Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Trayvon Martin

Suspension

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This information is relevant to this article because it explains why this young man was out-of-town during a school day. The explanation for the 10-day suspension is not official but hearsay from an English teacher who did not issue the suspension. However, if true, it can provide an anecdote about a youth who was suspended for being somewhere that he was not supposed to be. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter whether or not it was a weekend. The suspension explains why the young man was not at home with his mother on the Sunday night before a school day. In addition, the fact that the suspension was so stiff can be indicative of something more than the hearsay mentioned by the English teacher. The information does NOT present a negative POV, since nothing is presented but the facts and this is left to interpretation or investigation of the reader. Please do NOT remove this again. I will continue to add it until a consensus is reached. It is pure FACT and should be included within this discussion. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you do not have any administrative rights to include whatever you want in the article and then request that any disagreements with your goals are disputed here. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are you and what is your reason for spreading this offensive material? You know very well that none of what you posted is going into the article. I'm disgusted. Have fun with your "research" and theoretical questions. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 08:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing you're probably going to have to deal with is a LOT of negative material coming out about ALL of the people who are involved in this case, not only Trayvon and George, but the various witnesses, parents, friends, police, the media, and more. While I think we need to stand on Reliable Sources and use care and judgement, my instincts at this point say that the longer this drags on without a clear resolution, the more the media will take opportunities to dissect each and every person's life that is a part of this.... and it will not be pretty. -- Avanu (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I added in the reason why he was suspended, finding many reliable sources do carry that information, and adding one reference to that, although you can do a Google news search and find many more. [1] Dream Focus 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed it - we're in the midst of extensive discussions (here and elsewhere on the page) about this and are trying to work it out here, having just come off of full protection because of this matter. Feel free to join in the conversation. Thanks Tvoz/talk 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Old photo and possible POV issue

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

You can see a newer photo here - apparently from his Facebook page. Gold teeth, tats.

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer

Definitely a different guy than the little kid the media has been advertising. Whether the photo meets Wikipedia criteria I don't know.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Mention religious faith of Martin or Zimmerman?

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

Mechanic?

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

Update?

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

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

Size difference

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

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

From what I have gleaned zimmerman was 250#, martin was 140#, but I am unable to find an RS at this point to source that. Martin we will eventually be able to get from the autopsy when released, but zimmerman is going to be tough to pin down an RS weight, unless it goes to trial I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Source [2]- Kittybrewster ☎ 17:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hrm, good find. Im on the fence as to reliability. While guardian is clearly reliable, this particular article seems kinda bloggy, and does not indicate any kind of sourcing for the information. Lets see if any other comments come in about if this sourcing is sufficient or not? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The police report puts Martin at 160 lbs and 6 ft tall. They left out Zimmerman's weight, but mention he was 5 ft 9 in tall. These are, of course, rough guesses made at the scene. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Is there information about athletic ability? Some reports note Trayvon was running, George only noted as following and walking. Other reports show a fist fight with George getting the worst of it (until the shooting). In shape & 160 is more powerful than 250 and not. --DeknMike (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent numbers put Trayvon at 6'3" 140-160lbs and Zimmerman at 5'9" and ~250lbs. Claims have been made that Zimmerman "ran after" or "chased" Trayvon down. This is highly doubtful because I am sure the much younger and lighter Trayvon should have been easily able to outrun the larger man and get away. Trayvon was shot in the chest, not the back, which indicates that he was facing Zimmerman at the time. Claims have been made that Trayvon was the one that attacked Zimmerman after being questioned by him. Jaws1932 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"multiracial"

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

Well, my opinion is clearly not an RS, but from the 2 pics of zimmerman Ive seen, I would say its obvious he is latino looking. Of course, racial designations are notoriously not scientific, so that may still be white in many peoples books. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama is listed as "African American" after an enormous debate, which came down to the simple reasoning, "He looks more African American than caucasian." Zimmerman looks, without a doubt, Hispanic. People trying to call him Caucasian are only trying to force a narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.47.86 (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That is actually not why Barack Obama is listed as "African American". Tvoz/talk 02:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

His father said Zimmerman grew up in a multiracial family and his mother is Peruvian. Need more evidence? We have a reliable source (sources, actually) and that's plenty of reason to describe Zimmerman as multiracial. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What does his mother's nationality have to do with his race? There are white people in Peru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.21.199 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Then say he grew up in a multi-racial family. Which is not the same thing as being Multiracial. (if that is a real identity), when the police have an arrest card it probably would not say "multiracial".(Police say he is white) [3] BTW Jewish what? Ethiopian Jew, Arab Jew, Ugandan Jew? Which one. mixing religion and race is incompatible as an identity. Either way you are right on the R.S we only go with sources. but all the sources do not agree on this. huff says: "George Zimmerman, 28, who is white, and who police said admitted to shooting the teen in self-defense." --41.177.75.39 (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd further argue that since police reports describe him as 'white' and his father, who according to reports say is 'white', then argues that Zimmerman is 'Hispanic'. It would stand to say that multiracial would be fitting as a one-term description of Zimmerman's ethnic background. But I think that most reports have pretty much goes on the notion that Zimmerman has both white and Hispanic background, with his Hispanic background likely coming from Peruvian roots because of his mother's background.Darter9000 (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Darter if you do that it would be called SYNTHESIS. which is a violation of wiki rules.--41.177.75.39 (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Obstruction of justice?

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

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

There have been many witnesses who stated that it was the boy screaming not Zimmerman, but police have a witness by the name of John who says that it was Zimmerman. Also, witnesses who originally brought up the account to police that it was the boy screaming, police said No, it was Zimmerman, not the boy. It's questionable the job the Sanford police department has done. They seem to have immediately taken the word of the shooter as truth, when the boy is dead and many witnesses have pleaded for their testimony to be heard, which conflicts with what Zimmerman said to police. That's why federal investigators have taken over the case, put aside the Sanford State Attorney as well. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 21:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it seems obvious from information available they took the statement of an eye witness over those who "heard" something and were attributing the screaming to Martin. No one else has claimed to be an eye witness, just someone who heard something. They didn't just take the word of the shooter, they took the word of the shooter corroborated by an eye witness. Those who heard someone screaming for help would have no idea who was screaming and to say other wise is to assume their assumptions as fact. It's getting quite annoying how much weight is being given to those who admit to not seeing anything until after the fact and only hearing screaming for help. --64.207.240.90 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Offensive language

