Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Proposal for improving Pre-trial section

Earlier I had made a pretty bold edit, removing the details about Zimmerman's previous diversion and injunction and removing the heading for the bond revocation. My edits have been reverted with a request to discuss this on the talk page. I understand the request for caution. It was stated that a number of editors had discussed it and agreed to leave the information in but I see no such consensus in this discussion.

Here's my proposal to improve the article:

1) More sub headings under "Pre-trial" allows more detail There should not be a separate heading for bond revocation because it gives too much weight to that one pre trial event. I agree that the bond revocation is more notable than some of the other smaller motions, but no so much that it deserves it's own heading. Plus, this may change again on June 29. As a sort of compromise and keeping in mind that the pre-trial section is going to grow a great deal and become difficult to read, how about we group the pre-trial events into related categories. There could be a "Bond" sub category that recites the initial bond and subsequent revocation and whatever happens at the later bond hearing. There could be another section for motions from the media, another section related to discovery etc. I have not looked so closely that I can come up with definite categories off the top of my head, but you get the idea. In this manner, as other pre-trial events take place, we can add them to their sub section, and the Pre-trial section remains well organized and readable.

2) Add sub headings to "discovery evidence" Since there has now been a second set of discovery released, perhaps we should think about dividing up the discovery section as well with subcategories, e.g. 1st set of discovery, 2nd set of discovery, autopsy records, medical records, etc. This would make this section more readable, and the reader could easily find what he's looking for without having to read every sentence of a huge subsection.

3) Zimmerman's past Regarding the detailed explanation of Z's past, if other editors think it belongs in the article, no problem, but I don't think it fits so well in the pre-trial section unless we expand Pre-trial into more subcategories. Under a global "Bond" subheading, we could go into more detail about what the judge considered at the first bond hearing, which included Z's past brushes with the law. Then the subsequent ruling referring back to those incidents would have context.

Please weigh in. Minor4th 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On having subheadings like "Bond" and "Discovery," that makes sense since there's a lot to this case. Psalm84 (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with there being a sub-section for his revocation. It was a major setback for Zimmerman, and the judge did issue an awful harsh ruling on the matter. Additionally, when he has a hearing on the 29th, it could easily be added here as well.

• What I do have an issue with is Trayvon Martin's bio being stripped bare. What is up with that? There are 3 sentences left. Meanwhile, George Zimmerman has a glowing 3 paragraphs. Is this balanced? The information needs to be put back here, instead of elsewhere. I am going to restore it back where it belongs.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the information to the background section, and I'll comment on this in the Possible Changes section here because it is off-topic for it to be discussed here. Psalm84 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, and please do not remove his bio information again. It has been here since the beginning of this article. If you want to include it elsewhere, that is fine, but a paltry couple of sentences for Trayvon Martin's bio is not balanced or fair, whereas Zimmerman has a complete three paragraph bio.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't move it just to move it. I actually thought it would be a lot fairer to Trayvon Martin to take the suspension out of his life biography since there's another section now on background to the shooting, and someone started to mention it there. Psalm84 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I also want to add, that like I said, I didn't move that information to disrespect anyone else's work, or to deliberately shorten Martin's biography. As I mentioned in my comment in another section, Martin's bio is just shorter because he was 17. And IMO, the suspension is negative and may remind people of other negative things that have been reported about him, so it's more fairly placed in a "background" section. It had sincerely bothered me before that the suspension was in his bio, since Zimmerman's didn't really contain anything that negative. Psalm84 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Psalm84 is right that the details about the suspension should only be included once in the article. I personally think it belongs better in the Bio because it is not necessary to explain the details of the suspension to describe why he was staying with his father and not in school. Having said that, Isaidnoway, you are edit warring again and violating the 1RR on this page: See here [1] and here [2]. Please discontinue this practice, as you have been warned repeatedly. Also, please do not issue commands in all caps in edit summaries or in hidden text within the article. This is a collaborative project, and you do not own this article. Regarding Martin's other suspensions, if it is information that is notable and reported in reliable secondary sources, then there's nothing wrong with including it as a brief mention in the bio, especially since we are now going into details about Zimmerman's past that have nothing to do with the case, as well as Zimmerman's wife's arrest. If we leave Martin's bio completely untarnished, despite wide reporting of the suspensions, then it leaves the article improperly weighted against Zimmerman. Minor4th 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with his suspension being in his bio or the article whatsoever. What I do have a problem with is editor's scalping his bio down to a mere three sentences, while leaving Zimmerman's bio at three paragraphs. Yesterday it was four paragraphs. The reason for Martin's bio being short isn't because he is 17. It is because over time, editor's have removed it piece by piece, while adding irrelevant information to Zimmerman's bio. At one time, Martin had three paragraphs about his life in his bio as well. If there is going to be a major change made to one of the major actor's in this article, like removing his bio, I think it ought to be discussed first. Don't you? It didn't seem to "sincerely bother" Psalm84 a couple of weeks ago, when he was the very first one to !vote to include his suspension.

Straw poll on Martin's suspension

Should mention be made in the article that Martin was suspended from school at the time of the shooting and the reason for his suspension?

Yes (sign below)

1.I'd agree with seeing it mentioned along with other information like controversies over the media coverage and the release of information in the case, or along with some of the past of Zimmerman. Some of that could be mentioned as it was a concern at Zimmerman's bail hearing. Psalm84 (talk) 5:58 pm, 28 May 2012, Monday (18 days ago) (UTC−5) I just want to add that Zimmerman's previous problems with the law could also be mentioned as something that bothered Tracy Martin about how police handled the case, since at first they told him Zimmerman had a squeaky-clean record. Psalm84 (talk)

If Psalm84 has changed his mind, I'm fine with that, I have changed my mind about several things editing this article as time has passed as well. I politely asked the first time not to remove his bio and then, yes I resorted to shouting, after it was done again. I apologize for that and edit warring.

I have never claimed to own this article or any other article on WP and I really don't appreciate the insinuation. I have also never included any hidden text in the article, if you are referring to the comment about Martin's other suspensions. That has been in this article for a long, long time and was placed there by someone other by me, and I don't appreciate that insinuation either. So, if you could be so kind as to strike that false accusation, and refrain from assuming and accusing me of edits that do not belong to me and ownership of articles which I have never claimed to own and will never claim to own, I would appreciate it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for attributing that to you erroneously. That was a careless mistake on my part. Minor4th 06:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

One question I wanted to ask you, Minor4th, is about the Michael M. Krop High School in the Background section. I was wondering why you object to it having a wikilink. Psalm84 (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont object to it. If I deleted the wikilink, it was an oversight when I was making another edit (probably by copying and pasting a prior version that did not have the wikilink). Minor4th 14:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I didn't think of that. It just didn't make sense. Thanks for restoring it. Psalm84 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've looked back on some old versions of this article. Some of them mentioned things like Martin's interests, and they've been out of the article for some time. I know I didn't see any versions like that. It seems like that sort of information might have been removed because the same sorts of things weren't also in Zimmerman's bio. But I didn't remove any of it so I don't know. Now the article contains just the most basic biographical information for both Martin and Zimmerman. And IMO one reason why Martin's bio is shorter is because of his age. And another reason, too, is because some of the information on Zimmerman, like his racial make-up, is related to the accusations against him. And I was bothered by the mention of Martin's suspensions in his bio. Where it would go wasn't discussed when it was being discussed whether or not the suspension should be in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I see;

(1) Zimmerman's place of birth is mentioned, Martin's place of birth isn't. So, it's basic biographical information to include Zimmerman's place of birth, but it's not basic bio info for Martin? (2) Zimmerman's fathers occupation is mentioned, neither of Martin's parents occupations are mentioned. Basis bio info for Zimmerman, but not for Martin? (3) Zimmerman was raised a Catholic and his father was Baptist. No mention of Martin's or his parents religion. Basic bio for Zimmerman, but not Martin? (4) Zimmerman's a registered Democrat?? (5) His goal was to become a police officer, but no mention of Martin's goals. Basic bio info for Zimmerman, but not Martin. (6) Zimmerman's racial make up included because of accusations against him. Martin's race not mentioned even though it has been widely and repeatedly reported he was allegedly profiled because of his race. So, it would seem that even though Martin was only 17, this very same "basic biographical information" could be included for him as well or is this kind of basic bio info exclusively reserved for Zimmerman's bio? I realize that you didn't write any of their bio's, but do you see my point? Even though he was only 17, his bio information shouldn't be minimized.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I do see your point. Some of those things about Martin maybe should be added. From looking back a little, things like his parents' professions and that he wanted to be an aviation mechanic were in there. I didn't see the reasons why they were taken out, though. Some of that information about Zimmerman isn't entirely basic bio information, either. His father being a magistrate has been brought up a lot. And if Zimmerman had been born in Florida, too, maybe where he was born wouldn't be mentioned. It probably doesn't need to be in there, but a few things reported about him in the news have had to do with Virginia, so it may make more sense to have it in there. But like I said, it still does seem like more could be said about Martin, too. Psalm84 (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a lot going on under the surface here:

-Martin's race isn't mentioned because everyone knows he was black. And everyone has seen his parents, both of whom are black. Probably their racial background is more complicated than that, at least as complex as Zimmerman's family background, however in terms of self-identity...hey, Martin came from a black family and he self-identified as black.

-Even a little research yields some facts about the high schools Martin attended, and it is obvious that Martin's first high school was rough (okay, a "ghetto school") where young black boys have to act tough to survive. Guns were commonplace, and straight-up, good-student behavior was not admired. Young black boys in these environments learn swagger and street smarts--by age 14 most start getting "jumped" and are forced into at least the beginnings of gang affiliation.

-None of this means Martin was a bad kid who had shifted over to a life of crime, nor does it mean he deserved what turned out to be his fate. But, is it likely Martin had learned that the best defense is a good offense?...I would bet on it! The situation escalated out of control, and I don't pretend to know what the escalation looked like, or who threw the first punch, or what exactly happened during the minutes after Zimmerman ended his call to the police dispatcher.

-We aren't going to engage in this sort of speculation in the article. But it is ridiculous to pretend these issues don't exist and that they don't apply to this situation. In my opinion, the young black men who made a habit of breaking into the homes at The Retreat at Twim Lakes (and it was, by all accounts, only young black men) set Martin up--he was probably unaware how he might be perceived in such an environment, especially if he appeared to be casing the homes to see which ones might offer easy pickings.

-If we continue to ignore the obvious, we will not as a nation be able to deal with the fallout from this case. In every city in America, petty theft and quasi-criminality (leading often to real criminality) is a cultural norm among young black men. Among young black men, this sort of activity is romanticized, much as hunting is romanticized in rural white America.

-Okay, I know I'm off topic, and I'm done. I just get sick of everyone dancing around this crap when most of us have a pretty good idea how things work. Apostle12 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know any of that about his high school or the environment where he grew up. In fact, I know very little about Trayvon because it has almost become taboo to mention anything about him unless it is positive. No doubt he had many positive qualities, but he surely had some that were not as flattering too. (Just like Zimmerman). In an article about his shooting death, it's my opinion that there should be as much information about him as possible, especially if we're going to have a bio heading for him. This is a very detailed and lengthy article, and it seems rather absurd that there is not more information about the main subject. Minor4th 14:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You do realize there is a counter-point to every point you make, right? I won't even bother, as this is not a forum for discussion about Zimmerman or Martin and the complexities surrounding this incident. What needs to be decided is whether or not to include more or less bio info for these two based on what RS have reported, and is it relevant to this article. Aproximately two weeks ago, a consensus was reached by seven editors to include Martin's suspension and the reason for the suspension in this article. It was inserted into his bio. Now, an editor wants to move that info elsewhere, leaving Martin's bio stripped down to basically a couple of sentences, while Zimmerman's bio is three paragraphs long. Is this acceptable? Should they both have equal space in their bios? Is Zimmerman's bio more important than Martins? What, if any info should be added or removed to improve their respective bios? -- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Right - not a forum for discussion about Zimmerman or Martin, just wanted introduce a bit of reality check. The only sense in which a discussion of some of the above-mentioned points might be relevant is that the affidavit of probable cause specifically accuses Zimmerman of "profiling." When we have Fernando Mateo, president of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers, coming out in favor of racial profiling, saying quite accurately that "the God's honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these drivers are blacks and Hispanics," and he is Hispanic with a black father, I would submit that we are long overdue for such discussions and the inclusion in the article of issues related to racial profiling could be justified.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/taxi_big_fair_to_profile_0QVhd88HvjGJbruypDUj2L#ixzz1xyXu8Ox8

I would favor expansion of Martin's bio. The problem with expanding his bio is that some of it, if it is honest, may reflect negatively on him and/or his family. Nevertheless, if our aim is to inform and elicit some understanding of who Martin was, we can't avoid it.

One of my main hopes, not likely to be addressed, is that the racial/ethnic issue might be clarified. Both young men, for example, could be considered "people of color," so the whole white/black thing is a bit absurd. We have a detailed discussion of Zimmerman's lineage - what about Martin's?

Zimmerman's father's profession as a retired magistrate was allowed into the article because some people suspect that his professional connections allowed him to pull strings in order to gain protection for his son. I would favor inclusion of information regarding profession, education, employment, etc. of Martin's parents to match the Zimmerman information. Such information allows readers to discern the background of these two young men. But what if some of this information makes them look less established or reliable - in or out?

I have gone along with the choice to eliminate information regarding Martin's previous suspensions from school, however the information that he was found with a large screwdriver and a collection of women's jewelry is certainly suspicious and raises the possibility that he might have engaged in thievery. In or out?

Martin's first high school was a rough place, although he transferred and his most recent high school was better. In or out?

What about Martin's "gangsta" poses, published on Twitter, specifically calling for violent reprisal with a firearm. In or out?

