraph re Trayvon Martin to read as it was by revision as of 12:02, 26 March 2012:

Initially Kypriss stated "He was suspended because he was late too many times."[14] His father originally said the suspension was because he was in an unauthorized area on school property, but he declined to offer more details.[15] Later a family spokesman said that Martin was suspended after traces of marijuana were found in his bookbag.[16] Trayvon Martin had no criminal record.[17]

Not really a great application for a !vote (particularly #8 in the linked guideline). There is already a discussion at WP:BLPN as well as a spirited discussion here, and looking over the arguments I would think it is fair to say that a consensus has not emerged. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • semi-support I think the information should be included, but am open to different wording. Additionally I am open to the removal of the earlier reasons for the suspension as being now shown incorrect, and the change over time not significant to the story. As I have the post at BLP, I am not sure what the policy is on continuing the discussion here vs there vs both?Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

*Support The wording should be fixed. From CBS [20], "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him about it." The wording on this is good, but concerns could be that the previous statements were lies trying to portray Treyvon in a positive light. The matter should be handled properly and the misinformation should be removed even if the father's statement was a lie. Keep it short and sweet, no need to cite every statement put forth, replace with the confirmed fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Support I agree that the wording should be fixed, we already have his suspension included in his bio and now that we know the reason, just tack it on at the end of the sentence. "after being suspended from school for 10 days for possessing a baggy with traces of marijuana". No need for excessive detail or explaining it, just keep it simple. I agree it is not relevant to the shooting, but if you know the reason for the suspension, then it becomes relevant to that fact and that fact alone.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support including mention of the reason he was suspended. I just saw on CBS Evening News that his family has confirmed that traces of cannabis were discovered in his posession. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Based on my reading of the case it is relevant that he was living with his father - and for that we should mention his suspension. The reason is fairly trivial, and appears a traditional example of muck raking. Also recommend the removal of the previous Zimmerman charges; we almost always remove charges that did not result in a conviction from BLP's unless they are distinctly notable in their own right. It's exactly the same muck raking issue. --Errant (chat!) 00:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LedRush and Errant. It is said a few comments up I agree it is not relevant to the shooting - well, this is an article about the shooting, so it is not relevant to this article. Tvoz/talk 05:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As derogatory information presented without any attempt at context. Without context most of the information in his bio doesn't belong - his height, weight, parents' marital status and occupations, grades, etc. If any of this is relevant it should be worked into the structure of the article with proper context rather than presented as a mini biography. It seems very unlikely that the accusation of pot use has much to do with his death. However, it may be a link in the chain of events leading to his death, in which case a neutrally worded chronological account of those events would be germane. The leaking of this information by the police, and accusations that the police and community members were covering for the shooter and perhaps acerbating racial tensions by maligning the victim, are part of the aftermath and public reaction. Just how important they are is hard to say while we're in the midst of events. The dirt of the moment reported by the press is often of very little lasting significance, and unless the reportage itself becomes part of the story (as it did, say, in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing) I don't think we have to cover press leaks as part of the story. The article is written in a style I'm not familiar with - large parts consist of vignettes of different things with little by way of connecting narrative. That will make it hard to put this together. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Further Comments

To respond to Ledrush's comment, those would be great if not for the clear fact that the information regarding the leaked issue of the suspension and then its confirmation about the family not only furthers the article's background. Which is being noted in further reports by articles as leading up the situation. [21] This one goes into detail from the Sentinel. [22] Given that the information was originally covered up in statements by the father, leaked by an unknown source, confirmed by the family spokesperson and launched an investigation by the police dept is fairly notable. Let alone the fact that said conference and pleas that have received national press itself about 'killing his reputation'. Omission of this fact which is nationally being reported will get its place in the article one way or the other. Its on every major news program! The fact has national attention itself. The statement is true and confirmed by the family; the comments are on every News channel in the nation. Why are we trying to keep the reference to it out? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    • Remove the unnecessary bios and the rest falls with it. I'm withdrawing my support and agreeing with further discussion that most of the bios and lead up to the event need not be included at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I see your point and removing the bios could be a short-term fix. But after reading some of the comments by some of the admins at the discussion at AN over the pot issue, I think several valid points were raised. Although this is an article about the shooting, it has developed into a national event because of the shooting and that raises the question of whether to keep this article entirely focused on the shooting itself, or to include all the other aspects of it that have been raised and reported on. The national dialogue and controversies that has ensued because of this shooting has become a story in its own right and it would be relevant and appropriate to include it in this article. They are just as important and noteworthy as the shooting itself. I think it would be wise and fair to document all the aspects of this story, good and bad, as long as they remain unbiased, because this article will not only serve as a reference for the shooting, but also to the national dialogue and the controversy surrounding it that was created by this tragic and unfortunate shooting. Having said all of that, it is also important to remember that this is Wikipedia, not the 10 o'clock news, and a more prudent approach to adding new developments is warranted. We have to recognize that this is a fast moving story with details coming out every day, but there is no need to add new developments until we see if it is really relevant and can be included in an unbiased way.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon's weight unsupported by source

Any credible source of this information? If not it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.135.158 (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The police report put him at 160, several RS have reported him at 140 (without saying how they got the information). Until the autopsy comes out, or some other official report, that is as good as we can get, but its certainly not going to be wide off the mark between the two estimates, and is helpful for people to judge relative threat/self defense issues. Since I am fairly sure those were actually footnoted, why not actually read the footnotes? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


EDIT: Nevermind, sorry! Still, the 160 figure seems more reliable.

Considering the article sourced for giving his weight doesn't give any reasoning for putting the 140 I agree that the 160 should be put up. While it is only an estimate, it is by a police officer and is also located in the actual police report. I don't know that any of it can be certain till the release of an autopsy report. Not sure how long that could be Lunaspike (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The 140 should stay. Police officers don't weigh dead bodies. Trayvon's weight was reported by his parents. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

False claim regarding 7-Eleven Store proximity to The Retreat at Twin Lakes

The present article wrongly states:

"Location The Retreat at Twin Lakes is a recently built private community in Sanford, Florida consisting of townhouses and condominiums. Vehicular access is by gates to the north and east, which are unguarded but electronically controlled. Several 7-Eleven stores exist within from 0.7 to 1.3 miles of the property.[42]"

Actually the 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 0.7 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 0.9 and 0.96 miles from where Martin died. The store is #34198; it is located at 1125 Rinehart Rd, 32771.

The second nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 1.97 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.21 and 2.26 miles from where Martin died. The store is #34832; it is located at 101 S Oregon Ave, 32771.

The third nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 2.07 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.26 and 2.32 miles from where Martin died. The store is #34658; it is located at 4700 W State Road 46, 32771.

The fourth nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 2.20 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.26 and 2.41 miles from where Martin died. The store is #25882; it is located at 2700 West 25th St, 32771.

The fifth nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 2.25 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.44 and 2.50 miles from where Martin died. The store is #29920; it is located at 4085 W State Road 46, 32771.

The sixth nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 2.32 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.51 and 2.57 miles from where Martin died. The store is #33347; it is located at 4900 W State Road 46, 32771.

I have a list and could go on, but I think the point has been sufficiently made that there are in fact not "several" 7-Eleven stores "within from 0.7 to 1.3 miles of the property." In fact, there is only one 7-Eleven store that meets that criterion, and the second-nearest 7-Eleven store is more than three times the lesser distance claimed.

For verification, refer to a map of the area and to published addresses of 7-Eleven stores. Three streets comprise The Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community: Retreat View Circle, Twin Trees, and Long Oak Way. According to the claims of 9-1-1 callers, the shooting could have occurred in only one or the other of two areas inside the gated community: either behind the north-facing houses of Long Oak Way or behind the west-facing houses of Twin Trees; consequently, establishing maximum and minimum distances is a simple matter.

98.95.34.94 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the actual source is original research and the store is never questioned. I think it would be fair to remove it entirely. Only blog posts have used Google Maps to chart the distance and the most probable route, but it is not confirmed he chose THAT 7-11 and no source states it by address. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

These are the coords of the north gate at The Retreat at Twin Lakes Community: 28°47′38″N 81°19′51″W / 28.7938°N 81.3308°W / 28.7938; -81.3308 (The Retreat at Twin Lakes Community in Sanford, Florida) and the coord of the 7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd 28°47′32″N 81°20′29″W / 28.792238°N 81.34142°W / 28.792238; -81.34142 (7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd, Sanford, Florida).

However this is all orginal research, but we could put the coords of the gated community in the article.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be deleted because there is no credible source for Trayvon having gone to a 7-11, or any other store for that matter. This appears to have been made up just like the story about having left at half-time of the NBA All Star Game. True Observer75.21.147.150 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The matter of 7-11 has widely been reported by various sources. Which one was it, no one knows. As for the NBA matter, I don't see a source for it amidst all the NBA show of support. Anyone got a link? Google News isn't helping me any. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources tough to find now with the flood of articles. It was definately sourced previously. Here is what I can find. One possible explanation for confusion is that I have seen some (non rs) sources claming it was college basketball they were watching, which could explain the half-time discrepancy, but many sources do claim the NBA all star game. Not claiming the below sources are sufficiently RS,

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the NY Post one an opinion piece? That title is terrible. Yale Daily News is opinion. Telegram is opinion as well. Popsspot might not meet RS, but I think the NY Mag one is okay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • None of the information I have seen specified which 7-Eleven Trayvon had allegedly visited; however, the current Wiki article indicates both (a) that Trayvon had gone to, and was returning from, a nearby convenience store, and (b) that such convenience store was/is a 7-Eleven. I indicated the closest 6 stores for 2 reasons: (A) to show the current text is easily disproved, and (B) to provide a small sample of reference stores similarly branded, with their respective addresses and distances. The reason this is important is because of the claim regarding what Martin had been doing:
    • A fit adult male human walks normally at speeds between 2.8 and 3.1 mph, with 3.0 being average among "Western" males; jogging increases the pace to 4.0 mph. This, together with the other evidence {you are reading the article, yes?} indicates if Trayvon had visited the nearest 7-Eleven, even if he went directly there and directly back without any distraction or delay, he would have spent 40 minutes walking in the rain at night without an umbrella or other rain gear. If he went to the sixth-nearest 7-Eleven, he would have spent nearly 2 hours walking.
    • Add to those numbers the time lost in the store, even if (incredibly) it's only a couple of minutes, and it becomes patently clear that Trayvon had no desire to watch the basketball game with his dad -- if, in fact, that is what he had been doing.
    • The condition of his clothing did not reflect cross-country hiking: either he floated supernaturally to and from the store, or he walked along public roads. There is no evidence he at any point during his final escapade occupied a vehicle as either a driver or a passenger. 98.95.34.94 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I know it may be irritation if not maddening, but Wikipedia cannot include original research or synthesis of materials. Until it is specifically cited as being a specific store it we cannot include it, even if everything is logical. WP:OR and WP:Synth are clear about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If true, then the present material so indicating (supra) in the article should be immediately deleted. Else, it's just partisan propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.34.94 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, consider this quote from the article, which is sourced to an opinion piece: "During a break in an NBA basketball game on TV, Martin left his father's fiance's home in the gated community of Twin Lakes to walk to a nearby 7-Eleven convenience store to buy some Skittles. While returning to the house, Trayvon was seen by George Zimmerman,[48] ...."
    • Again, if what you are saying is actually Wikipedia policy and you're not editing to promote your own opinion, then the above quote which leads the "Shooting" section should be eliminated. There is no credible evidence that Trayvon was at Green's house at any time that day, especially as has been frivolously claimed in the current version of this article: it's ALL opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.34.94 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
We can't do OR. News sources can. We repeat what news sources say. They might be wrong. Verifiability, not truth. the statements in the shooting section (and others) have been widely reported in many RS, so they are included, even though some of what they say may be THEIR OR or SYNTH or conjecture. Such is the way of wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No one can edit it right now. The page is protected. Though he was at his father's house, timelines have been released and the majority of sources state 7-11, but the basketball one I have not found. I'd gladly cite the sources if able to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 March 2012

Re: "The New Black Panther Party has offered a $10,000 reward for the abduction of George Zimmerman."