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

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

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

• Yeah, we don't use that word in modern English. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Respecting the identification of race: although _Negro_ translates _black_, the former and not the latter is the name of an actual race of people whose heritage (to 2.3 MA) very greatly predates the advent of other races on this planet; regardless the opinions of the ignorant, the truth is what it is, and Wikipedia ought not shy away from it in order to promote a partisan political agenda built on ignorance and ill will.
  • Worse yet, despite its popular and colloquial use as such, _African-American_ is not the name of any race whatsoever, but (at least from an anthropological perspective) a nonsensical jumbling of the names of a continent and a super-continent.
  • To kowtow to demands to change the language from Negro to African-American hurts not only the Negro people, but also both (a) undermines the credibility of Wikipedia and (b) lowers Wikipedia's standard for academic excellence to hackneyed partisan political rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.34.94 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I used black instead of african-american, although african american is used elsewhere in the article. You have some opinions about the term negro. I will not comment about the accuracy/value/import of those opinions, but will note that your opinion is clearly in the mnority of americans currently, and the word brings back segregationist feelings. This is entirely separate from the value of the word as an anthropological issue (see also Asian/Oriental). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

```

infoboxes

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

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

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

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

I don't understand Tvoz's point about the hoodie making someone look dangerous. He looks harmless to me; where do you infer any presumption of danger? I also don't see why anyone would object to the picture of the assailant, whether shown in colour or greyscale. It is a legitimate picture of a person taken on the occasion of a previous apprehension; his previous history of assaulting a police officer would seem to be extremely relevant in the current case. Let's restore both pictures.
— Objectivesea (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you've not had to deal with certain segments of the population who see anything "urban" as threatening. Where "urban" means anything they've seen in a rap video. Seen quite a few blog comments that essentially say, "he was wearing a hoodie in warm weather, that means he's looking to rob/kill someone!" And that's the polite version. I've read much worse, all based on his appearance. — The Hand That Feeds You:<sup>Bite</sup> 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand why anyone would object to a mugshot of Zimmerman? Do you understand the difference between an arrest and conviction? Zimmerman is a living person who never been convicted of any crime. You don't appear to understand how the law works. A previous ARREST six years ago that resulted in no CONVICTION for a crime is not relevant to this article. Given that Zimmerman is being accused of a criminal act here, the mugshot unfairly criminality when it has not been established Zimmerman has done anything wrong here (yet). You are also wrong on the facts by the way. Try to be more careful. Zimmerman did not assault a police officer. That is a misleading way to describe that incident. Zimmerman was arrested for resisting arrest WITHOUT violence for a scuffle in a bar that had to have been pretty minor given the authorities dropped the charges against him. If people want a less than ideal photo of Zimmerman in this article until a good one is discovered, use this one. While imperfect, it's more recent and not prejudicial and inflammatory.

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

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

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

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

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

Zimmerman story

Zimmerman's side has been released [4] and he says he was at his S.U.V. after he was unable to find Martin. "Trayvon then approached Mr. Zimmerman from behind and they exchanged words. Then, Mr. Zimmerman said, Trayvon hit him hard enough that he fell to the ground — which would explain what Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, Craig Sonner, has said was a broken nose — and began slamming his head into the sidewalk." The article also confirms that that Trayvon had been suspended from his Miami high school after school officials found in his bookbag a plastic bag with traces of marijuana inside.--DeknMike (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Due to the protection of the page that other side of the story cannot be added at this time, along with a good amount of other issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

zimmerman's side is already in the article (unless someone deleted it when I didnt' notice). The marijuanna issue is being discussed and BLPN. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Different information; but yes most of it is. Just has terrible wording like the rest of the article in some spots. Other issues to be cleaned up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Edit request

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

• Also, request that the new information in this article be added. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Newspaper blogs are considered to be RS. That blog is from Yahoo! News. Cla68 (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection has been reduced to semiprotection so you can edit the page now. Tra (Talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He was arrested for drug possession.

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

source? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless I see a source I doubt it. I've seen some of the most negative things about Martin, but considering several sources citing no record I see no weight to it. I'd still opt for the removal of anything which doesn't deal with the current incident. This page is not for building biographies detailing every action of their pasts; it is for reporting an incident. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And all of the Zimmerman stuff then is for what precise purpose then? I suggest equal weights should apply here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the bios should stay, as they identify the two main actors in this shooting. Yes, they could be stripped down to basic info, but the details that are emerging about these two are relevant as well. You have to remember that a national event has flowed out of this shooting and if it has been reported in the media (good or bad) by a RS, then it should be included. A section about the Media Coverage is warranted, and this is where details like this would belong.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Bias alert right here. If Trayvon Martin's brushes with the law previous to this incident are not included then Zimmerman's brushes with the law are not relevant to this incident. If we are going to put in Zimmerman's previous legal history then we should give the full picture of the man and point out other information such as he is a registered Democrat, not a Republican.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Republican vs Democrat has not been an issue that has recieved RS coverage (although I do know political leaning blogs have been harping on it). Unless zimmerman was politically active in a way which interacted with this case (gun laws, race issues, etc) his politics are irrelevant. Its an interesting spin that people were accusing him of being right wing and hes really a democrat, but its not relevant to the case or articleGaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Put back the event infobox

Can the infobox be changed back to the {{infobox news event}} one. There is consensus above that this article is about the event not the biographies (see #Which infobox format to use). Others at various times have also suggested this change (see #Infobox and #infoboxes). The edit that removed the event infobox is not the greatest [5] and it appears to have stuck as collateral damage from the page protection. If it can be returned to something like this that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm set to do this, but with the tweaked version which has Zimmerman listed as "Participant" not as "Suspect", per the consensus above. Tvoz/talk 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The article's now been reduced to semiprotection. Tra (Talk) 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

nickname

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

Try the NYT [6]

“They called him Slimm.”

That is what Sybrina Fulton, the mother of the slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, told me people called her son because he was so thin.

Or CS-T [7]

according to the family’s attorney — and his nickname was “Slimm.”

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

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

School suspensions

Previously there were three differing reports of why Trayvon Martin was suspended from school the day he was shot: tardiness, in an unauthorized area at school, and marijuana residue in his possession. A recent article essentially reports that they were three separate incidents and three separate suspensions.[8] According to the Miami Herald, in the unauthorized area incident,

"In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f---.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald."

"Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend."

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

Even if pot is unrelated absolutely, burglary tools and diamond earrings would seem to be related here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On what basis? Because of the recent spate of burglaries? You surely see the speculative issue there.. we need a much much more solid source than a media report to bring up something like that. As predicted; the (media) attempts to smear both individuals are growing. --Errant <sup>(chat!)</sup> 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Miami Herald was reporting what was in a school police report of the incident. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Errant, did you see the spokesperson of the New Black Panther Party on CNN? This is a great money-making venture for almost all involved. On an encyclopedic note: why does it matter what he was suspended for? And how would having burglary tools in October be related? (Besides, of course, that as a black kid he probably should be a criminal, right?) And if he had a backpack full of burglary tools, crown jewels, and rocket launchers, how did Zimmerman know that he did? What he doesn't know cannot support his actions. I'm surprised to see so few editors grasp the essential point here: whatever you wish to add to the basic fact of his being there is unencyclopedic, speculative, irrelevant, and (mis)leading. I don't even really understand why it's relevant that he was suspended from school. The same does not apply in the same way to the other party, who was there regularly, engaged in a well-established pattern of behavior with a clear intent. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the patrol was ... a spate of burglaries in the community. Where the reason for Zimmerman being suspicious and the similar acts connected by a reliable source to Martin, there is sufficient connection made by the reliable source to allow it being in the article. I can see not mentioning the pot, but the burglaries are absolutely related to the full story.

While I think I am ingeneral agreement with you regarding inclusion, it was not a patrol. Zimmerman was out on a personal errand and saw martin. Only a patrol if you claim every time zimmerman was walking or driving for any reason was a patrol. Certainly the burglaries may have set zimmermans mind in terms of looking out all the time thoughGaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@Drmies: I would truly hate for this to be a Sharpton-Brawley case, and the only way for Wikipedia to handle this is as straightforwardly as possible, and not make judgements about Zimmerman having a "well-established pattern of behavior with a clear intent" which absolutely places Wikipedia in a position of saying each person should be treated differently according to what an editor "knows" to be the "truth". Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that what zimmerman does not know cannot support his actions. But zimmerman reported on his phone call "on drugs or something" and "up to no good". If Trayvon has a history of drugs and theft, then that changes the (omg i cant believe i am going to use this word in this context) then that changes the color of zimmerman's words. Instead of being an absolute racist because he suspects the black kid - there is the POSSIBILITY that trayvon WAS on drugs, and WAS up to no good, and that Zimmerman recognized that in his body language or behavior. We cannot report zimmermans accusation and then also hide any possible evidence that would support his accusation. You are absolutely right that zimmerman did not know the history - that doesnt mean martin wasnt actually doing something suspicous. There will _never_ be any evidence either way (martin is dead, no witenesses to the buildup except zimmerman, who is obviously biased, and in the heat of the moment might not even really remember what happened accurately), but to hide all information that would let people make their own judgement is wrong. We should absolutely not SYNTH or spin this information, but to not include it is wrong. Whatever he was doing, Martin did not deserve to die, and zimmerman was in the wrong in following him and confronting him, he should have waited for the cops. - but we cant cast zimmerman as a racist melodrama villain twirling his mustache and plotting against the black kid, including all the background on zimmerman but not on martin does this. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'd probably agree; but it's hard to write those sections now, because usually it ends up being sourced to that coverage, rather than to sources dealing with the coverage directly. --Errant <sup>(chat!)</sup> 17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point, this case is still in it's infancy stage and when it is finally concluded by the legal proceedings, they will no doubt then pontificate about "what went wrong" and assign the blame elsewhere but on themselves.Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Bios

• If we get rid of the psuedo-bios listing every past action unrelated to this incident that would be for the best. Zimmerman has already been hopeless condemned by the media, and now in a rare show of looking into the victim, Martin's past is being blasted to. I am really sick of the media, they cannot keep their stories correct and have been trying to focus public outcry for political and business purposes. I'd almost feel better then we have a separate section for 'Media Sensationalism' or something to address the puffing up of the entire event. Before anyone calls me pro-Martin please note that I was the one who removed the Zimmerman mugshot out of policy which some thought it would be pro-Zimmerman. I am pro-wikipedia; I don't care for anything less then a good article that is in accordance with the policies.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, regarding your remark, "If we get rid of the psuedo-bios listing every past action unrelated to this incident that would be for the best." — Here's a copy of those two sections. Please show us what you mean by editing this copy using strike outs <s> </s>. Thanks. (For now, just Chris please, otherwise it would be too chaotic. Thanks.)

Martin and Zimmerman bios

---

Trayvon Martin

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

George Zimmerman

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

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

---

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

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

• • Our goal should be accurate NPOV coverage - and that is all. I would not wish [9] to occur here - but if it does, then we dang well better make sure we did not do anything to act improperly on this article whatsoever. Collect (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would suggest that whatever occurs, that similar standards and tone apply to both the coverage of Martin and the coverage of Zimmerman.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup; as I said yesterday - the major issue at the moment is content related to Zimmerman, not Martin. All of the past charges stuff should be reduced and pushed down into any context within the article, if appropriate (though for the same reasons as above, it is not likely relevant at this stage). --Errant <sup>(chat!)</sup> 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Errant, please address my comment above. Zimmerman's "squaky clean image" was specifically cited by police as reason for some of the non-action they took. There is evidence to the contrary. How is that not relevant to the allegation that the police were not acting correctly? Obviously we personally cannot do the SYNTH, but we can allow the reader to, and in any case RS have done that SYNTH already anyway. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here is an example of my changes.

Changes suggested by ChrisGualtieri

Trayvon Martin

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

George Zimmerman

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

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

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

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

Zimmermans record was directly refered to by the police as justification for their actions. How is his record not relevant? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, which text that was struck out are you referring to? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That should be mentioned in the incident itself as it is part of the official reason why he was not taken into custody. As charges were dropped in the 2005, he had no record and that contributed to their decision. As it stands, he has no criminal record. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He has no conviction record, he does have an arrest record. Additionally, while the restraining order is not a criminal issue, it is a binding legal order, which cannot be made without probable cause as to behavior. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what was needed for these bios, short and to the point. As far as the info that was striked, like Zimmerman's record of assault and any other additional info (good or bad), it could be folded into other sections like the incident or Media Coverage since that is where most of this striked information comes from. The media put this info out there as a POV as to why Zimmerman may or may not have had a propensity to violence and while it is a verifiable fact, it doesn't belong in a biography about the two individuals involved in this incident. It is also important to remember that this case is far from over and once the legal portion of it starts to take place, new sections will be added then as well where more information about these two individuals could be added.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am ok with rolling the information into the event something like "police said they did not arrest him due to his squeaky clean image. It was later revealed that..." but I think it should be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

His record should definetely be included, but the police said they did not arrest him because they had no reason to doubt his version of the events and his claim of self-defense. You are right that it was later revealed, but it was by the media when Trayvon's parents went public about this case.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Im fine with the active voice conversion. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, overall I think these changes make sense, but (1) we do need to be clear that police didn't arrest in part because they said he had a clean record- something like that - we should not be implying that any police check revealed no record. We don't know that - we only know they claimed he had a clean record. And (2) of course we must also include a clear statement immediately following about the previous arrests and restraining order - Errant's words about "media reports" and so on are ok with me for the second point.

And this reduction of the biographical material should go hand-in-hand with removing the two biography infoboxes and replacing them with a "news event" box as we had for a while - the article is about the shooting event; it is not a biography. This will avoid the POV problems of photos and questions about nicknames and religion - none is needed in infobox especially if not in article text. We had some outside opinions on this above (see #Which infobox format to use), all of whom agreed that we should go to the news event infobox or no infobox at all. This is consistent with the sense of this thread. Tvoz/talk 18:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am for this change. It satisfies my concerns and is proper given various policy and third party editors feel the same way about the double bio box with the news event box. It will go a long way to keeping the mud-slinging out of the article; even if the mudslinging is true most of it is irrelevant and not encyclopedic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• It was sensationalist enough to claim that, but he was not charged with a crime and his burglary tool was a screwdriver of unknown size. Its not like he is a cat burglar and was casing the area. I say keep it out, its speculative to draw the conclusion he was up to no good. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Anything that is verified by reliable sources should be in the article. No need to whitewash his character. If he punched a bus driver, maybe this football player rushed and tackled the neighborhood watchman first. There was conflict, and he was on the guy when he shot him. The 911 call has the watchman saying the guy was looking at houses and looking suspicious. Is there a map showing the location of the store and the house he was staying at, and where he was killed? Was it a straight line? Dream Focus 21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Punching the busdriver has definitely not been sourced to anything nearly reliable enough for inclusion. Its sole source is a tweet from a friend. No police report, etc. Similarly a possible pot dealing issue cannot be addressed until there are RS which are talking about things that have solid evidence behind them. (police reports, school reports, statements from reliable eye-witnesses). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Final consensus on bios

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

Copy edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Will do when page protection ends. Not even admins have been editing the page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In accordance with WP:FULL, I would be willing to edit the article (and I suspect other admins would as well). However, before any admin would make such edits, the editors here would need to show a consensus for each requested change. There have been a number of suggestions made since the article was locked, but so far there doesn't seem to be a firm demonstration of consensus for any particular change. Dragons flight (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dragons flight. I would edit the article if consensus were shown.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Let's start with the 7-11 one. That is clearly WP:OR from the previous section and it is incorrect as several exist within a 2 mile radius. It is unrelated to the shooting and as WP:OR it should have no qualms about being removed. No article or source states a specific 7-11, it was just reported that he was coming back from a 7-11. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Remove the 7-11 research - no one knows which one was meant, and it is thus of, at best, marginal relevance. The 24 hours reference appears solid - silly to give a contradictory time frame for sure. "Many" or "some" (re the tweet) should be fully sourced as well. Collect (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's wise, at least until say, a newspaper covers that angle of the case. Presumably the specific 7/11 will become known in due course. No need to specify until the MSM gets there too, we feed off them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed the 7-11 information. The Google Map doesn't change that it is WP:OR and an observation that there are several 7-11's of which no one knows which he went to. Irrelevant until the matter goes before a court. No speculation please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is the senior Zimmerman's profession known? Perhaps add that and omit the honorific?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unable to find an RS for it yet, but I believe he was a military magistrate (retired). That would likely make him a JD, so the Dr. honorific is technically correct, but unusual. Obviously need good sourcing on all. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-22/justice/justice_florida-teen-zimmerman_1_law-enforcement-officers-investigation-shot/2?_s=PM:JUSTICE
• http://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2012/03/who-george-zimmerman-and-why-did-he-shoot-trayvon-martin

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