One thing I do not favor is splitting of Martin's biographical information by including some of it under the heading "Background to the shooting - Martin's temporary residence in Sanford." This information should move back to his bio, especially since it appears quite early in the article.Apostle12 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's splitting Martin's biographical information to put the suspension in the "Background to the Shooting" section, but I wish that when I moved the information about the neighborhood watch to that section I'd explained why IMO it improved the article to do that because the reasons are the same for Martin's suspension. Some of this information about Zimmerman and Martin may only be included in their biographies because of the shooting, and what it means to the case is disputed. Even in Zimmerman's case, the fact that he had a gun and was in the neighborhood watch seems to be given a lot more importance to his biography than it would have if the shooting hadn't happened. That's why to me it seemed better to move information like that out of their biographies. Psalm84 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The other categories in "Background to the Shooting" seem fine to me. Zimmerman's "right to carry" permit, for example, helps clarify that his being armed did not originate with neighborhood watch. I don't see a similar need for the Martin information; it could just as easily remain in his bio.Apostle12 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I still have to go with having the suspension in the "Background" section. It seems more NPOV not to have it in his bio. I am sorry, though, that I didn't start a discussion about it being in his bio right when it was put in the article. The negative information about Zimmerman isn't in his bio or even the background section, but further down in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If the only reason Zimmerman's fathers occupation is in this article is because "some" people suspect something that is not verifiable by a RS, it's pure speculation and should be removed.-out

Did Zimmerman find Martin with a screwdriver and jewelry? Irrelevant as to why Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.-out

Are social media sites like Twitter a RS?-out -- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah...such a consistently imperious tone. How unfortunate! Apostle12 (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More like let's look at the facts of the case tone, rather than engaging in speculation, rumor and innuendo which doesn't belong in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's father's occupation being in there may make sense. There's been a lot of talk that his father was a judge, when he was actually only a magistrate. The article doesn't mention that false idea, but some people might see that there's a difference. Psalm84 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean here, Psalm84. Could you please explain a bit? Apostle12 (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that the article doesn't talk about false information much, like that Zimmerman's father wasn't actually a judge. However, if it mentions that he was a magistrate some people who think he was a judge might realize there's a difference, or click on the link and read what a magistrate is. Psalm84 (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. Apostle12 (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Jail audio files

Kennvido, we can't put direct links to the audio files in the article. They must be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons first. See WP:CMF, The audio files have to be converted to the .ogg format. When uploading the files, you also have to address issues like if they are available for free use or are they copyrighted. Here is a link to the upload page; [3] If a RS is discussing what is on the audio files, like the paragraph still in the article, then that is fine.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Where we going to put all the racist attacks on whites/hispanics related to this case?

A subsection of the "public response"? There has been probably at least a dozen in the greater media that are believed to be somehow linked to this case, several of which the attackers are actually heard making statements the crime is somehow related to TM. Whatzinaname (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe this was covered: "In parts of the U.S., various acts of vandalism, assaults, and crimes have been connected in part to alleged revenge for the shooting of Trayvon Martin.[246][247][248][249][250]" Fortunately, it is a pattern that doesn't seem to be continuing, so I doubt it needs its own subsection. Of course that could change, especially if Zimmerman is found "Not Guilty;" acquittals of non-black defendants who have been accused of crimes agains blacks sometimes spark violent reactions (e.g. Rodney King). Apostle12 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Sorry. That sentence isn't even remotely adequate to what needs to be included. That might be a good opening sentence, however, little else. Whatzinaname (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What would you suggest? At one point I included a quote from Thomas Sowell, where he mentioned "a one-sided race war" and referenced recent racist attacks on whites. Although Sowell's piece appeared in the wake of violence associated with the Trayvon Martin shooting, he did not specifically reference Martin, so the quote was removed. Apostle12 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said above, probably a subsection in the public response. Only those incidents where during the commission of the crime or during arrest/etc. that they admit or link it to TM Whatzinaname (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to pursue this, I would suggest you prepare a list of verifiable incidents that are clearly linked to the Martin case, along with sourcing, so they can be vetted here before considering the addition of such a subsection. I am not convinced such incidents are numerous enough, serious enough and clear enough to merit a subsection. I know that some incidents will be difficult to substantiate, like the two young white men who attended a Trayvon rally in Sanford and were seriously beaten by a group of young black men as the crowd dispersed. Some of those attacked who are attacked for racial reasons fear retribution if they go public. And many blacks who might be able to substantiate such stories fear being labeled as "snitches" or "race traitors;" black people realize that if they are beaten or murdered by other blacks, such crimes will likely not garner the attention of a Trayvon Martin killing, since black-on-black crime claims hundred of victims each day. Apostle12 (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

it doesn't sound like that would qualify. Either the victims, the perps, or witnesses to the crime would have to somehow implicate the connection to TM.Whatzinaname (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Surprisingly the LA times was actually helpful in qualifying a few. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/26/nation/la-na-nn-trayvon-beatings-20120426 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

phone recordings

The phone recording sections needs to be completely rewritten imo.

• 8 recordings released - good
• need summary of calls
• incorrect reports of 2 shots - probably not important enough to keep around, there have been tons of incorrect reports, was this one specially notable?
• zimmerman cried out for help - not relevant (in this section) without either a summary of the calls, or the previous line which should be removed. Zimmerman's claim is certainly relevent in his own account section though
• witness statement coroborating zimmerman's cry for help - same as previous
• additional witness statement

So in the end we have 7 sentences, only one of which is actually talking about the phone call. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe at one time, the audio files of the 911 calls were in this section and then they were moved to the witness account section. This section (phone recordings) has just been hanging on ever since. I think the first sentence could be moved to the witness account section as an introduction of the 911 phone calls, which are all basically witness accounts and the rest could be gutted.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Zimmerman's bond revocation

Change: "In one, Zimmerman was charged with a felony for shoving an undercover police officer in a bar." to include this information: "In one, Zimmerman was charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. Agent Paul Fleishman wrote that Zimmerman walked up to a pal under arrest and began chatting, refusing to leave. Zimmerman cursed him, Fleishman wrote, before pushing him and causing a “short struggle.”" Reasons: 1. Z was charged with more than one felony. 2. The event entailed more than just a shove. 3. Better sourcing. -- I am not good at writing things in the body of a wiki article and don't know how to create a citation, so, if the request is approved, someone else will need to write it. •See my comments below that include leaving out the prior details as was done with Minor4th's edit as an alternative solution to this edit request.ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)22:59, ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO none of this should be in the article for the same reasons information about Trayvon's suspensions and past allegations against him should be in the article. The only thing about Z's past interactions with the law is what Judge Lester quoted in his ruling. That's already in the article.Minor4th 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

With the quote from Lester mentioning the incidents, though, it seems the article has to explain what he's referring to. Psalm84 (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Those changes could go in there. If so, it should probably also be mentioned that the charges were reduced, I believe I read, to misdemeanors and that Zimmerman disputed what the officer said. Psalm84 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think it needs to be explained any further what he is referring to. They seemed to be of very little importance to the judge. He mentioned them vaguely and essentially dismissed them as having little relevance to Z's bond, citing his "disrespect for the law" as the reason for revocation. Aside from that, it creates a very disproportionate section for the bond revocation within the "Pre-trial" sub category. The bond revocation should not be given such great weight in this section, and the additional information about Z's past does not fit well within pre-trial court proceedings. I also do not think the bond revocation should have its own heading. It's no more important than him being granted bail in the first place or the entry of his plea, for that matter. Minor4th 03:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving out the detail on the priors, just not with trivializing/minimizing them. In other words, if he had two class-three felony charges, we shouldn't say 'a felony', and if he did more than shoving then let's not just say 'shoving'. And if we say what Z said about the incident, then we should give the officer's account as well. Cheers. ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it has its own section only because it's notable, and the article's easier to follow with headings like that. If you don't think that descriptions of those incidents in Zimmerman's past should be in the article then you might want to see what other people think. If the judge's words which mention them are included, then they should be explained by WP, IMO. Maybe that part of the judge's quote could come out, if there's agreement that these incidents shouldn't be in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We have been down this road so many times with Zimmerman's prior arrests, that is why we never included them. I agree with ArishiaNishi that if we include them, they have to be put in the proper context of the entire incident, which includes more details to fully explain them. The only time they were mentioned that was relevant to this case, was at his bond hearing, where the prosecution brought them up in an effort to show Zimmerman had a propensity for violence. The judge didn't buy it and basically dismissed it as irrelevant as to whether Zimmerman should receive a bond. I think all mention of his prior arrests should be excluded, and Martin's suspensions should be excluded as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. One thing is for certain--this information won't be admissable at trial. Apostle12 (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see about that. There is a way it can get in.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the material that explained what the judge was talking about it. It seemed that it was needed since the incidents were mentioned in the quote. That's what I have a question about it, if it needs to be there if the quote stays the way it is. Psalm84 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably okay. Did change the wording to say simply that Zimmerman "was charged after shoving an undercover police officer in a bar." Although he was originally charged with two felonies, this was probably overcharging, evidenced by the fact that the charges were reduced to misdemeanors and then dismissed. It's too complex to go into the sort of detail that would be required to cover all the bases, so this is a way to mention what happened without exaggerating the severity of the incident. Apostle12 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In most jurisdictions, including Florida, anytime you lay hands on a law-enforcement officer, it is an automatic felony, so it wasn't a case of overcharging, the officer went by the statute.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Is this applicable even in undercover situations? I have a relative who sometimes works undercover, and I know he has to put up with a lot to avoid blowing his cover. Are you okay with the way this section now reads?Apostle12 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, undercover officers are still law enforcement. Florida also has expanded it to include firefighters, EMT's, public transit employees and a slew of other government workers. But the discretion to arrest or not, is still left to the officer. I did notice though they do include a misdemeanor assault charge as well in their statutes. I'm OK with the section for now.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done on the edit. I think this is an improvement. I'll strike my edit request. Thanks for taking time to think this over guys. Cheers ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ArishiaNishi. Just found it necessary to reinstate the section after editor Minor4th removed it. Since Judge Lester referred to specific events in Zimmerman's past in his revocation of bond statement, I think we arrived at a good compromise. I object to its wholesale removal and hope that doesn't happen again without achieving consensus here. There is a difference "bold" and "heavy handed." Apostle12 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this might be a little awkward, but, for clarification, it was Minor4th's edit that I was referring to in my previous post. I should have referenced that. My apologies for the confusion. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, I misunderstood. Of course I disagree with Minor4th's edit. I think the bond revokation deserves its own section, and some explanation of Zimmerman's "crime" is necessary because otherwise readers will not know what Judge Lester is referring to. A less significant objection is the combination in the same paragraph of the bond hearing info and unrelated happenings.Apostle12 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph - Al Sharpton remark

Speaking on the day of the Zimmerman arrest, Al Sharpton said, "Forty-five days ago, Trayvon Martin was murdered. No arrest was made. The Chief of Police in Sanford announced after his review of the evidence there would be no arrest. An outcry from all over this country came."

I removed this quote and put it here because of Sharpton saying that Martin was murdered, which doesn't seem like something WP should repeat just as it is. Maybe it could be changed to be acceptable, though. Psalm84 (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support leaving it out altogether, as it is inflammatory. I don't think we should change the text of a direct quote though to something we deem acceptable. Sharpton is entitled to his opinion whether we like it or not, but we also have the option to not include it, which in this case, I think is the right thing to do.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is inflammatory, however it is also notable and it represents the dominant point of view among American blacks regarding Martin's killing. One of the reasons I added the quote from Shelby Steele is because his term "ambulance chasers" so pointedly references Sharpton and, to a lesser extent, Jesse Jackson. I think Sharpton's statement needs to stay in the article; I believe it is wrong to try to sanitize the reality surrounding Martin's killing. Apostle12 (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that you added it back in. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about what there could be a problem with, but it seems that it could be libelous. He's saying that Zimmerman murdered Martin, which Zimmerman is only accused of. Putting that quote in there could make it seem like WP supports his view. Psalm84 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it needed to be taken out because he says Martin was murdered, which of course hasn't been legally proven. In a sense it's his opinion, but it could be taken as fact or as a position of WP since there's no context, and it probably will be by some readers. Psalm84 (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Was trying to explain when I encountered an edit conflict.