My edit describing the article's use of the word "abduction" as a euphemism for the word the media uses, "capture" was reverted for RS as to the term "euphimism." I believe the two positions can be reconciled as follows: While I agree that a "capture" of an uncharged person by non law-enforcement personnel amounts to an "abduction" ... The term is one the MS media is using. And so unfortunately, it is the term with "reliable sources" behind it. I propose instead, using the following under the existing citation:

"The New Black Panther Party has offered a $10,000 reward for the "capture" of George Zimmerman, an event which if perpetrated, would be tantamount to an abduction." Gmw112252 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTH unless you can find an RS saying its tantamount to abduction, we cant use it. You might also look for "dead or alive" which was reported in non-RS sources, but if an RS is talking about it would be a good add. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A citizen's arrest clearly does not apply to these circumstances. The person has to have committed a felony in their presence. No legal protections are afforded to citizens and it runs afoul of vigilantism. He is not on the run, he is in hiding for his life and retains legal counsel. He may or may not already be under the protection of law enforcement due to the circumstances regarding the case; it is clear a great many people would take the law into their own hands given the chance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Found a source. [23] When a Sentinel reporter asked if he was inciting violence, Muhammad said, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." In the same article which links to the paper, "The City is requesting calm heads and no vigilante justice,' the statement said. 'Attempts by civilians to take any person into custody may result in criminal charges or unnecessary violence." Another link to the article.[24] Given the statement, yes the change should reflect that it may result in criminal charges like all vigiliantism. Change abduction to: ""The New Black Panther Party has offered a $10,000 reward for the "capture" of George Zimmerman, an event which the perpetrators could face criminal charges." Then cite the source which corresponds with the law. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Good source, and definitely can be used to flesh out that detail, but I dont think it supports the actual request made by the OP above as it does not talk about capture being a euphemism for abduction. We can say that the police warned against vigilante justice, and that when asked for confirmation the speaker said "eye for an eye" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The group is entitled to their statements and 'bounty' is a preferred form published by reliable sources. Even though it does state 'capture'. Considering that they are issuing leaflets with 'Wanted: Dead or Alive" this is clearly inciting vigilantism. The response has even been denounced by Rev. Jesse Jackson. [25] Also in that same article the "New Black Panther Party has been designated a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League." I'd put this as an extremist view considering their classification of the group and the denouement from leading civil rights members of the community. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you in casual conversation. However, for the purpose of inclusion in the encyclopedia, we cannot do the OR/SYNTH/Analysis. AFAIK, the dead or alive flyers have _not_ been talked about in RS. If they have I think they would be a great addition to the article. The bounty can be included, and incitement to vigilanism can be included as per the NPR ref. But the OP request is not supported by the source. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The flyers have been talked about, specifically for dead or alive. This one has a poster in its article picture. [26] The clip comes from Fox affiliate WOFL Orldando, Florida meets RS when interviewing Jesse Jackson which specifically mentions the dead or alive posters. Even as a snippet, the interview confirms with plenty of other sources that the posters were released. The Examiner urls are blocked here, but I prefer Jesse Jackson's comments as he is notable for many reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with ChrisGualtieri, they can't perform a citizen's arrest no more than you or I can. I realize it is out there being reported on by RS, but this is nothing more than hyperbole.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Technically anyone CAN perform a citizen's arrest, but not under these circumstances and those who do such acts are not exempt from criminal charges and are legally liable for any action they do take. Said instances are rare and are not manhunts; it is like locking an intruder of your home in some room and preventing their escape until the police arrive, or stopping a fugitive who just murdered an individual and they are detained by citizens. A citizen's arrest is exceptional and rare. The NBPP 'bounty' is basically inciting vigilantism for that reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems clear this lacks consensus so while I'm not an admin, I've removed the template request for now. Free free to re-add the request if consensus is reached and the request is still needed. 01:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased media refuses to show current pics of Martin with gold teeth and tattoos

The biased mainstream media keeps showing a very old, outdated pictuyre of Treyvon Martin from his childhood. His current pictures from Twitter and Myspace show that he has gold teeth and tattoos, and that his chosen screen name is a racial slur. source 6ty4e (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Unreliable source, while its contents may or may not be true it has not been picked up by the media and while it does consist of original research and the evidence is circumstantial, it also preceded the pot controversy which made national news. Even if it is all true, most of it will not meet other wikipedia criteria. The article serves only to attack Martin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Now that Zimmerman's version of the shooting is coming out, I have noticed several RS are starting to post that pic of him grinnng from ear to ear. I guess they have bashed him enough in the media, now it's Martin's turn under the spotlight.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Pcis will probalby eventually get picked up by media. If talked about in the media, then we can use them. Media is unlikely to do significant meta-discussion about its own bias/censoring, so that will be very difficult to get into the article. Until such time as RS start talking about those other pics, or drug dealing, etc, it is not fit for the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Martin's own words labeling himself "NO LIMIT NIGGA" are not reliable? Since when? They will only serve to attack Martin? Both of those claims are unsupported subjective opinion. Think it through. Martin himself made a conscious choice to describe himself using the language No Limit Nigga, so clearly Martin did not regard the label as a perjorative or as disparaging. Your position, if true, would mean Martin disparaged himself, which makes no sense. Furthermore, the racial angle is part of what makes this story notable.The article contains plenty of commentary about Zimmerman's and the police's possible racism. In point of fact, Trayvon Martin is the only person for which there is evidence he used slurs. This makes Martin's use of slur notable, I would think. 66.157.17.243 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
His Twitter tag shouldn't be associated with him on this article. The reporting source is unreliable and even if it is true serves no purpose other then to negatively characterize Martin. The page is currently protected over the suspension for pot issue. Let's not pour gasoline and light a match to his personal life over a blog post consisting of original research and synthesis of various matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious that the twitpic/twitter/myspace etc are his. However, we should not include it, and certainly should not place any meaning on it, until it has been done in RS. Im sure this will come to light eventually, and then it will be grounds for inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • His chosen screen name on twitter is not a racial slur. It is a common slang term used amongst the african-american community, especially with young black youths. Remember "homey" and "brother", it's the same difference. I can't believe you haven't heard it before. It's not racist and would not portray Martin in a negative light. The pics and the tattoos are a non-issue as well. For crying out loud, I have a tat myself. Having said that, I agree it should not be included unless for some bizarre reason, a RS decides to make an issue of it. Even then it's questionable as to relevancy. I think the tweets he shared with his friends are more relevant than his screen name or pics of him with a tattoo. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Not relevant, not usable. And we are not responsible for what the "biased media" do or don't do as in the header of this section - please take your complaints to the blogs, not this talk page, and stick to talking about how to improve the article. Tvoz/talk 06:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal issues -- statutes

In the section, "Legal issues," the statement "Florida law prohibits arresting a suspect who claims self defense, unless it has probable cause to show the force used was unlawful, and awards damages, repayment of lost income, court costs, attorneys fees if an arrest is made, and the suspect is later found immune to prosecution due to the self-defense statute." links to the Florida statute.

This is a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the original Florida statute, which is WP:OR and doesn't belong there. (I think it should go in the "External links" section.) There are lots of WP:RSs which describe that Florida law and should be cited instead.

There are many reasons for not allowing Wikipedia editors to interpret or even quote original legal statutes. One important reason is that the law, as written in the statute, is often reinterpreted or reversed by the courts. Another reason is that laymen often misinterpret statutes. But it doesn't make any difference. It's WP:OR. --Nbauman (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, the statute I quoted says almost EXACTLY what I put into the article. There are many RS talking about the stand your ground portion, but I was not able to find any talking about the prohibition of arrest part. Happy to use one if can be found. In the meantime, the statute text is not ambiguoous, and I almost quoted it. Would be happy to change to an actual quote from the statute if you want. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
If you can't find any sources discussing it in the context of the shooting then it sounds like a classic case of WP:Syn Nil Einne (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
How is it synth? It is one source. it is a primary source, sure. but in no way did I do OR or SYNTH. put THE EXACT TEXT FROM THE SOURCE in , and it says exactly the same thing. Did you even bother to read the ref? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Using a primary source like that is a clear cut case of WP:Syn unless the primary source (statute) mentions the shooting of Trayvon Martin which I don't need to read the source to know it doesn't. Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Direct quote from statute "As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)."

my text in article "Florida law prohibits arresting a suspect who claims self defense, unless it has probable cause to show the force used was unlawful, and awards damages, repayment of lost income, court costs, attorneys fees if an arrest is made, and the suspect is later found immune to prosecution due to the self-defense statute."

I defy you to find any meaningful difference between those two, and further defy you to find anything that says paraphrasing a primary source is synth. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. This is an article about the shooting of Trayvon Martin. You haven't established the relevance of said statute to this article by any reliable secondary source. Instead, you're synthesing that the statute is of some relevance to this article and the non arrest of Zimmerman based on your intepretation of the statute and the case. If this was an article about Self defence in Florida or Legal arrest in Florida perhaps your source would be relevant but again read the title of the article and you'll find it isn't and article on either of those things. If police say they didn't arrest Zimmerman because of the statute, or if other sources say perhaps police were afraid of arresting Zimmerman because of the statute then fine, but you haven't shown any sources which say this. In the absence of sources, as unlikely at it may be for all we know the police didn't consider the statute and no one else thinks they did either. What you're doing is little different from someone finding a 2000 article on racism on Sanford or some other random thing and adding it to this article, a clear cut case of synthesis unless other sources have established the relevance. Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

direct statement from police department saying such http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

also

  • //www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/arming-zimmerman_b_1367648.html
    //inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/19/opinion-trayvon-martin-not-george-zimmerman-was-engaged-in-self-defense/?hpt=us_c1
    //www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/stand-your-ground-could-be-irrelevant-trayvon-martin-killing
    //www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/3/22/trayvon_martin_faq_f/
    //lezgetreal.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-new-developments-more-law-analysis/
    //www.kansascity.com/2012/03/20/3503709/trayvon-martins-shooter-should.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could insert this sentence after the second sentence with the statement from PD as your RS. "When police interviewed Zimmerman at the secne, his statement was that he acted in self-defense and at the time, his statement was supported by physical evidence and testimony". Maybe this could clear up the confusion he was seeing there. I think the statute as you have it is just fine and is definetely relevant as to why they didn't arrest Zimmerman. The whole Legal Issues section looks better than it previously did. Good job.Isaidnoway (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Another reason why you can't quote the statute is that lawyers themselves don't use the statute. They use the annotated statute, which contains footnotes to the court decisions about a statute. Often, a court will reject part of a statute, and even though it's in the statute, it's not part of the law. Often, a judge will interpret the meaning of a statute to mean something completely different than what a non-lawyer would think it means. So Wikipedia doesn't allow some anonymous guy on the Internet (which is what Wikipedia editors are) to quote from original sources like statutes. It has to come from a secondary source, as explained in WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested copyedits

  • In the 2nd paragraph of the "Police arrival" sub-section, Mr Martin is refered to by his Christian name several times, this should be changed to "Martin", in keeping with the rest of the article. This happens again in the "Against Sanford police" subsection.
  • In the same section, the time of non-identification of ther remains was given as 3 days, in section 3.1 this delay is given as 24 hours. Which is correct? Sources may differ, a decsion must be made based on their credibility. "3" should also be written as a word.
  • Section 1.1, and 1.2 it's "fiancée".
  • In the Legal issues section, why is the "stand-your-ground law" capitalised?

Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased Lead Needs to be fine-tuned to address NPOV problems

This graf is so problematic I find it hard to believe so many people have apparently missed these problems.

The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law and allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct, triggering multiple investigations and public demands for Zimmerman's arrest.[18][19]

I suggest:

The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law and strongly disputed allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct, triggering multiple investigations and public demands for Zimmerman's arrest based on conjecture that the shooting was not justified.[18][19]

The are reliable sources to support these clarifications and corrections of langauge that is biased against Zimmerman.

Thoughts?

66.157.17.243 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps this? The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law and allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct, which spurred public demands for Zimmerman's arrest. Multiple investigations have been triggered as a result of the outcry. The allegations of racial motivations are not disputed; they are well-known, the dispute about a racial motivation is where disputes have been made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


Um -- Wikipedia is not a tabloid.

The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has been noted, and accusations of racial motivations or police misconduct are being investigated.

The $10,000 bounty etc. do not belong in the lede AFAICT. Collect (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


This version strikes me as more neutral.It's also more concise. 66.157.17.243 (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I like your section better then my own. However the public calls for his arrest is not because of the bounty, it is because Zimmerman shot and killed Martin and no charges have been brought. Just because 60% polled in MSNBC/FOX want him to be arrested, an NBA team and various notable figures want him arrested, which might warrant the public outcry for his arrest because it is the truth. Rallies and protests numbering the thousands have called for his arrest as well. While they are verified, it is public opinion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Take care with news polls - they are far from reliable, except to say "X had a poll that said Y", and to include that you really need to qualify it's relevance with an independent source. Fox (as with any other news agency) can make a poll say exactly what they like, statistics are easy to manipulate. --Errant (chat!) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Uh. What? I'm stating that public opinion, even if it is verified doesn't mean it should be in lead because it is opinion. I was trying to clear up the fact that the call for his arrest was not about the bounty as Collect seemingly referred to. No one is pushing for the inclusion of such material either; but yeah, keep those out. Public opinion polls are not encyclopedic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, apologies - and I agree. I was skim reading for issues and misread your comment. I think there is solid grounds to mention "Public calls for his arrest". I'm not a fan of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has been noted; it doesn't do anything to establish who noted it, and for what purpose. Recommend cutting that out and attempting it as a separate sentence. --Errant (chat!) 00:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the misleading photos.

This man was not a child. He was seventeen years old and over six feet tall. Please add an accurate picture of him or don't include one at all. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Picture is the most current one and is not the commonly circulated 'child' version. Cannot edit, but this is the best picture we have that is neutral. Certain other pictures portray Martin in a negative light, the current one is neutral. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