I'd just state his occupation as 'a retired magistrate judge' which carries additional weight for his comments about his son. Even though it is military, civilians rarely refer to their military title or rank, exception exist for Generals as they do with any US President or Senators after stepping down from their position. Even though it equates to Dr, the honorific term would be more appropriate in a bio where the argument could be made, in this article his chief role is a parent rather then acting (retired) military official making it unnecessary. He is not referred to DR in any major source as well; even if JD would be the more applicable term, the honorific is probably irrelevant here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A J.D. is just a law degree, it doesn't entitle you to be called doctor.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you think that D stands for? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said. A LL.D. is a doctorate.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Europe, LL.D. is a rarely used and strictly honorary title in the US. An American with a JD can use the title Doctor, though such styling would be rare and almost archaic. Dragons flight (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Juris_Doctor
• Doctor_(title)#Legal_profession
• Doctor_of_law
• [10]

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

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

primary source on zimmerman race

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

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

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

The secondary source was discussing political affiliation, using the same primary source as a ref. I agree that is not relevant to our article, I was just talking about that he registered with race as hispanic, since that has been an issue (and white on black vs hispanic on black does spin quite a bit differently). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Then for that purpose it seems proper given the controversy of race. Keeping away from the media's spin is the best thing, its one step above tabloid journalism. Will help end the matter of Zimmerman's race considering that from 3/20 to 3/23 Zimmerman's mug shot photo kept getting whiter and whiter; in a clear alteration of the perspective by media.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

really? I hadn't noticed that! sort of an anti-OJ simpson!Gaijin42 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I lost the link but there were a few where the mugshot in county oranges were changed to an off red, suggesting manipulation of the hue. Essentially what was done was literally whiten his face and features from the mixed ethnicity into a more appealing 'white'. Here is an example, it shows that even our current picture of Treyvon was photoshopped. [11] Next time you look at a source article take a peek at the mugshot of Zimmerman, is his prison oranges really orange? If they are kinda red and his face has that additional light on it you know it is photoshopped. Another obvious case is the background goes to bluish. Some sources (mostly blogs) had day by day versions from the media which showed the progression of increasingly whiter Zimmerman, now that the attacks on Treyvon have begun it seems that the smearing is in full effect and always was. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Spike Lee Tweets wrong address

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

• Not encyclopedic, has no place here. Calls for vigilantism and other illegal acts have no place on wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You dont think its notable that the calls for vigilantism are happening? (especially if they are affecting innocent 3rd parties?) I associate this somewhat with the rodney king riots. (public reaction to what was going on) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask you then. Is it notable that Spike Lee tweeted the wrong address of some innocent person as Zimmerman's and people have been going to her house to possibly commit illegal acts of vigilantism? Even putting said information here and associating is WP:BLP concerns. Most of this information is not encyclopedic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Whos BLP are you concerned about, spike lees? I think it is notable, in so far as it is relevant to the death threats being made against zimmerman. highly notable. especially public calls for violence/vigilantism by highly visible people/groupsGaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter if its Zimmerman's, Spike Lee's or that lady who lives there? It is a policy violation to put forth information which could lead to the harm of an individual, let us stay as far away from that as possible because its only a hop and a skip to posting the actual address which is referred into other sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree I'm not sure if this belongs in this article in this time unless it remains a significant factor in the case. It may belong in the Spike Lee article if this becomes a significant controversy associated with him, but that discussion belongs in the appropriate talk page. As CG has said, there are also concerns we will be giving greater visibility to a private address. Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• This has to do with this case. The address itself shouldn't be listed, just that he gave out the wrong one, and people harassed the wrong person. Any event concerning this case covered the mainstream media should be mentioned in the article. Dream Focus 21:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Any event concerning this case covered the mainstream media should be mentioned in the article" - do you really want a 10MB++ article? Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I will qualify dream focus's comment. There are some things covered which are so minor as to not need to be mentioned (parents occupations, fiance's name, family biography wihtout close connection to the case, etc). But things which do have an impact on the case, or peoples perception of the case, that can be reliably source, and which have been widely reported, should be included. This risks recentism, and as the case evolves, some things may become innacurate or less important and can be removed. But in the meantime, we are effectively the compilation of the media's reports. This is not not WP:NOTNEWSGaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The media cannot even get the story straight let alone every instance of someone saying X and attacking Y or commenting on Z. It is not directly related to the incident and doesn't even warrant a mention. WP:NOTNEWS and its relevance check would opt that it not be included; it hasn't even gotten that much attention and it is in relation to an extremist group as recognized by the Anti-Defamation League. The stance against NBPP is greater then Spike Lee tweeting the wrong address. BLP issue aside; it is irrelevant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that rather then giving in to recentism or turning this in to a compilation of the media's reports, we should stick with this being an encylopaedic article and leave stuff out if it's not yet clear it belong. If in the fullness of time it becomes clear it belongs we can add it without any harm done. This also reduces the risk of the common problem that people add whatever random thing happens to be the current hot issue surrounding the case (which will potentially be replaced by something else in another 30 minutes and then promptly forgotten about) and in a few weeks the article end up being a bunch of disjointed facts that never belonged and more important facts are missing because most people have moved on from the case. (Keeping the unwanted stuff out doesn't guarantee the important stuff will be added, but it does mean the article is less of a mess for whoever needs to clean it up and there is a slight chance anyone wanting to add important stuff doesn't come across such an unmitigated disaster that they just leave.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nil Einne, yes, a 10MB++ article is fine if it contains the full story. The fact that Spike Lee may have tweeted the wrong address, and a bunch of people have gone there, is part of this story. I agree that is should be included. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that your suggestion for a 10MB++ article is ridicilous and not supported by policy.... Nil Einne (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

How would saying he gave the wrong address cause someone to get harmed? Seems like if someone had read that address, or found it reported elsewhere, they'd be less likely to go to it now that they knew it was wrong. It shows the aftermath, how people are stirring up violence and causing innocent people to be endangered. Dream Focus 14:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The wrong address that he gave actually belonged to an elderly couple and they have now moved because they stated they were in fear for their life. I just think it is better to err on the side of caution and include it a later date when the dust has kinda settled. There is no need to add every single thing that is reported on every single day at this point in the article.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Orlando Sentinel article

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

where are the unbiased admins tending to this wiki?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good point. FOX Orlando interviewed the witness, so their are direct quotes available from him, and should be included. 69.105.119.162 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of information available on that witness. It hasn't been included for a reason, though what that reason is I won't speculate. That said I think the the people here who want this to be unbiased can probably figure out why Lunaspike (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think there is missing information, ADD IT. Making snarky accusations do not improve the article. I think you will find, if you really read the edits carefully, that people are being quite fair about what information is being included. Several editors here went through significant administrative hurdles regarding the marijuana suspension, but also include negative information about zimmerman. There is a systematic bias in the reporting of the case by the media, and we to some degree reflect that, but there is nothing we can do about that. We cannot do WP:OR or use blogs as sources for information. The information which is reliably sourced, we reference. That information is slanted against zimmerman is (possibly) indicative of two things 1) slanted media coverage. 2) there is actually objectively more negative information available about zimmerman that is directly relevant to the case. Stop making attacks against people and add information or make changes if you can do so WHILE FOLLOWING POLICY. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please point out the instance where I attacked someone. That or you can feel free to remove that remark. Either one will be fine. Lunaspike (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

"unontelligible" means no one knows what the words are

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

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

• http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2012/03/fox-just-realized-its-a-pretty-bad-time.php
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-fox-marketing-shooting-304712

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

Some Claims

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

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

2) Zimmerman was injured. (& to what extent?) -Well, it appears that he might not have been injured in this altercation (according to a police video anyways): http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-zimmerman-video-20120329,0,7952997.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1890 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The photo was used, beecause that is the one being widely used in the Media. That may certainly be POV/sympathy pushing, but it is on the part of the media. In any case, if a better picture can be found, I am more than happy to upgrade to it. The only other one I have seen is the "hooded" picture of him, which may be a decent upgrade, considering that that is similar to what he was wearing at the time of the incident. It does appear to be a slightly older picture as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon was not carrying ID at the time and was initially a 'John Doe'. Parents provided the pic they had. Certainly didn't want to use his twitpic account photo (@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA[13])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shut down Wikipedia

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

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

Babies and bath water. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Baby, bath water, bath, bathroom, house, community... Timothy Campbell (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're all right. You are wasting your time reading here, and even more so wasting your time commenting here. Wikipedia should be shut down - or maybe you should just stop coming to the site. You'll feel much better for it. And we also should change it's name to Wikiblog - maybe you should leave Jimbo a note. Thanks so much for the input. Tvoz/talk 06:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

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

Thanks

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

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

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

Law is "controversial"

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

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

I concur, this case has 0 to do with SYG.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Drop controversial; its not needed. Interestingly as most media outlets have been reporting it is not the latest case in which the SYG law could be reasoned. Even in Florida. A man fatally shot another man trying to enter his estranged wife's home, no charges were filed, a restraining order was in place which the victim was violating. [14] If the law was controversial then this case should be receiving the same attention as charges have not been filed in this case. For clarity it should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RSs refer to the law as controversial. There have been many editorials and columns calling to repeal the law. Many politicians voted against it. I don't think it's WP:POV to call it controversial. What's the Wikipedia policy or guideline addressing this? --Nbauman (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering it passed 39-0 in the Senate and then 92-20 in the house? [15] It was not as controversial before the media firestorm. Some tout this will be a case to test the law; others state that he cannot use it. Due to its nature and the fact he has not yet been charged because of this law does not mean he will not be charged; there is still time to press charges and it seems that it is likely there will be charges pressed. Then it goes before the court. The assumption is the law is controversial, but the law itself when it passed was not. Might as well argue that insanity defense is controversial, the case concerning its use or expected use could question it, but the letter of the law was not controversial during its passing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not "controversial" for the lede as it has been copied in multiple states. Collect (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your personal opinion about whether it was controversial, I asked what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are for deciding whether to use a term like "controversial." As I understand it, if many WP:RSs use a term, that's a strong argument for using it in Wikipedia. --Nbauman (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• The RS cited includes the term "controversial". In addition several RS have also used the term as well; CBS News, ABC News, Miami Herald, Motherjones, Time and even the WP article about the SYG law has a section devoted to the "controversy" surrounding this law. I see no reason to remove it.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view, the word "controversial" is redundant, given that the sentence states that the law is singled out as an item of attention. Timothy Campbell (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Forensic evidence or Autopsy findings?

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

As far as I am aware, the autopsy info has not been released. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been announced that the autopsy has been sealed, and will not be released at lest until after the investigations are done. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The funeral director/mortician who prepared the body for burial was interviewed briefly on MSNBC tonight and he said that there were no bruises on Trayvon's hands (or body, I think) and there was just an entrance wound from the gunshot in his chest. I will look for a reliable source discussing this, and will see where to add it. There also should be police photos of Zimmerman's face, head, and hands to chronicle any injuries, but nothing has come out of the police department as of yet indicating that they took any. Tvoz/talk 07:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

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

Hispanic

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

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

This is OT but see White Hispanic and Latino Americans. Accurate or not, this is a term that has long predated this controversy and reflective of the fact that hispanic is usually considered more of an ethnicity then a race. And that 'white' is usually consider a race, and as with most racial classifications can be intepreted in various ways. See also [16] from 2004 (in terms of crime, the terms are often partially used to aide identification). It has nothing to do with his father. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about the source for what Zimmerman "officially classifies himself" as. Tvoz/talk 07:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The source is given above and appears to be a voter registration which I presume means he chose the details himself. Whether or not this is the only way he classified himself I don't know, the classification in that form will depend on the options available, it doesn't seem to provide the ability to select multiple options. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

Please update information on why Trayvon Martin was suspended. See information below: "Saying that the issue had become a distraction, (Attorney Benjamin) Crump announced that Trayvon had been suspended from his Miami high school after school officials found in his bookbag a plastic bag with traces of marijuana inside. Mr. Crump said that he believed at least one other student was suspended in the episode. Later, The Miami Herald reported that Trayvon had been suspended two other times, once for truancy and another time for graffiti. While investigating the graffiti offense, The Herald reported, a school employee found jewelry, a watch and a screwdriver in Trayvon’s backpack." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/shooter-of-florida-teen-describes-assault.html

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

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

 discussed at length here and decided against Tvoz/talk 07:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

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

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

• Irrelevant to the incident. No need for it in the article. Could be misconstrued as a move to get financial reward from the tragedy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Appears to be relevant information to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not doneNot relevant, has no bearing on either participant, how the event happened, reflection on their character, or the public reaction. Additionally, exceptionally easy to misconstrue this. It is often done defensively to prevent OTHERS from profiting. In either case it is a very tenuous connection. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevant?. (Not to this article but it shows that commercial actions by relatives of the deceased may be considered relevant to an article on the topic.) Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is relevant. It is a component of this story and should be included. There is nothing nefarious about the fact she applied for a trademark. Should it be added today or even tomorrow, no. I realize this story is still in its infancy and there is a lot of clean up work to do , but eventually information like this will have to be added. This story is not only about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, it is also a story about a national event that was created by the shooting.Isaidnoway (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Applying for trademark doesn't warrant a post in the article; it goes too close to a personal issue from which we should maintain distance. What's next? Does Martin had a life insurance policy which is going to pay out? Certain things cross a line, the trademark protections they apply for are to have legal matters in case someone tries to abuse said slogans. It is not a money-grab and it is not relevant to the incident just because some source reported it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying that we may want to consider in the future including it. I agree it is not related to a money-grab. Like you said, she is only trying to protect the image of her son. It could be included stating that she was trying to prevent others from "making a profit" off of this incident. Seems like to me she did the right thing. We may find that in the future she has decided to donate a portion to charitable causes.Isaidnoway (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I just removed it - not relevant to the shooting. Tvoz/talk 07:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevancy and Bio clean up

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

Part of understanding the incident is trying to understand the experiences and motivations of both parties. Because of the legal aspects of this incident, I think the legal or behavioral backgrounds of both Zimmerman and Martin are relevant. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That is for a court to decide, we report facts. Unless you can dispute that he has been convicted of a crime it is a BLP issue that questions neutrality. This article is not a place for their biographies and since the removal of the bio info boxes the article has become more about the relevant facts rather then picking apart the lives and allegations against someone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we don't report facts, per se. Facts are truths. Our policy is "Verifiability, not truth." We report what the sources say, amended by BLP and other qualifiers. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but if you please comment on my section below which lacks verifiability. I included specifically because this is the type of material padding out the article. It seems under WP:UNDUE that giving conjecture and belief the same weight as eyewitnesses and police statements is occurring. She only heard something, but her word was taken as an eyewitness account by several reliable sources when it was not an eyewitness account. Ear-witness some call it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I agree with Isaidnoway. Her statement to what she believed visibly was going on is not verifiable. If she didn't see anything then why is what she thinks she would have seen even here? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I completely disagree with this. I don't think it is for us to discard Cutcher's report - she is widely reported to have heard what she heard, and that the police mischaracterized her testimony. She is being reported as a witness, so we should not be inserting our judgment of what a witness is here - that is OR and inappropriate. We have reliable sourcing for what she had to say, and we should keep it in the article. Tvoz/talk 07:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is going to stay in the article, then we should reduce it and summarize it better. The actual eye-witness is only given one sentence about what he witnessed vs. the rest of the paragraph is devoted to her. Seems kind of lopsided in favor of her. Or alternatively, expand what the eye-witness stated he saw. Balance it out a little bit.Isaidnoway (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Typically, prosecutors and defense attorneys choose their witnesses that will best represent their version of what happened. If the sworn statement she gave to police that night doesn't match what she is saying now, why would the prosecutor call her to testify? The defense has no reason to call her, what she is saying now doesn't bolster their case. No, she won't be called as a witness, she's not credible.Isaidnoway (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly and further more, what she thought she would see is entirely speculative. She is no expert and she never saw what happened. This has got to go, "Mary Cutcher believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling"" She never saw a thing and her story changed, police took her testimony lightly because she didn't see it, only overheard it. Even greater evidence comes from the audio of the 911 tape which records the matter. It wasn't a single cry and then a gun shot. One tape specifically has the screaming and yelling resulting in a 911 call, which continues for 45 seconds before the gunshot. Is it fair to say the person first called at that exact moment? No. Obviously something was going on; this was not Zimmerman executing Martin; there was clearing something going on during those 45 seconds on the call recorded. Her statement is unreliable and in contrast to the released tapes. Its a clear WP:UNDUE and speculation on her part to have what she believes was going on when she didn't see anything at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think the second paragraph in the Aftermath section with all the witness statements should be moved to the Witness accounts section and that whole section be deleted. The eye-witness statement would be there and the dubious Mary Crutcher would be there as well. There is no relevant reason that those two witnesses should have their own section. Any consensus on this move? We need to start doing some editing to summarize and organize this article like Errant suggested below.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should consolidate the witness accounts to one place, but we must give all of them, including Mary Cutcher's, a fair presentation, and we also should stop characterizing them as dubious or reliable - even here. This is not our role. We look at sources and present what they report. "Verifiable" does not mean we determine if the testimony can be verified, for heaven's sake - it means we determine if the information we put into an article can be verified by readers to be an accurate representation of what the sources say. The speculation above about whether or not anyone is a reliable witness has absolutely no place in the article, or even on this talk page. Leave it to the reporters and more importantly to the investigators, attorneys, courts to decide what is dubious and what is reliable. This is going way beyond OR - it is really inappropriate. Anderson Cooper's team, for instance, found Mary Cutcher's report that the police mischaracterized her statement to be reliable enough to give it airtime. That is what we are presenting, not our thoughts about whther she is a credible witness, nor our thoughts on whether earwitnesses are are good as eyewitnesses. There are conflicting witness reports, and we owe it to our readers to present them in an even-handed way. Tvoz/talk 20:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully support Tvoz's positon on this. We should not be judging the reliability of the witnesses. We report what thye said, and if other notable and reliable commenters have made opinions about their statements, we can report those as well, but we cannot have OR and POV in our selection of statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have no problem with that either. The only thing that I would add though is that when someone presents a question on the talk page about something being relevant or not to this article, sometimes an opinion is required when giving an answer. I will certainly try and limit my opinion though as to not include any judgemental remarks or bias towards anyone and stick solely to the relevance issue.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