It is clearly a direct quote, and the fact that Sharpton presumes Zimmerman's guilt, rather than his innocence, is precisely what makes Sharpton's "murder" statement so outrageous. I see no danger that his unproven allegation could be mistaken for a Wikipedia position, especially since it is so typical of Sharpton, who makes a point of championing every black cause celebre victim (please see the Tawana Brawley rape hoax, Crystal Gail Mangum's false rape charges against Duke lacrosse players). What he said is quoted extensively by reliable sources; feel strongly that it must stay, so I reinstated the quote. Sharpton's statements could be considered a violation of Zimmerman's civil rights, however there is zero chance that Holder will pursue it; he has demonstrated that he doesn't care a whit about the civil rights of non-black Americans. Apostle12 (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't agree with Sharpton, though. People who do see things his way will see that his quote saying that Zimmerman murdered Martin is in WP. Other people might not know how to take it. Psalm84 (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Sharpton's outrageous pronouncement appears in Wikipedia hardly lends it credibility. Wikipedia reports lots of things notable people say, whether their statements have merit or not. How about, for example, the prosecution's clear misrepresentations in their affidavit of probable cause? Apostle12 (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not that it appears here. It's how it does. If there was some context for it, like a RS criticizing Sharpton for calling Zimmerman a murderer, that would be different. Someone who believes that Zimmerman is definitely guilty will read it as Sharpton just accurately describing what happened - "the murderer" was arrested. Psalm84 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, Sharpton's "murder" comment was not an isolated event. Jesse Jackson referred to Martin as "murdered and martyred," and U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson (Dem.), who represents Martin’s hometown of Miami, also said Martin was “murdered.” Try as I might, I have not found a single reliable source criticizing these very public figures for using the word "murder" or "murdered," despite the obvious impropriety of using the term before Zimmerman is even tried. The closest I could come was Herman Cain's criticism of "swirling rhetoric" and a "war of words" (now included). Shockingly, the only direct critics of the irresponsible use of the word "murder" are figures like David Duke and others on the far right who are intent on defending Zimmerman's civil rights. I am uncomfortable aligning myself with right-wing extremists, however correct they may be in this particular instance, and I doubt any of the sources that feature them would be considered "reliable" here at Wikipedia.Apostle12 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

David Horowitz weighed in, saying "the lynch mob has delivered its verdict,"(http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/25/african-american-lynch-mob/); would FrontPageMag.com be considered a reliable source? Not directly relevant to improper use of the words "murder" or "murdered," though I grant Horowitz measured respect on this topic and others (the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, for example). Apostle12 (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We report things that are widely covered by independent, reliable sources. If independent, reliable sources have widely quoted Sharpton, then that quote may be appropriate for the article (in this case, though, it appears sourced to theroot.com, which argues that perhaps Sharpton's quote should be removed as not particularly notable). If Horowitz is widely quoted by independent, reliable sources (i.e. not FrontPage), then we should consider quoting him. It's not that complicated—assuming your goal is to reflect the content of independent, reliable sources rather than impose your own editorial narrative. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems a lot better, with more context. Since he is a journalist, he should be saying "killed" or "allegedly murdered" himself. Psalm84 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know to whom you might be referring when you say "he is a journalist..." Could you please make an effort to be more clear in these discussions, paying special attention to clear antecedents and careful sentence construction? Applies to next comment as well--what does "replace the one that's there" refer to.) Thanks! Apostle12 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment before. I was referring to Sharpton, since he has a show on MSNBC. In the next comment I was referring to replacing the comment from Bennett that I'd put in the article. I wasn't sure which comment from him was the best to include. I'd added the one that's in there because it mentioned Sharpton and Jackson. Psalm84 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I added another comment from William Bennett. I was going to add something from him and he did make a remark about Sharpton and Jackson's comments. He also made other comments, though, that could apply and might add something different, so maybe another should be added or replace the one that's there. Psalm84 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we have enough. Don't want to be accused of undue emphasis. Apostle12 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman re-enactment released

Video of entire re-enactment on location with police. Shows some bandages on Zimmerman's head and nose, must have been next day or so

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-reenactment-trayvon-martin-shooting/story?id=16616864&singlePage=true

Non-RS blogger, but transcribed part of video quoting Quomo, which is not transcribed in article above.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/06/zimmermans-reenactment-may-be-too.html

also apparently new info (according to ABC) on http://gzlegalcase.com/ but it is slashdotted currently major discovery dump at that site.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

None of this will help the article. Why are you posting it? Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you and I have different opinions of what is helpful to the article. Discovery information, including Zimmerman's account directly from his own mouth as presented to the police, on video is not useful? Several interviews and interrogations by the police? Statement from Martin family attorney regarding those statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Haven't watched them yet, however your objection seems specious. Apostle12 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The reenactment is a primary source. It is only valuable in how it is interpreted by reliable sources, and especially how it affects the court case. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We have a section on discovery evidence, where the information that is released is discussed in moderate detail. It's my understanding that this new audio and video info is part of the discovery that was released by prosecutors to the defense and was subsequently made publicly available. It's part of the discovery evidence and should be added to that section. Since we now have another round of discovery released, now is probably the time to think about how to organize the discovery section into more sub headings. Definitely include this in the article, but it might be best to pause until we have additional RS reporting about the contents. Minor4th 22:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I havent looked at what was released but from the description it sounds like much of this might also fit well under Zimmerman's account. Maybe a brief description in the "discovery evidence" section, and a more complete discussion under Zimmerman's account. Minor4th 22:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

From what little I have seen, our account of Zimmerman's is pretty good, I did notice though that he said that Martin "jumped out from the bushes", instead of coming up behind him on his left side like we currently have in his section. Here are some RS discussing it, [4], [5], this one from the Orlando Sentinel provides links to their coverage, [6]. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Many reliable sources are now reporting on the recorded interviews and reenactment. There are details that were not known before. I added a section to discovery evidence with an introduction, but I'm waiting til more sources have reported before I continue adding the details from the interviews. Zimmerman's account can be expanded with the new info and sources as well. Minor4th 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an idea to kick around--should we keep the discovery released in sections pertaining to the dates they were released? Or is the original discovery section going to be a catch all for any discovery released? Or does it really make a difference? I noticed that some information from June 21 is in the original discovery section as well as in the new section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be split up either by date or by topic. There was already a sub heading for the autopsy results, so it seemed a decision had previously been made to divide it by topic. I don't really care, if anyone else has a strong preference, so long as it is somehow broken down into more manageable subsections. Minor4th 05:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The date of things unfolding is important at the start of the event, due to the decision not to arrest. However, everything after the case started, I think should be arranged by topic rather than date. (although I can see good reason to perhaps identify inline when it was released, or include in the timeline) Gaijin42 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. I just read through the discovery evidence section again to see if there is a logical way to break it down further. I think the way it is right now is fine. Under the general heading, less notable discovery can be listed with the dates of release, and when something is particularly notable it can be broken out into its own subsection. What do you think? Minor4th 16:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Misplaced template

The article page has two misplaced blp templates that appear every time one enters the editing interface. Can these be removed, as it is annoying that every time one edits the page, one has to see two versions of this template along with the warnings that the template is misplaced. Placing these templates on the article was rather WP:POINT-y and I think we've moved beyond that now and into more productive discussion about the blp issues. Thanks. Minor4th 16:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it... please let me know if wrong or redundant templates keep showing up. There should just be the one {{BLP editintro}} template now. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It does appear to be fixed now. Minor4th 17:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alleged race issues and media coverage

Can the "Alleged race issues" section be combined into the "media coverage" section? The information in the alleged race issues section is all a subset of media coverage, and this stand alone race section just smacks of POV material and does not flow with the rest of the article as a stand alone section. It gives the article a disorganized feel as well. I thought about making this change myself, but I know it would be reverted and an edit war would break out, so how about some discussion? Minor4th 17:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I interpret the race issues section differently. It is not about media to me, but allegations (and defense thereof) of Zimmerman and the police department. While some of that is directly as a result of the media bias stuff, I don't think all of it is. Even had NBC not done the misleading edit thing, I think there would be accusations of racism against zimmerman and the police. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Maybe it fits better within public response. The Public response section, race section and media sections all seem to be somewhat related (maybe under a global "Reaction" umbrella) but they are laid out very poorly compared to the rest of the article. The headings have weird, awkward titles, and there is not much logic in their organization. I'll let it percolate til I have a better description of the problem.Minor4th 22:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"although phone company records round down call times, so the actual call was between 7:12:00 and 7:12:59 PM"

Is it really necessary to explain how the phone company rounds numbers? Can this be removed from the article? If it's somehow important, how about making it a footnote? I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to decide. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I took that sentence out. ArishiaNishi (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin's parents didn't witness the event

The final paragraph in the Witnesses in the Twin Lakes development section is about some statements Martin's parents made in regard to the 911 tape. But they didn't witness the event. This paragraph needs to be removed or moved to some other location. I'll leave it to regular editors of the article to fix this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to make the improvements to the article. This article needs fresh eyes and editors. I only started looking at this article about a week ago, and I was struck with the same observations you are making. I have not even made it through a first reading of the entire article because it is so weighted down with extraneous information and subtopics. Minor4th 23:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Zimmerman was charged by information with second-degree murder"

The first sentence of the Charges section says "Zimmerman was charged by information with second-degree murder". This sounds funny. Charged by information? Should it be charged with information? I'm not sure what this means. Anyway, I decided to simplify it by removing "by information" leaving "Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder" which I think is the salient point.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe someone with some legal knowledge recently added that. I did come across it as a legal term, but it's definitely best left out. Psalm84 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's legal jargon and technically true, and I am probably the one that added it, but a simplified version works as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I added it. It's not just legal jargon though, there's no other way to describe how he was charged. The "information" is the charging document. I thought there used to be a wikilink there. I'll look for an appropriate one. Minor4th 00:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I think it's fine to just simplify it and leave out "information." Minor4th 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Extraneous detail in George Zimmerman's attorneys section

In the in George Zimmerman's attorneys section, the second sentence states:

“ According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Sonner and Uhrig should not have disclosed those details and other information about Zimmerman after they had stopped representing him, because of considerations of attorney-client privileged information. ”

This may be true, but it seems like an extaneous detail that can probably removed. I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to decide to remove it or not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I see how that can be said. But in this situation, there's a lot of imformation that matters, including how everything developed. It can't be left out that Zimmerman had other attorneys, or that they stopped representing him. And to be fair to Zimmerman, if they gave a news conference and said negative things about him, and their conduct was not respecting his rights, that should also be included too. Psalm84 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor or removing the extraneous info. This is a good example of every news report and commentary making its way into this article. I don't feel strongly about this particular instance, but I think it could be removed. Minor4th 22:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That piece of information is no longer of any particular importance to the event. It should be removed- in fact, I almost did it a month ago. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I support keeping it in there because Zimmerman is being judged by public opinion for his actions on the night of the shooting and everything that's happened after it. When his first attorneys said he didn't follow their directions, many people said it was another example of him not following directions. And O'Mara mentioned that everything about this case gets close international coverage. That his first attorneys quit is remembered and the situation should be briefly explained, IMO. If Zimmerman's attorneys didn't act as attorneys should, then it should be mentioned because it could suggest why he stopped listening to them. RS said they opposed him having a web site where he raised money online, but O'Mara ended up doing that too and Zimmerman had no income at the time. It sounds like they should have set up a web site for him too.

Edit request on 23 June 2012

George zimmerman was NOT designated he was self appointed designated implies his whole neighborhood wanted him in that position, many didn't know he was or that he carried a weapon.

66.210.29.139 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources conflict on the specifics here. He was a volunteer, but that didn't occur until the complex had a neighborhood watch meeting. So it was clear from sources that the residents wanted extra security and wanted a neighborhood watch program, and apparently George Zimmerman was willing to volunteer. A flyer from the complex indicated that George was the Neighborhood Watch captain. Many sources used the phrase "self-appointed neighborhood watch" and some added captain. One thing that seemed clear from sources at first was that ones that were biased against George Zimmerman used the phrase "self-appointed" and ones that were biased against Martin or for Zimmerman or neutral , were less likely to use the phrase. In the end, the term "designated" is less loaded or biased and does truthfully indicate what people believed at the time. Self-appointed makes it sound like George Zimmerman was a vigilante-minded person, and we have no reliable sources that show that. -- Avanu (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Added source from NY Times stating he was appointed as the coordinator. Sometimes references get accidentally removed during editing. Thanks for bringing it to our attention though.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Zimmerman stated in his interview with the SPD that he "started" the Neighborhood Watch. However, whether it was his idea to begin with, or not, the neighborhood association took on the project and "appointed" him to lead it. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman started the process by asking Wendy Dorival to come to their neighborhood and give a presentation, where he was appointed as the coordinator. The point is, he was not "self-appointed". -- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant. I oppose using "self appointed" because, from what we know, he wasn't. ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is too long

So, I started reading the article begining to end, and it took forever just to get through the lengthy "People involved in the case" and "Background to the shooting" sections to get to the actual shooting. So I ran the page size tool and sure enough, the article is too long. Articles should be about 30kB to 50kB of readable prose which takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. This article currently clocks in at 67 kB (11302 words) of readable prose size, well over the limit. See WP:TOOLONG for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that there will be months before a trial if there is one, including perhaps a SYG hearing, and then a trial itself, there will likely be a lot more that will be added. The problem, though, is that there is so much to the story and so much that's contested about it and the details tend to matter. The WP page on the article's length also says that at times a very long article can't be avoided. At some point, though, it seems that it's been such a big story, rivaling the Presidential election for awhile although it was a case involving two unknown individuals, that it will need to be split into more than one article. Psalm84 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally and completely agree with AQFK's observation. The article has become so long and bogged down in detail that the plot is lost. There are subsections that have taken on a life of their own, and should be forked to their own space (e.g. race issues, media aspects and even public reaction). If the individuals involved are not notable enough for their own article, trim their bios down to a bare minimum. We do not need transcripts of 911 calls or intricate descriptions of discovery evidence -- hit the high points and link to the sources for the reader to discover the minute details if so inclined. We do not need to essentially restate the whole pc affidavit -- state that the prosecutor alleges that Zimmerman profiled Martin, ignored the dispatcher's instructions, and confronted Martin because that's the essence of it. One sentence instead of several paragraphs. Those are a few ways in which I would suggest trimming this article, right off the top of my head.Minor4th 23:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. The Media's handling of the event could be a standalone page, with a brief characterization here linking to it. Just a suggestion. ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The best would be to split the article into different smaller ones where the interested reader can click to go to. Not having to eye-trough the whole article to find it.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The timeline of events at the bottom of the page is also unbearably rife with details as well, it reads as a Readers Digest condensed version of the event, it's totally unnecessary. The public response section should only include those comments made by notable figures that were actually covered by a RS, instead of just anyone who made a comment about the shooting. I agree with their bios being trimmed down as well. The phone recordings section is also unnecessary. Once all the discovery is released, this story is going to fade for awhile, as O'Mara has said that he wouldn't be ready for a trial until 2013, good time for a hard look at this beast of an article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I was also about to say the timeline and phone recordings should go, and the public response cut back. Likely other stuff can be cut as well - but not cut in a way that ends up presenting only Zimmerman's claims, as has sometimes been the thrust here. Good point about the natural break that's ahead being a time for some critical review by editors who aren't hit-and-run, but are here for the long haul. Tvoz/talk 00:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the regular editors of our 9/11 articles and what we did was to keep a separate article for the timeline: Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks. I suggest splitting this article's timeline into a separate article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article like that rather than taking out much seems like the better idea, IMO. This incident is something where it's become possibly a source of social unrest. It's a lot bigger than the case. Some of what's included will probably be changed and some taken out as the case goes on, but even things like the timing of when certain things happened or were made public matters. The case is likely to be considered important for years so WP will be a resource for the facts on how it developed. Psalm84 (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How about a collapse box for the timeline for now? ArishiaNishi (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I filled in the missing sources and created a new page for the timeline here. It just needs to be taken off this page and to be linked to. Psalm84 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Good job, now you can expand it as necessary. Are you sure you got everything including the references and/or notes needed for the new page, before we delete it here?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did get them all. I missed a couple the first time but found them. And there were a couple missing here but I put them back. If I hadn't replaced them here, though, isn't there a bot that would do that, that rescues sources? Just wondering. Psalm84 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that maybe a better title for it would be "Timeline of the Trayvon Martin case," or something like that. If there would be a better title for it, it would probably be better to rename it now. Psalm84 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it is a split from this article and so should bear the same title. Other names will be controversial. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Too many subsections