African American

If his father is caucasian and his mother is Peruvian, how is Martin African American? —Entropy (T/C) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no where does our article say Martin has a caucasian father and Peruvian mother. It does say Zimmerman has a white father and Peruvian mother which is another thing entirely. (Nor does our article call Zimmerman African American anywhere.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think he might be confusing the info box. Martin is an African-American, and Zimmerman is a white American. (Even Zimmerman's mother is a light-skinned Peruvian.) Zimmerman's a white dude. And Martin was a black dude. It's that simple. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I would say Zimmerman appears very Hispanic - calling him a "white dude" is inapt and not proper in any BLP-compliant page. BTW, I would not call Zimmerman's mom "white" as her picture is very clearly not all that "light-skinned". Collect (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Sighs. Listen very carefully. I'm NOT gonna belabor this nonsense with you. The fact is that Zimmerman is Caucasian, and officially considered so. You think that "white" has to be red-headed or blond haired people with freckles? FAIL. There are "dark whites" in the world. Also, for that matter, there's such a thing as "white Hispanics" too. (Andy Garcia, Ricky Martin, Cristina Aguilera, etc) My point is that his mother was not black looking. Again, Zimmerman is basically a white dude. You are whatever your father is anyway (sperm blood etc....though some people have that backwards...another debate.) But to say idiotically that "Zimmerman is not white" in your edit comment is POV madness and stupidity, and is just plain inaccurate. Even if his mother was sorta "darkish looking" it doesn't matter. Zimmerman is basically a white dude, and identifies himself as such, and is counted as such. Also, again, in general, NOT ALL "Hispanics" are "brown" (though lazy sloppy types like to many times stupidly think that, per their brain-washing and ignorance of history, or vision problems or whatever). Some are white (I mean LILY WHITE), and some are "brown", and some are even outright black. But you can't go around saying that Zimmerman was a "Hispanic" (in any full-fledged or basic sense) if A) his father was white, and (as sexist as this sounds it's just a biological fact) you are whatever your father is, and he has his father's last name, and his mother was NOT a black or dark brown Peruvian, but just a general olive type looking one maybe. The most you can say is that Zimmerman is PART "Hispanic" (whatever that word means anyway), and basically Caucasian. Zimmerman looks like a dark white dude. I know some Greeks and Croatians and Armenians who look just like Zimmerman. And many Jews who look like him. It's WHATEVER. He's white (basically). Get over it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Try NPOV will ya? The fact is that he is not "light-skinned white" for sure, nor is his mother light-skinned white either. You seem to think that anyone who is not black is white which is untrue and a real problem here. And that you say there are Jews who look like him -- amazing! Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
While this is OT and I'm not going to discuss the other points 'You are whatever your father is anyway (sperm blood etc....though some people have that backwards...another debate.)' and 'his father was white, and (as sexist as this sounds it's just a biological fact) you are whatever your father is' are plain incorrect. In some countries and traditions race or ethnicity follows the father. In others it does not. However this has no basis in biology as few if any of the traits associated with the questionable concept of race are inherited primarily from the father. Blood type is not and 'sperm' only in very a limited way. If you continue to be confused, I suggest you check out our articles, or any article on the genetics of race and also on human inheritance or ask factual questions at WP:RDS. P.S. It's perhaps worth remembering for a female the only way she can inherit traits exclusively from her father is via Epigenetics and for a male, while there is the Y chromosome it's very small. Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I know about the "traditions" of some people, and that doesn't matter. If you're bringing up Jews today, they're wrong in saying "according to the Torah you're a Jew if only you're mother is a Jew". That's just flat wrong. The Torah doesn't say that at all. For real. It says the OPPOSITE. The "Talmud" is NOT the "Torah". According to the TALMUD, yes, but NOT the Biblical "Torah". Even some Jews have admitted this, and have written this very thing, that the Talmud actually REVERSES the Hebrew Bible reckoning of it. In the Hebrew Bible (this is just a fact that can be checked out) you were whatever your father was. According to the Bible (both "Testaments"). Example: A Jewish father, and a non-Jewish Moabite mother (Ruth)...married, had children, in the Bible, the children were still considered fully racially Jewish. In Chronicles too, the father passed down the seed and lineage. That's just a fact, that can be seen and measured and proven there, not an opinion. Now as far as biology, there's actually a MIS-notion that mtDNA (Mitochondrial DNA) is passed down only by the mother. PCR testing proves that's not really true. Another debate though. And there's some other issues (shown on 60 Minutes years ago) that only father passes down certain vital traits and details, not the mother. Also, again, the LIFE-SEED (spermatozoa) is transmitted by only the father always, as we know, never the mother. The mother is the vessel, the father the ultimate determiner, of both gender and ethnicity. But regardless of any of this, Zimmerman considers himself white, or the broad Caucasian at least, and looks white (dark white is still white, even if he doesn't look like Owen Wilson), his father is white, and his mother is NOT some "black Hispanic" who looks like Sammy Sosa's sister or something. So the overall point is it's POV and stupid to say "Zimmerman is not white, he's Hispanic" arf arf. THAT is blatant NPOV and sloppy rhetoric. (I'm the only one being NPOV here in the ultimate sense.) Also, again, there IS such a thing as "white Hispanics". (Check Wikipedia's own article on that point of fact, to see, etc.) Even if Zimmerman's Peruvian mother did not have blond hair and blue eyes and lily white skin, that does not necessarily mean that she's necessarily an ipso facto "brown" person, like Pablo Guzman (of channel 2 news) might be considered. But even so, the best way to describe Zimmerman (to be thorough for the nitpickers) is to say he's Caucasian and Hispanic. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
What do Jewish traditions have to do with anything? And why did you suddenly bring mitochondrial DNA in to the discussion for no apparent reason? And what on earth is a 'life seed' and a 'vessel'? (For that matter what are 'vital traits and details'?) These aren't biological terms, they sound more like terms used by some religions. The simple fact is, your comments are supported by no reputable biologist I'm aware of and instead sound like a mismash of confused largely non scientific claims trying to sound scientific (but failing miserably to anyone with even a basic biology background) so I suggest you stop making such claims if you want to have any credibility. You may have valid points in other areas, but they aren't helped by your completely wrong (and OT) biology. (P.S. 60 Minutes is not a reliable source for scientific matters although even they aren't normally as confused as you.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Moot. And by the way, that 60 Minutes piece QUOTED scientists, and it was going into certain pertinent matters. As far as "life seed", bright boy, what do you think the Greek (scientific) word "spermatozoa" even means? Seed of life. That has nothing to do with "religion", just a scientific point of fact. I don't have time for you, nor is this the forum to debate this junk. Nor do I have the patience for your rudeness, dismissive arrogance, nor your logical fallacy of appeal to authority. (Sighs...try looking up "appeal to authority" article in WP, to see how your non-specific addressing, but just rude insults and argument from numbers etc, are not an argument at all, and I don't have time to waste on things like that.) The point is Zimmerman was basically a white dude, as even the New York Times called him, now get over it, and stop whining about nonsense like this. Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
If you think quoting random scientists is how you determine scientific consensus or how you get an understanding of the science behind something, you have no idea how science works. (Hint: There's a reason why most scientists care much more about publishing their research in reputable peer reviewed journals then appearing on 60 Minutes. And in their published articles, they cite other peer reviewed articles and not what some random person said in 60 Minutes, except of course when 60 Minutes is part of their research.) And the Greek meaning of "spermatozoa" has no bearing on modern scientific understanding (the fact that you think it does suggests again you have no idea how science works). And there's a big difference between 'appeal to authority' and recognising that if scientists reject your claims and you use terms in a way no scientist will, it means you have no real basis to claim you're discussing science. (If you want to discuss pseudo-science I suggest you do it elsewhere or at least make it clear you're discussing pseudo-science.) If you don't have time for this, you should stop talking nonsensical science in the talk page and getting offended when people point out that's what you're doing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I meant I don't really have much time for this NOW. (Also, I don't remember asking you to write me, that was your choice.) But when I wrote what I wrote, I had some time. And again, bright boy, you're MOOT. You say "it's not appeal to authority", but then (lol) DO THE VERY THING THAT IS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Pathetically with your uhh "peer review" arf arf. Spare me. You're moot, and I grew tired of you the very first sentence I read from you. To be frank, because you dissed me first for some reason. Drones tend to bother me, sorry. Also, as far as you're determined to be whatever this or that parent, there's really no solid clear firm consensus on that anyway, per se. Even if there was, it matters not. Self-confirming laughable "peer-reviews" of people in an echo-chamber and cocoon of group think doesn't mean much ultimately. Consensus does not necessarily mean truth of scientific fact. Though human nature loves to think that's the case. Regardless, (sighs), "life-seed" means "spermatozoa" and the etymology is not exactly an accident. Will you say that the sperm is NOT an A) "seed" of any kind, or B) containing "life" in any sense? Will you call a sperm cell a seed of death? It's whatever. I'm sure you'll respond with more drone-ish typical "peer review" argument stuff (appeal to authority that you'll deny is appeal to authority, even though it is.) Bye. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read scientific method and perhaps start to understand why recognising the merits of the scientific method as the best method to determine what's is most likely to be correct based on our current understanding (and what is almost definitely wrong), is not an appeal to authority. (For a good reason, scientists generally dislike talking in such absolute terms as 'truth' or 'scientific fact' when it comes to scientific understanding and theories.) And why it generally works far better then listening to random (likely misleadingly cut) quotations on some random TV show not known for their scientific vigour which (from what you've said so far) you lack the ability to really understand. And sorry to break this to you but yes, science has advanced a long, long way since the term spermatozoa was conceived. (A simple scientific description of a spermatozoa is a motile gamete.) Since this whole thing is OT as I said at the beginning, and you still haven't actually provided any solid reliable sources to back up your claims but instead just a confused usage of terminology and mentions of undefined episodes of 60 Minutes, you're right there's no point discussing this further. (As I said at the beginning, a quick look at any reliable source on human inheritance of the genetics of race should be sufficient to show your claims are just plain wrong. Similarly a look at any reliable source on human reproduction should show the concepts of 'life seed' and 'vessel' are basically unheard of, and have no scientific basis anyway.) P.S. I never said you asked me to write anything. What I did say is you made a bunch of nonsense claims that I felt couldn't go unchallenged, I admit for the sake of others on this talk page I probably should have stopped earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You're acting like I don't know about that. Anyway, the reason for my harsh tone with you is because you chose to diss and belittle me first with terms like "mish mash" and dismissing everything I wrote. Not very cool. Gotta go. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't dismiss everything you wrote. In fact, I made it clear from the beginning I was only considering certain things that you wrote that I took issue with (namely most of the stuff purporting to be science). And I tried to be resonably polite at first, but when you continued to claim your understanding had some sort of scientific basis when it was clear to me it did not, even after I suggested you do a bit of reading and ask questions in appropriate places if necessary to clear up any misunderstanding on your part, I saw no choice but to be blunt. As I've said several times, if you don't want that to happen your best bet is simply don't start (OT) discussions on wikipedia with no RS backing. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you make claims on wikipedia talk pages, don't be surprised if they're challenged. Particularly if you're discussing pseudoscience as science. (Remember article talk pages are intended for improving articles so even if your comments are OT, people will generally expect any claims to live up to the same standard we require of articles unless you make it clear you're applying some other standard. While the number of people who check out talk pages may be small and they won't generally have the same expectation of comments as they would statements in articles, there's still a risk and therefore concern that people will be mislead by statements in them.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
My mistake; I didn't see that there were two separate infoboxes at the right. —Entropy (T/C) 00:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here old enough to remember Emily Litella? This thread reads like one of her tirades. "Never mind." Tvoz/talk 06:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Emily Litella, lol...good call.Isaidnoway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Discussion at AN

Please see the following discussion about the locking of the article and deletion of the disputed content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Are non admins allowed to discuss the matter on that page? It seems the page is not intended for disputes about abuse or content. Is it okay that such a discussion is taking place there or is there a better place? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can comment on that page. VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Time unidentified

One section indicates Trayvon was tagged a John Doe and remained unidentified for 3 days, but the Missing Persons section says he was unidentified for 24 hours. As you have locked this page against editing, please make the correction.--DeknMike (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there any report of what else he was carrying? Any cash, credit card or receipt for the items? (Would have helped with identification.) Some in the media have suggested theft of the skittles & tea, but this is pure speculation. Would like to have confirmation yes or no from this community.--DeknMike (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Police Arrival, David Horsey is opinion

How is David Horsey relevant with his criticism about police not checking Trayvon's cell phone to find someone he knew. He is a political cartoonist whose cartoon's appear on the editorial page of the L.A. Times. His comments and cartoon's are purely opinion based and if you look at the cartoon that appears with his short opinion piece about this shooting, it is inflammatory and biased against Zimmerman. Here is the caption and link to the cartoon:

HOW A RACIST CALCULATES...BLACK KID + WHITE 'HOOD = OPEN SEASON This should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

re: Trayvon Martin wikipedia article: reference [64] is a FOXNews (Orlando) article that contains highly questionable information that blurs the line between confirmed and unconfirmed. therefore, each line of the Trayvon Martin article referencing [64] should be removed for the sake of clarity. it's my understanding that wikipedia pages are locked to prevent this type of situation from occurring. allowing these lines to remain in the article helps perpetuate the idea that wikipedia is a breeding ground for inaccurate information. thank you.


67.61.177.108 (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)  Not done the ref is direct quotes from family and witnesses. What specific information are you concerned about from the ref? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman story

Zimmerman's side has been released [27] and he says he was at his S.U.V. after he was unable to find Martin. "Trayvon then approached Mr. Zimmerman from behind and they exchanged words. Then, Mr. Zimmerman said, Trayvon hit him hard enough that he fell to the ground — which would explain what Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, Craig Sonner, has said was a broken nose — and began slamming his head into the sidewalk." The article also confirms that 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.--DeknMike (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

zimmerman's side is already in the article (unless someone deleted it when I didnt' notice). The marijuanna issue is being discussed and BLPN. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Different information; but yes most of it is. Just has terrible wording like the rest of the article in some spots. Other issues to be cleaned up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone establish exactly where Zimmerman was when he fired the shot? If he was at his vehicle obviously he had not followed Martin after being cautioned not to by the dispatcher. 70.233.155.179 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This police account of Zimmerman's statement differs from a previous account. In the "Police arrival" section it was reported that the police said Zimmerman was "attacked from behind". To be attacked from the front after an exchange of words in inconsistent with that story. The previous article saying he was "attacked from behind" should be mentioned in this section, noting that there have been differing account's of Zimmerman's story made by the Stanford police. Mark Sanford (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Law is "controversial"

The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's ___controversial___ "Stand Your Ground" law and allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct

I think this term is unnecessary and sounds biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1man838 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur, this case has 0 to do with SYG.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Drop controversial; its not needed. Interestingly as most media outlets have been reporting it is not the latest case in which the SYG law could be reasoned. Even in Florida. A man fatally shot another man trying to enter his estranged wife's home, no charges were filed, a restraining order was in place which the victim was violating. [28] If the law was controversial then this case should be receiving the same attention as charges have not been filed in this case. For clarity it should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Multiple WP:RSs refer to the law as controversial. There have been many editorials and columns calling to repeal the law. Many politicians voted against it. I don't think it's WP:POV to call it controversial. What's the Wikipedia policy or guideline addressing this? --Nbauman (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Considering it passed 39-0 in the Senate and then 92-20 in the house? [29] It was not as controversial before the media firestorm. Some tout this will be a case to test the law; others state that he cannot use it. Due to its nature and the fact he has not yet been charged because of this law does not mean he will not be charged; there is still time to press charges and it seems that it is likely there will be charges pressed. Then it goes before the court. The assumption is the law is controversial, but the law itself when it passed was not. Might as well argue that insanity defense is controversial, the case concerning its use or expected use could question it, but the letter of the law was not controversial during its passing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Not "controversial" for the lede as it has been copied in multiple states. Collect (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't ask for your personal opinion about whether it was controversial, I asked what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are for deciding whether to use a term like "controversial." As I understand it, if many WP:RSs use a term, that's a strong argument for using it in Wikipedia. --Nbauman (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The RS cited includes the term "controversial". In addition several RS have also used the term as well; CBS News, ABC News, Miami Herald, Motherjones, Time and even the WP article about the SYG law has a section devoted to the "controversy" surrounding this law. I see no reason to remove it.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Is there a source for the nickname listed in the infobox? If not, can it either be removed or marked with {{citation needed}}? - Purplewowies (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a blog referring to another blog. It is unreliable and opinion based with a lack of fact checking. I'd opt for the nickname removal as it is without source. Will help keep information about the twitter account and other information off; the article has enough problems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper blogs are considered to be RS. That blog is from Yahoo! News. Cla68 (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Protection has been reduced to semiprotection so you can edit the page now. Tra (Talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He was arrested for drug possession.