True - we all give our opinions here sometimes too, of course - but this was more a question of editors evaluating whether or not a witness's testimony is reliable, deciding whether or not she is qualified to give testimony, even impugning her testimony by saying she changed it - she claims that the police are the ones who changed it - and we of course have no idea what actually happened about that. But more importantly, we shouldn't be inserting ourselves into the determination of what is dubious and what is reliable as evidence, when it's reported in reliable sources which, one hopes, have oversight and good journalistic standards, are verifiable, and otherwise follow our reliability standards. To quote Fox News, "We report, you decide." Tvoz/talk 07:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Be careful to avoid any implication that his profession has relevance to his son's defense, unless RS explicitly so state.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

If Zimmerman qualified under Florida law as being a candidate for the pre-trial diversion program because this was his first offense, and his lawyer requested it and the judge agreed, no laws were broken. It is not unusual or uncommon for a parent, probation officer, counselor or even another judge to request that an "alternative" program be considered to keep a felony conviction off their record. Pundits are merely labeling it as "intervened" to create an aura of "conspiracy" or "suspicion" where there is none.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I said 'If the occupations become relevant for other reasons we can also include them when that happens' because I was well aware of this and related speculation. But I don't think there's much point worrying about this until it actually becomes significant for us to add (or at least wait until it's starting to become significant) as we already have way too much to deal with (amd for BLP reasons we really shouldn't be dealing with that until it might be time to add it anyway). Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, wait-and-see - this may turn out to be quite relevant, based on some speculation I also have heard on several news programs, but I haven't see any reliably sourced reports yet. Should keep an eye out for it. Tvoz/talk 07:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

A fix [17]. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And making it sound as though it represents actual facts is biased. There were two people involved in this, and only one can give 'his account of what happened. It was dark, witnesses confirm some points and not others, but that doesn't mean the shooter's statements are true or false. There is actual confirmation of some facts - e.g., Zimmerman was on the phone with the police at some point - but any other description of the events has to be explicitly expressed as "what he said", :he described", "he claimed", etc. Even if it is redundant, and even with a header "Zimmerman's description". It is very important that we not make any determination at all of what is true and what is not. Tvoz/talk 02:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Witness accounts

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

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

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

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

fix your request above to include the refs so it can be copied into the article more easily. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I see no relevant reason to give these two witnessess a whole section devoted entirely to what they may or may not have seen or heard. The implication being that we are giving their version of the events more weight than what has yet to be established by the release of their statements to the police. The second paragraph in the Aftermath section with all the witness statements should be moved to the Witness accounts section to provide a non-biased view. At this point, we have no idea who the state attorney considers to be a credible witness, and we shouldn't give the idea that we consider these two credible enough to warrant a section devoted to them.Isaidnoway (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Either the relevant public statements of both of these witnesses should be included, or neither. I don't know what WP policy is on pubic statements from persons that police have validated as witnesses, but the quotes from these witnesses are from reliable sources and verifiable.

I'm not certain I'm doing this correctly, but I have edited to include refs and pasted below.

Witness accounts

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

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

rasmusen poll

I think the results of this poll are absolutely irrelevant, and should not under any circumstances be included in the article, with the possible exception of showing racial disparity of opinion, but even there with numbers in the high 50s of even blacks being undecided, i am not sure it is really informative. BUT, the fact that a major polling organization ran the poll to begin with might be notable, especially if it gets coverage. In any case, something to keep an eye on.

• http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/march_2012/33_believe_zimmerman_guilty_of_murder_in_trayvon_martin_case
• http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/rasmussen-does-poll-on-whether.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

sure about 7-11

Are we certain he went to a 7-11? or was it some other store? He would have to pass a WalMart and other stores to get to either of the 7-11s--DeknMike (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As sure as we can be, heavily reported in media. Presumably police gathered reciepts or surveilance vidoes to confirm timeline, but that stuff hasn't been released to us yet. A particular 7-11 has appeared in RS (globe.uk I think) saying that was the particular 7-11 Gaijin42 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Location section is lacking citation.

I found a youtube video about The Retreat at Twin Lakes and this article: http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/trayvon-martins-killing-shatters-safety-within-retreat-at-twin-lakes-in/1221799

(note: there is a Template:Cite video)

I not sure it really supports anything in the section. Opinions? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And the location of the racist's home is also missing:

<removed erroneous location. Dragons flight (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)>

While we're talking about missing things, the edit button is missing. Sucks to see how buggy Wiki is at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.145.154 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As widely reported in the media, that location is wrong. Even if it were correct, it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

First, YouTube is not a reliable source. Second, if when you say 'the racist' you mean Mr Zimmerman, you are making an unsubstantiated value judgement. Either way his residence is inconsequential, since it has been established he was a resident of the neighborhood. It would be instructive to know when his dad's girlfriend lived, to chart Mr Martin's intended course, to know if he was indeed wandering or heading straight there. (but then that would beOR). The exact coordinates of both the initial contact and the shooting have been reported.--DeknMike (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Body Identified in 3 days or in 24 hours?

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

I also noticed this while doing a quick copy edit, but the former claim is sourced: "Martin's body was left in the morgue for three days, classified as a 'John Doe.'" [18]. The latter claim is sourced also: Martin's body "sat unidentified in a morgue for 24-hours" [19]. I'm not as familiar with this event as other contributors may be, so I haven't attempted to determine which claim is more supported. — madman 22:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

complete OR/speculation Martin's father was not notified until the next day = 24 hours. The paperwork to claim the body etc, was not done for 3 days. The two statements, while certainly confusing, are not actually mutually exclusive. Until we get sources explaining this section (which we might not), we can only do as much as we know. I added the missing persons section, because I thought that was relevant as to how things went down, and the parents not knowing about it, but I dont know that the sepcific lenghts of time are acutally important in either location. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, if that were the case then that would make sense, yes. — madman 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how long the identification took but [20] claims the body was ready for release to the funeral home within 39 hours (but wasn't picked up for another 24 hours). Obviously the identification must have happened some time within those 39 hours. Nil Einne (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The initial police report with a report date/time of 2/26/2012 19:17 and time completed at 2/27/2012 3:07 identifies the victim as Trayvon Benjamin Martin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaredw (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman a Democrat

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

• It would be wrong to further the political agenda by reporting their claims. For neutrality it should not be in the article as his political affilations were never a reason for the incident up until some sensational journalists decided to make it news. Like the NRA claims and the crude cartoons of Zimmerman lynching black people while wearing a KKK outfit; it has no place in this article even if the flames of hate are fanned by reliable sources and spun in a certain way. The story changes EVERY day. And on any of the major points the argument and perspective changes with the detailing of the facts. Case in point, Trey's suspension went from absence to vandalism and burglary to violence to pot, then to pot residue in an empty baggy. Care to read into Zimmerman's its a lot worse on almost every point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

[22] He was raised Catholic and served as an altar boy, living in Manassas, Virginia until the early 2000s. — Is there a reason why this is relevant? Tobby72 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

it was not relevant before the event, and the "right winger" spin was never widely publicized - not a major part of coverage, so refuting it is also unimportant. @Chris : The suspensions thing is actually that there were 3 suspensions, and each person was talking about a different one, not a changing story. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is exactly why I removed the other two suspensions. They are irrelevant to the incident and it would be wrong to attribute the statements independently to each of those past suspensions which played no part in the incident. Also it fixes the fact to which I am dealing with on my talk page that the parents were lying and covering up for Treyvon. They weren't lying. It may have been weasely, but he was suspended for those causes, but they were not the reason for the current suspension. Most of the suspension was overplayed and blown up as I noted above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the supposed previous suspension for trespassing, where is the suspension for tardiness? You removed valid sources cause you don't know what you are talking about, you are pushing a POV, or you simply have no reading comprehension, which questions why you are allowed to edit the English wiki at all, the end. Whatzinaname (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

They were irrelevant and please do not make ad hom attacks at me. I sited the sources saying three suspensions and the three reasons are known. Why should the other two be listed? Not every piece of information is relevant to the shooting, past suspensions only further provide charactierzation to portray a negative light rather then a neutrality and context of this incident. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH? I've gone to GREAT lengths to try to inform you of your error(s), and yet you continue with this nonsensical rambling. The father and the teacher gave inaccurate information about the suspension. Whatzinaname (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All three accounts were truthful in perspective; was it the current suspension, no. Did they occur for those reasons, yes. The context comes into question and who knew what, it is not our job to label someone as lying for that question. Martin was suspended for truancy issues once. The other was the unauthorized area/vandalism issue and the jewerly incident was found the following day, but no charged were pressed and the information on it is still loose. Those are both unrelated the current suspension which he was on when this incident occurred. Might as well go and seal his fate on the drug charge with the marjuana pipe as well. I still think the matter while true is being overblown and should not stand out as an issue itself, the article is on the shooting not the matter of pot. [23] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

what the hell, man, how many times do I have to ask you already? When did he get suspended for tardiness and when for trespassing. You have either babbled aimless or simply made facts up as you went along, and you will not answer to the question of these made up "facts". Explain or revert. Stop making garbage up and babbling. Whatzinaname (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Check the source. Truancy was not dated in that article, but Oct 2011 for the second. The last was Feb 2012. Three confirmed suspensions. It is not made up. Please check the source; my explaination is clear. Also WP:UNDUE is my reason why there is to the need for the previous suspensions at this time. It is irrelevant to the case. Per WP:Victim we should avoid psuedo-bios and building up his life's story on an incident page seems to be what was happening. Please do not curse or make personal attacks, I've said it before. I am not fabricating facts or sources. The evidence is presented neatly without digging, even as the title of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how these people are not permabanned at wikipedia? He was NEVER suspended for tardiness OR for some form of tresspassing, as is detailed by his father and teacher. How ,amy times have we been over this and your inablity to substnatiate any of your nonsensical claims? You just keep making this nonsense upWhatzinaname (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at a few recent sources including those the CG has provided. So far, I haven't found any sources that deny he was suspended for tardiness+truancy, although it's true the claim these were the reasons for one of his suspensions seems to come from TM's family and possibly a teacher and doesn't seem to have been independently confirmed in any way (it's difficult to confirm given the school not commenting for privacy reasons). The timing of this suspension AFAIK is also unclear.

I also haven't seen any source denying he was suspended 3 times. One of these times was apparently for tagging (after being spotted in an unauthorised area) and upon being searched for that, a screwdriver and women's jewelery was found which police investigated but no evidence was even found that the jewelery was stolen so the suspension was only for the tagging (I guess the trespassing was too minor compared to the vandalism which was the reason for it). Another time (the one just before the shooting) was evidentally for possession of a bag containing (possibly just a tiny amount of) marijuana. So we still have one more time for reasons unknown and many source still seem to be accepting the reasons given by TM's family.

If you have any WP:RS which say he was not suspended 3 times, or say that one of times was for reasons other then truancy+tardiness, please present them but otherwise I think you need to calm down a bit as it doesn't sound like CG is saying anything that many sources aren't saying, including the one he? provided above and on his talk page. I'm not sure the other cases belong in the article anyway. P.S. There's no real such thing as a 'permaban' on wikipedia. P.P.S. From what I can tell no one, including CG, is claiming any more he was suspended for trespassing although as stated the tagging suspension seems to partial arise out of him being seen tresspassing.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He was never suspended for "being an unauthorized place". He was suspended for graffiti. He was never at all suspended for tardiness. Both the supposed suspension reasons given by the teacher and father were completely wrong. Period. I do not understand the confusion on this matter.Whatzinaname (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne. I don't see why this is such a big deal. My source right here says: "Martin's third suspension was for tardiness and truancy, his family said Monday." [24] Here is another one, from the title, "Trayvon suspended THREE times for 'drugs, truancy, graffiti and carrying burglary tool' and did he attack bus driver too? New picture emerges of victim as parents claim it's all a smear."[25] Here is it right for you, "The teen was suspended from school three times. He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a 'marijuana pipe' and a baggie with drug residue. Trayvon was kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry. Officials also suspended him once for skipping school and tardiness." Three times. Truancy Included. I should not have to defend something I linked to previously. Now as for the graffiti issue he was in an unauthorized place at the time. Either way, I've proven that he was suspended for truancy issues. I'm not sure why you are denying it so much when the sources clearly state otherwise. Why would that suspension or the October one have anything to do with this case anyways? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As I already mentioned the 'suspended for being in an unauthorised place' bit seems to be incorrect. As I also mentioned, I don't think any here disputes that. So I don't get why were are still discussing that bit. As for the tardiness bit again, I haven't see any sources which dispute that he was suspended for tardiness+truancy, in fact as I said most sources seem to accept it. As I said earlier, if you have sources that dispute it, you're welcome to present them. But otherwise I suggest you take this to some other forum outside wikipedia as this is the place for discussing improving the wikipedia article. That means we only discussed sourced content, not random personal speculation (while we tolerate it to some degree in some instances, this has gone along for long enough without any actual sources for your claims). Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Getting on back topic here, there is no relevant reason to mention Zimmerman's political affiliation. There is no RS reporting that this shooting was politically motivated. Trayvon wasn't even old enough to vote, much less be affiliated with a political party. There is also no RS indicating that Zimmerman was even active in his political party.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• No way! Tvoz/talk 07:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Zimmerman's political affiliation is being widely reported in RS. The question of relevance has been decided for us by media accounts showing that Democrats have spotlighted (or exploited) this as a wider social and political topic. So the question is not whether the shooting was politically motivated. Wikipedia editors don't know this. and may never know this. The question is whether discussion of the shooting based upon what's known or speculated is "political". Since it is, the reader of this article is entitled not to have Zimmerman's political affiliation scrubbed from it. patsw (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is trayvon's suspensions information keep being removed?

And why haven't the admins banned those responsible for vandalism? Being suspended for having a burglary tool in your possesion is highly relevant given Zimmerman said he was looking at houses and acted suspicious. Have drug paraphernalia is also highly relevant, another one of his suspension, as zimmerman mentioned that he "looked like he was on something", something to that effect.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Was Zimmerman clairvoyant? Did he know about Trayvon's suspensions and therefore have reasonable cause for suspicion? No one claims that, other than some rightwing blogs,. This material is not at all relevant to the shooting of this kid, which is the subject of the article. Tvoz/talk 01:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Further I'm confused why someone who made such a big fuss about the cause of suspensions and has already stated that according to the sources, the suspension involved was solely for the grafitti and not the 'burglary tool' or trespassing which were both also involved/discovered in that specific instance is now arguing that he was suspended for the 'burglary tool'. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No one said zimmerman was psychic. The fact is Trayvon had a burglary tool in his possessions. He may have been looking at houses, trying to find an ideal one to break into. Maybe one that appeared to have no one home. Such an individual would look suspicious to anyone with an IQ over 10 as they stare at houses for no apparent reason -- in the pouring rain no less. Check your leftist bias at the door, thanks, wikipedia isn't a political tool for agitprop garbage 68.115.51.198 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The prior possession of burglary tools is only useful to the police investigation. For Mr Zimmerman, walking slowly and looking at houses at night in the rain was suspicious behavior. Note he didn't mention race until asked it by the police.--DeknMike (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Tvoz - obviously zimmerman can't be influenced by information he doesn't know. But lets frame this the way the info originally was  : black Kid with no trouble seen by guy who says he is suspicious. Obvious conclusion? Racist! now frame it with the additional info - Black kid with history of drugs and theft, seen by guy who says he is suspicuous. Conclusions? Maybe racist, maybe actually behaving suspiciously (note, that does not exonerate zimmerman from a possibly unjustified shooting, but it does make it less likely that he was a full bore racist. Mall ninja? maybe. ). We cant say in the article what zimmerman said, and then hide any information that might mitigate/confirm his statements. That is POV. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Gaijin42, by your own words, Zimmerman could not have known Martin was a kid with no trouble, and only noted the race when asked by the dispatcher. Before that he was a guy who was acting suspiciously. There is no 'obvious conclusion' from the facts.--DeknMike (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The negative background information on both Martin and Zimmerman have been removed from the article. I don't agree with that, but that is apparently the current consensus among the regulars at this article. If you would like to be sure if this is true, I suggest opening a content RfC on it. I myself don't have time to do one right now. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Gaijin, the only thing about Trayvon that confirms why Zimmerman was suspicious is that he said he was black and in fact he was. He didn't say he smelled weed, he said he saw a black kid who he thought didn't belong there, and hey, maybe he was on drugs or something. Didn't say he was acting erratic or high or whatever it is that tipped him off to the pot residue in the baggie back home in Miami. (I'm betting the tox report on Trayvon was clean or we would have heard about it by now.) So yes, I see relevance to Zimmerman's history of reporting what he thought were suspicious black kids. And I also see relevance to his - Zimmerman's - previous encounters with the police and accusations of his propensity to violent reactions, because he had a violent reaction on that night. He is not clairvoyant, so I don;t see how Trayvon's school suspensions have anything to do with anything - other than to try to paint him in a way that he is less sympathetic in light of the huge uproar of outrage about this matter. That is what is POV. Tvoz/talk 08:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So just to be clear - Zimmermans violent history is relevant to violence and racially charged remarks are related to accusations of racism, but trayvon's history of drugs, grafitti, and theft are not relevant to being accused to being on drugs and acting suspiciously looking at houses? There is 0 chance that Trayvon was actually acting suspicious (perhaps casing?) that zimmerman noticed? Gaijin42 (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's disappointing that Wikipedia is, literally, withholding information from the reader. Information that has been reported by a wide variety of credible news sources. An encyclopedia is supposed to be the source of information- and not decide for the reader what is relevant or not. The first question most readers would want to know is: Why was he suspended? But you can't find that information in this article because some people do not think this information is relevant. Many other people *do* think it is relevant. Instead of leaving the question of relevance to the reader, it is decided for them. Disappointing. The article is otherwise very thorough and informative. Emeraldflames (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned this above in the question of identifying Zimmerman as a Democrat. A plea to editors: put aside the ideological advocacy. On questions of what details are relevant, these decisions are being made by editors, politicians, and commentators from all ideological or political viewpoints -- not by Wikipedia editors. What gets widely reported in a reliable source as the biographical background of the victim is relevant to the article on the basis alone of it being widely reported.