The problem is not that this article is too long (we have 67 kB articles or longer all over Wikipedia that are justifiably that long, and this is one of them). The problem is that it's divided into too many subsections! It makes the article look significantly longer than it actually is. I don't know what the deal is with editors doing this across Wikipedia. But having sections that are at least six paragraphs long isn't going to hurt anybody. It's better, in fact, as the "too long" discussion shows. Subsections should typically only be created when a section needs to be split. Not spilt for the hell of it. 123.52.106.69 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

1RR request

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#1RR_at_Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Transcript of Zimmerman call

I'm removing the "Full transcript" from the body of the article for several reasons: 1. It is sourced to "about.com", an unreliable source. This transcription cannot be considered verifiable by Wiki standards. This has already been discussed on the RS noticeboard -- consensus was that the source is unreliable. 2. Even of it were a reliable source, the transcript itself is a primary source and does not belong in the body of the article. At best it could be linked as an external reference, but not in this case because it is published by an unreliable source. 3. Whatever is notable about the transcript will be found in secondary reliable sources, and that is the only information that can be included in the article. 4. The article is way too long, and this transcript alone is over 1,000 bytes. Removing a primary source transcript that's not even verifiable is an obvious place to trim the article. Please do not continue to re-insert this transcript in the body of the article. Minor4th 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

5. The audio of the actual call is embedded in the article; there is certainly no reason to also include an unreliably sourced transcript Minor4th 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would make the case that the full transcript is useful, and whether it is sourced to About.com or somewhere else is irrelevant as long as it is accurate. It could simply be sourced to me for all it matters, since as you say, we have the audio of the call as well for comparison. Several news outlets distorted the call by editing and shortening it in their news coverage and I believe a full reading provides a good alternative to people who wish to be informed of the sequence of events as they happened. The audio is good for that, but reading it as well isn't bad, and also allows for hearing impaired people to participate on a reasonably equal footing. -- Avanu (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant where it is sourced. You want to include information that's not verifiable because you don' like the way the secondary sources covered it, but we don't enjoy that type of editorial license on Wikipedia. Whether you think the transcript is helpful matters not; it's not notable for Wikipedia if it's not discussed among reliable secondary sources. Minor4th 18:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TRANSCRIPTION. We don't need an RS for this. It's verified against the audio. The ref gives credit only. The true source may be MotherJones. WP:PRIMARY states we can use primary sources, we must use RS's for analysis. The transcript is collapsed so it does not add to the actual length of the article. This needs to be in the article as it is what made this event notable. It was this phone call people used to allege this incident was racial. With out this this event wouldn't have become noticed. It is harsh to say, but what we have here is two guys got in a fight that didn't have to happen and one got shot. It is not uncommon. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Source it to the audio recording itself then if that matters to you. There's no original research really here. Its just a transcript. The only problems would be if someone mistranscribed it, as I said before. We have tons of places that it *could* be sourced to, and if its accurate, it doesn't matter where from the zillions of places out there it comes from, you can VERIFY it easily against the audio, so you're making an argument out of nothing here. If you just don't want to include it because it adds to the length, that is a reasonable point, but complaining that it was sourced to a poor source isn't reasonable enough to remove it, since we have the audio alongside for verification. -- Avanu (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to include it for all of the reasons I stated; length of the article is one of those reasons.

Aside from that, it is not "just" a transcript that is quoted, there is additional commentary and analysis, such as "Ambient sounds are heard which may be Zimmerman unbuckling his seat belt and his vehicle's "open door" chime sounding. The change in his voice and the sound of wind against his cell phone mic indicate that he has left his vehicle and is now either walking fast or running. The dispatcher seems to pick up on these changes and sounds concerned when he later asks Zimmerman if he is following Martin." and "This section of the recording has been the subject of much speculation. Some suggest that Zimmerman has just made a racial slur, but the audio is not clear. An FBI report released with the evidence states the word is not intelligible." There are also time stamps added to the transcript that do not appear in the source. Where do those come from? Then there are all of the explanatory notes after the transcript that just add confusion.

If this were a true transcription of the call, without additional analysis and time stamps, then it might be helpful to reference it in a note with a link to the external source. There is no reason to include it verbatim in the middle of an already-too-long article when the article describes the notable aspects of the call and includes the entire audio as an embedded file. The fact that you have to collapse it just to argue for its inclusion at all should be a good indication that it doesn't belong in the body of the article -- if you strongly believe that the audio recording and information from secondary sources is insufficient, then the same information can be conveyed with a footnote and external link, rather than a huge unwieldy collapsed box in the middle of an already disjointed article.

Honestly, is this the only source that can be found for a transcript of the call? Since somehow timestamps were added, it seems there must be another transcript somewhere with timestamps but it's not referenced. Minor4th 21:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:TRANSCRIPTION and WP:PRIMARY do seem to indicate that a faithful transcription is allowed. I do see your concern with the interpretaion and analysis that goes along with this transcription though. Would a different source with no interpretation be a compromise? Mother Jones has one that is sourced to the City of Sanford, with no analysis provided. [8] and the original document is here [9].-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I just listened to the audio while following the transcript, and I can say definitively that the transcript quoted from about.com is NOT a faithful transcript. I will look at the other one you're referencing, and if it's accurate, then I think it's ok to include a footnote with an external link to the transcript. Again, there is no reason to have a transcript collapsed in the middle of the article, especially when there is an embedded audio file that is shorter than 4 minutes. Minor4th 22:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd really like to know the source of the timestamps that were added. Minor4th 22:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted to the version by Avanu. I'm sorry if I was brusque about it, but the section has been in the article for a long time. The transcript has been in there since mid-April and I didn't see about the section discussing it, but neither of them have been controversial even with all the attention this page gets. On the About.com source, there is the Mother Jones translation which is where About.com got theirs from because they have the same small errors - like saying "button" rather than "a button" and the dispatcher saying "I'll have them call you when you're in the area." But apart from that, the transcript seems to closely follow the audio. On the article's length, I looked at some other articles on criminal events, such as for Columbine (separate pages for the massacre, the shooters, in modern culture, and others), the OJ Simpson trial, the Caylee Anthony case, 9/11 (a main page and about two dozen related pages), and Charles Manson (separate page for Helter Skelter). The amount of detail being given here seems the same, if not less. If the article is too long, then it seems it should be discussed whether reducing it or splitting it would be the better solution. Psalm84 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Psalm84, please self revert your last edit and do not engage in edit warring. You have violated the 1RR rule on this article: [10] and [11]. Moreover, you have made these reverts without participating in this ongoing discussion on the talk page.Minor4th 23:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The 1RR apparently expired on this page. It should probably be renewed, though, and it's been the understanding that this is a 1RR page. But according to what I recall, I didn't violate it. I reverted your edit in which you made major changes and removals to a section that had been there without much change for a long time. And I reverted one edit to my own edit as you reverted even though status quo says that it shouldn't have been reverted. So I should have asked you to revert yourself. I'll revert mine then, but you should revert yours also. Psalm84 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, since it has been reverted I'm just going to leave it this way since WP:STATUSQUO says it should have stayed the way it was until after discussion. Psalm84 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I say let the 1RR die. I dislike pages getting special treatment for too long. -- Avanu (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". This is not very helpful or informative, and, except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, should probably be avoided."

I restored the edits since Psalm84 will not self revert. Psalm, your revert wiped out multiple improvements in addition to adding the transcript back. The edits you reverted had removed portions of the article that were sourced to about.com and which included analysis and commentary cited to that unreliable source. Please do not keep reinserting this information.

The editors on this talk page were in the process of locating a better transcript that does not include unreliable commentary or unsourced timestamps. When and if a transcript is added, whether it's part of a collapsed dialogue box or as an external link, the transcript that was in the article was an inappropriate version. Please be patient and allow this discussion to mature so that we can improve the article.

Also, just because other articles are too long does not mean that this article should be too long. Aside from length, you have not addressed any of the other problems with the transcript or given any rationale why a transcript is not more appropriate as a note and external link. And where did the timestamps come from? Minor4th 02:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored Avanu's edit, which you undid. It only restored the transcript. It didn't undo any other changes and there were no changes in between. It went your first edit, my edit reverting and saying these big changes should be discussed first, Avanu's edit keeping some of your changes but restoring the transcript, your edit reverting Avanu back to your first edit, my edit reverting back to Avanu's version, an unrelated edit by you just after mine, and your edit undoing mine.

And on this page, other editors have commented to keep the transcript and none have said to remove it. One said some changes could be made, such as removing description that was added to the transcript. Other sources are also available, too, and Mother Jones was suggested (and theirs is the version that About.com used). I will make those changes then, removing everything but the transcript, including the timestamps, and then add it back into the article. It can be discussed more if you like, and an RFC could be added, but both WP:STATUSQUO and consensus say it should stay unless there is support to remove it. Psalm84 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the reason for taking the timestamps out? Those are very useful. Wickorama (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a link at the begining of the section to a detailed timeline where a reader can find everything detailed to the exact second, minute, hour, day and month of the year, the first paragraph in the section says 7:09 and the accompanying audio file says 7:09, how many more times does it need to be repeated?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The events on the timeline is not the same as timestamps on the discussion in the phone call, so comparing the two and talking about "being repeated" is erroneous and quite likely disingenous. And to repeat "If the timestamps and the notes on background noises are correct and can be verified against the audio, then no RS is needed as the audio is the source." Wickorama (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The source provided for the transcript does not give a detailed timestamp for each sentence that Zimmerman and the dispatcher have in their conversation. After listening to the audio file of the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher, I can assure you that there is no detailed timestamp given to each sentence in their conversation on the audio file either. So, I don't understand how the audio file can be the source for a detailed timestamp on the transcript. The audio file merely verifies what was said, not the time it was said.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

All it takes to add accurate timestamp information to the transcript is the audio file and a reference to what time the audio file started. Is everything in wikipedia supposed to have come from someplace else, even though much less than half of it does? Wickorama (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like what you are suggesting is WP:OR, and your justification for doing so is we should do it because everyone else is doing it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is that they say on the WP::OR page: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas— for which no reliable, published sources exist." The 311 call audio is a reliable published source. Wickorama (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor4th, If the timestamps and the notes on background noises are correct and can be verified against the audio, then no RS is needed as the audio is the source. Since the transcript is collapsed, it doesn't add to the overall readable length. As who put them there, you have to go through the article history to find out. Please just leave it in, so far nobody but you wants it taken out. You can ask at the no original research noticeboard to see if someone there agrees with you. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Psalm84, you have probably not violated 1RR, but it wouldn't have killed us to leave it out for a day. Please assure Minor4th that you didn't mean to antagonize him. Unless of coure you did, in which case you should apologize. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The current version with a better source and without the additional commentary and timestamps is better, and I don't understand why Psalm had to engage in an edit war while we discussed this. Psalm wants to freeze portions of the article that have remained unchanged for a long time, and that's just not the way Wikipedia works. The article is and always will be a work in progress, and it's rather chilling to try to improve an article in good faith, only to be confronted with a gatekeeper who insists that edits he doesn't like can't be made unless a consensus is formed first. Those of you who have been editing this article for a long time ought to welcome new editors who are looking at the article with fresh eyes. The article could use a lot of improvement, but it seems that some editors are overly invested and have lost perspective. Minor4th 07:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is gonna be happy if the "fresh eyes" see so poorly that they talk about the length of the article with respect to things that are hidden by default. Or maybe that should be "disingenous eyes". Wickorama (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about replying here and was in the middle of it when I saw this response, so I'll just respond here. You brought up WP:DRNC. I reverted on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS, in part. There were other problems with the reasons you gave in your edit summary, like that the transcript shouldn't be included because it was a primary source. And removing the transcript and making major changes to the text in one edit is a lot to consider, which is why I reverted so it all could be discussed by a number of editors first. Seeing that there were no objections to the transcript, I reverted it back to Avanu's edit, but as I've said, I believe I should have left you a message that I thought you should revert to Avanu's version since both status quo and the Talk discussion seemed to support keeping it in there. On making changes to the page, I think there are definitely areas that can be improved, but changes do need to have consensus. And now there's an issue about the length of the article, especially since there will be a lot more that will need to be added. What to do about that really should be discussed too. Psalm84 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The current version is an improvement, so let's move on. But first I want to clarify what I meant about "fresh eyes" since I drew a snarky comment from Wickorama(and failure to AGF).