Might want to add that little tidbit because it's not the "trayon martins" that donate to this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

source? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless I see a source I doubt it. I've seen some of the most negative things about Martin, but considering several sources citing no record I see no weight to it. I'd still opt for the removal of anything which doesn't deal with the current incident. This page is not for building biographies detailing every action of their pasts; it is for reporting an incident. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
And all of the Zimmerman stuff then is for what precise purpose then? I suggest equal weights should apply here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the bios should stay, as they identify the two main actors in this shooting. Yes, they could be stripped down to basic info, but the details that are emerging about these two are relevant as well. You have to remember that a national event has flowed out of this shooting and if it has been reported in the media (good or bad) by a RS, then it should be included. A section about the Media Coverage is warranted, and this is where details like this would belong.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Bias alert right here. If Trayvon Martin's brushes with the law previous to this incident are not included then Zimmerman's brushes with the law are not relevant to this incident. If we are going to put in Zimmerman's previous legal history then we should give the full picture of the man and point out other information such as he is a registered Democrat, not a Republican.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Republican vs Democrat has not been an issue that has recieved RS coverage (although I do know political leaning blogs have been harping on it). Unless zimmerman was politically active in a way which interacted with this case (gun laws, race issues, etc) his politics are irrelevant. Its an interesting spin that people were accusing him of being right wing and hes really a democrat, but its not relevant to the case or articleGaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gaijin42. On grounds of relevancy. Lets not forget that the double bio info-boxes helped spur the creation of these two bios in the article. Rather then compare other Wikipedia work to other wikipedia work. Per WP:VICTIM, "Note: Be cognizant of issues of weight (i.e., avoid creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people)." Which leads to WP:UNDUE with the note, "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I think that a fair amount of this is covered under these two policies. Which is why the psuedo-bios should go. Bios should be in the subject's own article; not here.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Forensic evidence or Autopsy findings?

In particular, was Zimmerman's blood found on Martin's hands? Were Martin's hands recently bruised? Were Zimmerman's? Just because people, in particular Mr. Zimmerman, forwarded their versions of events to a news outlet does not make them fact, and some information on forensics would be extremely helpful. I suspect there is evidence, as the face is a greasy beast and if Martin did indeed break the nose of Zimmerman, there should be sebum and/or blood on his hands. To me, this is sadly obvious. 64.142.38.173 (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the autopsy info has not been released. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It has been announced that the autopsy has been sealed, and will not be released at lest until after the investigations are done. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

The second sentence of the main article could be construed as inaccurate or otherwise making a claim which is in dispute: To wit, the phrase "when Zimmerman, a community watch captain,[13] followed him after calling the Sanford Police Department," should be changed to read "when Zimmerman, a community watch captain,[13] followed him while on the phone with the Sanford Police Department". The current wording seems to imply that Zimmerman followed Martin after completing the call with police. In fact Zimmerman claims he turned around and walked the other way when the dispatcher told him to stop following Martin, which is the exact opposite of what the current text implies. 67.107.11.40 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)  DoneGaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Marvin's Suspesion Linked to Pot

Can somebody please add in this fact? Here is the source:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/26/pot-linked-to-trayvon-martin-suspension-his-family-says/?test=latestnews

Thanks. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"We maintain that regardless of the specific reason for the suspension, it's got nothing to do with the events that unfolded on Feb. 26," Julison said... --Errant (chat!) 09:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently he was suspended 3 times, and there was reason for suspicion of burglary, also: Multiple SuspensionsJimhoward72 (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If it is verified by a RS that this is the reason for the suspension, I think it is relevant in relation to the way the media has covered this story and could be included in a section about the Media Coverage. I also agree with the above statement that is has no bearing on the events of Feb.26, but not only is this a shooting incident, it is also a national event which should be covered in this article as well.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article quotes someone as saying that he was an "A and B student," but does not also mention that his suspension was for marijuana, I think the article is biased. It should mention both of those things, not just one. To mention one without also mentioning the other makes the article biased, in my opinion. 6ty4e (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Put back the event infobox

Can the infobox be changed back to the {{infobox news event}} one. There is consensus above that this article is about the event not the biographies (see #Which infobox format to use). Others at various times have also suggested this change (see #Infobox and #infoboxes). The edit that removed the event infobox is not the greatest [30] and it appears to have stuck as collateral damage from the page protection. If it can be returned to something like this that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm set to do this, but with the tweaked version which has Zimmerman listed as "Participant" not as "Suspect", per the consensus above. Tvoz/talk 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The article's now been reduced to semiprotection. Tra (Talk) 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

nickname

Whats the deal with the nickname box? First, its not sourced to anything and seems to be included simply for POV. I thought wikipedia didn't use nicknames?? The Karrine Steffans article has no mention whatsoever to the fact that her nickname is Superhead and that's what she rose to fame for. She has songs and books referencing it and its not used, so the inclusion of a nickname here for no reason is rather fishy. Despite that a google search of superhead wiki will take you straight to her page, but a google search of Slim and Trayvon Martin results in either unrelated uses (slim referring to his stature not the name) or propaganda sites or a search of slim minus Trayvon's name results in nothing of relation at all. Requesting nickname's removal. 99.146.22.217 (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Try the NYT [31]
“They called him Slimm.”
That is what Sybrina Fulton, the mother of the slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, told me people called her son because he was so thin.
Or CS-T [32]
according to the family’s attorney — and his nickname was “Slimm.”

In short - widely reported and fully sourceable if anyone deems it contentious. BTW, the nickname is Slimm" with two m's. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It unnecessary and a term of endearment. A NYT OP-ed opinion piece is not a reliable source by its very nature. The other is not so much about his nickname, but the history of the family and their story. It is not relevant to have full bios here, so most of that information should not be here. Removing the bio boxes were the first step of fixing this articles NPOV issues and focusing on the encyclopedic not sensational drama that the media reports. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

School suspensions

Previously there were three differing reports of why Trayvon Martin was suspended from school the day he was shot: tardiness, in an unauthorized area at school, and marijuana residue in his possession. A recent article essentially reports that they were three separate incidents and three separate suspensions.[33] According to the Miami Herald, in the unauthorized area incident,

"In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f---.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.
Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald."
"Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.
Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend.
“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Even if pot is unrelated absolutely, burglary tools and diamond earrings would seem to be related here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
On what basis? Because of the recent spate of burglaries? You surely see the speculative issue there.. we need a much much more solid source than a media report to bring up something like that. As predicted; the (media) attempts to smear both individuals are growing. --Errant (chat!) 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The Miami Herald was reporting what was in a school police report of the incident. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Errant, did you see the spokesperson of the New Black Panther Party on CNN? This is a great money-making venture for almost all involved. On an encyclopedic note: why does it matter what he was suspended for? And how would having burglary tools in October be related? (Besides, of course, that as a black kid he probably should be a criminal, right?) And if he had a backpack full of burglary tools, crown jewels, and rocket launchers, how did Zimmerman know that he did? What he doesn't know cannot support his actions. I'm surprised to see so few editors grasp the essential point here: whatever you wish to add to the basic fact of his being there is unencyclopedic, speculative, irrelevant, and (mis)leading. I don't even really understand why it's relevant that he was suspended from school. The same does not apply in the same way to the other party, who was there regularly, engaged in a well-established pattern of behavior with a clear intent. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason for the patrol was ... a spate of burglaries in the community. Where the reason for Zimmerman being suspicious and the similar acts connected by a reliable source to Martin, there is sufficient connection made by the reliable source to allow it being in the article. I can see not mentioning the pot, but the burglaries are absolutely related to the full story.
While I think I am ingeneral agreement with you regarding inclusion, it was not a patrol. Zimmerman was out on a personal errand and saw martin. Only a patrol if you claim every time zimmerman was walking or driving for any reason was a patrol. Certainly the burglaries may have set zimmermans mind in terms of looking out all the time thoughGaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
@Drmies: I would truly hate for this to be a Sharpton-Brawley case, and the only way for Wikipedia to handle this is as straightforwardly as possible, and not make judgements about Zimmerman having a "well-established pattern of behavior with a clear intent" which absolutely places Wikipedia in a position of saying each person should be treated differently according to what an editor "knows" to be the "truth". Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that what zimmerman does not know cannot support his actions. But zimmerman reported on his phone call "on drugs or something" and "up to no good". If Trayvon has a history of drugs and theft, then that changes the (omg i cant believe i am going to use this word in this context) then that changes the color of zimmerman's words. Instead of being an absolute racist because he suspects the black kid - there is the POSSIBILITY that trayvon WAS on drugs, and WAS up to no good, and that Zimmerman recognized that in his body language or behavior. We cannot report zimmermans accusation and then also hide any possible evidence that would support his accusation. You are absolutely right that zimmerman did not know the history - that doesnt mean martin wasnt actually doing something suspicous. There will _never_ be any evidence either way (martin is dead, no witenesses to the buildup except zimmerman, who is obviously biased, and in the heat of the moment might not even really remember what happened accurately), but to hide all information that would let people make their own judgement is wrong. We should absolutely not SYNTH or spin this information, but to not include it is wrong. Whatever he was doing, Martin did not deserve to die, and zimmerman was in the wrong in following him and confronting him, he should have waited for the cops. - but we cant cast zimmerman as a racist melodrama villain twirling his mustache and plotting against the black kid, including all the background on zimmerman but not on martin does this. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the patrol was ... a spate of burglaries in the community. Where the reason for Zimmerman being suspicious and the similar acts connected by a reliable source to Martin, there is sufficient connection made by the reliable source to allow it being in the article. I can see not mentioning the pot, but the burglaries are absolutely related to the full story.; this is the sort of editorial thought process that mass media employs - because it makes a good story. It's also a logical fallacy, and pure speculation. Please don't consider applying this form of editorial to Wikipedia :) Collating these two facts is exactly the sort of POV material that is so problematic in articles of this sort. Do not try to add it. --Errant (chat!) 14:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am using what the reliable sources are saying - that editors on newspapers use "editorial thought processes" is not a reason to decry the facts. At least I think the Miami Herald etc. meet WP:RS. The claim is not SYNTH on my part, ErrantX! It is what is being widely reported and written about now. And personally I think that most of the Zimmerman "bio" is quite as UNDUE or more so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Errant, You have mentioned media reports and mass media a couple of times and this is exactly why there should be a section about the Media Coverage of this event. If you look at other high-profile cases like OJ Simpson's murder trial and The Death of Caylee Anthony on WP, they have sections related to the media coverage and there is disparaging info about those individuals that the media reported on. While the media coverage may sometimes be slanted and editorial, it is relevant to reference how the media covers national events like this. This is not only about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, this is also about the national event that flowed out of this shooting. Michelle Goldberg has a article on The Daily Beast today about this very issue, postulating about Why Conservaties Are Smearing Trayvon Martin's Reputation.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd probably agree; but it's hard to write those sections now, because usually it ends up being sourced to that coverage, rather than to sources dealing with the coverage directly. --Errant (chat!) 17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Good point, this case is still in it's infancy stage and when it is finally concluded by the legal proceedings, they will no doubt then pontificate about "what went wrong" and assign the blame elsewhere but on themselves.Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Bios

  • If we get rid of the psuedo-bios listing every past action unrelated to this incident that would be for the best. Zimmerman has already been hopeless condemned by the media, and now in a rare show of looking into the victim, Martin's past is being blasted to. I am really sick of the media, they cannot keep their stories correct and have been trying to focus public outcry for political and business purposes. I'd almost feel better then we have a separate section for 'Media Sensationalism' or something to address the puffing up of the entire event. Before anyone calls me pro-Martin please note that I was the one who removed the Zimmerman mugshot out of policy which some thought it would be pro-Zimmerman. I am pro-wikipedia; I don't care for anything less then a good article that is in accordance with the policies.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Chris, regarding your remark, "If we get rid of the psuedo-bios listing every past action unrelated to this incident that would be for the best." — Here's a copy of those two sections. Please show us what you mean by editing this copy using strike outs <s> </s>. Thanks. (For now, just Chris please, otherwise it would be too chaotic. Thanks.)
Martin and Zimmerman bios
Trayvon Martin
Trayvon Benjamin Martin (February 5, 1995 – February 26, 2012) was the son of Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin. He was 17 years old, 6'3" and weighed 140 pounds at the time of his death.[15] His parents had divorced in 1999; his mother is a Miami-Dade government employee and his father is a truck driver.[15] Known as Slimm,[18] Martin lived with his mother and older brother in Miami Gardens, Florida. He had transferred from Miami Carol City High School during his sophomore year to Krop Senior High, where he was a junior.[19][15] He reportedly had hoped to become an aviation mechanic or engineer.[14][20] His English teacher, Michelle Kypriss, reported him as being "an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness." and said that he "was not a violent or dangerous child" and "not known for misbehaving."[14] He was visiting his father and his father's fiancee, Brandi Green, at her rented townhome in Sanford, Florida, on the day he was killed, after being suspended from school for 10 days.[14][15][21]
George Zimmerman
George Michael Zimmerman[22] was born on October 5, 1983, in Virginia,[23] the son of Gladys Zimmerman, who is from Peru, and Dr. Robert Zimmerman, Sr., who had served in the U.S. military.[24] He was raised Catholic and served as an altar boy, living in Manassas, Virginia until the early 2000s.[24] At the time of the incident, he was 5 ft 9 in (1.75 m) tall,[25][26] and weighed approximately 250 lb (110 kg).[25] He was licensed to carry a firearm, but it is unclear if he had informed the homeowner association that he would be armed as a volunteer.[27] Zimmerman had a previous charge in 2005 of "resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer"[28] while interfering with the arrest of a friend. He subsequently entered a pretrial diversion program, which is not considered a conviction on his criminal record.[29] Zimmerman had previously been accused of domestic violence by an ex-fiancee (Veronica Zuazo), who had filed for a restraining order against him. Zimmerman counter-filed for a restraining order. A judge eventually ordered them both to stay away from each other for at least one year.[30] Zimmerman married Shellie Nicole Dean, a licensed cosmetologist, in late 2007.
In 2008, Zimmerman enrolled in the Seminole County Sheriff's Office citizens' law-enforcement academy, a four-month-long, one evening a week course consisting of a total of 14 hours of classes.[31][32] He reportedly expressed ambitions of becoming a member of law enforcement, writing: "I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regard and I hope to one day become one."[33] In 2009, he re-enrolled in Seminole State College and was working toward an associate degree with the goal of becoming a police officer.[34] Seminole State College withdrew Zimmerman's enrollment because of this shooting controversy "based solely on our responsibility to provide for the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman."[35]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a big problem with this approach regarding zimmerman. A very significant part of this case and its controversy is "why didn't the police arrest zimmerman". One of the specific reasons given by the police in response was "his squeaky clean record". That much OBVIOUSLY is relevant to the article and is not bio. If there is evidence that he in fact DID NOT HAVE a squeaky clean record, that information should be included, as it reflects both on Zimmerman's and the police's actions. Once zimmerman's are included, martins need to be as well for fairness. We can't give people half the picture "This is what police said initially", and not include "this is what the police found out later". Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