Some of the usual restraint that Wikipedia editors would show with respect to the victim of a alleged crime (qv WP:CRIME) are mitigated by the extensive biographical background provided by the family and the spokespersons for the family to characterize Martin as not in character to have attacked Zimmerman. To which advocates for Zimmerman's side have disclosed information that Martin's side would prefer to not have been made public. Information, which as far as I can tell, has not been denied or withdrawn. This is a story with two sides and each can be presented. patsw (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors should concern themselves with Wikipedia's policies. Zimmerman's past has never had a racial issue, the word he said was unintelligible, but believed to be 'goon' not 'coon'. Coming from several supporters and family friends who were black. Speculation on part of editors is not appropriate. Nor is suggesting Martin was going to burglarize a house; he has no criminal record and the so called burglary tool was a screwdriver; POV issues are in the media and its best not to further their shoddy journalism which already is reduced to tabloid quality. Remember Whitney Houston was murdered according to same RS? Just because an RS reports something doesn't make it true and doesn't mean we should blindly report their conclusions or lack thereof in articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think Trayvon's life, habits, troubles and accomplishments are noteworthy, feel free to begin a biography page. However, this page relates to the 30 minutes when the two first met, the altercation(s) and the controversies afterward. Except for explaining context (that Trayvon had been suspended and was staying in Sanford, and that George had been affirmed as neighborhood watch volunteer), other speculations about their lives should be left out unless a clear and unbiased linkage can be established.--DeknMike (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why mention the occupations of their respective parents? Were the parents there on that night? Why mention his enrollment being withdrawn from the school he was attending? What did that have to do with the 30 minutes when the two first met? What does it matter that Zimmerman had made 46 other calls to the police previously? It's the call on that night we are concerned with here, right? There are a *lot* of things that aren't directly related to the 30 minutes when the two first met. If we wish to limit the scope of the article as you are suggesting then it has been done inconsistently. Emeraldflames (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Since I placed the 1RR on this page, I am keeping a close eye on it for vandalism (and people breaching 1RR). I do not think the change you describe qualifies as vandalism, please see the two points beginning at Wikipedia:VAND#Lack_of_understanding_of_the_purpose_of_Wikipedia. Thank you. MBisanz <sup>talk</sup> 16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about policy, where is this 30 minute rule written down? The global prominence of the story originates in the claims made on and after March 16 this was a racially motivated shooting and a police conspiracy to cover it up.

Unless there is consensus around what aspects of the story reported in reliable sources are to be included in the article, there will be an on-going editing war between editors seeking to implicate, and editors seeking to exculpate Zimmerman. patsw (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I want to say that I agree with Tvoz - Zimmerman didn't know anything about the kid besides the fact that he was black and wearing a hoodie. Trayvon's suspension detail is not relevant at all to this incident and played no part whatsoever in the events that took place or why they took place. Some of you, perhaps Gaijin42 and ChrisGualtieri, are trying to portray an image as you said because there is an assumption by the public that because Trayvon was unarmed and just walking home, that this was motivated by race. I want to be clear - it's not our job to redirect or shape public opinions. Our editing should reflect the events and pertinent facts at hand the way they were reported. Everything that goes into this article should be directly related to the shooting incident and the investigations that have taken place. Continuously inserting information saying Trayvon was suspended for marijuana or he was suspended three times or he had gold teeth in his mouth in a twitter picture, or he was on a school bus and cursed at someone, etc. is adding info that simply has no relevance at all to the shooting incident or the investigation. I find it baffling why you can't distinguish excessive, biased information and tightly relevant information. That goes for the same things when people were adding information about Zimmerman's background as if it was a nostalgic biographical resume made for royalty. – Teammm <sup>Let's Talk! :)</sup> 19:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how this tightly relevant standard is applied can be applied when many, if not most, editors are motivated edit this article to by seeking to implicate or exculpate Zimmerman. To people like Teammm who are baffled let me explain: Articles like this will not likely have in the near term consensus-driven principles that can be neutrally applied to establish what is tightly relevant as much I or Teammm would like. Most articles involving controversial issues like this (eventually) reflect the media accounts, summarizing them according to the the occurrences of the details (and weighed by the quality of the RS) (i.e. "school suspensions" - frequent; "gold teeth" - infrequent and marginal). patsw (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Time sequence

Is there a timeline of the event? http://www.chiff.com/recreation/sports/nba-all-star-game.htm says the AllStar game started at 8pm, so it was a break in the pre-game, not the game itself. His girlfriend's phone records show one call initiated at 7pm and the next at 7:12, presumably right after his phone went silent. Time of Zimmerman's calls are known. Has any reliable source mapped the timeline?--DeknMike (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure - worth looking for, if well-sourced. see directly above - apparently yes, CNN. I haven't looked at it, so can't vouch for its accuracy. Tvoz/talk 07:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

abc news has one too; http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/Isaidnoway (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

the abc timeline is across many days, detailing the controversy more than the event itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

These are both macro views. I was hoping to find the forensic timeline of the crime.--DeknMike (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The unsourced picture of Martin is a photoshopped image, whose unaltered version originally appeared in the Miamai Herald.

This article from the Miami Herald contains the original photo of Martin.

This article from riehlworldview.com (a source which I am not familiar with, and which is probably not reliable enough to use in the article, but which can be discussed on this talk page) explains that the original image from the Miamai Herald has been photoshopped. It is the photoshopped version that has been widely circulated, and which appears in this wikipedia article.

6ty4e (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources are incorrect. I have another RS I read elsewhere explaining this. I will attempt to find. Miami Heralds pic is a crop from a protest photo, where the hoodie picture was printed out on a poster. Someone took a picture of the poster, which was cropped and used by the miami herald. That is not to say there is not significant photoshopping going on in this case (the mugshot discussion several sections up, for example) reihlworldview is definately not reliable enough to source this, or cause us to switch pictures. I will try and find the poster source (which may also be a blog on reflection, so I dont think we will have an RS proof either way)Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My statement above is somewhat confirmed by the photo itself on the miami herald site "A photo of Trayvon Martin wearing a hoodie was used on banners and signs carried by protesters in New York City on March 21, 2012.Mario Tama / Getty Images". it mentions being on banners and signs, and clearly the original photo was not taken by mario tama at getty. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Have removed the photoshopped "doctored" photo of Martin, as this is a clear POV violation. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

reverted. photo is not proven to be doctored and if so, what is the POV that was being pushed? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just remove the image till something better is available? Right now the one shown has been doctored, hell the lighting alone is off. It's fairly obvious to anyone that it has been edited. For what reason, I don't care at all. That it has been edited one way or another is enough. The fact that the parents want to continue to hide current pictures in order to get more sentiment/money is just sad really. People here can only use what they have available, so don't blame the wiki posters. Lunaspike (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. 6ty4e (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The doctored photo should be removed. It is pushing a POV to display such a heavily doctored photo of Martin. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

After reading Twitters Privacy Policy I think it would actual be entirely possible to post the picture here. ": Our Services are primarily designed to help you share information with the world. Most of the information you provide to us is information you are asking us to make public. This includes not only the messages you Tweet and the metadata provided with Tweets, such as when you Tweeted, but also the lists you create, the people you follow, the Tweets you mark as favorites or Retweet and many other bits of information." Small bit of it, rest can be found there. I don't have twitter so you may not have to agree with these terms when signing up. If you do then he essentially did place his picture available to the public. Aside from that when I was reading on the wiki:public domain article it says "In short: Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all." Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but both of the above taken together seem to indicate that it wouldn't be a problem of copyright. So it would really be a problem of getting consensus is that right? Also to answer Gaijin's question above about the POV being pushed, I think it's trying to portray the person as younger and more innocent. Wiki should, in my opinion, be about publishing accurate sourced information and NOT taking a side in the case and trying to make one side appear guilty Lunaspike (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely without accusing you of something, I would say associating lighter skin with more innocent is a fairly dangerous pov. Twitters privacy policy is saying that they are going to post it to the public so they can see it. It says nothing about relinquishing ownership of the picture, for use in commercial products without compensation (which is what wikipedia requires). If you put a picture on wikipedia, it is entirely legal for me to download it, put it in a book, and sell the book. Putting the picture in twitter is clearly not such a release. There is an exception to this rule called "fair use", which is how we have the "hoodie" pic, which replaced the earlier "hollister" pic which was younger. These rules are somewhat relaxed in the case of martin, because he is dead, so the possibility of taking a new, "free" photo is not possible.

Regardless of fair use, we would have to get consensus on which picture is selected. The more "thug" pictures will never get approval. If we can get an older one, that is not prejudicial, then that would be great, but unless the family releases one, I don't know how we are going to find it. Obviously the family will only be releasing photos that are flattering/supportive of their POV. If we get a crime scene photo, that would be free, and incredibly illustrative of how martin looked at the time, but since he was obviously dead, with blood coming out his nose, I dont think that will pass the POV filter.

Similarly zimmerman, we had the mug shot, which was clearly prejudicial, but I thought perhaps valuable enough as an illustration of his race since that has been controversial. The mugshot is also free, since it was produced by the government. The new "grin" pic is much better, but in the case of zimmerman, we do not get the "dead" exemption to the fair use rules, so unless he releases one, or someone who somehow has a pic releases one, we are stuck. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

fox interview (video) with robert zimmerman (george's dad)

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032812-exclusive-robert-zimmerman-interview

Added new section, Media Coverage

Added new section to document the timeline of when the national media started covering this event. Would like some feedback: on last paragraph, is it relevant to the timeline of when national media started covering event; also did not include Fox news not covering the event as quickly as the rest of the media and was criticized for it, should it be included anyway?Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fox covered it immediately even prior to the mainstream news. Fox affiliates were on scene following the event, I know one from the next day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A local fox affiliate would be consistent with his statement "florida news". Did they cover it nationally? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be a bit undue/overwhelming for the article, especially as this part will certainly update day by day, often without significant substantive change. However, it would not be undue or overwhelming in the proposed "reactions" article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationally is what I was referring to, there is RS reporting that of the three major cable news outlets, that from Feb 26- March 19, CNN reported 41 times, MSNBC 13 times, Fox News only once. I also took into consideration that it didn't really break nationally until March 8 on CBS.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I still think it would be, because Fox did report it first and not running a story first on the national news is well... a silly claim. BBC didn't and still doesn't carry it day to day, why not flag them. It is overblown and is not encyclopedic; considering there was no real lashback or calls of censorship or deliberate 'not reporting' from FOX. They can report what they want and they did report it, we should not post criticisms from rivals about reporting especially when it is not a real issue. Besides, we know it was on Fox more then once; where's the source to state only once from FOX? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the feedback. The Daily Beast is where I first read it at. In reference to the placement of the section in the article, I looked at other national events like OJ Simpsons murder trial and The Death of Caylee Anthony on WP, and they were both consistent in their placement of Media coverage in the article. I did kinda worry though that editors may feel compelled to use it as a catch-all for the daily updates from the media.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/20/fox-news-coverage-of-the-trayvon-martin-case-criticized.htmlIsaidnoway (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

regarding placement, I think part of the problem is that our "aftermath" section is confusing. In most articles, that would be talking about the media, trial, riots, etc, but in our case its talking about the immediate stuff after the shooting (the police showing up etc). I will try to figure out a better way of titling it. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and agree with you. Aftermath does seem to indicate after the event has really concluded and come to an end. In the other articles I mentioned, Media coverage was before the aftermath section, that is the only reason I placed it there.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

BBC is world news service (with an arguably excessive focus on the UK) not an American news source so it's not resonable to expect them to cover things just because they are of interest to the US nationally. However I question whether this is of sufficient relevance to this article at the current time. It seems more relevant to some FOX News related article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Be cautious. The selection of articles to demonstrate whatever you choose to demonstrate can be argued about. I expect that once events slow for a bit, the media will start navel-gazing, which will help.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does the father's fiancee live?

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

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

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

I'd also suggest that Zillow notes the property values range from $80K to roughly $130K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.120.111 (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research and meaningless to the story. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the property value stuff is irrelevant, and should be out. Would be good to ascertain if the fiancee lived in the gated community or not. I think I read in a source article that she did, but I'm not 100% sure. Would be relevant if sourceable. Tvoz/talk 01:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Three Big Problems (and lots of little ones) With This Article

Problem 1:

The current article contains redundant citations to opinion propaganda unsupported by relevant citations to verifiable sources.

Specifically, [52] and [91] link to the exact same op-ed piece of POV propaganda that doesn't belong in any encyclopedic article. There may be, but I have not checked the article for, additional redundancies. Please also check this for 1RR compliance.

Problem 2:

The current article rife with content not encyclopedic is heavily biased towards POV

Under "Interaction" in the "Shooting" section (i.e.: Shooting > Interaction; section 2.2 of the current article), claimed is that "During a break in an NBA basketball game on TV, Martin left his father's fiance's home in the gated community of Twin Lakes to walk to a nearby 7-Eleven convenience store to buy some Skittles and iced tea." The only citation for this is an opinion piece that contains no citations related to these claims of fact; all such claims are consequently hearsay.

Problem 2a: Hearsay and partisan claims not testable or verifiable, presented as irrefutable fact presumed true, despite evidence of bias and known problems with the credibility of the source

We know that Tracy Martin initially gave false reason for Trayvon's 10-day suspension from school, and that he recanted only after the official reason surfaced. It is unclear whether Tracy lied (i.e.: knowingly gave or otherwise provided, for the purpose of misleading or deceiving, information materially or substantially false) or merely erred (in this instance: repeated information materially or substantially false, which information he reasonably but in error believed to be true).

Regardless which is the case, Tracy is incompetent as a witness; therefore, his observations are incredible; Green's record is hardly, if at all, any better. We currently have no way of knowing from any reasonably credible source what happened in Green's residence that night: to report any of it as fact is both irresponsible, pandering and POV.

Problem 2a1: Timing of Trayvon's final excursion

We don't know that Trayvon left from Green's residence "[d]uring a break in an NBA basketball game on TV." None of the eyewitness accounts of that event are credible; however, time-coded direct evidence in the form of surveillance recordings and/or a retail receipt in evidence taken from the decedent's person and properly supported by chain-of-custody protections could provide circumstantial evidence sufficient to reasonably suggest the approximate time of Trayvon's departure. Unfortunately, no such material is cited.

If such direct evidence was consistent with broadcaster records indicating concurrence with "a break in an NBA basketball game on TV," then -- and only then -- can we reasonably conclude as true the statement "During a break in an NBA basketball game on TV, Martin left his father's fiance's home."

Problem 2a2: Relevance of the relative proximity of the store

The relative proximity of the store to the location where the decedent was described in Zimmerman's call to police reporting a suspicious person (e.g.: "nearby," "distant," etc.) is only useful

(2a2A) to aid in the characterization of the final hours of Martin's life, and

Specifically in RE (2a2A), Martin was on foot, without an umbrella, walking at night in the rain; "nearby" could to many readers indicate anything from "next door" to "on the other end of the block from his last place of temporary residence" or some other place substantially and meaningfully adjacent.

To describe as "nearby" a "7-Eleven convenience store" that could not have been closer than 1.3 kilometers from where Martin was shot -- especially when it is known that Martin was on foot, at night, in the rain, without an umbrella or raingear -- is not only unreasonable: it's recklessly irresponsible POV propaganda.

(2a2B) to test the credibility of the claim that Martin had during a break in the televised game left to buy the indicated items, implying or indicating (depending on how the instant grammatical construct is understood) that Martin intended to return in time to see the rest of the game; in either case, it's unsubstantiated POV.

Specifically in RE (2a2B), the flaws include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

(2a2Bi) There is no way to test what was Martin's intent; and

Specifically in RE (2a2Bi), Tracy and/or his fiancee may have lied about that, with correction and amendment to their lies being made as he and/or she became better-informed regarding the final condition of Trayvon's body; if they didn't know why Trayvon left, they may have concocted this story to explain his absence from Green's residence, and relied on their knowledge of the area to determine a likely source of the items found with the decedent.

Alternatively, Trayvon may have lied to them regarding the reason for his departure, and had sufficient savvy to purchase or otherwise obtain items that would support his false account regarding why he had departed. If he had gone to score drugs, his initial attempt at flight makes sense; moreover, if incident to his flight to avoid observation and potential arrest he lost such drugs, he would have had motive to retaliate against Zimmerman -- especially if he interpreted Zimmerman's retreat to his truck as a submissive act.

If the toxicology report shows Trayvon was using, his confirmed and undisputed bizarre behavior (walking at night in the rain, without an umbrella or raingear) makes sense, and it could reasonably account for (so far, presumably) Martin's actions Zimmerman characterized (in his call reporting to police a suspicious person) as indicating a person having "something wrong with him," being "up to no good or on drugs."

As to the "so far, presumably" -- it is a reasonable assumption, but as yet and unproven and unsubstantiated assumption that Zimmerman's reported suspicious person was in fact Martin. In other words, even if Zimmerman himself so states, we don't know that his judgment and recollection have not been corrupted by the stress and trauma of the events surrounding this case.

The lack of any seamless connection, regardless how convoluted, between Zimmerman's call reporting a suspicious person and the expiry of Martin, means that there is no logical inference to be made: Zimmerman's original commentary ("these assholes always get away") could even in this case be accurate. I'm not saying I believe that to be the case; however, I am saying there is not yet (and will likely never be) any reference that can be cited to support this editorial conclusion, unless such finding emerges as a fact determined by a jury and upheld by applicable law.