When portions of an article have not changed for a long time, that does not necessarily mean that there is a consensus that no further changes should be made or that there's no room for improvement. It likely means that the editors who spend a lot of time with the article have just been focusing on other areas of the article. Yesterday was the first time I read the section about Zimmerman's call, and when I checked the references in the article text, I saw that many were cited to about.com ...I'm not talking about the transcript, I'm talking about the actual article text. I checked the RS noticeboard to see if a discussion had already taken place about this source in the article, and I found that such a discussion had already determined that about.com is not a reliable source.

I removed a couple of passages that were sourced to about.com and left the material that could be cited to a reliable source. I then looked at the transcript and saw that it too was cited to about.com, and I noticed that there were timestamps added and additional commentary aside from the transcription. There were also a bunch of very confusing notes about the timing of the call. I also think it's overkill to include a collapsed transcript in the middle of the article, but if other editors disagree, I won't push the issue further -- nevertheless, there were problems with the transcript as it existed yesterday, and those problems have now been addressed and the article is improved. This was possible because there were "fresh eyes" looking at a section that the regular, longer time editors of the article probably have not looked at in a couple of months. There is nothing "disingenuous" about that Wickorama; I was genuinely trying to improve the article according to wiki guidelines.

Psalm, no hard feelings, let's just keep making the article better and work hard to collaborate. I'm sorry if you were offended by my initial edit removing the transcript. It was not intended for any purpose other than making the article better -- and now that has happened. Minor4th 19:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that information that may not seem important to some editors could be information that readers who aren't so informed about the situation or are confused about it would want to know. There seem to be fewer guidelines about taking things out than putting things in, but care should be given to both. It really shouldn't be as simple as removing something because it seems unimportant, IMO. Information has to meet a lot of requirements to be included and if it's informative that should be considered, too. The article, like any here, should be written with the assumption that a reader knows little to nothing about the topic, and information should stay if it would seem to be something that would be useful to know to someone who knows nothing about the case. I mention again those other articles on crime events. They take some time to read, but they cover the topic and explain how things developed and don't seem to have unnecessary detail. Psalm84 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"When portions of an article have not changed for a long time, that does not necessarily mean that there is a consensus that no further changes should be made or that there's no room for improvement. It likely means that the editors who spend a lot of time with the article have just been focusing on other areas of the article." There was a consensus that nothing needed to be deleted. Coming in and making a big deletion to something that has been viewed acceptable by many can't be justified by drawing a personal conclusion that "attention is elsewhere". When the addition was made attention was there. Lots of attention. There is no logic to saying "you guys are looking elsewhere now, so I should be able to make big deletions where you aren't currently looking." Wickorama (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's voice stress test

This information is in the section "Zimmerman's initial detention and release" and in the "Discovery" section and now has it's own subsection. I realize it is just a small slice of kb's, but this is an example of why this article has grown substantially. I think a good suggestion is to preview the article before adding information to make sure it isn't already in it. I really don't think this information needs it's own sub-section either, it's no more important than the other discovery released.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need its own section, I agree. Some of it could probably just be added to the previous section. Psalm84 (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - People involved - George Zimmerman

Remove sentence: "Zimmerman's voter registration record lists him as Hispanic and a Democrat.[50][51]" Reason: 1. Already substantiated Z's Peruvian background. 2. His political affiliation doesn't add anything notable (that I can see). If it is notable, feel free to explain. 3. Saves space in the article for more pertinent info. ArishiaNishi (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree and while we're at it, remove his father's occupation, being raised a Catholic and his goal of being a judge and/or police officer.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Why strip the article of information that humanizes these two individuals? Your insistence of this in Trayvon Martin's case has made him a non-person. Apostle12 (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

For me his self-identification as "Hispanic" does matter. Many Peruvians do not consider themselves "Hispanic." In fact Hispanics can be of any race, including white. His political affiliation does not matter; some people change it from time to time just so they can vote in primary elections.Apostle12 (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the information should remain. It addresses a lot of the facts that are in dispute in public discourse on the event. I don't know how many times I've heard Zimmerman wanted to be a cop, how many times I've heard people say that Zimmerman's dad is a judge with influence in Florida. I've also heard people characterize him as being a conservative gun-nut. In general, I'm in favor of including information that helps to combat common misconceptions in the media or in the public. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As recently as a couple of days ago, his bio section said his goal was to become a cop. It was cited to this RS, [12], which states that in 2008, Zimmerman attended a law-enforcement program and wrote on his application for the course, "I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regard and I hope to one day become one." It goes on to say that he reenrolled in college with the goal of becoming a cop. This information on his goal has bounced back and forth between a judge and a cop for quite some time now. It really just depends on who happens to be editing the article at the time and what they want it to say. Seems like to me, to avoid confusing the readers, we should remove it altogether. It's ridiculous to keep changing his goal from week to week.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's most recent statement- to investigator Serino- was that he had stopped wanting to be a police officer, and wanted to become a judge. Since it was his most recent statement- he specifically said he didn't want to become a police officer I would think it would be most appropriate to report that. However, I wouldn't object to it being included that- at one time- he wanted to become a police officer. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin's three suspensions

I added a mild mention of Martin's three suspensions yesterday, and today editor Isaidnoway deleted it with the rhetorical question, "What difference does it make if it was 3 suspensions or 100; he was there because of 1."

What I added was the simple phrase "his third during the preceeding months," so that the complete sentence in Martin's bio read "At the time of the shooting, he was serving a ten-day suspension from high school, his third during the preceeding months." This addition was, of course, accurate and well-sourced.

In answer to Isaidnoway's query, I believe three suspensions from school during the recent past does make a difference. His last suspension from school was not an isolated event, rather Martin demonstrated a recent pattern of minor scrapes with authority, not unlike Zimmerman's minor scrapes with authority. Since the article mentions Zimmerman's scrapes with authority (necessary, I believe, because Judge Lester referred to them), I think it is appropriate to mention Martin's. This goes to the issue of whether or not Martin might have been disposed to confront Zimmerman, as Zimmerman claims. I do not believe it is necessary to go into more detail; any reader who wants more detail can reference the sources. Apostle12 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference what you believe or what Martin "might" have been disposed to do. That's only your theory, which is not allowed in this article. Find a RS specifically stating that his three suspensions were directly related to what happened that night, and then come back and discuss it further.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have built no "theory" about this case, and I have arrived at no conclusions; frankly I don't know what to believe, and even if I did believe something specific, you are correct that it wouldn't matter. I am only stating (here in Talk, not in the article) why I think mention of Martin's past might best be included. There has been lots of discussion about Martin's suspensions, including specifics about the events leading up to the suspensions, in reliable sources like this one http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html. And this: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Trayvon-Martin-Suspended-From-School-Three-Times-Report-144403305.html Apostle12 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My question still remains the same; Are there RS specifically stating that his three suspensions were directly related to what happened that night? The rationale behind the decision to include the "one" suspension was to explain why he was in Sanford. I don't see a legitimate rationale to include mention of the other two.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your question and your demand for sourcing. However it seems to me you are setting the standard of relevance artificially high. There is considerable discussion of Martin's suspensions because many people do consider them relevant, despite statements to the contrary by the Martins' attorneys.Apostle12 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not demanding anything, I just asked a simple question. Discussion like this is meant to find ways that will improve this article. I don't think that adding two irrelevant school suspensions is an improvement.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We disagree. It is the fact that there were three suspensions during the months leading up to the altercation and shooting that I find notable, and therefore relevant, not the specifics of the suspensions themselves. You want me to find a source that says, "Martin's three suspensions were notable and relevant" - right? You seem to pose a question, however it doesn't come across that way. I'll be happy to call it something other than a "demand" if you wish, but "a simple question" - no. Apostle12 (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of adding them? I think there should be a legitimate reason for adding them. Just the mere fact that a high school student had some suspensions doesn't seem notable to me, unless it is somehow connected to the shooting. I also don't think it is unreasonable to ask that we use a RS stating they are "notable and relevant" to the shooting.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The suspensions have no relevance to the shooting that I can see, even as to addressing why Martin was in the area at the time. Why was Zimmerman living in the area at the time? Who cares, right? They both had the right to be there at the time of the shooting. What did come into play is the fact that they didn't recognize each other, sadly. I think it is reasonable to ask that an editor show multiple RSs that support the argument that the suspension(s) is directly relevant to the shooting event and why, prior to adding that info to the main page, given the voluminous prior discussions on this matter. On a side note: There is some judicial language that comes to mind - along the lines of "more prejudicial than probative" that might guide us here as a general principle, as well. (sorry, not a lawyer, but I think it's a test for whether or not something is admissible evidence) -out. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the information about Zimmerman's legal problems has been added, I think it's fair to add mention of the three suspensions. If that part would be taken out from the judge's quote on revoking Zimmerman's bond, then they could stay out. Being balanced here seems important because what happened still isn't clear, and negative information on both has been reported in RS. Psalm84 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fair" to what or whom? That is not what "balanced" means here. We don't add one "negative" to one "side" every time we add a negative to the other, and the same for "positives". If we followed that pattern, we'd have to remove the fact that Zimmerman shot Martin, because Martin never shot anyone, and it's not fair to be un-balanced.. Tvoz/talk 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"If we followed that pattern, we'd have to remove the fact that Zimmerman shot Martin, because Martin never shot anyone, and it's not fair to be un-balanced.."

That isn't the case, though, because self-defense is a reasonable argument here and it's accepted by readers that Zimmerman might have shot Martin for that reason. Shooting Marting out of self-defense wouldn't be negative then. If the forensic investigation had shown that he lied and that he'd shot Martin from a distance, then it would be a different matter. And Martin did lose Zimmerman for at least 2 minutes but didn't go home. He was still in the area of Zimmerman's truck 5 minutes after he ran and Zimmerman left his truck to follow him. So what happened and who was legally right isn't clear, unlike many cases that get a lot of attention. The article does need to be balanced, then.Psalm84 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; the facts of the case - "what happened and who was legally right," to borrow your language - are far from clear. I think the facts of Zimmerman's past (which are included in the article) and the facts of Martin's past (which have been excluded) affect public perception of the possibilities with respect to both individuals. To the extent that fair exposition of the facts regarding both Zimmerman's and Martin's past serves to open people's minds, rather than to prejudice them, I think balanced full disclosure is a good thing. Apostle12 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember that all of BLP applies to Martin as well as Zimmerman. ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Right they should be treated just the same. So if we are going to include information about Zimmerman's past, Martin's past should also be included. Apostle12 (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur. If Z then M is not the sum of the criteria spelled out in BLP. Perhaps we are speaking different 'languages'. As we don't seem to be making progress, I'll end my part here. Cheers. ArishiaNishi (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ArishiaNishi is exactly right - not "they should be treated just the same", not "if we include info on one's past we should include info on the other's." That is not what BLP calls for or "balance" means. I agree with the folks here who have said that they don't see the relevance of Martin's suspension(s) - as has been said repeatedly, Zimmerman knew nothing of Martin's past, and mentioning it is an attempt to ex post facto give Z justification. If we were writing a book or article about the ironies in this case, there could be a place for it and a lot of other things. But this is not that. Tvoz/talk 18:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to include information about Martin's or Zimmerman's past, it should be relevant to this article, so far it hasn't been proven that Martin's suspensions from a high school some 400 miles away is relevant to this article. If you feel so strongly about Zimmerman's past being included and you don't think it should be, then remove it. I don't see anyone jumping up and down demanding that it be included. I don't object to it being removed, the judge brushed it off at the bond hearing and the prosecution didn't include it in their motion to revoke bond as it is irrelevant to that issue. The judge seemed to be more pissed about being allegedly misled about their finances than his prior arrests. Considering the issue is a bond revocation hearing, it would seem more appropriate to include comments from the judge that are related to the specific issue of being allegedly misled, which he made plenty. If you remove that particular quote presently in the article from the judge, then the paragraph about his prior arrest falls along with it. It's something to consider, isn't it?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I do think the quote from the judge about Zimmerman and that information could come out if all of Martin's suspensions aren't included. And even when handling what happened with the money collected, neither Zimmerman or his wife have been convicted with anything about that. I listened to the 6 released tapes, and they seem much more negatively portrayed than they are. What comes through is that they were very concerned about their safety and about paying their bills, like rent and car insurance, which they were behind on. And they had to be concerned about their identities with everyone they dealt with because they didn't know who might betray them. And could they use false identities? Probably not. And a number of times O'Mara was brought up, and it seemed he didn't meet with Zimmerman and Zimmerman said his calls to O'Mara were "still blocked." His family had a good meeting with him which impressed his wife, but after that his wife said she hadn't heard from O'Mara. This is only 6 calls, of course, and it doesn't mean what they allegedly did can be excused, but it suggests the situation may not be that simple, and why for Zimmerman too, he shouldn't be tried here. Psalm84 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can selectively remove items from the judge's statement without seeming to go soft on Zimmerman. And if the "accused of a crime" and "injunction" issues remain in the our version of the judge's statement, then they deserve some explanation. I think the way it is now works pretty well. Apostle12 (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article already does take out some of his quote, though. It could possibly just include the last sentence. The bond issue is getting a lot of attention right now, but it may not be necessary to say so much about it. Psalm84 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Only one suspension is relevant, the one leading to Martin living at his dad's house. The attempt to make the others seem relevant is not based on anything that the court says is important. The other suspensions are part of Martin getting negative press. The previous suspensions will only be mentioned in this article if they become relevant to the arguments made in court. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Really folks, don't put the three in now because we are not trying this case on wikipedia. Of course, it will come up in the trial eventually, so for you folks who want it in there, just wait. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The ten day suspension may get in, but the other two will not come up at the trial. There is no probative value in it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this case is that it's unusual in a lot of ways and it is being tried in the media. Psalm84 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Presumably you don't want to contribute to that unfortunate circumstance, right? Tvoz/talk 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