    • Our goal should be accurate NPOV coverage - and that is all. I would not wish [34] to occur here - but if it does, then we dang well better make sure we did not do anything to act improperly on this article whatsoever. Collect (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I would suggest that whatever occurs, that similar standards and tone apply to both the coverage of Martin and the coverage of Zimmerman.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup; as I said yesterday - the major issue at the moment is content related to Zimmerman, not Martin. All of the past charges stuff should be reduced and pushed down into any context within the article, if appropriate (though for the same reasons as above, it is not likely relevant at this stage). --Errant (chat!) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Errant, please address my comment above. Zimmerman's "squaky clean image" was specifically cited by police as reason for some of the non-action they took. There is evidence to the contrary. How is that not relevant to the allegation that the police were not acting correctly? Obviously we personally cannot do the SYNTH, but we can allow the reader to, and in any case RS have done that SYNTH already anyway. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is an example of my changes.
Changes suggested by ChrisGualtieri

Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Benjamin Martin (February 5, 1995 – February 26, 2012) was the son of Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin. He was 17 years old, 6'3" and weighed 140 pounds at the time of his death.[1] His parents had divorced in 1999; his mother is a Miami-Dade government employee and his father is a truck driver.[1] Known as Slimm,[24] Martin lived with his mother and older brother in Miami Gardens, Florida. He had transferred from Miami Carol City High School during his sophomore year to Krop Senior High, where he was a junior.[25][1] He reportedly had hoped to become an aviation mechanic or engineer.[26][27] His English teacher, Michelle Kypriss, reported him as being "an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness." and said that he "was not a violent or dangerous child" and "not known for misbehaving."[26] He was visiting his father and his father's fiancee, Brandi Green, at her rented townhome in Sanford, Florida, on the day he was killed, after being suspended from school for 10 days.[26][1][28]

George Zimmerman

George Michael Zimmerman[29] was born on October 5, 1983, in Virginia,[30] the son of Gladys Zimmerman, who is from Peru, and Dr. Robert Zimmerman, Sr., who had served in the U.S. military.[4] He was raised Catholic and served as an altar boy, living in Manassas, Virginia until the early 2000s.[4] At the time of the incident, he was 5 ft 9 in (1.75 m) tall,[6][31] and weighed approximately 250 lb (110 kg).[6] He was licensed to carry a firearm, but it is unclear if he had informed the homeowner association that he would be armed as a volunteer.[32] Zimmerman had a previous charge in 2005 of "resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer"[33] while interfering with the arrest of a friend. He subsequently entered a pretrial diversion program, which is not considered a conviction on his criminal record.[34] Zimmerman had previously been accused of domestic violence by an ex-fiancee (Veronica Zuazo), who had filed for a restraining order against him. Zimmerman counter-filed for a restraining order. A judge eventually ordered them both to stay away from each other for at least one year.[35] Zimmerman married Shellie Nicole Dean, a licensed cosmetologist, in late 2007.

In 2008, Zimmerman enrolled in the Seminole County Sheriff's Office citizens' law-enforcement academy, a four-month-long, one evening a week course consisting of a total of 14 hours of classes.[36][37] He reportedly expressed ambitions of becoming a member of law enforcement, writing: "I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regard and I hope to one day become one."[38] In 2009, he re-enrolled in Seminole State College and was working toward an associate degree with the goal of becoming a police officer.[39] Seminole State College withdrew Zimmerman's enrollment because of this shooting controversy "based solely on our responsibility to provide for the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman."[40]

Even if we do not go that far it is clear that most of it is unrelated to the case at hand. Other speculation and points draw upon characterization. Job aspirations have nothing to do with the incident at hand. Nor does most of this other fluff. As they are only notable for this incident their entire lives should not be unveiled and cross checked here. I doubt they need full bios undr WP:1E. I forget the other policy which states that information unrelated to the incident should not be included, this includes the 2005 arrest and previous suspensions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks. First, let's have some comments on what Chris did and then have someone else try their hand at the same thing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmermans record was directly refered to by the police as justification for their actions. How is his record not relevant? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, which text that was struck out are you referring to? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
That should be mentioned in the incident itself as it is part of the official reason why he was not taken into custody. As charges were dropped in the 2005, he had no record and that contributed to their decision. As it stands, he has no criminal record. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
He has no conviction record, he does have an arrest record. Additionally, while the restraining order is not a criminal issue, it is a binding legal order, which cannot be made without probable cause as to behavior. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly what was needed for these bios, short and to the point. As far as the info that was striked, like Zimmerman's record of assault and any other additional info (good or bad), it could be folded into other sections like the incident or Media Coverage since that is where most of this striked information comes from. The media put this info out there as a POV as to why Zimmerman may or may not have had a propensity to violence and while it is a verifiable fact, it doesn't belong in a biography about the two individuals involved in this incident. It is also important to remember that this case is far from over and once the legal portion of it starts to take place, new sections will be added then as well where more information about these two individuals could be added.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I am ok with rolling the information into the event something like "police said they did not arrest him due to his squeaky clean image. It was later revealed that..." but I think it should be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
His record should definetely be included, but the police said they did not arrest him because they had no reason to doubt his version of the events and his claim of self-defense. You are right that it was later revealed, but it was by the media when Trayvon's parents went public about this case.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all the above; although "it was later revealed" is a phrase that always makes me squirm.. I'd be inclined to simply say the police didn't arrest, part of which was because of his clean record. "Media reports later uncovered previous arrests as well as a [DATE] restraining order filed by an ex-fiancee". And leave the detail at that. --Errant (chat!) 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Im fine with the active voice conversion. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, overall I think these changes make sense, but (1) we do need to be clear that police didn't arrest in part because they said he had a clean record- something like that - we should not be implying that any police check revealed no record. We don't know that - we only know they claimed he had a clean record. And (2) of course we must also include a clear statement immediately following about the previous arrests and restraining order - Errant's words about "media reports" and so on are ok with me for the second point.
And this reduction of the biographical material should go hand-in-hand with removing the two biography infoboxes and replacing them with a "news event" box as we had for a while - the article is about the shooting event; it is not a biography. This will avoid the POV problems of photos and questions about nicknames and religion - none is needed in infobox especially if not in article text. We had some outside opinions on this above (see #Which infobox format to use), all of whom agreed that we should go to the news event infobox or no infobox at all. This is consistent with the sense of this thread. Tvoz/talk 18:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I am for this change. It satisfies my concerns and is proper given various policy and third party editors feel the same way about the double bio box with the news event box. It will go a long way to keeping the mud-slinging out of the article; even if the mudslinging is true most of it is irrelevant and not encyclopedic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK - I'm going to go ahead and make the infobox change now. Once we determine final (ha) wording for the bios we can go from there. Tvoz/talk 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If (and only if) reliable sources show that he had stolen jewelery and burglary tools, and that he had assaulted a bus driver, and that he had marijuana, then it should be in the article. This is relevant, because Zimmerman was specifically on the lookout for people engaged in that very type of activity. 6ty4e (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • It was sensationalist enough to claim that, but he was not charged with a crime and his burglary tool was a screwdriver of unknown size. Its not like he is a cat burglar and was casing the area. I say keep it out, its speculative to draw the conclusion he was up to no good. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Anything that is verified by reliable sources should be in the article. No need to whitewash his character. If he punched a bus driver, maybe this football player rushed and tackled the neighborhood watchman first. There was conflict, and he was on the guy when he shot him. The 911 call has the watchman saying the guy was looking at houses and looking suspicious. Is there a map showing the location of the store and the house he was staying at, and where he was killed? Was it a straight line? Dream Focus 21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Punching the busdriver has definitely not been sourced to anything nearly reliable enough for inclusion. Its sole source is a tweet from a friend. No police report, etc. Similarly a possible pot dealing issue cannot be addressed until there are RS which are talking about things that have solid evidence behind them. (police reports, school reports, statements from reliable eye-witnesses). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Final consensus on bios

  • Have we reached a final consensus on bios yet? Zimmerman's bio is starting to look cluttered. I am for the short and to the point bio. The rest of the information can be re-distributed elsewhere in the article in the appropriate section.Isaidnoway (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit

Would some kind Admin please copy edit the page while it is protected. Found the following errors:

  • Under George Zimmerman - talking about Spike Lee's tweet - it says "which many some took as a call for vigilante action". Please delete either many or some.
  • Under Location - it says "Several 7-Eleven stores exist within from 0.7 to 1.3 miles of the property". Please delete either within or from.
  • Under Police Arrival - 2nd paragraph says that the John Doe "was identified as Trayvon after 3 days." However, under "Missing Persons Report farther down, it says he was unidentified for 24 hours.

Thanks, Tex (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"many some" --> "some"  Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"within from" --> "from"  Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"3 days/24 hours"  Not done - Cited sources say basicly that dispite being identified by his father the next day, he was listed as John Doe for 3 days. It is one of the mysteries of this case. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Will do when page protection ends. Not even admins have been editing the page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • In accordance with WP:FULL, I would be willing to edit the article (and I suspect other admins would as well). However, before any admin would make such edits, the editors here would need to show a consensus for each requested change. There have been a number of suggestions made since the article was locked, but so far there doesn't seem to be a firm demonstration of consensus for any particular change. Dragons flight (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dragons flight. I would edit the article if consensus were shown.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's start with the 7-11 one. That is clearly WP:OR from the previous section and it is incorrect as several exist within a 2 mile radius. It is unrelated to the shooting and as WP:OR it should have no qualms about being removed. No article or source states a specific 7-11, it was just reported that he was coming back from a 7-11. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove the 7-11 research - no one knows which one was meant, and it is thus of, at best, marginal relevance. The 24 hours reference appears solid - silly to give a contradictory time frame for sure. "Many" or "some" (re the tweet) should be fully sourced as well. Collect (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that's wise, at least until say, a newspaper covers that angle of the case. Presumably the specific 7/11 will become known in due course. No need to specify until the MSM gets there too, we feed off them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Removed the 7-11 information. The Google Map doesn't change that it is WP:OR and an observation that there are several 7-11's of which no one knows which he went to. Irrelevant until the matter goes before a court. No speculation please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is Zimmerman's father called "Dr." Robert Zimmerman?

The article says that George Zimmerman is "the son of Gladys Zimmerman, who is from Peru, and Dr. Robert Zimmerman, Sr., who had served in the U.S. military." The cited article doesn't call him Doctor (at least in the current form), nor have I seen any other source call him doctor.

Also, in an unrelated point, the external links section has "collected news and commentary" links for the NYT, the WSJ, and the Guardian, none of which has done important reporting on this story. The paper with the best coverage, with the most facts, has been the local paper, the *Orlando Sentinel*. If any paper should be linked, it should be them: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/

—KHirsch (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the senior Zimmerman's profession known? Perhaps add that and omit the honorific?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Unable to find an RS for it yet, but I believe he was a military magistrate (retired). That would likely make him a JD, so the Dr. honorific is technically correct, but unusual. Obviously need good sourcing on all. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

magistrate confirmed in two RS. per logic above JD is a Dr, but i would be fine with removing it as unusual honorific.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just state his occupation as 'a retired magistrate judge' which carries additional weight for his comments about his son. Even though it is military, civilians rarely refer to their military title or rank, exception exist for Generals as they do with any US President or Senators after stepping down from their position. Even though it equates to Dr, the honorific term would be more appropriate in a bio where the argument could be made, in this article his chief role is a parent rather then acting (retired) military official making it unnecessary. He is not referred to DR in any major source as well; even if JD would be the more applicable term, the honorific is probably irrelevant here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
A J.D. is just a law degree, it doesn't entitle you to be called doctor.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
What do you think that D stands for? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As I said. A LL.D. is a doctorate.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Unlike Europe, LL.D. is a rarely used and strictly honorary title in the US. An American with a JD can use the title Doctor, though such styling would be rare and almost archaic. Dragons flight (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

All with doctorates may be called "Doctor." In Europe such is common, rather than the American idea that only M.D.s are "real doctors." Is there a source for the degree however? Collect (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I understood Gaijin42 to mean that he felt the holder of a J.D. calls himself doctor.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is not costomary, and unneeded in the article, but it would not be inaccurate. I do not have a specific source for the degree, but he served as a magistrate so it seems pretty self evident, and he was refered to as Dr in an RS. We don't go find the degree sourcing for every MD reference. In any case, I think it is mood as the honorific is not really needed, but I feel like being pendantic. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

But I think per WP:CREDENTIAL we shouldn't be including the honorific. Tvoz/talk 07:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