(2a2Bii) It has not yet been properly shown either that Martin left from Green's home (although because of her alleged report of Trayvon as a missing person, that seems a reasonable assumption); and

(2a2Biii) It has not yet been properly shown Green's residence is in The Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community; there are several communities immediately adjacent to Twin Lakes (which refers to a geographical structure involving two lakes, together so named), all located in the approximately-rectangular area containing just over 315 acres and bordered by Oregon Avenue, S Oregon Avenue, Rinehart Road and SR 46A in Sanford, FL.

Specifically in RE (2a2Biii), Whether on the night of 26 February 2012 Green had residence in any such neighborhood, or in an outside neighborhood bordering one of those streets, is both an important fact in the case, and (though not necessarily important to Wikipedia) important to Martin's supporters. Moreover, the specific community in which on that night was Green's residence is to Martin's supporters of extreme (if not utmost) importance.

If this matter goes to trial, the court may suppress some or all of this information; however, any information not verifiable should be permanently deleted from the Wikipedia entry, along with all references to the substantive representations contained in such material.

Problem 2b: Relevance of the identity of the store

In the present article, the identity of the store serves only to characterize the reasonableness of the claim that the store was nearby; however, as others have earlier noted, there are perhaps a couple of dozen 7-Eleven stores within 10 miles (and at least half a dozen inside 3 miles) of where the decedent last breathed. If the specific store isn't identified (i.e.: which particular 7-Eleven), then the information is useless for any purpose other than POV propaganda.

Problem 2c: Identity of the store

In this case, there are exactly two credible sources of circumstantial evidence to indicate either that Martin had visited a store, that Martin had visited a convenience store, or that Martin had visited a 7-Eleven convenience store; those sources are:

(a) a receipt identified in the official report of the decedent's possessions, the substance of the information thereon such receipt identifying the store from which such purchase was made, the time and date of such purchase, and specifying -- in accordance with that store's practice in effect at the time of such purchase -- the nature and quality of such item or items as was purchased. Some receipts are more obviously specific than others: it is reasonably sufficient if the receipt listing "BEV $2.99" and "CDY $1.13" indicates the price -- at the time and date indicated on the receipt -- for the store's exemplars of the brand, size and packaging of the beverage and candy allegedly in the decedent's possession at the time he died, and

(b) an official copy of the video surveillance recording, stamped with the time and date and depicting thereon the likeness of a person exactly matching the decedent's description: with or without a hoodie, video of a 69-inch-tall and 200-lbs black male isn't any more sufficient to prove Martin was there than would be video of a 62-inch-tall and 95-lbs Asian female or a 75-inch-tall and 140-lbs white male (the latter being Trayvon's alleged height and weight).

Without the receipt identified at (a), the only way that (b) is likely to surface as content being encyclopedic quality is if either:

(1) a clerk on duty at the store on the night of 26 February 2012 happened to recall the decedent's purchase, and an agent for the store timely upon information and belief that Martin had made such purchase released the unedited recording to the police and swore an affidavit attesting to the genuineness of the information contained thereon, and the police then made and certified as evidence a copy of such recording and either the police or a court of competent jurisdiction subsequently released the relevant part of the copy of such recording for publication, or

(2) the police discovered an unaltered such recording in execution of a warrant to search the surveillance record, discovered therein the material specified in the warrant, then made and certified as evidence a copy of such recording and either the police or a court of competent jurisdiction subsequently released the relevant part of the copy of such recording for publication.

Any other disclosure path is definitively corrupt (hence, not encyclopedic), regardless whether and to what degree it faithfully presents the incident it purports (or is purported) to have recorded.

Problem 3:

The current article is internally inconsistent

Under "Missing persons report" in the "Aftermath" section (i.e.: Aftermath > Missing persons report; section 3.1 of the current article), claims both

(a) The morning after the incident, Tracy Martin called missing persons and the police to report his son as missing. Officers were dispatched to the home, where they showed the father a crime scene photograph of Martin for identification purposes" and

BADLY WORDED: "Tracy Martin called missing persons and the police" -- Which missing persons did Tracy Martin call; how did he know them, etc., and if he knew how to contact them, why were they considered missing? Yeah: I know what the writer wants the reader to think the reader thinks, but I also know that's nowhere close to what the text actually states.

It's worth noting that, despite all the chaos of sirens and emergency vehicles in the neighborhood, Tracy Martin didn't call the cops to find out what had happened to his son after the young man was overdue to return from his mid-game excursion. Either (1) the elder Martin expected his son to be well away from the area (in which case, he should have at least attempted to call his son's cell phone -- which, according to the account attributed to the son's erstwhile girlfriend, he both possessed and was using when she, via phone, advised Trayvon to run), or (2) Green's residence was/is in a neighborhood sufficiently remote from the tiny 27-or-so acres of the gated community in which Trayvon died that Green and Martin didn't hear the sirens or take note of the chaos.

(b) Martin's body had been taken to the medical examiner's office as a John Doe[91] and unidentified for 24 hours.[92]

Assuming that morning ends locally at noon, and that we count the time from when CPR on Martin stopped (7:30 PM, according to the current article), the event identified in (a) could not possibly have taken place more than 16.5 hours after Martin died. While it is possible the estranged parents did not claim Trayvon's body for 24 hours, it is inconceivable that the body remained that long unidentified.

98.95.112.84 (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your insight and suggestions on improving this article for WP. As you probably know, editing an aritcle on a fast-breaking national event like this can be challenging.

In reference to Problem 2a2,(2a2B),(2a2Bi) 3rd paragraph;

If the toxicology report indeed does show Trayvon had marijuana in his system, that is not necessarily a reliable indicator that Trayvon was using that night. The active ingredient, (THC) in marijuana has been proven to stay in your system for 2 weeks or longer if you are a frequent user. No one thus far has come forward to state that Trayvon was such a user. The only report we have so far is that traces of marijuana were found in a empty baggie in his possession.

Since urine would not be available for the testing of illegal drugs, obviously a blood sample, which is more reliable, would have been taken and analyzed for traces of said drugs. If the levels of THC are high enough to support a conclusion that Trayvon was using that night, then your theory may very well be plausible. If the report indicates otherwise, then it is just a theory.

On a further note, just because one is high on marijuana does not mean that they wouldn't have the common sense to bring an umbrella along or rain gear. If the rainfall was minimal (drizzle) which has been widely reported as the weather conditions of that night, then a hoodie would suffice to protect yourself from the elements. A 17 year old male with an umbrella seems highly unlikely to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• In the future, please break up issues into seperate sections so that we can reply in a threaded format and deal with each issue separately insstead of monolithicaly
• The standard for wikipedia is WP:VERIFIABILITY, not Truth. The truth is unkown, we repeat what WP:RELIABLESOURCES report. While many of your complaints are valid, there is no way for us to address them without WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and speculation. The speculation may be entirely logical, but we cannot put it in. If multiple, reliable sources enter into such speculation, then we can talk about it (see the analysis of the video of zimmerman in the police station for example)
• Lack of some details does not mean other details are not valid. The family claimed he went to a convenience store. He was found with items from a convenience store. We do not have to have surveillance video and a receipt. However, if you see places where you think we are asserting something factual, which has in reality just been alleged or said, then please point those out (as I said, individually) so they can be addressed. A giant wall of text is not conducive to getting the assistance you request Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User 98.95.112.84, thanks for organizing your thoughts. These are all valid points, but the article will continue to be read, modified and tweaked. Most of what counts for news sources contains at least one 'fact' that is really assumption or hearsay, but it is at the moment the best we have. It is useful to capture all the information both in the article and this talk page, since once the immediate furor dies down, and allegations are replaced by validated truths, the article can be re-edited for future researchers to make sense of the event. (ps - consider signing up for an account; we always need more systematic editors on Wikipedia!)--DeknMike (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation

This Wikipedia article should be taken down, and related content banned, until after there is a final ruling in this case by a court of competent jurisdiction.

If such ruling is not forthcoming, the ban should remain in-place indefinitely.

Wikipedia isn't intended to be a gossip column, but the current article can't be reduced to anything worthy of an encyclopedia:

Cited "credible sources" (even, perhaps especially, mainstream news outlet sources) have produced content almost exclusively dominated by editorial bias, and

Other cited sources are openly denominated as op-ed.

If all the pandering POV propaganda is removed, the article collapses to very few facts described in non-encyclopedic simple text (a news factoid).

98.95.112.84 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I live in the community where this occurred, and this article is VERY biased. I agree that the article should be taken down until more "reliable" information is presented. To continue publishing this article stains Wikipedia, and will forever place it in a bad light.

These suggestions are futile. If you have specific information you think should be changed, and can show WP:RELIABLESOURCES to ensure WP:VERIFIABILITY of the information, then make suggestions. But saying the article should go away, or wikipedia should be shut down. well, if I said what I think about that, I could get in trouble for insulting you. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Clarity comes from allowing more text, not less: These types of claims of "bias" have been stated for years with several other articles, but the results have shown that adding more information tends to clarify the events, rather than mislead the readers. Waiting for courts to render verdicts is notoriously slow, and sometimes wrong, such as in Italy, where more than half of all convictions are overturned during the typical 2 appeal trials allowed for defendants. The rationale, for allowing more details, benefits from cross-checking of facts, based on the notion that "true facts do not contradict each other". The general strategy is: "God is in the details" because there are numerous misconceptions or misunderstandings, and having an organized presentation, with multiple levels of details, will help the readers gain an "encyclopedic" (all-encompassing) view of the subject. For instance, reports state that Trayvon was suspended in October, January, and February, and other students were involved. As more details are cross-correlated, without naming the other students, then a broader picture of the events can be explained to the readers. Another issue is to understand the community demographics: Trayvon's Miami Gardens was 76% Black, while Sanford was 31% Black, 57% White, and neither town was "92%" racially segregated. This isn't a case of Utah versus Mississippi populations. However, we need to expand the article to give more context about the 2 young men involved in the incident. We are not trying to prove who was "wrong" that night; instead we are explaining a whole series of events or mass hysteria about the situation. The solution is to have more text, not less. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman weighed 170, not 250

See this article: http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Friend-George-Zimmerman-scared-for-his-life/-/1637132/9722180/-/e55273z/-/index.html

Local 6: "Someone printed that your wife is his mother in law. That's clearly wrong?"

Oliver: "That's a perfect example of all the misinformation that is out there. Based upon his 2005 arrest, a mug shot says he weights 250 pounds and that doesn't say he is 5 feet, 8 inches and 170 pounds.

Oliver: "G is not a large man, he was back then, but not now."

72.130.4.42 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Also note that recent pictures of Zimmerman, eg (http://www.trbimg.com/img-1332543851/turbine/george-zimmerman-20120323), clearly do not show an obese man who weighs 250 lbs. 72.130.4.42 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the idea behind this, but us judging on the picture is OR, and the friends description of his weight is not reliable (although I would acced to saying "His 2005 records showed him at 250, but a friend said he now weighed around 170", to indicate the new weight is not an official or reliable source but is just the friend's opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with

Gaijin.LedRush (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As a former fighter, trainer and now sportswriter covering MMA and boxing, I'm as good as guessing weight as the carny guy who does the same at the midway of the State Fair. I would put his weight between 170 and 185 based on those pictures from the police station. Until it is published by a reliable source, all such claims are original research.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll correct that then. Sources even state 'police records' which allude to the 2005 arrest. Matters for context and accuracy that the distinction be made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clear NPOV issue on part of the source for this line, "Zimmerman is nearly twice the teenager's size, measuring at 5 feet 9 and weighing 250 pounds, according to police records." Last I checked weight does not equate to size and Zimmerman was shorter then Trayvon. Given that his current weight is unknown and some report it isn't 250, I think its only fair to remove the 'At the time of the incident he weighted 250.' as no source has put that forth in those words. Everything was from 'previous police records' or 'according to police records'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the rewording. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree too. Martin was bigger as in tall then Zimmerman, why I removed the weight is because numerous sources state he was not 250 pounds at the time of the incident and he had lost weight, the 250 pounds seems to relate to his previous 2005 arrest. Then again the whole issue of height and weight is probably WP:UNDUE. They were not boxing and no matter what their physical differences the 'facts' keep on changing. The 'racism' thing has died down after Zimmerman was revealed to not be white as previously thought. He was 'twice the size' which brings up differences like of Dr. Evil and Minime from Austin powers. I have never heard someone being twice the someone's weight as 'twice the size'. Yet no one claims he was obese either. So, yeah. Just removing it is best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, what is there now is unacceptable - it has Zimmerman's height, no weight, and Martin's height plus weight. The impression left is that Martin was bigger than Zimmerman, because he was taller - this is not ok. I say we leave off both heights and weights or include both if we had something accurate and current, but not this skewed presentation, as it may be misleading and it doesn;'t really tell us anything anyway. the only reason to include height and weight of the 2 people would be to suggest which one is likely to have overpowered the other - and that is clear POV/OR/ unacceptable. I'm taking it all out now, and if more balanced info becomes available we can talk about including it. Tvoz/talk 23:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And this removal is also in line with reducing the amount of extraneous personal data that we have been talking about. Probably more can come out. Tvoz/talk 23:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The racism "thing" has in no way "died down". Hispanic is still classified as white! It is still to be decided whether this is a "hate crime" of not, because of Martin's race. I truly believe it was likely he was targeted by Z because of his race. There also is little discussion of Z being a retired judge's kid and how that may have weighed in on the decision to release him. Z' s statement that he was tackled from behind while heading back to his vehicle is highly dubious considering Martin was face down with Zimmerman on top of him. There is still much to be revealed and reporting rumors as fact will get us nowhere. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. George Z is a stocky guy, his weight at 170 is laughable. A reliable timeline is needed and many more facts to be gleaned. Time will tell. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic is not always white. There are hispanics who are black, who are clearly white, who are native american, and some (although much smaller) asian. It does seem that Zimmerman most cleanly falls into the "white" hispanic grouping, but that does not mean all hispanics do. The police described him as white, which may or may not be relevant to any implied racism on their part. Zimmerman described himself primarily as hispanic, before this event, which also may or may not be relevant to any implied racism on his part. But saying anything definitively is pov original research and speculation which does not belong in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Judging from his photo's I'd say Zimmerman has at least 50% white ancestry. He has some Amerindian physical and facial characteristics though, from his Peruvian mother. He is not a "White Hispanic" man, he is a mixed Hispanic man. There is a difference there. He's more Pancho Ville then Ricky Martin. :P Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you are still looking at the old photos supplied by the media and not the more recent police video, showing a much slimmer person than was implied earlier.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of history logic breakdown for both participants

Much of what I am putting below is SYNTH/OR. I am not advocating actually putting the logic breakdown into the article, this is merely to show why the information is relevant, so that readers can do their own SYNTH/OR.

I think it is BEYOND PROVEN, that this information passes all notability, reliability, BLP policy issues. The only objection is that it is not relevant.

• Zimmerman shot Martin
  • Zimmerman shot Martin because he said he was in fear of his life
    • Zimmerman has a past history of violence
      • Assault against cop
      • Domestic violence against ex-fiance
    • Zimmerman has alleged to be a racist, which may have been a motive in the exact moment of shooting, or in his belief that Martin posed a life threatening danger
      • 911 call, "be on lookout", etc
    • Zimmerman was potentially in a self defense situation because he followed Martin
      • Zimmerman followed martin because he thought he was suspicious
        • Nobody (except zimmerman, and possibly not him) actually knows what Martin's actual behavior was at the time and if it was suspicious or not.
          • • He could have been acting suspicious at that time.
              • Martin has a history of actions which indicate he does on occasion partake in activities which many would consider suspicius
                • Graffiti
                • Marijuana
                • backpack full of jewelry "a friends"
          • Zimmerman has alleged to be a racist, which may have been a factor in his opinion of martin being suspicious when MArtin was acting completely innocently

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your original research about "Nobody (except zimmerman, and possibly not him) actually knows what Martin's actual behavior was at the time and if it was suspicious or not," is not found in reliable sources. Wikipedia does not write articles based on your personal speculation. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is original research to say there are currently no sources that describe martins behavior at those moments? and btw, I was not saying we should put this logic into the article, as I said above. Just that this shows why the information is relevant, so that readers can make their own minds up. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Unless you can find a source saying something, don't say it. Do you have a source saying "currently no sources that describe martins behavior at those moments?" If not, it's not ripe for inclusion. Time for you to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First, he isn't trying to put this in the article. I think he is just having a discussion here on the reasons he thinks might be behind certain actions. Second, Gaijin a few points seem to rely heavily on martin being racist. Now, I would ask myself "what if he wasn't?" Personally I would leave anything not in physical evidence out. Since motives, intentions, and feelings are all so convuleted to say the least. Actual physical evidence though can usually be relied on to paint an accurate picture. Of course the medical personal why trying to help did hinder this to a great deal. The fact that it was wet, and then typical police marching around a crime scene like a herd of buffalo. Add to that it seems more than a few hours passed before any pictures/video were taken of zimmerman. Take for example the "broken nose" not showing on the video tape. I can tell you first hand there are quite a few drugs that would have taken the swelling out quite quickly. Of course those to my knowledge are not carried around by paramedics, so it really depends if he went to the hospital first. Just my thoughts on it, but I did enjoy reading your reasoning. Guess it's kind of worriesome that so much relies on him being a racist. Lunaspike (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant "relies on zimmerman being a racist" above? I absolutely agree that motives and intentions are extremely hard to talk about. But those motives ARE being talked about. There is a section in the article about zimmerman's racist motives. We present historical background that might suppport that allegation. We also present information that defends him against that allegation. We do not make any judgements about the weight of that background. Zimmerman has also been accused of being a wannabe cop, with violent tendancies. We included evidence for and against. Martin was accused (by zimmerman) of being suspicius. We should include the evidence for and against that pattern of behavior (a and b student, major in cheer, not known for trouble, 3 suspensions (for what)). I am not calling zimmerman a racist, and I am not calling martin suspicious. Both of these accusations have been made by others, and there is evidence both for and against regarding those character descriptions. We should present the reader with all of the available information that is reliably sourced regarding these allegations, positive and negative, for both participants. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I won't argue that he was, or wasn't a racist. Honestly such things don't matter to me. Just that your reasoning seems to base off that premise. I would caution that it is a mistake. As someone that has studied logic for quite awhile though it doesn't form a proper logical argument. That's why I was referring to it as your reasoning. As for my personal opinion, though I am not that big on giving it because I don't know the facts, is that they were both idiots. Was it right that Martin was killed? I don't know, that's something for someone else to decide. The only reason I have for being at wiki is to try and help others make a good article by giving my opinion and information I find. I think some evidence supports it being self defense, but I wouldn't say it was a life or death situation. In the end I don't even feel comfortable discussing "right" or "wrong" because without the facts it's impossible to make a decision. Wiki for me represents the cure for that. If you are wondering why I try so hard to go for a npov. I don't think anyones side should be taken. For example the images discussion above. I would be happy if we got an image of both people wearing suit/tie and posing the day before the incident. That way we could have a good pictre that was current. I don't care about making the guy look like a thug, any more than I care about making Zimmerman look like a saint. I think it's more important for a wiki article to show facts that are sourced than it is to play any bias at all. While that might seem idealistic to some, and I suppose it is, I just wanted to clarify my goal to you Gaijin because you almost seem to be under the assumption that I am here to try and push the balance one way or another. Lunaspike (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Im confused by your position somewhat. I am not trying to argue that zimmerman was or wasnt a racist, nor am i arguing that martin was or wasnt suspicious. Both allegations have been made by others, and there is evidence both in support, and in dispute of this. The very reason I am doing this is to be NPOV. If zimmerman did not have any justification for being suspicious, pretty much by default he is a racist, especially given past comments on the call, and to the neighbors etc. Im just trying to show the reader, that there is some possibility martin could have actually been behaving suspiciously. We dont know. He did have some bad history that makes it not out of the question. Zimmerman has past history that makes be racist and prone to violence not out of the question. shrug. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2012 (UT)