To some extent all cases are tried in the media, since the American tradition of open trials, with full media coverage, is designed to provide public oversight of the judicial system. I think the public deserves to know all the facts surrounding this case, especially all the facts regarding Zimmerman's background and Martin's background. Full disclosure in the public realm, especially here at Wikipedia, may be even more important than full disclosure during the actual trial, where some information will be excluded as prejudicial. The jury verdict could go either way, and public peace will depend on a critical mass of the American public being duly informed as to the possibilities--the possibility that Zimmerman attacked Martin, or the possibility that Martin attacked Zimmerman. So far nothing clearly identifies either individual as an innocent or a villain, and the split in public perception along racial lines makes the case incendiary. The jury will likely have a tough time deciding, and we would do well to understand and respect the difficulties they will face.Apostle12 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

All cases are tried in the media to some extent, as you said. But in this case, the media took a side when what happened wasn't clear. They really haven't followed the evidence. It is hard to know what information should be included here, and it is more difficult due to the media's treatment of the case. Sometimes, like in the case of Martin's third suspension, WP could help to keep things impartial. The info used to mention that his family said it was irrelevant. Balance like that can help. Psalm84 (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a tough issue to resolve and I would only suggest that we wait until a reliable source makes a specific connection for the first two suspensions to what happened on the night of the shooting or the aftermath. For example, it may come if during future court proceedings a connection is made to Martin's behavior on the night of the shooting, or why his father brought him to Sanford, etc. Suggest waiting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, but that goes for all three. Tvoz/talk 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note that in the article there is a source for the last suspension that says,

"Martin's father, Tracy, had taken his son with him to Sanford -- about four hours away from the boy's home and where the father's fiance lived -- after the teen was suspended for 10 days from Michael M. Krop High School in Miami."[13]

This explains the circumstances that led to Martin being in Sanford on the night of the shooting. Also, there was a previous discussion that resulted in a consensus for including the last suspension, although off hand I don't have a link to it. Maybe one of the other editors who have been more active in these discussions could provide it if you're interested. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are the three suspensions not proper material for Martin's bio section? This is information that is widely and reliably reported. It doesn't matter whether we think it will come in as evidence or if it's really relevant to the shooting. We've got descriptive biographical information about others that has nothing to do with the shooting, so what exactly is the rationale to keep the info out -- is it just because it's negative? I don't mean to be crass, but Martin is not a BLP. Minor4th 02:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia summarizing the topic, not an exhaustive account. We winnow the chaff and print the essential parts. The previous two suspensions are not essential; they do not add anything to the court case nor do they add anything to why Zimmerman shot Martin. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is 190,971 bytes, it has 340 discrete references, 14 external links, 5 "notes", 8 sound files, 5 pictures, and is linked in 50 different Wiki articles. This article in no way summarizes the topic; this is about as exhaustive an account as there could possibly be. It includes minute details down to the number of nanograms of THC metabolites found by the medical examiner. There has been no winnowing that I can detect, except for the article's failure to mention anything about Trayvon himself, despite numerous reports.

I disagree that it adds nothing to the subject --- reliable sources discuss the suspensions in various contexts that are part of this article: the reports support Zimmerman's claims of self defense: [14]; the information is in stark contrast to the accounts from Martin's family [15]; gives credence to Zimmerman's account that Martin looked like he was "on drugs" [16] and [17]; brings attention to out-of-school suspensions (would he still be alive if there were a more productive way to discipline kids in school) [18] and plenty of article saying it makes no difference whatsoever. This info is reported as part of the Trayvon Martin case because it is notable. It's not Wiki's job to decide it has nothing to do with the shooting of Trayvon Martin when multiple secondary sources are saying otherwise.

Incidentally, there is a whole lot more positive information about Trayvon that could be included as well. It would all give the article more depth about the main subject.Minor4th 06:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to include everything that RS report. Sometimes it is better not to include some things. The media has been trying this case, though, and claims were made against Zimmerman. This is from an [[article]] on Martin's tweets:

The question is whether Trayvon’s digital footprint on sites such as Facebook and Twitter may factor into a potential case against his shooter, George Zimmerman.

Some experts say it does.

“Basically what it boils down to is… whether or not [Zimmerman’s] conduct is reasonable,’’ said University of Florida criminal law professor Kenneth Nunn.

“In order to determine that, you’d want to look at what [Trayvon’s] behavior traits have been, or may have been over time. When I’m trying a case and I’m concerned about a person’s character, I’m looking at anything.”

That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that more negative information about Martin, or Zimmerman either, needs to be in the article, at least at the moment. Psalm84 (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm making an edit right now to Martin's bio section, to include more information about him and his interests, as well as the three suspensions. I'm not including anything from social media or unreliable sources or even secondary reports about social media. This is a fair and neutral description about the boy with information that is reported in RS. I think the reason this article is so long right now is that we are all still trying the case in the media because the trial hasnt happened yet. There will come a time when a good portion of the info in the article is stale and in hindsight will certainly be viewed as speculative. I guess that's the nature of real-time encyclopedia editing. Wait til I finish this edit I'm working on and see what you think. Minor4th 07:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I like what you did and I think the added information is useful. Didn't remove anything, though edited it a bit. Apostle12 (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see [19], specifically, In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article.

Furthermore, community consensus on this issue has been consistent not to include this information and it is becoming disruptive to keep bringing it up and/or adding it to the article.

Trying to connect a high school teenager's suspensions to the incident that took place that night through tabloid like negative media reporting is simply incredulous. As Zimmerman had never met Martin or knew nothing about his past, you can't justify Zimmerman's actions through retroactively linking Martin's suspensions to what happened in those few minutes that night. It has not been proven that Martin's character flaws (if any) had any influence on his decisions that night, and to infer otherwise is speculation. This kind of speculation and innuendo does not belong in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to a previous discussion that reached consensus.[20] Please note the end of the discussion at the bottom of the section, which resulted in this version of the suspension info. The two sides in the present discussion seem somewhat polarized. You've demonstrated your abilities to debate. I'd like to see more of your abilities to cooperate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The mention of the 10-day suspension is still in the article located in a new section titled "Martin's temporary residence in Sanford" located here; [21]. As there has been no consensus reached on the other two suspensions, they should stay out for now, like you said earlier above, "suggest waiting". I agree, time is on our side.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because of the nature of the material it contains. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page." (From the top of this talk page.) This is in response to Minor4th's comment that Martin is not a BLP. Martin is also on the Wiki list of notable recently deceased persons. Consensus might be easier to reach if we all use the same guidelines. ArishiaNishi (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks-- i don't know what the source of "and recently deceased" is from the top of the page, but it's not part of the BLP policy for obvious reasons. There is nothing potentially libellous here (especially since Martin is no longer living and cannot be defamed--again, not to be flippant about it, but there's a meaningful distinction). The information is well sourced. No one is out to malign the recently deceased, but there's certainly no need to omit significant information that is so widely reported. I've reverted Isaidnoway's reversion because there's no need for there to be a consensus to add well sourced notable information. Plenty of more positive info was added as well to balance out the negative implications of 3 suspensions, if any. Within this discussion there seem to be several editors in favor of expanding Martin's biographical information and several specifically agreeable with a brief mention of the suspensions. Every edit does not have to be made by community-wide consensus. Minor4th 21:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording on the top of this page has been there since late April, and I recommend you read WP:BLP again, because recently deceased people are indeed part of the policy, as evidenced by the second paragraph of its introduction for one. There has been a lot of discussion here in the last 3 months regarding whether Martin's background and interests belong here, and the conclusion by consensus has been consistently no - the fact that he liked to ski had no more relevance to his being shot to death than did the fact that he was a teenager with some issues at school. Finally, I reverted the new wording because when something is in contention as this is, we leave the text as it has been and discuss it here. Several editors have objected, and now yet another rfc is underway, so we maintain the status quo and wait it out. Tvoz/talk 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also from the BLP policy: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." and "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning deceased persons. However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy." The information we are talking about was discussed in press reports by the living relatives of the deceased; it's not going to be challenged, no one is claiming it is not true. Therefore it's not contentious. There's no question the information is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented because it is reported in every source that reports on this topic. Therefore it belongs in the article even by BLP standards. It is not true that consensus has been consistently to keep this info out, but even if that were so, consensus changes. Minor4th 03:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction - Apostle12 reverted Isaidnoway. Apparently we were both trying to make the same edit at the same time, but his went through. Anyway, it's done. Minor4th 21:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding Trayvon Martin's 3 suspensions

Should Trayvon Martin's biographical section in the article Shooting of Trayvon Martin; include that he was suspended from school for 10-days for traces of marijuana in a baggie, suspended for graffiti and suspended for truancy?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC discussion

• Oppose A review and discussion of the material is warranted and appropriate when the material in question is contentious, regardless of how widely it has been reported. One of the main factors when considering inclusion of RS information is whether the addition of that material would serve to improve the article. Inserting contentious claims of a negative nature about the background of a recently deceased teenager with living relatives is not relevant to the titled article and is not an improvement to this article. Just because it may be true or even verifiable does not automatically mean that it is appropriate for inclusion. In this instance, Martin is notable for being the victim of a shooting that took his life, not the past actions (3 suspensions) of his life. Adding this information amounts to participating and prolonging the victimization of a deceased teenager.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree completely with Isaidnoway's analysis, and as has been discussed numerous times before. The issue is not whether this material is sourced, the issue is whether it is relevant to the subject of this article, which it is not, in my view. Several editors have tried to put this irrelevant material into the article in a stated attempt to be "fair" or to otherwise bring what they think is "balance" to the piece - while those goals appear to be well intentioned, I believe they instead are misunderstanding what this article is about - the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, not the high school record of a teenager. Indeed, BLP policies do apply, as explained elsewhere on this page. Tvoz/talk 02:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment At this time I'm not sure about it. There's a lot to consider, IMO. Much of the negative information about Zimmerman and Martin is widely known, including Martin's suspensions. Some RS say that's why public opinion on the case changed from what it was in the beginning. So not including it may not be fairer than including it in a balanced way. On any negative information not being relevant, that seems too soon to say. The negative reports about Martin don't victimize him if he did confront and attack Zimmerman, which is a strong possibility. I just added some remarks from a well-known Chicago Tribune columnist who believes both Zimmerman and Martin made bad decisions that night due to the timeline of the incident. There's also a lot that's been said about Zimmerman and the case by the Martin side. That should be considered too. Psalm84 (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what is important and what is not. Wikipedia should be an independent, neutral mirror of the world's knowledge regarding a topic. Any argument that reliable sources can be safely ignored is invalid and a violation of Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support A rough review of past discussions reveals that most editors are in favor of including the information. It is not for strongly opinionated editors to determine if it's "relevant"; that's determined by the secondary sources reporting on the Trayvon Martin case, all of which have reported the suspensions. It's relevant because it's in every source that reports on this topic. This is not a BLP issue, and it's not our job to sanitize what is found in reliable sources. Minor4th 03:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I strongly support inclusion of the information about Martin's suspensions as per Minor4th's recent edit. The information was added in a non-sensational way, and it follows other information added by Minor4th that humanizes Martin by describing his interests and his plans for the future. I once opposed the inclusion of "negative" information about both Zimmerman and Martin, but I have changed my mind; anything that brings us closer to understanding who Zimmerman and Martin were during the period leading up to the shooting is relevant. If we were to uniformly apply Isaidnoway's narrow standard throughout the article, it would necessitate the removal of much essential information--for example, Zimmerman is notable for being the shooter in this incident, not for once having been charged for pushing an undercover officer in a bar, which led to his participation in a pre-trial diversion program. It should also be noted that Martin's three suspensions are part of his recent history, whereas Zimmerman's brushes with authority happened 7 years prior to the shooting. By the way, Isaidnoway describes Martin as a "victim;" Martin tragically lost his life in this incident, yet it is premature to assume he was "victimized," as he may have been the aggressor. It will be up to the jury to decide whether or not Zimmerman victimized Martin; that's what our tradition of the presumption of innocence is all about. To arrive at such conclusions here at Wikipedia is both premature and inappropriate. Apostle12 (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I described Martin as a victim of a shooting which is accurate and appropriate. Zimmerman's prior arrest became relevant through a court proceeding on a determination of bail. Martin's past has only been reported through negative media coverage. When Zimmerman's prior arrest was first reported widely and consistently by RS through negative media coverage, Wikipedia steered clear of including it in the article as it was irrelevant to what transpired that night and it was never included in the article. Why isn't the same standard being applied to Martin? -- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

People can be considered victims in events where no wrongdoing is involved, for example victims of hurricanes, tornadoes or accidental shootings. In this case, however, no one asserts the shooting was accidental. The prosecution claims Zimmerman murdered Martin by shooting him, and Zimmerman insists he had no choice but to shoot Martin in self-defense after Martin attacked him and threatened his life. The ending for Martin was tragic, but in this case he was only a victim if he was wronged. If it is true that he viciously attacked Zimmerman, with intent to take Zimmerman's life (please see Zimmerman's account), then it is Zimmerman who was the victim--for being viciously attacked and knocked to the ground, for being repeatedly hit in the face and having his head banged into a concrete sidewalk, for having his life threatened, and for being forced to resort to the trauma of armed violence to defend himself. No one calls a bank robber the "victim" of an armed guard who kills the robber in order to defend the bank's customers and himself. Zimmerman's account may or may not be true, however it is impossible at this time to know for certain who was the true victim. What is clear is that the incident had a tragic outcome for both young men.