MAJOR NPOV Violation

This article talks about Zimmerman's pseudo criminal past, but when evidence of Martin's pseudo criminal past has come to light, it is prevented by the editors from being included in the article. Either remove the portions regarding Zimmerman or include the portions regarding Martin. To claim that one is relevant and the other is not shows extreme bias. 180.94.87.162 (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath, my friend. This article is controlled by editors pushing the "Zimmerman is a right-wing, gun-crazy racist cracka who murdered this poor, defenseless, innocent angel of a boy in cold blood." 67.233.247.88 (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic

Zimmerman officially classifies himself as "Hispanic". I know that the media has tried to portray him as white to push the racist meme, but this should be clarrified. source Arzel (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

They've started calling him a "White Hispanic" now to try to get around it. It's pretty sickening. No one would dare describe President Obama as a "White Black" despite the fact that he does have a white mother. 67.233.247.88 (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

primary source on zimmerman race

http://freebeacon.com/registered-dem-killed-trayvon/

reported via a questionable secondary source, but is evidence towards his self-identification. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how political affiliations is relevant, given the effort to remove the pseudo-bios and irrelevant material why would we add the current controversy discovered by the sensational media. First it was race, but then he's not white. Then it was a right-wing conservative with a gun, now its a democrat. Let's stop pushing whatever political agenda the media is reporting and leave the irrelevant issues out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The secondary source was discussing political affiliation, using the same primary source as a ref. I agree that is not relevant to our article, I was just talking about that he registered with race as hispanic, since that has been an issue (and white on black vs hispanic on black does spin quite a bit differently). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Then for that purpose it seems proper given the controversy of race. Keeping away from the media's spin is the best thing, its one step above tabloid journalism. Will help end the matter of Zimmerman's race considering that from 3/20 to 3/23 Zimmerman's mug shot photo kept getting whiter and whiter; in a clear alteration of the perspective by media.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
really? I hadn't noticed that! sort of an anti-OJ simpson!Gaijin42 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I lost the link but there were a few where the mugshot in county oranges were changed to an off red, suggesting manipulation of the hue. Essentially what was done was literally whiten his face and features from the mixed ethnicity into a more appealing 'white'. Here is an example, it shows that even our current picture of Treyvon was photoshopped. [36] Next time you look at a source article take a peek at the mugshot of Zimmerman, is his prison oranges really orange? If they are kinda red and his face has that additional light on it you know it is photoshopped. Another obvious case is the background goes to bluish. Some sources (mostly blogs) had day by day versions from the media which showed the progression of increasingly whiter Zimmerman, now that the attacks on Treyvon have begun it seems that the smearing is in full effect and always was. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Spike Lee Tweets wrong address

Spike Lee apparently tweeted someone else's address than Zimmerman's. People have been going there by mistake, supposedly. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/paper-spike-lee-tweeted-incorrect-george-zimmerman-address-possibly-putting-sanford-woman-in-danger/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.137.93 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You dont think its notable that the calls for vigilantism are happening? (especially if they are affecting innocent 3rd parties?) I associate this somewhat with the rodney king riots. (public reaction to what was going on) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me ask you then. Is it notable that Spike Lee tweeted the wrong address of some innocent person as Zimmerman's and people have been going to her house to possibly commit illegal acts of vigilantism? Even putting said information here and associating is WP:BLP concerns. Most of this information is not encyclopedic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Whos BLP are you concerned about, spike lees? I think it is notable, in so far as it is relevant to the death threats being made against zimmerman. highly notable. especially public calls for violence/vigilantism by highly visible people/groupsGaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Does it matter if its Zimmerman's, Spike Lee's or that lady who lives there? It is a policy violation to put forth information which could lead to the harm of an individual, let us stay as far away from that as possible because its only a hop and a skip to posting the actual address which is referred into other sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Have to agree I'm not sure if this belongs in this article in this time unless it remains a significant factor in the case. It may belong in the Spike Lee article if this becomes a significant controversy associated with him, but that discussion belongs in the appropriate talk page. As CG has said, there are also concerns we will be giving greater visibility to a private address. Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This has to do with this case. The address itself shouldn't be listed, just that he gave out the wrong one, and people harassed the wrong person. Any event concerning this case covered the mainstream media should be mentioned in the article. Dream Focus 21:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"Any event concerning this case covered the mainstream media should be mentioned in the article" - do you really want a 10MB++ article? Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I will qualify dream focus's comment. There are some things covered which are so minor as to not need to be mentioned (parents occupations, fiance's name, family biography wihtout close connection to the case, etc). But things which do have an impact on the case, or peoples perception of the case, that can be reliably source, and which have been widely reported, should be included. This risks recentism, and as the case evolves, some things may become innacurate or less important and can be removed. But in the meantime, we are effectively the compilation of the media's reports. This is not not WP:NOTNEWSGaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The media cannot even get the story straight let alone every instance of someone saying X and attacking Y or commenting on Z. It is not directly related to the incident and doesn't even warrant a mention. WP:NOTNEWS and its relevance check would opt that it not be included; it hasn't even gotten that much attention and it is in relation to an extremist group as recognized by the Anti-Defamation League. The stance against NBPP is greater then Spike Lee tweeting the wrong address. BLP issue aside; it is irrelevant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that rather then giving in to recentism or turning this in to a compilation of the media's reports, we should stick with this being an encylopaedic article and leave stuff out if it's not yet clear it belong. If in the fullness of time it becomes clear it belongs we can add it without any harm done. This also reduces the risk of the common problem that people add whatever random thing happens to be the current hot issue surrounding the case (which will potentially be replaced by something else in another 30 minutes and then promptly forgotten about) and in a few weeks the article end up being a bunch of disjointed facts that never belonged and more important facts are missing because most people have moved on from the case. (Keeping the unwanted stuff out doesn't guarantee the important stuff will be added, but it does mean the article is less of a mess for whoever needs to clean it up and there is a slight chance anyone wanting to add important stuff doesn't come across such an unmitigated disaster that they just leave.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Nil Einne, yes, a 10MB++ article is fine if it contains the full story. The fact that Spike Lee may have tweeted the wrong address, and a bunch of people have gone there, is part of this story. I agree that is should be included. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Except that your suggestion for a 10MB++ article is ridicilous and not supported by policy.... Nil Einne (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no way this should be added right now. I agree with Chris on his above comment that there is too much of a risk that someone could inadvertently get harmed. There is simply too much happening in this case right now that any of it could ever be included as fast as it is breaking. It would be silly to try and keep up. We should also remember that this is Wikipedia, not a news source. People don't come to WP to get their news, they use it as an encyclopedic reference.Isaidnoway (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How would saying he gave the wrong address cause someone to get harmed? Seems like if someone had read that address, or found it reported elsewhere, they'd be less likely to go to it now that they knew it was wrong. It shows the aftermath, how people are stirring up violence and causing innocent people to be endangered. Dream Focus 14:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The wrong address that he gave actually belonged to an elderly couple and they have now moved because they stated they were in fear for their life. I just think it is better to err on the side of caution and include it a later date when the dust has kinda settled. There is no need to add every single thing that is reported on every single day at this point in the article.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Orlando Sentinel article

[37] appears to be RS as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

1RR notice

Edit request on 27 March 2012

Please update information on why Trayvon Martin was suspended. See information below: "Saying that the issue had become a distraction, (Attorney Benjamin) 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. 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." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/shooter-of-florida-teen-describes-assault.html

66.192.144.178 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I added the part about the marijuana baggie because consensus at BLPN supported it, and I asked if the the graffiti and truancy suspensions are appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

Please update the following information: "Trayvon Martin's mother has filed two trademark applications. The AP reported that Sybrina Fulton is seeking to trademark the phrases "I am Trayvon" and "Justice for Trayvon" Shirts, hoodies, and buttons are already being sold on eBay and Cafe Press, and Trayvonmartin.com and JusticeForTrayon.com have already been registered as website domains Source: [36]

66.192.144.178 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not doneNot relevant, has no bearing on either participant, how the event happened, reflection on their character, or the public reaction. Additionally, exceptionally easy to misconstrue this. It is often done defensively to prevent OTHERS from profiting. In either case it is a very tenuous connection. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Relevant?. (Not to this article but it shows that commercial actions by relatives of the deceased may be considered relevant to an article on the topic.) Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is relevant. It is a component of this story and should be included. There is nothing nefarious about the fact she applied for a trademark. Should it be added today or even tomorrow, no. I realize this story is still in its infancy and there is a lot of clean up work to do , but eventually information like this will have to be added. This story is not only about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, it is also a story about a national event that was created by the shooting.Isaidnoway (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Applying for trademark doesn't warrant a post in the article; it goes too close to a personal issue from which we should maintain distance. What's next? Does Martin had a life insurance policy which is going to pay out? Certain things cross a line, the trademark protections they apply for are to have legal matters in case someone tries to abuse said slogans. It is not a money-grab and it is not relevant to the incident just because some source reported it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm just saying that we may want to consider in the future including it. I agree it is not related to a money-grab. Like you said, she is only trying to protect the image of her son. It could be included stating that she was trying to prevent others from "making a profit" off of this incident. Seems like to me she did the right thing. We may find that in the future she has decided to donate a portion to charitable causes.Isaidnoway (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

where are the unbiased admins tending to this wiki?

This wiki becomes a bigger joke every day. You might as well turn this wiki into "justice for Martin" website and forget the whole encyclopedic nonsense. What a joke. Do your jobs already.68.115.51.198 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, still listing cutcher as a "witness" when the cite even mentions she was not a witness, only someone who heard screaming and decided it was Martin. More time and explanation is given to her "account" when an actual eye witness is given a sentence. Using a the facebook photo of Trayvon makes more sense rather than the publicity photo of him much younger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.207.240.90 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Somebody who heard something relevant to the case *is* a witness, and this is what she will be called if she is asked to testify in court. 69.105.119.162 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, still claiming he made 46 calls in the last year when the police have said that it was since 2001. This is citable fact, not opinion. Citing to news sources that are provably incorrect does not make the underlying fact correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.130 (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If this is citable fact, then you should cite the source. 69.105.119.162 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say a good job has been done of cleaning it up. The article did read like something from a Justice for Martin campaign. The witness section is in need of some serious help though. With only a tiny section devoted to the actual eye witness, while the majority is devoted to a someone that didn't actually witness anything. In fact her statements are proven wrong by the recorded 911 calls. Either it should be removed, or a line added that her statements are not in line with the recorded calls. Lunaspike (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. FOX Orlando interviewed the witness, so their are direct quotes available from him, and should be included. 69.105.119.162 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There is plenty of information available on that witness. It hasn't been included for a reason, though what that reason is I won't speculate. That said I think the the people here who want this to be unbiased can probably figure out why Lunaspike (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If you think there is missing information, ADD IT. Making snarky accusations do not improve the article. I think you will find, if you really read the edits carefully, that people are being quite fair about what information is being included. Several editors here went through significant administrative hurdles regarding the marijuana suspension, but also include negative information about zimmerman. There is a systematic bias in the reporting of the case by the media, and we to some degree reflect that, but there is nothing we can do about that. We cannot do WP:OR or use blogs as sources for information. The information which is reliably sourced, we reference. That information is slanted against zimmerman is (possibly) indicative of two things 1) slanted media coverage. 2) there is actually objectively more negative information available about zimmerman that is directly relevant to the case. Stop making attacks against people and add information or make changes if you can do so WHILE FOLLOWING POLICY. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Please point out the instance where I attacked someone. That or you can feel free to remove that remark. Either one will be fine. Lunaspike (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"John:The guy on the bottom who I believe had a red sweater on was yelling to me help help I told him to stop and I was calling 911 and then when I got upstairs and looked down, the person on top beating up the other guy was the one laying in the grass and I believe he was dead at that point." http://media2.myfoxorlando.com/video/2012/02/27/022712-sanford-shooting-revised.HI.flv Aside from Gaijin giving the idea that I have personally attacked anyone, that is what I personally think should be in the witness article considering that is an eye witness account. Also if you would read my initial post above Gaijin you would have seen that I said a good job had been done of it. Lunaspike (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Body Identified in 3 days or in 24 hours?