Given that the community demographics it was obvious the community was not mostly white as was reported. Given that previous break ins and other activity was known and by 'young black men' which was reported his so called fixation was actually not without merit. Considering that he prevented one burglary and stopped another resulting in an arrest, burglaries are commonly done in groups with a scout to identify. Zimmerman with his past experiences probably thought it was strange for anyone to be out in the rain at night walking through the streets and checking out the houses. For a gated community it is not exactly the kind of situation where such things are found; its not like a public street in the city. Given he had made 10% of the 911 calls and was a recognized neighborhood watch captain for an area with a history of elevated crime he was right to call 911, after that zeal and poor judgement lead to the deadly confrontation. Doubt it was ever a matter of race which provoked the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right. Media spinned this racist angle out of control.--Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

you are very right that my logic breakdown did not include past incidents of crime, which would also be a mitigating/supporting factor for zimmerman. The point of the breakdown was to show the possibility that he was acting in a non racist way (without assigning probability to any given situation). The accusation of racism has been made, and it is plausible (which is to say there is some evidence that would support that, but it is certainly not conclusive). The defense has been made that he was entirely justified in his suspicion (leaving aside justification of the actual shooting which is entirely different). I believe that is also possible and plausible. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

POV

The current page as is with the title Shooting of Trayvon Martin bolded over the picture of Trayvon in a hoodie in grayscale and no descriptive caption implies that the person pictured (Trayvon) is the shooter. This is misleading. It should be noted that it is in fact the deceased, Trayvon in the picture if one is to be used. I also think the geographical infobox is far less relevant than the previous double info boxes for the deceased and shooter with height, weight, age, etc.99.146.22.217 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Calling that POV is overstating the case, but I've added a brief caption analogous to other "Shooting of..." articles. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Or move the picture of Trayvon down to "Persons involved with the case" and have no photo in the infobox, or, go back to the idea of no infobox at all which was suggested earlier and agreed to by several editors, as an infobox is not required and having one seems to keep creating problems. (Meanwhile, last time I looked there was a photo of Zimmerman down in that section - I don;t see it now. What happened?) Tvoz/talk 23:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not absolutely sure, but I think I may have removed it in deference to WP:MUG, although I think we will have an impossible time finding an alternate, and I think its illustration of zimmerman's race is helpful. I think we should fight the "grin" pic through fair use. but if you think the mug is not overly prejudicial, I will not objectGaijin42 (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed it once. Though it was removed after discussing it, per WP:MUG. While it was the best picture it was not neutral because of the mugshot aspect. Much in the way the current video release has him in handcuffs despite never being arrested for the shooting. More weirdness I guess. The grinning photo could be fair use, but giving the impression it could be well... insensitive. As the case develops and media moves points it becomes less controversial. His attorney might put out a better photo to replace the ones the media is twisting and going on about; image is always a concern. ChrisGualtieri (talk)

Not during the game

Most reporting to date says it was during an NBA game. However, that weekend was the All-Star game, when no other matchups occur. The gems started at 8pm, [26] so it must have been a break in the pre-game coverage. need a better source than this OR.--DeknMike (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ya, the sources are fairly poor about this, including some claiming it was a college game. Unfortunately this is a part that there is no substantive evidence other than the family's statements, and the OR regarding how long it takes to walk to the store makes going on a break even tougher. Frankly its probably irrelevant, except as the family's statement that he was not up to trouble. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reference stating that it was the All-Star game. I think it is also important to remember that since Trayvon's parents were not home when Trayvon left, the only source who would know where he went and what they were watching would have been his younger step-brother. After parents arrived home, he told them, and they made a "family statement". DeknMike, I'm not sure what time zone your 8pm start time was, but Florida is EST, would that coincide?Isaidnoway (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Florida is EST, and as noted the game hadn't started at the time, so it definitely was not the half-time break. Not sure if that is related to the NBA comments, but they did put a lot of emphasis early on about the NBA halftime went to 7-11 back when it first became mainstream news. Almost every statement made has so far been a half-truth when you think about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I purposely looked for Eastern time zone schedules. (I know where Florida is - inlaws are there; been to Sanford, etc.) Kept looking for any pro game that fit the timeline, and nothing did. There were pregame events all weekend. But it was pretty obvious Dad wasn't home watching the game with him, to not notice he didn't come home.--DeknMike (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

All OR, so we can't use it, but interesting. Did you compare college games? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is one place where some of the more racist/skinhead type blogs actually have successfully identified a flaw in the story, but it is untouchable due to the source. Basically the only thing we have for the start of the timeline is the family's word so far. Presumably the police have access to security cameras or credit card/register logs that could get the 7-11 time. Then trayvon not being reported missing until the next day is also unusual. Baiscally, I think the family was not really keeping track of Trayvon very closely. This is not in any way indicative of a crime/trouble/anything negative. Lots of 17 year old kids go do whatever they want all the time. But it does make the family's story a bit weak. However, onne of this is even close to usable in the article, unless it is addressed by much more reliable sources, and without the racism slants that are usually hand in hand with it in the blogs so far. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I know I went where I wanted to when I was 17. I think the family should have been straight from the beginning, it's always better up front than later when it comes back and bites you in the ass. What I find unusual, is the video of Zimmerman, wasn't he wearing a red shirt with black on it. Seems like to me that blood is red as well. Who could tell if his shirt was bloody or not. I also find it unusual that he didn't request to go to the hospital. Police are required to take you if you ask.Isaidnoway (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that calling those blogs such terms is really low; many of the ones to offer such data from last week are now the mainstream news, others offer up points that don't get carried simply because the media doesn't think the correction or investigation is inline with the coverage. Duke case anyone? The video is a poor source and it doesn't count if he had cleaned the wounds or the bleeding had stopped or anything that happened directly following. Did he change his clothes? Did he have some time in the bathroom to wash his face? Context in video is never self-explanatory; we need context and understanding as to what we see and why we see it. These details will be sorted out in time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not name any blogs in particular, the ones that I first saw this information on are determinately racist/skinhead. You may be seeing the story on other blogs. In any case, it is not reliable enough sources for us to cover. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reaction of Sanford

I found:

• Simon, Mallory. "Trayvon Martin's death leaves town divided, struggling with stigma." CNN. March 29, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman treated by EMS on scene.

The Wiki entry currently says:

However, a video released on March 28 of Zimmerman's arrival at the Sanford Police Department for questioning on the night of the shooting did not show any visible injuries, blood on his face or clothes or impairment of movement.[63]

It should be added that Zimmerman received medical treatment by responding EMS immediately after the shooting and on the scene. After treatment by EMS he would have been cleaned up and no longer bleeding. according to the police report issued, Zimmerman had been cleaned up thoroughly by paramedics while still at the scene of the incident.

The video at the police station is of low quality, blurry, fuzzy and hard to make out any detail. After a police officer frisks and searches Zimmerman the officer wipes his hand on his pants as if his hand got wet after touching Zimmerman's clothes, possibly blood? Also the officer gives a long, hard look to the back of Zimmerman's head like he was inspecting an injury.

--Tazerdog (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up of anyone changing that part anytime soon. 67.233.247.41 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. The video even shows the injuries he sustained. Anyone expecting gore and blood covering his face is too Hollywood. His treatment by paramedics on scene is in the police report, his fresh wounds are visible in stills of even the low quality video. The video shows he was there for questioning anything further is speculation on part of his injuries. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing to an EMT report would be helpful here, but has not yet been forthcoming. There is a discrepancy between how he appears - even if cleaned up - and the story his father tells of his head being repeatedly smashed into concrete, and a broken nose - the shirt seems to have no blood on it, and there are no visible bandages, nose packing to stop the bleeding, or even a bandaid - and this is just over a half hour from when the police arrived on the scene. It does show a man walking easily without impairment. But this video doesn't prove much if anything, and should not be spun as revealing that he was injured as he claims. There may be some bruising there - hard to see - and anyway, we are not supposed to be doing this speculating. What do the preponderance of sources say is what counts here, possibly with dissenting views if reliable and credible. Tvoz/talk 08:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

13 year old witness

The Wiki page currently states:

A 13-year old boy walking his dog saw a man on the ground shortly before the shooting and identified him as wearing red.[74][75][76] His mother later disputed the testimony and claimed that the police pressured him into arbitrarily choosing what color the man was wearing, and that her son couldn't see any details in the dark.[77][78]

It should be added that: The 13 year old Witness was later interviewed by a ABC News and stuck with the story that the person he saw laying on the ground was wearing a red shirt 13 year old witness news interview. He makes this statement to the news while under absolutely no pressure from the police.

--Tazerdog (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's account of events

This § has ".. Robert Zimmerman's description .." toward the end. This should be clarified, if it means his father or what. Looks like an error or vandalism. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I will remove "Robert" if there's no response (as Lycurgus). 72.228.189.184 (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That source is not actually quoting sonner or describing the video at all, I think some refs may have been shuffled. We might need to look back in the history to find the ref that was originally sourcing those statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The source cited does say exactly what is in that paragraph. Looks like copy and paste to me. It's on page 2 of that article on CNN.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This has little to do with sourcing in the first instance. The main text has to make sense. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the same thing commented on at the end of the prior thread. Removing it now. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not "allegedly shot and killed?"

This is in the lede:

"Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old African American who was shot and killed by 28-year-old George Zimmerman..."

One would think that there needs to be an "allegedly" in there to make it NPOV. 67.233.242.34 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman admitted he shot him. There is no allegation. The only question is if it was justified or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 30 March 2012

I apologize if I am doing this incorrectly but I needed to add this information - As a resident of Central Florida who is smothered in the coverage of this unfortunate event, one of the many things that has bothered me is that every article/story introduces, George Zimmerman as the 'Captain of' of 'Member of' the communities Neighborhood Watch Program. The National Sheriffs Association released a statement saying that George Zimmerman was not only NOT the captain of the Neighborhood Watch, he was NOT a registered member of ANY Neighborhood Watch Program recognized by the National Sheriff's Association. I have found dozens of resources on this particular topic but do not know how to add such on this article.

 Not doneThe local neighborhood watch program was not affiliated with the national organizations, which is not required. Indeed, there is a statement from the head of the national organization saying that about 25,000 watches are affiliated, but that many many more than that are unaffiliated. Zimmerman's membership in his local watch is completely sourced by the police department, and other local community sources. We did have some of this detail in the article, but it has been lost over time. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are some photos : http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791912868 and here : http://sadhillnews.com/2012/03/25/the-trayvon-martin-our-government-subsidized-media-wont-let-you-see — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.252.137 (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

T-mobile phone records

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

This story has the phone records and mentions them. I will add it as a ref to that section. http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017#.T2s4idkX5j8Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that there is a screenshot of a phone record, but T-mobile or their phone record is still not mentioned explicitly in the referred article. Is it ok to make mention of something that can't be explicitly found on the reference article?Darter9000 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed it. "Trayvon's phone logs, also obtained exclusively by ABC News, show the conversation occurred five minutes before police first arrived on the scene." Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

-According to the latest updated article that I just read, the Zimmerman call to the police occurred at around 7 PM, not at 7:11 PM. The last call between Martin & his girlfriend was from 7:12 to 7:16 PM. Zimmerman wasn't on the phone with the police at the same time that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend. The police apparently showed up at 7:17 PM. http://www.metro.us/newyork/national/article/1129631--trayvon-martin-was-on-phone-call-with-girlfriend-moments-before-he-was-killed

Some reports say Zimmerman's call was placed at "about" 7:00pm but the transcription of the call that has been released show it was placed at 7:11 (number of seconds after not stated) and lasted 4 minutes and 11 seconds. 70.233.154.64 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the link to this "transcription" of Zimmerman's call to the police? I just checked the Wiki article, and it still states that Zimmerman's police call occurred at around 7 PM. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

here Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanx, but that transcription doesn't have any dates or times associated with it. See my comments below for more. Guy1890 (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

-I would think that someone could put together an exact timeline of what happened based on all the police/911 phone calls that have been linked to in the article & the calls that Martin had with his girlfriend. At least one of the 911 calls pinpoints exactly when the shot that killed Martin was! Does anyone have the exact info on when all the 911 calls (that are linked in the article) were made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1890 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The log that has been released by police of all calls by Zimmerman to them shows that the call on the night of the shooting was at 7:11pm. 70.233.154.64 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What you are apparently trying to refer to is this 911 "Call History" (pages 46):

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf which states that the call that Zimmerman made was from around 7:09 PM on the night in question until almost 7:14 PM. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In the lede, I don't think that level of accuracy is needed. but if we want to put together a timeline section, I think that would be fine. potential problems with the _us_ doing a timeline is 911 vs non emergency clocks may not be synchronized exactly, t-mobile (gf's call) same problem, (possibly even the clocks between different 911 operators might not be exactly synced to the second), we do not know if there has been any editing of deadspace in the calls, or hold times, etc. We are also limited to what we can do via WP:CALC in terms of saying "the call started at 7:11.XX, and YY seconds later Z was said, so Z was said at &.11.XX+YY, but there is some unkonwn amount of lag between then Z1 happened and when Z was actual said (for the calls where you can't actually hear the gunshot, you can only say when they reported someone being shot, not when the shot actually happened). This is a really good idea, but it might be safer to let a secondary source do it first. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree on the issue of clocks possibly being set to different times, but that could be stated upfront in any statement in the Wiki article. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

archiving

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

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

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

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

It took a while to work (about 32 hours) but has finally happened. I'm not sure why it took so long, perhaps that's just the way Cluebot works. A long time later I did notice and fix a mistake in setting it up (after triple checking) but that should have just made it archive to the wrong place. I also removed a few settings I kept at defaults (I put them there in case people wanted to change them in the future) but in theory they shouldn't have stopped archiving working. Also I reduced archiving time to 30 hours (from 36) since the page is still fairly long. Once the page is more regularly archiving, things should be under better control and it can be increased again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The bot ran again and the page is getting more managable but I still feel keeping it at 30 hours will be best for now. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've confirmed by testing elsewhere that the things I removed shouldn't have stopped archiving (so I reinstated them) and archiving can take very long after the template is first added. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon was suspended for marijuana possession

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

Is there a reason why this is relevant? I feel like histories of physical violence by either party is borderline, but fair game. But offenses like this seem prejudicial and without help to article. If this becomes a key piece of the puzzle, sure, let's include it. But right now this looks like a tangential piece of information introduced to make it look like the kid being shot had it coming.LedRush (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to explain why he had been suspended for 10 days from school. Quis separabit? 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So it is necessary to explain a fact that is itself unnecessary. Not the most convincing argument I've heard...LedRush (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Possession of a bag with trace amounts of marijuana might strike people as a "bad thing," but mentioning the suspension and omitting the reason might lead some people to imagine something worse, or even a "sealed records" situation. If the suspension is mentioned, why hide available facts about it? Timothy Campbell (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I don't think silence on an issue is the same as presenting someone as squeky clean even if they're not. It just seems to me that this information does not add to a reader's understanding of the incident.LedRush (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the point of wiki was to report facts, not be biased. I could be wrong though. People already view this wiki as being biased against Zimmerman. Now there is a question of if something that has been recorded by multiple sources should be included even though it is a fact? In my mind having the facts stated is what makes wiki different from the media that has already determined him to be guilty. I can only hope that the administrators here decide facts are more important than bias against zimmerman even though it may attract more people. Forgot to sign inLunaspike (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be wrong to selectively remove information that portrays someone in a negative light or removes key information leading up to the incident, if Zimmerman's previous arrest and release without conviction belongs here why not the matter of resulting in the lead up to the events. It is being reported and it was initially suspected in previous blog posts, but those were shot down for OR and unreliable sources. [27] "Ryan Julison, a spokesperson for Treyvon’s family, confirmed reports that surfaced Monday blaming the suspension on a plastic baggie found in Trayvon’s bookbag. When school officials examined it, they found marijuana residue. Under Miami-Dade school drug zero-tolerance rules, that was enough to pull Trayvon a suspension." While it has no bearing to the shooting, it is the reason why he was suspended which is a matter leading up to the event and is currently covered by the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reasons are simple and obvious: not all facts are relevant, and not all facts are listed in every Wikipedia article. For each fact listed in an article, it needs to be reliably sources. (this one is). It needs to be relevant (this one doesn't seem to be). It cannot put WP:UNDUE weight on an issue (this seems to be undue). Furthermore, this isn't a biographical article, it is an article about an incident. Biographical information relevant to the incident or basic information about the suject is fair game, other information isn't. To me, this clearly falls into the latter category. It is WP:UNDUE and prejudicial. If he had been caught for fighting, or any other "violent" offense or reason, that may shed light on this topic. I just don't see how traces of pot in his bad is relevant at all, other than to smear a dead boy's name. (In case you're wondering, if Zimmerman had been previously kicked out of school for pot possession, or for wearing an anti-abortion tee-shirt, I would not want to include that information for the same reasons.)LedRush (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Then you agree the parts mentioning Zimmerman's past should be removed unless they directly include violence? Lunaspike (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless they are things like domestic violence or resisting arrest, they should be removed. We shouldn't care that he has committed IP infringement, violated noise ordinances, or had a ponzi scheme. But for the ones that involve violence, they should remain (assuming all other criteria above are met).LedRush (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