I have reviewed the media coverage of Martin's suspensions and fail to note that the media coverage itself is "negative." The media reports mention the official justifications for Martin's three suspensions - habitual tardiness, truancy, painting graffiti on a locker, and possession of a marijuana pipe with a plastic bag containing marijuana residue. Media reports also mention the fact that, when security searched Martin's backpack after catching him painting graffiti on a locker, they found a large screwdriver and a collection of women's jewelry, which Martin claimed was given to him by an unnamed friend. Media reports were careful to stipulate that there was never any proof the jewelry found in Martin's possession was stolen, or that the large screwdriver had been used as a burglary tool. That the media reported negative events in Martin's life (the three suspensions), which were caused by negative actions on his part (habitual tardiness, truancy, painting graffiti on a locker, and possession of a marijuana pipe with a plastic bag containing marijuana residue), does not render the media coverage itself "negative."

Martin's brushes with authority during the months preceeding the altercation and shooting, the last of which resulted in his being suspended from school and being sent to stay in Sanford with his father, may be quite relevant to what transpired on the evening of February 26--especially if it seems likely that Martin, rather than peaceably returning to the home where he was staying, circled back and attacked Zimmerman out of annoyance or anger that he was being watched and followed. The public deserves to know about Martin's recent propensity to engage in negative behavior, with the caveat that his suspensions, and the reasons for them, are not sensationalized or exaggerated. As I have stated previously, I consider Zimmerman's brushes with authority less relevant because they happened 7 years ago; on the other hand, the Zimmermans' alleged misrepresentation of their financial status at the April 20 bond hearing is highly relevant to Zimmerman's credibility in the present instance. I do not see any double standard here; the public has the right to information that will allow them to assess the characters of both young men, based on proven records of their actions. Apostle12 (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been intentionally avoiding this latest iteration of this debate for my own sanity, but this is too much. You can't compare Martin to a bank robber. Martin wasn't robbing a bank - he was was walking home from the store with snacks. You do see the difference, right? One activity is illegal, and one is something you and I probably do routinely, safe in the knowledge that we won't be pursued and ultimately shot to death by an armed, angry individual. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As always, you presume Zimmerman's guilt, rather than his innocence. If Zimmerman was guilty of murder, which is quite possible, you are correct that Martin was the victim. If, on the other hand, Zimmerman was defending himself from a vicious attack by Martin, it was Zimmerman who was the victim. It will be up to a jury to decide the matter. Apostle12 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't presume anything about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. I'm just objecting to the ludicrous idea that going out to buy snacks is comparable to robbing a bank. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are misquoting me. I am saying that if it is true that Martin viciously attacked Zimmerman, then it was Martin who was committing a criminal act and Zimmerman had the right to defend himself. I am saying that if that scenario is true Martin cannot be considered a "victim." Your reductio ad absurdem argument ("I'm just objecting to the ludicrous idea that going out to buy snacks is comparable to robbing a bank.") has nothing to do with anything I have written here. Apostle12 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell, If Martin could've gone home but instead chose to confront and attack Zimmerman, would you still consider Martin the victim? Just a hypothetical question to see how you think. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, both of them may have perceived a threat by the other at different points in the encounter. Misunderstandings occur all the time, more so when someone is unfamiliar with another person, or in a different town, or between different cultures, or different ages. Martin was only 17 and he may have thought that his reactions were proper for the situation, same goes for Zimmerman. We can't assume what Martin was thinking, and we only have Zimmerman's recount of the events. I was at the store the other day, driving my car and my hands were cold from my car's air conditioner. I was warming them and dazing off looking at nothing when some guy walking by assumed I was making a threatening gesture at him by the way I was warming my hands. He called out to me from across the street whether I had a problem and I had no idea what he was talking about, it was actually kind of ridiculous to me. This guy was just a kid and I look young but am at least 20 years older than he was. What if Martin reacted in a similar fashion? What if he actually did confront Zimmerman like Zimmerman says, rather than asking in a calm and polite way whether there was something he could do to calm the situation down? He was just 17 and 17 year old kids do dumb things that older people wouldn't. I am not saying Zimmerman is innocent, but clearly this could have been a massive misunderstanding and unfortunately for Martin, Zimmerman was armed and was willing to use the weapon. Anyway, on the issue of Martin's suspensions... same answer as I already have said 5 times, unless there is a direct connection, it should stay out. -- Avanu (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I don't think that you want to take the position that criminal assault by a 17 year old, that could have resulted in the 17 year old murdering his victim, was just a dumb thing, anymore than you would want to take the position that shooting an unarmed 17 year old just because he looked suspicious is alright.

And just a reminder regarding the last suspension, there was a [direct] connection made in an RS and that suspension already appears in another part of the article.--Bob K31416 (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You may note that I used the phrase "direct connection", not simply "connection" as you said in your reply. Other than the fact that he was in Sanford because of being on suspension, I haven't seen any source provide additional direct connections between Martin's suspension and him ending up dead (i.e. altered state of mind, angry at the world, etc). As far as whether the entire situation was "dumb" (using your word there), as I said above, 17-year-olds do dumb things all the time. They don't have the perspective and experience to know that something will turn out badly, and it is easily seen that a young person's bravado and youthful attitude could be the wrong response to a situation where your 'opponent' has a gun. Obviously something caused Martin to physically assault Zimmerman. It could have been a real threat or it could have just been a percieved threat. None of us know for sure. So, in fact, I do want to take the position that people, young or old, need to be careful when they confront others. You simply don't know what might be in store for you and when a gun is involved, you suddenly have to ask yourself if you feel ready to die over whatever the issue is. -- Avanu (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I added "direct" to my message. And try applying what you just wrote re direct connection to the rest of the info in that section and see what is left.

Re " 'dumb' (using your word there)" — Since you first used that word, I was just trying to communicate on your terms.

Re "Obviously something caused Martin to physically assault Zimmerman." — You gave a possible reason yourself when you recounted your experience while driving.

Re "They don't have the perspective and experience to know that something will turn out badly, and it is easily seen that a young person's bravado and youthful attitude could be the wrong response to a situation where your 'opponent' has a gun." — Your messages seem to be following a pattern of reducing acts of criminal assault to "bravado and youthful attitude". If someone punched you in the nose, knocked you to the ground, repeatedly banged your head onto concrete, and then reached for a gun that you were carrying with the comment that you were going to die, would you just consider that "bravado and youthful attitude"?

I recognize part of this discussion has become forum-like so I'll stop and let you have the last word if that's what you want. In any case, I restored a previous version without the suspension, and then deleted aviation, and football per my edit summary.[22] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right on us getting forum-ish. I'm certainly not saying that all criminal acts by a younger person are just bravado. But when a kid on his way home suddenly turns to confront his 'stalker' and it turns quickly physical, it strikes me as something that happened because of poor perceptions by one or both of them, and perhaps youthful notions of honor. Young men do foolish things that old men won't. I actually found my personal moment while driving to be laughable, mostly because I was amazed that someone would get so upset by so little, but from the other guy's perspective, I had somehow truly wrong him and he was looking to make it right. But neither of us had a gun and it was the middle of a sunny day in a shopping center. Quite unlike Martin and Zimmerman's encounter. -- Avanu (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's one simple, universal standard applied here to both Martin and Zimmerman. In neither case does their school disciplinary record belong in this article. WP:BLP is extraordinarily clear: When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced (emphasis mine). The fact that newspapers have reported on Martin's school attendance record does not obligate us to report on it - because we are not a newspaper.

  This is exactly the sort of situation that WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy addresses. When a private citizen becomes notable in the context of a single incident, we need to be careful about simply parroting whatever aspects of their lives the media focuses on. This is a special case, in which our normal practice of simply repeating the emphases of news sources doesn't apply, and it's all spelled out in WP:BLP.

  One of the major tragedies of this article is that editors who are familiar with BLP and well-versed in its application to controversial subjects have generally left or been driven off. The Overton window here is skewed pretty drastically from normal site best practices, and this is exhibit A. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I have supported the inclusion of the info in the article, I generally agree with you that these details would not be notable in and of themselves to include in the article. However, this article deals with every conceivable aspect of the "Trayvon Martin case" and the suspensions have been so widely reported and discussed in secondary sources within the context of the reasonableness of Zimmerman's actions. The media portrayal of both Martin and Zimmerman is a huge aspect to this story -- the reporting and reaction are as notable as the event itself. Excluding the suspensions leaves a huge gap in the available information and commentary. It is not simply a gratuitous, irrelevant inclusion of arguably negative BLP info. BLP policy clearly states, ""If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I don't know how you square that policy with excluding the info about the suspensions. Minor4th 23:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You're quoting from the part of WP:BLP which deals with well-known public figures (WP:WELLKNOWN). That part doesn't apply to Martin, because he isn't/wasn't a public figure. Let's make sure we're on the same page about which aspects of the policy apply here. MastCell ^Talk 03:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say Martin is a public figure for purposes of BLP policy, and BLP applies to him only insofar as implications for his living relatives. Since his relatives have publicly confirmed the suspensions, I don't really see how this information runs afoul of the letter or spirit of BLP. Anyway, we could probably argue indefinitely, and I'll concede that my initial gut reaction on this issue was that inclusion of the suspensions would be distasteful and could definitely be exploited by POV pushers. So I understand how the BLP issue seems to be the policy to reference. When I saw this article expanding to include excrutiating detail about every conceivable aspect of the case, I thought the info had a place in the article. I added a brief mention of the suspensions in a very neutral manner in connection with other more positive info about Martin. I thought it was presented well and improved the article without compromising BLP. I am a very strong BLP proponent, but the policy is not meant to exclude all negative information and this is one instance where the article is insufficient without the information. Minor4th 05:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN links to our article on public figure, a definition which doesn't appear to apply to Martin. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to Martin because Martin is not a living person and cannot be defamed, but if Martin were alive he would certainly be considered a "public figure" (albeit involuntarily). "Public figure" is a legal term of art in reference to defamation of a person. This is why BLP does not really apply to Martin -- the underlying BLP rationale is to avoid slander, a non-issue where Martin is concerned. All of this avoids the issue that there is no question about the truth of the information about the suspensions. It is not something that could conceivably be challenged. (N.B. George Zimmerman is also an involuntary public figure for defamation purposes (and BLP) because of the amount of publicity around him. Minor4th 17:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the application of WELLKNOWN has been tried before on unintentionally famous people, and it has been repeatedly decided that the guideline only applies to those people who intend to be well known. There is no indication that Martin intended to become a public figure. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, read public figure and note that a person can involuntarily become a public figure due to publicity. In any event, it does not apply to Martin because he is not a living person and cannot be the subject of a defamation lawsuit. Minor4th 19:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're missing three huge points: Public figure is not a Wikipedia guideline. The guideline WP:WELLKNOWN does not apply to unintentionally famous people, per Wikipedia past consensus. WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased, especially when there is a living killer. Your argument has fallen apart completely. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comments have taken a rather sharp tone, and that is unnecessary. The point you're missing is that the BLP (and WELLKNOWN) policy reference Public figure without any additional caveats about unintentionally famous people. You're also missing the point that BLP applies only to recently deceased when the information has ongoing implications for the living relatives, which it clearly does not in this case. Whether or not there is a "living killer" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the policy application. And finally, what everyone arguing BLP on this issue seems to be missing is that even if Martin were a living person, there is no controversy over the suspensions, there's no dispute about the truth of the information, and it's notable and readily verifiable in a legion of the highest quality secondary sources. You've missed the whole point of BLP policy and interpreted it to mean that no negative information about any person, living or dead, can be included in a Wikipedia article as long as there are a couple of editors around to make an issue of it. That is not only a gross misapplication of BLP policy, it's a violation of WP:NPOV. If there is a consensus that involuntary public figures are not "well known public figures" for Wiki purposes, then the BLP policy needs to reflect that. Maybe you can work on that if you feel strongly about it. I doubt that it is the case -- if anything, there may have been a consensus on a particular person, and I suggest the policy should be applied on a case by case basis. Minor4th 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with Binksternet et al here. Your definition of 'public figure' is not in line with the normal wikipedia definition when it comes to the BLP guidelines. However it's a moot point since I agree with you that BLP doesn't apply here since the information on the suspensions doesn't have much or any effect on his living relatives or friends. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support This article does not deal only with the principals of the case, or only the legal aspects. Part of the story is the way the media tried to put a spin on things, hawking a portrayal of Martin that was off by many years, pounds, and inches. That extends to his background as well. That he was a drug user and a troubled youth, in contrast to his childlike portrayal, is a part of the story, for better or for worse. Gaohoyt (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Mastcell. I was reluctant to voice my opinion again on this issue. He reminded me to not let stubborness rule over reason. If Martin was a career criminal it wouldn't change the event. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose the information being in the article while it is under discussion. There has been no past consensus for it being there and no current consensus. Stop the edit war and leave it out. Don't make me go get an admin, they have big wet mops! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Since I am late to this discussion and most editors know my position and reasoning already, I will simply say that I oppose for the same reasons as MastCell, Isaidnoway, Tvoz, and Richard-of-Earth. I see no reason to repeat the same arguments. Please give my opposition equal weight. ArishiaNishi (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The suspensions should only be brought into the article after the court case determines them to be important, if it ever does. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we definitely do not try the court case in public (like news agencies are wont to do.) Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure about it and wanted to see other opinions on it, and if anyone provides a reason for not including this information that's convincing IMO I would change my vote. But at this time, I lean toward including it. Some of the reasons for not including it suggest that it should be left out because it would be attacking Martin's character. But it's a fact he did not leave the area or returned to the area when he had time to get far away from Zimmerman. And on not trying the case in the media, it is still being done. Not including the suspensions also does that. WP depends on the media and it can only try to be as impartial as possible. Psalm84 (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment — I think you need to agree on criteria for including or excluding material from the section in question. Seems like some will argue that the first two suspensions are not appropriate, but then may believe that the material about Martin's aviation and football interests are, and vice versa. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the football and aviation info as well. I was the one who added the info, as well as the brief mention of the suspensions. All of the information I added was from the same source. Since someone removed the info about the suspensions (arguably the most notable of the info about Martin) then the other details should not remain. Minor4th 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think removing this information is a mistake. Are you going to remove as well Zimmerman's religious upbringing, his employment history, his emphasis at school, his father's background...really I don't get it. I think the aviation and football info belongs, as well as basic info on the suspensions. Apostle12 (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, all of the information belongs in the article. I guess I'm confused about the threshold for relevancy to include info. If the suspensions are irrelevant and warrant exclusion, I don't know how we can include these other details about the boy. I thought the edit I made was an improvement, but I don't support the inclusion of positive info while negative info is systematically reverted. Maybe it's better to leave a barebones bio section for Martin since info can't be added without presenting a skewed perception or sparking an edit war. Minor4th 05:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Systematically targeting information that might reflect negatively on Martin's character seems wrong to me; don't know how it can be defended, and I condemn the editors who are doing it.Apostle12 (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit that deleted suspension and football per my edit summary.[23] I should mention that the last suspension is in another part of the article.[24] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like all we have settled is the fact that BLP applies to Martin. However, even with this understanding, the editors on this article are consistently unable to find consensus on adds and edits. I see no way to proceed that doesn't lead to an edit war. I have waited to solve problems before moving ahead, but the article has crept, during that time, into something I consider to be an opinion piece, and that I am unable to support. Perhaps we should all back away for several months and leave this article to other editors who are able to adhere to the guidelines, work together civilly, and form consensus. Cheers ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