In the Police section it reads: "Immediately following the shooting, Trayvon Martin's body was transported to the morgue and was tagged as a John Doe.[56] It was identified as Trayvon after 3 days." This claim is not sourced. And the source cited right before it implies that Trayvon was identified on Feb 27th. But later in the Missing Persons section, it is stated that the body was identified in 24 hours. And this is sourced. So, I think that the claim that the body was not identified for three days should be removed. Pmdavis500 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed this while doing a quick copy edit, but the former claim is sourced: "Martin's body was left in the morgue for three days, classified as a 'John Doe.'" [38]. The latter claim is sourced also: Martin's body "sat unidentified in a morgue for 24-hours" [39]. I'm not as familiar with this event as other contributors may be, so I haven't attempted to determine which claim is more supported. — madman 22:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
complete OR/speculation Martin's father was not notified until the next day = 24 hours. The paperwork to claim the body etc, was not done for 3 days. The two statements, while certainly confusing, are not actually mutually exclusive. Until we get sources explaining this section (which we might not), we can only do as much as we know. I added the missing persons section, because I thought that was relevant as to how things went down, and the parents not knowing about it, but I dont know that the sepcific lenghts of time are acutally important in either location. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, if that were the case then that would make sense, yes. — madman 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how long the identification took but [40] claims the body was ready for release to the funeral home within 39 hours (but wasn't picked up for another 24 hours). Obviously the identification must have happened some time within those 39 hours. Nil Einne (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevancy and Bio clean up

As per the previous discussion above; the bios are not really necessary so I've begun removing things unrelated to the incident itself. Mostly characterizations by third parties and past actions that had no legal sticking points. The double bio box is gone so I will uphold my proposal and clean with a light hand on the matter. The media-mudslinging is not really proper and for respect to both individuals, their past and unrelated actions should not be put through the mud by Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Part of understanding the incident is trying to understand the experiences and motivations of both parties. Because of the legal aspects of this incident, I think the legal or behavioral backgrounds of both Zimmerman and Martin are relevant. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
That is for a court to decide, we report facts. Unless you can dispute that he has been convicted of a crime it is a BLP issue that questions neutrality. This article is not a place for their biographies and since the removal of the bio info boxes the article has become more about the relevant facts rather then picking apart the lives and allegations against someone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, we don't report facts, per se. Facts are truths. Our policy is "Verifiability, not truth." We report what the sources say, amended by BLP and other qualifiers. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
That is true, but if you please comment on my section below which lacks verifiability. I included specifically because this is the type of material padding out the article. It seems under WP:UNDUE that giving conjecture and belief the same weight as eyewitnesses and police statements is occurring. She only heard something, but her word was taken as an eyewitness account by several reliable sources when it was not an eyewitness account. Ear-witness some call it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Question: If she didn't see what happened why use the term witness? The source states she only heard and everything else is pure speculation. Since it did have a follow up with media report I do not want to delete it, but her 'belief' is clear-cut speculation. Its hard to witness something when you didn't see it. Doesn't meet verifiability even though it was reported and it stands in contrast to an eyewitness and police reports. "Another witness, Mary Cutcher, believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting, though she neither saw the shooting nor the preceding altercation." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You can always remove it for now, and then add it back later if it is needed. She is one of many "witnessess" the prosecution and defense will have to decide if they want to call to present their version of what happened. Of course if it gets that far. Did you see that ABC news is reporting that the lead investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter the night of the shooting? The only thing I gleaned out of the article that might be relevant was that Zimmerman was taken to the station for questioning despite his requests for medical attention.Isaidnoway (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

witness does not mean just visible, hearing things is valid evidence. (Obivously less valuable than eye witness tho) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with Isaidnoway. Her statement to what she believed visibly was going on is not verifiable. If she didn't see anything then why is what she thinks she would have seen even here? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I completely disagree with this. I don't think it is for us to discard Cutcher's report - she is widely reported to have heard what she heard, and that the police mischaracterized her testimony. She is being reported as a witness, so we should not be inserting our judgment of what a witness is here - that is OR and inappropriate. We have reliable sourcing for what she had to say, and we should keep it in the article. Tvoz/talk 07:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If it is going to stay in the article, then we should reduce it and summarize it better. The actual eye-witness is only given one sentence about what he witnessed vs. the rest of the paragraph is devoted to her. Seems kind of lopsided in favor of her. Or alternatively, expand what the eye-witness stated he saw. Balance it out a little bit.Isaidnoway (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If this were to go to trial, anyone think she wouldn't be called as a witness? What peaople heard is used all the time in cases. "I heard husband and wife fighting from the upstairs , then a gunshot, then someone running down the stairs quickly". etc. Her statements should be taken with an appropriate grain of salt for not being eye-witness (which btw are unreliable all on their own for different reasons), but it should not be un-included. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Typically, prosecutors and defense attorneys choose their witnesses that will best represent their version of what happened. If the sworn statement she gave to police that night doesn't match what she is saying now, why would the prosecutor call her to testify? The defense has no reason to call her, what she is saying now doesn't bolster their case. No, she won't be called as a witness, she's not credible.Isaidnoway (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly and further more, what she thought she would see is entirely speculative. She is no expert and she never saw what happened. This has got to go, "Mary Cutcher believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling"" She never saw a thing and her story changed, police took her testimony lightly because she didn't see it, only overheard it. Even greater evidence comes from the audio of the 911 tape which records the matter. It wasn't a single cry and then a gun shot. One tape specifically has the screaming and yelling resulting in a 911 call, which continues for 45 seconds before the gunshot. Is it fair to say the person first called at that exact moment? No. Obviously something was going on; this was not Zimmerman executing Martin; there was clearing something going on during those 45 seconds on the call recorded. Her statement is unreliable and in contrast to the released tapes. Its a clear WP:UNDUE and speculation on her part to have what she believes was going on when she didn't see anything at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the second paragraph in the Aftermath section with all the witness statements should be moved to the Witness accounts section and that whole section be deleted. The eye-witness statement would be there and the dubious Mary Crutcher would be there as well. There is no relevant reason that those two witnesses should have their own section. Any consensus on this move? We need to start doing some editing to summarize and organize this article like Errant suggested below.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we should consolidate the witness accounts to one place, but we must give all of them, including Mary Cutcher's, a fair presentation, and we also should stop characterizing them as dubious or reliable - even here. This is not our role. We look at sources and present what they report. "Verifiable" does not mean we determine if the testimony can be verified, for heaven's sake - it means we determine if the information we put into an article can be verified by readers to be an accurate representation of what the sources say. The speculation above about whether or not anyone is a reliable witness has absolutely no place in the article, or even on this talk page. Leave it to the reporters and more importantly to the investigators, attorneys, courts to decide what is dubious and what is reliable. This is going way beyond OR - it is really inappropriate. Anderson Cooper's team, for instance, found Mary Cutcher's report that the police mischaracterized her statement to be reliable enough to give it airtime. That is what we are presenting, not our thoughts about whther she is a credible witness, nor our thoughts on whether earwitnesses are are good as eyewitnesses. There are conflicting witness reports, and we owe it to our readers to present them in an even-handed way. Tvoz/talk 20:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I fully support Tvoz's positon on this. We should not be judging the reliability of the witnesses. We report what thye said, and if other notable and reliable commenters have made opinions about their statements, we can report those as well, but we cannot have OR and POV in our selection of statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I have no problem with that either. The only thing that I would add though is that when someone presents a question on the talk page about something being relevant or not to this article, sometimes an opinion is required when giving an answer. I will certainly try and limit my opinion though as to not include any judgemental remarks or bias towards anyone and stick solely to the relevance issue.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman a Democrat

[41] I thought it had been decided that this was relevant because some media sources and supporters of Trayvon's family have portrayed Zimmerman as a "gun-toting right-winger"? Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • It would be wrong to further the political agenda by reporting their claims. For neutrality it should not be in the article as his political affilations were never a reason for the incident up until some sensational journalists decided to make it news. Like the NRA claims and the crude cartoons of Zimmerman lynching black people while wearing a KKK outfit; it has no place in this article even if the flames of hate are fanned by reliable sources and spun in a certain way. The story changes EVERY day. And on any of the major points the argument and perspective changes with the detailing of the facts. Case in point, Trey's suspension went from absence to vandalism and burglary to violence to pot, then to pot residue in an empty baggy. Care to read into Zimmerman's its a lot worse on almost every point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
[42] He was raised Catholic and served as an altar boy, living in Manassas, Virginia until the early 2000s. — Is there a reason why this is relevant? Tobby72 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
it was not relevant before the event, and the "right winger" spin was never widely publicized - not a major part of coverage, so refuting it is also unimportant. @Chris : The suspensions thing is actually that there were 3 suspensions, and each person was talking about a different one, not a changing story. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It is exactly why I removed the other two suspensions. They are irrelevant to the incident and it would be wrong to attribute the statements independently to each of those past suspensions which played no part in the incident. Also it fixes the fact to which I am dealing with on my talk page that the parents were lying and covering up for Treyvon. They weren't lying. It may have been weasely, but he was suspended for those causes, but they were not the reason for the current suspension. Most of the suspension was overplayed and blown up as I noted above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Where is the supposed previous suspension for trespassing, where is the suspension for tardiness? You removed valid sources cause you don't know what you are talking about, you are pushing a POV, or you simply have no reading comprehension, which questions why you are allowed to edit the English wiki at all, the end. Whatzinaname (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
They were irrelevant and please do not make ad hom attacks at me. I sited the sources saying three suspensions and the three reasons are known. Why should the other two be listed? Not every piece of information is relevant to the shooting, past suspensions only further provide charactierzation to portray a negative light rather then a neutrality and context of this incident. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH? I've gone to GREAT lengths to try to inform you of your error(s), and yet you continue with this nonsensical rambling. The father and the teacher gave inaccurate information about the suspension. Whatzinaname (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All three accounts were truthful in perspective; was it the current suspension, no. Did they occur for those reasons, yes. The context comes into question and who knew what, it is not our job to label someone as lying for that question. Martin was suspended for truancy issues once. The other was the unauthorized area/vandalism issue and the jewerly incident was found the following day, but no charged were pressed and the information on it is still loose. Those are both unrelated the current suspension which he was on when this incident occurred. Might as well go and seal his fate on the drug charge with the marjuana pipe as well. I still think the matter while true is being overblown and should not stand out as an issue itself, the article is on the shooting not the matter of pot. [43] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

what the hell, man, how many times do I have to ask you already? When did he get suspended for tardiness and when for trespassing. You have either babbled aimless or simply made facts up as you went along, and you will not answer to the question of these made up "facts". Explain or revert. Stop making garbage up and babbling. Whatzinaname (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Check the source. Truancy was not dated in that article, but Oct 2011 for the second. The last was Feb 2012. Three confirmed suspensions. It is not made up. Please check the source; my explaination is clear. Also WP:UNDUE is my reason why there is to the need for the previous suspensions at this time. It is irrelevant to the case. Per WP:Victim we should avoid psuedo-bios and building up his life's story on an incident page seems to be what was happening. Please do not curse or make personal attacks, I've said it before. I am not fabricating facts or sources. The evidence is presented neatly without digging, even as the title of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Can someone tell me how these people are not permabanned at wikipedia? He was NEVER suspended for tardiness OR for some form of tresspassing, as is detailed by his father and teacher. How ,amy times have we been over this and your inablity to substnatiate any of your nonsensical claims? You just keep making this nonsense upWhatzinaname (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at a few recent sources including those the CG has provided. So far, I haven't found any sources that deny he was suspended for tardiness+truancy, although it's true the claim these were the reasons for one of his suspensions seems to come from TM's family and possibly a teacher and doesn't seem to have been independently confirmed in any way (it's difficult to confirm given the school not commenting for privacy reasons). The timing of this suspension AFAIK is also unclear.
I also haven't seen any source denying he was suspended 3 times. One of these times was apparently for tagging (after being spotted in an unauthorised area) and upon being searched for that, a screwdriver and women's jewelery was found which police investigated but no evidence was even found that the jewelery was stolen so the suspension was only for the tagging (I guess the trespassing was too minor compared to the vandalism which was the reason for it). Another time (the one just before the shooting) was evidentally for possession of a bag containing (possibly just a tiny amount of) marijuana. So we still have one more time for reasons unknown and many source still seem to be accepting the reasons given by TM's family.
If you have any WP:RS which say he was not suspended 3 times, or say that one of times was for reasons other then truancy+tardiness, please present them but otherwise I think you need to calm down a bit as it doesn't sound like CG is saying anything that many sources aren't saying, including the one he? provided above and on his talk page. I'm not sure the other cases belong in the article anyway. P.S. There's no real such thing as a 'permaban' on wikipedia. P.P.S. From what I can tell no one, including CG, is claiming any more he was suspended for trespassing although as stated the tagging suspension seems to partial arise out of him being seen tresspassing.
Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
He was never suspended for "being an unauthorized place". He was suspended for graffiti. He was never at all suspended for tardiness. Both the supposed suspension reasons given by the teacher and father were completely wrong. Period. I do not understand the confusion on this matter.Whatzinaname (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nil Einne. I don't see why this is such a big deal. My source right here says: "Martin's third suspension was for tardiness and truancy, his family said Monday." [44] Here is another one, from the title, "Trayvon suspended THREE times for 'drugs, truancy, graffiti and carrying burglary tool' and did he attack bus driver too? New picture emerges of victim as parents claim it's all a smear."[45] Here is it right for you, "The teen was suspended from school three times. He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a 'marijuana pipe' and a baggie with drug residue. Trayvon was kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry. Officials also suspended him once for skipping school and tardiness." Three times. Truancy Included. I should not have to defend something I linked to previously. Now as for the graffiti issue he was in an unauthorized place at the time. Either way, I've proven that he was suspended for truancy issues. I'm not sure why you are denying it so much when the sources clearly state otherwise. Why would that suspension or the October one have anything to do with this case anyways? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
As I already mentioned the 'suspended for being in an unauthorised place' bit seems to be incorrect. As I also mentioned, I don't think any here disputes that. So I don't get why were are still discussing that bit. As for the tardiness bit again, I haven't see any sources which dispute that he was suspended for tardiness+truancy, in fact as I said most sources seem to accept it. As I said earlier, if you have sources that dispute it, you're welcome to present them. But otherwise I suggest you take this to some other forum outside wikipedia as this is the place for discussing improving the wikipedia article. That means we only discussed sourced content, not random personal speculation (while we tolerate it to some degree in some instances, this has gone along for long enough without any actual sources for your claims). Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Getting on back topic here, there is no relevant reason to mention Zimmerman's political affiliation. There is no RS reporting that this shooting was politically motivated. Trayvon wasn't even old enough to vote, much less be affiliated with a political party. There is also no RS indicating that Zimmerman was even active in his political party.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The article should mention that Zimmerman's father is a retired magistrate judge.

The article already mentions the occupations of both of Martin's parents, which is a common practice in wikipedia articles. The same standard should apply to citing the occupations of Zimmerman's parents. This article from the Los Angeles Times says that Zimmerman's father is a retired magistrate judge. 6ty4e (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember this is not a biographical article and we're trying to keep biographical details to those that are highly pertinent. There may be some merit to including Martin's parents occupations since they have been active after the case and he was a minor still under their care. Zimmerman's father is also quoted so perhaps his occupation is also somewhat relevant (although I think it's more questionable then Martin's parents). In any case, we do need to be careful here to ensure relevance. (If the occupations become relevant for other reasons we can also include them when that happens.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Be careful to avoid any implication that his profession has relevance to his son's defense, unless RS explicitly so state.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some rumors have started to show up on blogs that Zimmerman's previous arrests may have "gone away" due to his father's intervention as a judge/colleague. Obviously NOT an RS at this point, and pure speculation. But it is plausible speculation, so if this issue grows in the future with something reliable, we should be prepared to integrate, since that would obviously have an impact on the value/interpretation of the "squeaky clean record". would be OR/SYNTH/RUMOR right now though. In the meantime, I would support removing the jobs of all parents as not important to the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If Zimmerman qualified under Florida law as being a candidate for the pre-trial diversion program because this was his first offense, and his lawyer requested it and the judge agreed, no laws were broken. It is not unusual or uncommon for a parent, probation officer, counselor or even another judge to request that an "alternative" program be considered to keep a felony conviction off their record. Pundits are merely labeling it as "intervened" to create an aura of "conspiracy" or "suspicion" where there is none.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I said 'If the occupations become relevant for other reasons we can also include them when that happens' because I was well aware of this and related speculation. But I don't think there's much point worrying about this until it actually becomes significant for us to add (or at least wait until it's starting to become significant) as we already have way too much to deal with (amd for BLP reasons we really shouldn't be dealing with that until it might be time to add it anyway). Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

saying he witnessed what he described as suspicious behavior.[9] Soon afterward, he fatally shot Martin.

saying he witnessed what he described as suspicious behavior.[9] Soon afterward, he fatally shot Martin.