An opinion piece? This article provides the best way I know for an uninformed person to get up to speed on the Trayvon Martin Shooting.Apostle12 (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, much of the factual outline presented by the article is pretty decent and comprehensive. Where this article really falls down is in the "Public reception" and "Alleged race issue"-type sections, which are basically forums for a subset of editors to present their preferred narrative of the case rather than a comprehensive overview of notable issues. MastCell ^Talk 03:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Have some respect for the readers, they don't need us to determine if this relevent. Stealing from lockers at school would seem to support Z's claim that M was possibly casing housing - so the relevence seems quite clear to me, but again, let's have some respect for intelligence of Wikipedia readers and let them decide.70.245.209.94 (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well at this point we can only infer that Martin might have been stealing from lockers--we have no evidence of that. Though it is hard to believe he just happened to be carrying a large screwdriver in his backpack and just happened to possess a varied collection of women's jewelry. But stealing, or casing houses, isn't the issue in the case; the jury will have to decide whether Zimmerman's killing of Martin was justifiable homicide, or not. Apostle12 (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support I don't see how these are "contentious claims" as the original proposer described them, though they are obviously negative. If Martin had recently won a boy scout medal or received some other honor, and that was documented in media reports following his death, I would also support its inclusion. And in that case I don't think anyone would argue that it should not be included because it was positive. Why should the apparent negativity of the information determine its inclusion? In either case that information informs the debate about the death as A Quest For Knowledge said: "Wikipedia should be an independent, neutral mirror of the world's knowledge regarding a topic." I think it belongs in the article. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

But is the "topic" of this article a biography of either one of these individuals? Or is the topic of this article a shooting that took place on February 26. Are boy scout medals and high school suspensions relevant to this topic? Is Zimmerman being raised a Catholic and being a democrat relevant to the topic? One of the challenges in creating and editing an article about a high-profile case that the media latches onto is that they report the news in cycles. They go with what is making headlines at that moment in the story, and it's tempting for editor's to mirror that same mentality in the article. But in reality, it is still too early to know what will actually become notable about this case. What may be notable for a news cycle is not notable for an encyclopedia article. One of the advantages that we have at WP is that time is on our side. Will the widely reported information we see in these news cycles have "staying power" in the media. I would argue that at least two of Martin's suspensions have fallen to the wayside in media reporting on this story for the simple fact there is nothing notable about them. They realize, as should we, they are irrelevant to this shooting. However, one of Martin's suspensions seems to have reached "staying power" as it is frequently mentioned now as to why he was in Sanford. Some include the reason behind the suspension, some don't. Considering that he was suspended for traces of marijuana and THC was found during his autopsy, this suspension seems to have become notable. I would simply propose that we re-visit this issue in another 60 to 90 days and see what the media is still reporting on in relation to the other two suspensions.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's not "contentious" material. It is notable because of the depth of RS, and it's certainly contextually important in relation to Zimmerman's reports of "suspicious" person "on drugs or something" as well as his self defense claims. It's also an important aspect of the media's initial inaccurate portrayal of both Zimmerman and Martin. The sources all discuss the suspensions in this context. It's not likely the media is going to continue to report about it because they have already done so -- that doesn't take anything away from it's importance in the article.Minor4th 19:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's not all that contentious. It should of course go along with statements like this, from The New York Times today: Mr. Martin was no “goon,” Mr. Serino told Mr. Zimmerman. He was an athlete. His parents cared about him. He had no violent history, and he was armed with only a pack of candy and a can of iced tea. - I don't mean we include that sentence, but both kinds of material would be suitable in my view. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just don't think it is feasible to retroactively link Martin's suspensions to justify Zimmerman's perception of his behavior that night. And I don't think it belongs in his bio section either. But you raise a good and valid point of the media's inaccurate portrayal of both of them. At one time, I suggested this very same thing. I think a section on this inaccurate portrayal is a good idea and the other sections; "Controversy over photos of Martin and Zimmerman" and "Social media" would fit nicely there as well as they discuss these issues. There is no doubt that the initial portrayal of both these individuals was inaccurate and helped form the initial public perception of them. It wasn't until later that we found out that Martin was not a angelic child who played with kittens and liked rainbows and Zimmerman was not a deranged neighborhood vigilante. I would support this as a compromise.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the marijuana suspension only: The prosecution's affidavit of probable cause charges that Zimmerman was profiling Martin. Zimmerman's original 911 call indicates that Martin drew Zimmerman's attention because he was acting like he was "on drugs or something". So why is it not relevant that Martin had a drug suspension? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaohoyt (talk • contribs) 00:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The suspension is only relevant as to why Martin was in Sanford. Zimmerman had no way of knowing that Martin had been suspended for this, so how could Zimmerman's perception of his behavior be related to the suspension. The expert quoted in this article says that the level of THC found in the autopsy of Martin "played no role in Martin's behavior". I defer to the expert.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's knowledge (or lack of it) of the suspension has nothing to do with it. Martin's marijuana use could have affected Zimmerman's perception of the situation (when he first observed Martin acting strangely) as well as Martin's conduct (when he started banging Zimmerman's head against the ground). The THC "expert" everyone quotes is a New York professor, not anyone in Sanford law enforcement. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. It would be interesting to know the actual THC levels, and not have to rely on "oh, THC stays in the bloodstream a long time, maybe the effects wore off days ago". Gaohoyt (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The levels are mentioned in some of the cited sources. Is there any particular reason why you put "expert" in scare quotes, or why you believe that being a "New York professor" makes an expert less trustworthy? MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The logic is obvious, MastCell. A New York Professor cannot be expected to know how to buy salsa, per the well known Pace Picante test, and therefore is dumb as a rock, perhaps even a very small rock, and logically if the New York Professor is a very small rock, weighs the same as a duck and is therefore a witch. So I hope that clearly and expertly explains all that. Of course, instead it could be that Gaohoyt is saying that professors aren't considered as 'expert' as real forensic professionals, but this particular man is Professor of Forensic Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York (So he probably is pretty darn expert, and while he might like Monty Python, he probably is neither a duck nor a witch.) -- Avanu (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Every existing source from NY Times to BBC on down determined the information was relevant to their readers. We should provide some information about the parties in this event. If TM was a straight-A student who never got in any trouble at school that would be relevant and included in the article. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely irrelevant crap. The media can include this as pap for their sensation seeking readers. We don't have as much space to include such material. And nor should we. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's say facts were different, and the article read, "Trayvon Martin was an honor roll student at Michael M. Krop High School and had no history of disciplinary problems." Would you still call it "Absolutely irrelevant crap."? I suspect many editors had less difficulty recognizing the relevance of his disciplinary record in the beginning, when it was widely believed to be spotless. (The argument that we don't have as much space to include the material makes no sense.)Emeraldflames (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a very cryptic post that doesn't seem to respond to what I was saying. What Martin did at school, good or bad, has nothing to do with why he was shot, by someone who didn't know him or his history, a very long way from that school. The point about space is that the newspapers have been able to print several column inches of pap every day for four months, if they chose. We cannot possibly match than volume of content. HiLo48 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of what Isaidnoway proposed as a compromise re: adding a section on the media's inaccurate initial portrayals of Martin and Zimmerman. Who wants to write it? Emeraldflames (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

===Closing RfC and discussion on suspensions===

The discussion in the RfC is pretty much evenly split about whether to include the suspensions. One suspension is already mentioned in the article as to why Martin was in Sanford. There is no clear consensus at this time to include the other two. I propose we wait until there is a community consensus to include the other two and retain WP:STATUSQUO.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Might as well leave it open a bit longer since the article is being viewed a great deal and there is quite a bit of editing going on. There is no consensus at the moment, but this issue is going to rear its head again soon, you can bet on that. Let's leave the article the way it is now, without the details of the suspensions, but let the RfC remain open a little longer. I think we agree on everything except closing the RfC. Minor4th 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I believe RFCs are often kept open for 30 days right? Then again, this doesn't appear to use the normal process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment so doesn't seem to be listed. Although it has had a fair amount of participation since there's no consensus forming, perhaps it's still ideal to follow the normal process so it's listed and perhaps get's more uninvolved attention? Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Editors are encouraged and welcome to keep on commenting as they wish. I merely removed the RfC tag. In the past, we have always kept it for at least 5 to 7 days on this subject. It quickly builds a wall of text as you see above. I can strike the sub-section title so editor's can still comment, but at this time I'm not going to tag it again for RfC.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It has nothing to do with the incident. It's been suggested that as editors we don't make decisions about what and what not to include from what we read in the sources. I think we'd all agree that we do that all the time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Gandydancer (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Too many headings?

A couple of editors have expressed that one problem with the article is there are too many headings. Looking at the overall article, I tend to agree. I have made an edit in the "Background to the Shooting" section, removing the subheadings. I think the narrative flows much better without the headings here. Take a look and see if you agree. Please do not immediately revert this edit. If, after some discussion, editors prefer the headings, then we can change it, but give others a chance to look at this section without the headings and decide what they think. Minor4th 00:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a big improvement to that section. Looks good. Now, if I could get someone else to look at the second paragraph in that section and look at the references provided as well. The references I read for the second sentence, which were the Daily Beast and Colorado News 9 both say that Zimmerman called 911, 46 times since 2004, and there is a notation there as well concerning these 46 calls. But the sentence reads that Zimmerman called 11 times, which I am assuming pertains to the first sentence, between 2011 and 2012. There is also the primary source referenced there at the second sentence, maybe somebody went through the call log and counted them, WP:OR or it could be a case of a source geting accidentally removed during editing. I could be wrong, but I don't see 11 times mentioned in the sources referenced at the second sentence. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll look over the references. I remember making an edit that included the eleven calls, and yes it was only for the one year leading up to the shooting. I thought there was a source for that statement, but I may have inadvertently removed it when I was consolidating info. Minor4th 05:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I have done the same thing when editing and inadvertently removed sources or other info. With all the heavy editing that has been going on the last couple of weeks, I suspect it may have happened more than once. Within the next day or two, I am going to start from the beginning of the article and check everything against the sources cited to ensure accuracy. I will bring anything questionable I find to the talk page for discussion. In the event of unsourced or poorly sourced, I will try and find a RS.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Take a look now. I think it is fixed. Apostle12 supplied the missing ref, and I incorporated it back into my recent edit. Minor4th 06:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The source used, Breitbart.com, is considered an unreliable source, and has been discussed on at least two occasions on the RS noticeboard, [25] and [26]. I removed that source and used NBC instead, who was the original source for the story anyway. It doesn't mention 11 calls made, but 7 calls made. NBC only reports on Zimmerman not mentioning the race of the individuals he calls about, not potholes or stray dogs, so I removed that info. That info is contained in the references to the 46 calls since 2004 that Zimmerman made, but obviously many of those calls were made before Zimmerman moved into Twin Lakes. So if we want to include a mention about potholes and stray dogs, we need to do so in relation to the 46 calls made. Someone can add that info back if they think it is of particular relevance, I personally don't.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I did not take the time to check the source or read what it said -- I just incorporated the ref that Apostle12 cited for it. I like the edit that you have made; it is clear and precise and sourced appropriately. Minor4th 20:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I just finished the first two pargraphs in the lead, where I moved the inline citations to the end of the paragraphs. I think it makes for easier reading and conforms to WP:CITELEAD, I think we are to the point where this information has been established and not likely to be challenged. However, if editor's would prefer inline citations, I will move them back.

I would like to get other editor's opinions about using primary sources (police reports, call transcripts) as the sole source for statements. I think there is enough secondary RS discussing this event, that we should use those instead. I've found a few instances of this, and replaced them with secondary RS.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You may want to start a new section for discussion about the use of primary sources. It is a problem in this article, and I agree that there are enough secondary sources that we should not be citing directly to the primary sources. Those sources can be linked as external references or notes, but they should not stand as the only references for material in the article. Minor4th 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not religious when it comes to the prohibition against using primary sources. I agree that secondary sources are preferable, however when primary sources allow us to correct misperceptions that have been communicated by secondary sources, I think primary sources should rule. The one thing I insist on in such cases is that the primary sources be easily accessible so that anyone can verify the relevant information. Apostle12 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If an editor is using a secondary source that is communicating misperceptions, it is probably best that we don't use the content from that particular source.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)