This alone, without qualification, in the lead, is biased. First of all, "what he described as" is redundant. It's what he said. Obviously he's describing it. Secondly, saying he shot him without mentioning the obvious physical altercation that occurred makes it seem like a cold blooded murder. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A fix [46]. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article

If we created a page Reaction to the shooting of Trayvon Martin then we can include all the political commentary & letters from parents & what Al Shartpon/Jesse Jackson said. (because they are not even tangentially related to the shooting, per se) Just a thought, this article is 90% "extra stuff" and only 10% "encyclopedic material" judging astutely by overall lengthiness of what is currently written. After all, the media circus will only give us more pages & pages of superfluous commentary by people who want to build on the momentum of this Trayvon Martin bandwagon. Delineating what is the subject of this article (and what is the reaction to Trayvon's death) would be the most simple way to start separating the chaff from the wheat, imo. 완젬스 (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    • support as the event continues to remain controversial, the reactions are going to continue to accumulate, and some of them are highly notable, and will overwhelm the article. LEave a small stub and a hat-tip in this article, and then we can expand the reaction section in the other article and it wont be undue. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting is a common suggestion for controversial event articles (usually someone tries to write biography in tandem, this is a somewhat unusual alternative). It rarely works out well; leaving two articles with numerous issues. Reactions may be a notable aspect of this; but I fail to see how we - so soon- could have reliable sources identifying the reactions as a notable topic, and covering it in summary. The other problem is that much of the reaction is probably not all that notable - people always react and we can't conceivably cover all of it. A better approach would be work to summarise the content currently on the page and organise it more effectively. --Errant (chat!) 13:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • With all the protest and whatnot, there is certainly enough information to fill another article with just the reaction of that. I support creating this. Its a valid content fork. Dream Focus 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Errant's point raises a good issue; just because someone says this or claims that doesn't mean it should be on wikipedia. Just the 'notable' people making statements about it will be as much about the media spin during the time it was said and less about a long-term value. Wikipedia policies are pretty clear on the notability and reactions are not worthy of their own article by themselves; just like Zimmerman or Martin probably wouldn't meet WP:NOTE. Its WP:1E.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Errant that more focus should be put forth on the current content and organize it into a more coherent aricle. It is all over the place right now. The media coverage and the aftermath and the subsequent conclusion to the legal proceedings can all be covered later. It is best to wait until the dust settles so it can be fine tuned into a much more cohesive article that can be referenced in the future with all relevant information that arose out of this tragedy.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • @Errant: No!' It has nothing to do with controversy. I work extensively at the article for occupy wall street, and we did the same thing here which as you can see took a lot of the celebrity reaction, politicians reaction, Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, parents, etc... I'm not trying to create a POV fork at all. I'm simply saying this article is 90% about the reactions to his death, and only 10% focuses on the actual event which took place on Feb 26th. Anything which is not talking about the events of Feb 26th 2012 is simply political afterthought. The article is a mess and we should just rename this article "reaction to..." if you're unwilling to look at how disproportionate the length of coverage is here. I only came here trying to prevent what happened to the OWS article and we worked out a great solution. Just check out how compact everything is at the OWS article and how everything is scaled proportionately to its desired emphasis. This 90% reaction & 10% direct focus of this article is completely upside down. The way to start organizing the information is to create the reaction page, with your blessing (*hopefully*). Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • OWS was a massive international movement (which both articles fail badly in documenting, as it happens). This is a just-about-national media storm in the US; as with other articles of this type, we are able to successfully deal with it all together - forking off "Reactions" (a poor, ambiguous name anyway) is not a good solution. The shooting is a small event that kicked off this larger media storm (people are shot all the time in the US, it's not usually notable). What you seem to be proposing is disecting any commentary of the events into a new article, but keep a description of the commentary happening here. This seems non-opitmal for our readers. (also; and I don't mean to pile on too much, it annoys me when people throw out seemingly random statistics, as you have, in support of a point - provide some analysis to support your figures or it's just misleading) --Errant (chat!) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose This is a high-profile case that has turned into a national event only because of the media reporting on it and that is why there is so much "stuff" out there at the present time. When the inevitable conclusion of this case comes to an end, then a more comprehensive and cohesive article will be able to be produced. If you look at other high-profile cases on WP like OJ Simpson's murder trial and The Death of Caylee Anthony, you will see that they include comprehensvie coverage on the very same issues that this article now faces and they are very readable and a valuable encyclopedic reference to the case and the intense coverage of the case. Readers wishing to access a reference article pertaining to this case and the events surrounding it should be able to find it all within one article.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose I am very much against splitting out anything from this article at this time. First of all, the "readable prose" in this article is 35K, which size guidelines say is well below any threshhold for splitting due to size. Secondly, the reaction to this event is a major part of the story and should not be shunted off to a sub article. Experience shows that sub articles are much less read, and in my view it is important that this material be kept intact in this article as it is a major part of the story - the reaction is why there is any story at all, rather than this kid just being dead and buried without any thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. So I very much oppose this action. However, the article needs more organizational work - I've been doing some as have others - and editing is always a good idea when so many hands are in an article and some material mentioned in more than one place unnecessarily. I do not agree, though, that we should just wait for the reaction stuff - it's too much a part of the story to do that. Tvoz/talk 01:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put up the merge tag under "aftermath"

I hope this gets underway soon. This story is about as emotional as it gets. Here is the brief explanation of when to split: WP:WHENSPLIT ~ 완젬스 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


well, frankly this isnt something that needs a vote. Anyone can make an article about whatever, and as long as it can survive an AFD, thats that. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but splitting off is not the same as starting an article - they're talking about removing sections from here and expanding them to another article, and that is relevant to this one. It is good that we're discussing this in the section just above so we can get the sense of the group of editors who work here. Probably should keep the discussion in one place, there. Tvoz/talk 01:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"unontelligible" means no one knows what the words are

WP:BLP says we should not give speculation a foothold here - and where a transcript says a word is "unintelligible" there is no basis for us to say what people speculate the unintelligible words may have been. Pretty clear policy here. Collect (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

probably not notable/sourced enough yet, but interesting, and a good addition to the hypothetical "reactions" article

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Witness accounts

The section on witness accounts should be broken into two paragraphs, one for the the unnamed witness that saw them fighting, and one for Cutcher. Each should contain relevant statements made by them.

An eyewitness to the physical altercation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him up, while the older man yelled for help.[62][63] This witness stated "The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911...And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."[62]

Another witness, Mary Cutcher, believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting, though she neither saw the shooting nor the preceding altercation.[64] The police say she gave an official account to them that agreed with Zimmerman's story.[65][66] However Cutcher and her roommate told CNN journalist Anderson Cooper that their own account of the incident to the police did not agree with Zimmerman's, and that they had demanded that the police retract that incorrect statement. They also said, about the police's attitude at the scene, that "they were siding with him [Zimmerman] from the start" and that they heard the pair in their backyard and a "very young voice" whining, with no sounds of a fight. They heard a gunshot; the crying stopped immediately, and they saw Zimmerman on his knees pinning Martin down on the ground.[67]

69.105.119.162 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

fix your request above to include the refs so it can be copied into the article more easily. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I see no relevant reason to give these two witnessess a whole section devoted entirely to what they may or may not have seen or heard. The implication being that we are giving their version of the events more weight than what has yet to be established by the release of their statements to the police. The second paragraph in the Aftermath section with all the witness statements should be moved to the Witness accounts section to provide a non-biased view. At this point, we have no idea who the state attorney considers to be a credible witness, and we shouldn't give the idea that we consider these two credible enough to warrant a section devoted to them.Isaidnoway (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Either the relevant public statements of both of these witnesses should be included, or neither. I don't know what WP policy is on pubic statements from persons that police have validated as witnesses, but the quotes from these witnesses are from reliable sources and verifiable.
I'm not certain I'm doing this correctly, but I have edited to include refs and pasted below.

Witness accounts

An eyewitness to the physical altercation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him up, while the older man yelled for help. This witness stated to FOX News Orlando WOFL that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911...And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."[37][38]

Another witness, Mary Cutcher, believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting, though she neither saw the shooting nor the preceding altercation.[39] The police say she gave an official account to them that agreed with Zimmerman's story.[40][41] However Cutcher and her roommate told CNN journalist Anderson Cooper that their own account of the incident to the police did not agree with Zimmerman's, and that they had demanded that the police retract that incorrect statement. They also said, about the police's attitude at the scene, that "they were siding with him [Zimmerman] from the start" and that they heard the pair in their backyard and a "very young voice" whining, with no sounds of a fight. They heard a gunshot; the crying stopped immediately, and they saw Zimmerman on his knees pinning Martin down on the ground.[42] 69.105.119.162 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://i.imgur.com/sR6cM.png
  2. ^ http://i.imgur.com/iTmrv.jpg?1
  3. ^ http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer
  4. ^ http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_arizona-iced-tea-suv-unarmed-black-teenager
  5. ^ http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11539760-418/trayvon-martin-was-suspended-from-school-for-pot-residue-family-says.html
  6. ^ http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html#disqus_thread
  7. ^ http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf
  8. ^ http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf
  9. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/trayvon-martins-killer-was-looking-for-trouble-and-found-it/254815/
  10. ^ http://www.wric.com/story/17214692/was-fla-shooter-a-vigilante-or-good-neighbor
  11. ^ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/21/was-florida-shooter-vigilante-or-diligent-neighbor/?page=all
  12. ^ "Florida Statutes section 776.013".
  13. ^ "18 USC § 245 - FEDERALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITIES".
  14. ^ a b c d Prieto, Bianca (March 17, 2012). "Tensions still simmer in Trayvon Martin shooting case". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved March 23, 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ a b c d e Burch, Audra D.S. (March 22, 2012). "Trayvon Martin: a typical teen who loved video games, looked forward to prom". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 2012-03-23. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  16. ^ Anderson, Curt (2012-03-26). "Family: pot linked to Trayvon Martin suspension". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2012-03-26.
  17. ^ Alvarez, Lizette (March 17, 2012). "911 Calls Add Detail to Debate Over Florida Killing". The New York Times. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
  18. ^ Bosch, Peter Andrew (March 16, 2012). "Family and witnesses remember Trayvon Martin shooting (image 6)". The Miami Herald. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
  19. ^ "Outrage & Mourning Over Death Of Trayvon Martin". CBS Miami. Associated Press. March 20, 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
  20. ^ Jonsson, Patrik (March 22, 2012). "Will Trayvon Martin case spur rethinking of Stand Your Ground laws?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 26 March 2012.
  21. ^ "Family Wants Answers After Miami Teen Shot, Killed In Sanford". CBS Miami. March 11, 2012. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  22. ^ Memmott, Mark (2012-03-19). "Trayvon Martin Was 'Typical Teen,' George Zimmerman Is Hard To Categorize : The Two-Way". NPR. Retrieved 2012-03-24.
  23. ^ Frances RoblesDavid Ovalle. "Lawyer: Girl on phone with Trayvon Martin moments before he was shot". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 2012-03-24.
  24. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference wp-who was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. ^ a b "Sanford police chief: No arrest made in teen's shooting death". WDBO. 2012-03-12. Retrieved 2012-03-24.
  26. ^ Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report (pdf) (Report). Sanford Police Department. February 26, 2012. Retrieved March 24, 2012.
  27. ^ Robles, Frances (March 17, 2012). "Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops". The Miami Herald. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
  28. ^ Lee, Trymaine (March 12, 2012). "George Zimmerman, Neighborhood Watch Captain Who Shot Trayvon Martin, Charged With Violence Before". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
  29. ^ Stutzman, Rene (March 13, 2012). "Many demand answers on teen shot in Sanford". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved March 22, 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  30. ^ Ovalle, David (March 21, 2012). "Trayvon Martin's shooter had a domestic violence altercation in 2005". The Miami Herald. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
  31. ^ Daily Beast - George Zimmerman, the Man Who Shot Trayvon Martin, Profiled by Family and Neighbors
  32. ^ Zimmerman profile in The Miami Herald
  33. ^ CNN, Neighbors describe watch leader at center of Florida investigation
  34. ^ Los Angeles Times, Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman, mystery gunman
  35. ^ "Trayvon Martin Shooting: George Zimmerman Kicked Out Of Seminole State College". The Huffington Post. March 23, 2012. Retrieved March 24, 2012.
  36. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/trayvon-martins-mother-is-trying-to-trademark-her-slain-sons-name-2012-3#ixzz1qLzY277F
  37. ^ "Man shot and killed in neighborhood altercation". MyFoxOrlando.com. March 14, 2012. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
  38. ^ "Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman". WTVT. March 23, 2012. Retrieved March 25, 2012.
  39. ^ "Witness: Sanford police "Blew us off" in teen slaying". WFTV. March 14, 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
  40. ^ Virella, Kelly (March 16, 2012). "Police & WitnessSpar over Trayvon Martin Investigation". Dominion of New York. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
  41. ^ "Answers sought in teen's death after encounter with neighborhood watch leader in Fla. suburb". The Washington Post. March 8, 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
  42. ^ Crugnale, James (March 20, 2012). "Anderson Cooper Interviews Witnesses To Trayvon Martin Shooting". Mediaite. Retrieved March 21, 2012. {{cite news}}: Text "Mediaite" ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nil_Einne/Sandbox_2/Archive_1&oldid=1255087460"