If he was there because he just learned that his father had HIV and wanted to be with him, would we say that? No, we wouldn't because it's irrelevent. (unless it became an important part of how the case was being reported, that is. Even then we'd have BLP/BDP issues.)LedRush (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait--are we serious? Are there people here actually maintaining that he was shot because he was walking down the street instead of being in class because he was suspended from school for having weed? Well, then I guess it was his own fault! I'm removing those phrases as undue weight. It has nothing to do with anything, unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that the weed is somehow relevant to his being black and wearing a hoodie, and thus sufficient reason for being shot. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The doping suspension explains why the police ordered a toxicology test on Martin but not on Zimmerman. As it turns out, the police had a good reason for ordering that test. The information belongs in the article because for this reason too. 72.37.249.60 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Do you have some sourcing that says the police somehow had access to why Trayvon was suspended and therefore got them to drug test his dead body and not Zimmerman's live one? (And calling it a "doping" suspension is a bit overboard.) Tvoz/talk 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anyone is saying having pot justifies being shot. He was out of town, at his father's fiancees home due to the suspension, that is clearly relevant to the article as for the reason why he was there. That does not make it his fault. Once suspension brought up, its a small next step to say why, and provides two valueable points towards the article 1) no trouble/squeaky clean image - again not justifying his death, but no reason to make him a mary sue. 2) Zimmerman's police call said "he is on drugs or something" - if MArtin has a history of drugs, then Zimmermans theory becomes more plausible, and could have had an effect on MArtin's behavior during the encounter. Obviously when we get a toxicology, that will be better to validate, but no reason to not give the readers very widely reported information. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not relevent why he was there at all, other than to say he was at his father's. Whether or not you were suspended from school, you aren't in school at 7:30 pm and you can visit your father. It doesn't inform the article at all. (If it turns out that he was actively on drugs at the time of the shooting, then we could reconsider. But it is laughable that if he wasn't on drugs at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman's statement is more justified because of a past pot suspension...like people walk differently once they've gotten in trouble for misdemeanor pot possession). It merely explains information that doesn't require explanation. If we want, we can take this to the BLP/BDP board, but the information should not be reinserted until there is consensus to do so.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, you are suggesting that his suspension for having had some weed is a possible explanation for his having acted in a way that makes Zimmerman's vague statement sound reasonable? Who are you, Nancy Grace? Zimmerman doesn't have a theory--he had some statements. It is not our job to find and add the information that makes them more plausible. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The marijuana is relevant because reliable sources felt it was relevant enough to report it regarding the case. The family attorney said on TV that the marijuana is not relevant and for NPOV that should be included also with a reference. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No. We are not the news. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your comment using Wikipedia policy? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Read WP:NOTNEWS. Also of interest, WP:UNDUE, pars. 1-6, and WP:SYN for the argument for inclusion proposed by Gaijin. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Re "Read WP:NOTNEWS. Also of interest, WP:UNDUE, pars. 1-6" — I read them as you suggested and they didn't seem to be useful here. Perhaps you could give the relevant excerpt(s)? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Would you care to give the excerpt from WP:UNDUE that supports what you wrote? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK; take it to the board then. But please remove the inflammtory and irrelevant information on Zimmerman's five-year old arrest record too. If the accused's past record of physical violence is relevant, as LedRush keeps suggesting, then the fact that Zimmerman has never been convicted of a violent crime, *or even prosecuted for one,* should decisively settle the issue in favor of removing this information. 72.37.249.60 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read what I wrote again. Both incidents involved violence and should be mentioned. The article already mentions that he was not convicted of resisting arrest.LedRush (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it should stay for the same reasons I gave that the marijuana info should stay. We may revisit these points when the article becomes more mature and may need trimming when all the information is accumulated. For now it is a breaking story that has significantly more information to come. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

as this [28] (or [29] one) shows there are 40,000 (12k for second search) gnews sources talking about trayvon and being suspended marijuana. This passes the notability and RS bar by a ridiculous amount. BLP obviously does not apply, and I have never heard of BDP, but assuming it is real, I don't see how it could be possibly construed that this did not pass whatever bar is set. We should certainly not be putting OR/Synth in to the meaning of this (as I did in my talk argument, but note did NOT put into the article), but hiding the information so that readers are not able to make those same decisions/thoughts for themselves is also a form of POV editing.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Gaijin, read more about WP:BDP. It applies to recent deaths and information that affects living people.LedRush (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this part of WP:BDP.

"However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy. Questionable material that affects living persons should be removed promptly."

AFAIK, no one has questioned whether the marijuana info is correct, not even the Martin family. In fact, the Martin family spokesman is apparently a source of the marijuana info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read bdp, and think it also does not apply. The information was released BY his living relatives, and therefore is not impacting them adversely. and even if it was, I think this information would pass the stronger BLP bar, given the amount of coverage it has. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Protection

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

Trayvon Martin is dead, so how does BLP apply? Truthsort (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BDP, a subset of WP:BLP.LedRush (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not go arguing amongst ourselves and attacking one another. Zimmerman's comment about him looking like he was on drugs is not evidence and carries no weight. The toxicology report I doubt would even mention whether or not he was under its effects when the incident occurred. It would fall under WP:OR to even make the arguement. Wikipedia concerns itself with facts, not making a case. If this article is intent on stating characterizations of Martin and Zimmerman, which it seems to be the case, the suspension for possession of an illict substance should follow the line about his suspension accordingly. The time of the incident was not during school hours, but his visitation was partially due to his suspension. The opening line from CBS is all we need to give reason why he was in the area. [30] "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him about it." The reason why he was suspended which resulted in his father wanting to spend some time about it be filled with the actual reason and not skip over it because it is negative. This suspension and his father's desire to spend some time with Trayvon put him there for those reasons and while he was there the incident occurred; a matter further detailed that Treyvon was not a resident of that gated community. It is important because of cause and effect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The arguments and rationale being given for not including the marijuana information justify removing this entire passage. These are unproven allegations with no bearing on this incident: "Zimmerman had a previous charge in 2005 of "resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer"[33] while interfering with the arrest of a friend. He subsequently entered a pretrial diversion program, which is not considered a conviction on his criminal record.[34] Zimmerman had previously been accused of domestic violence by an ex-fiancee (Veronica Zuazo), who had filed for a restraining order against him. Zimmerman counter-filed for a restraining order. A judge eventually ordered them both to stay away from each other for at least one year.[35]." 72.37.249.60 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have refuted this opinion above. Short version: Reporing on a violent incident with info about past violence is relevent. Past non-violent info meant primarily to disparage an individual is not relevant.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not reporting on a violent incident. It's reporting on *unproven allegations* of one. Were the claims that Zimmerman committed violent acts proven or not? 72.37.249.60 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing unproven at all. One person shot and killed another one. Even if it were totally justified, it still would be considered violent. Tvoz/talk 06:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

We should treat the matter with the same care as if it was BLP, the problem however is that the family actually circulated the statement that his suspension was for marijuana. "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him about it." [31] Policy dictates that it must be verified and reliable, while negative, it cannot be anymore verified and reliable as coming from the family and the school itself. I believe this article should stay semi-protected for the time being. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Zimmerman having a history of violence important information? Seeing how we don't actually know who started the fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.161.103 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

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

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

Not really a great application for a !vote (particularly #8 in the linked guideline). There is already a discussion at WP:BLPN as well as a spirited discussion here, and looking over the arguments I would think it is fair to say that a consensus has not emerged. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. It is in the news and explains why Trayvon was there with his farther. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Now that I've seen the article without the mudslinging and veneration on both sides I'd prefer this sort of information not be included in the article. The article should focus on the event. We are not here to put these people on trial. The admin Drmies was right to protect the article and remove this information. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• semi-support I think the information should be included, but am open to different wording. Additionally I am open to the removal of the earlier reasons for the suspension as being now shown incorrect, and the change over time not significant to the story. As I have the post at BLP, I am not sure what the policy is on continuing the discussion here vs there vs both?Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

*Support The wording should be fixed. From CBS [32], "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him about it." The wording on this is good, but concerns could be that the previous statements were lies trying to portray Treyvon in a positive light. The matter should be handled properly and the misinformation should be removed even if the father's statement was a lie. Keep it short and sweet, no need to cite every statement put forth, replace with the confirmed fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just remove the entire section as it unrelated to the shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:BLP, WP:BDP, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. It is simply irrelevant why Martin was at his father's, and the implication of a drug possession adds nothing to the article, except to support the POV that Martin must have been up to no good.LedRush (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the wording should be fixed, we already have his suspension included in his bio and now that we know the reason, just tack it on at the end of the sentence. "after being suspended from school for 10 days for possessing a baggy with traces of marijuana". No need for excessive detail or explaining it, just keep it simple. I agree it is not relevant to the shooting, but if you know the reason for the suspension, then it becomes relevant to that fact and that fact alone.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support including mention of the reason he was suspended. I just saw on CBS Evening News that his family has confirmed that traces of cannabis were discovered in his posession. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on my reading of the case it is relevant that he was living with his father - and for that we should mention his suspension. The reason is fairly trivial, and appears a traditional example of muck raking. Also recommend the removal of the previous Zimmerman charges; we almost always remove charges that did not result in a conviction from BLP's unless they are distinctly notable in their own right. It's exactly the same muck raking issue. --Errant <sup>(chat!)</sup> 00:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per LedRush and Errant. It is said a few comments up I agree it is not relevant to the shooting - well, this is an article about the shooting, so it is not relevant to this article. Tvoz/talk 05:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As derogatory information presented without any attempt at context. Without context most of the information in his bio doesn't belong - his height, weight, parents' marital status and occupations, grades, etc. If any of this is relevant it should be worked into the structure of the article with proper context rather than presented as a mini biography. It seems very unlikely that the accusation of pot use has much to do with his death. However, it may be a link in the chain of events leading to his death, in which case a neutrally worded chronological account of those events would be germane. The leaking of this information by the police, and accusations that the police and community members were covering for the shooter and perhaps acerbating racial tensions by maligning the victim, are part of the aftermath and public reaction. Just how important they are is hard to say while we're in the midst of events. The dirt of the moment reported by the press is often of very little lasting significance, and unless the reportage itself becomes part of the story (as it did, say, in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing) I don't think we have to cover press leaks as part of the story. The article is written in a style I'm not familiar with - large parts consist of vignettes of different things with little by way of connecting narrative. That will make it hard to put this together. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Not relevant.DocTree (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• 'Oppose The time and place of Trayvon Martin's presence and untimely end is, I believe, unrelated to detail of 'why' he happened to in that area. This occurred after 7PM, hardly a time of day that any person's presence streetside would be considered unusual by any stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darter9000 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's relevant to explain the suspension, and RS's like CNN even expound on this. Makes no sense to omit why.--Львівське (говорити) 06:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support If you mention he was suspended, then the first question many reader asks is why he was suspended. Why not answer their question? I think it's relevance can be plausibly argued either way, but I think facts should be included by default, not excluded. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Further Comments

To respond to Ledrush's comment, those would be great if not for the clear fact that the information regarding the leaked issue of the suspension and then its confirmation about the family not only furthers the article's background. Which is being noted in further reports by articles as leading up the situation. [33] This one goes into detail from the Sentinel. [34] Given that the information was originally covered up in statements by the father, leaked by an unknown source, confirmed by the family spokesperson and launched an investigation by the police dept is fairly notable. Let alone the fact that said conference and pleas that have received national press itself about 'killing his reputation'. Omission of this fact which is nationally being reported will get its place in the article one way or the other. Its on every major news program! The fact has national attention itself. The statement is true and confirmed by the family; the comments are on every News channel in the nation. Why are we trying to keep the reference to it out? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Remove the unnecessary bios and the rest falls with it. I'm withdrawing my support and agreeing with further discussion that most of the bios and lead up to the event need not be included at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Marvin's Suspension Linked to Pot

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

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

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

"We maintain that regardless of the specific reason for the suspension, it's got nothing to do with the events that unfolded on Feb. 26," Julison said... --Errant <sup>(chat!)</sup> 09:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently he was suspended 3 times, and there was reason for suspicion of burglary, also: Multiple SuspensionsJimhoward72 (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• If it is verified by a RS that this is the reason for the suspension, I think it is relevant in relation to the way the media has covered this story and could be included in a section about the Media Coverage. I also agree with the above statement that is has no bearing on the events of Feb.26, but not only is this a shooting incident, it is also a national event which should be covered in this article as well.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Agreed.--Львівське (говорити) 06:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Moot. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

MAJOR NPOV Violation

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

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

-Was there any evidence that Martin was caught in the commission of a crime when he was being observed or confronted by Zimmerman? I haven't heard of any myself. If people want to obfuscate the issues involved in the shooting by trying to bring up irrelevant, minor issues from Martin's past, then let them have at it, but Zimmerman's run-ins with the law for violence in the past are extremely relevant to what happened in this shooting, which was a violent act (whether you think it was justified or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1890 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Guy, that is exactly right. Tvoz/talk 07:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Guy also. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pushing/Shoving does not equate to shooting and killing somebody, if it hadn't been a law-enforcement officer, his charge would have been a misdemeanor.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

police video

The latest report by the Martin Family lawyer is that the police video of Zimmerman shows that he had no marks on him to corroborate his story that Trayvon attacked him. A closer look at the video, however, does show that there is a mark on the back of Zimmerman's head. Bear in mind that Zimmerman had already been treated by paramedics at the scene before the video was recorded. Chazzer3201 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Video of zimmerman at the police station has been released. Video can be seen at URL below. IMO we should NOT link/include the video as prejudicial, as it shows him getting out of the police car cuffed, and getting frisked, but 3rd party analysis of the video is likely to come soon, including information about his weight and medical condition which may be useful in the article (lack of visible blood on face, head, no bandages, etc)

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40131_Video-_George_Zimmerman_on_Night_of_Trayvon_Killing_-_No_Injuries!#rss

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding us about not linking to the video, right? A key element of Zimmerman's claims is that he was attacked & injured during a confrontation with Martin, and this video appears at least to directly contradict that statement. There's a discussion about this very issue above in the "Some Claims" section (#2 question). Also contained in this same "littlegreenfootballs" article is a preliminary description of Martin's hands that appears to indicate that he may not have been in a fight with anyone on the night in question before he was shot. Sorry about my ham-handed edits on this Talk page...I'm still new to all this. Guy1890 (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AC360 offered analysis tonight 3/28/12 with Jose Baez, Marcia Clark and a Private Investigator.

CNN has a list of public records released so far and a timeline of the incident http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/index.html CNN is also reporting that a congressman was removed from the house floor for wearing a hoodie http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/congressman-hoodie/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 Isaidnoway (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the video itself doesn't need to be attached, since any conclusions would imply a degree of original research; established news articles that review the video are sufficient. On the other matter, a hoodie is not appropriate dress on the House floor according to their rules; he also violated their protocol rules.--DeknMike (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Documents are available on the City of Sanford website. ArishiaNishi (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think claims should be limited to people involved in the case... for instance, I would say that the Martin Family lawyer claims that the video brings Zimmerman and Sanford police's account of the event (rather than saying that the video does this or does that) and eliminate the Daily Caller bit since they're not in any way involved as one of the parties of the case. I'm not sure speculation by a media source can be considered 'part of the story'.184.56.186.73 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clear media speculation should not be added; there has been a lot of speculation just like in the Duke case and we all know what happened to that end. Remember the cries for justice? Jumping to conclusions and allowing everyone who makes said conclusions especially when they are not related to the case in any way is no different then any other commentator. The fact we originally gave so much attention to an extremist and listed hate group was bad enough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Longer police video released with additional detail/angles. non-RS blog analysis says no additional sign of injury, but of course we will need to wait for RS. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I dunno guys, but from the videos that I've seen that are linked from the above Sanford, FL website, it doesn't look like Zimmerman has a scratch on him. The time-stamp on the videos starts at around 7:52 PM on the night in question as well. These angles look particularly damaging to Zimmerman's claims:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKSMMEYHxA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCAHx_s-R0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaXieC3o5g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WWDNbQUgm4&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1890 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin suspended three times

John Nevard (talk) added this informations here; I removed it here; he put it back here. I'm not intrested in getting in to a slow edit war, but I don't think it should be there. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Trayvon's school history is not relevant to the facts of this shooting. It's speculative original research if we postulate that it somehow has bearing on Zimmerman's action. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored, so blocking sourced information requires an extreme reason: Per WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia articles should not censor text, even if considered objectionable to someone's religion, so there needs to be a strong reason to block the inclusion of text backed by The Miami Herald and The New York Times. In this case, counting the 3 suspensions as, "1, 2, 3 makes 3 total" is never wp:Original_research, and because sources already count them as "3 suspensions" then that should be included in the article. Also, the details of those suspensions, handled by campus police and reported to city police, should be included, as well as any parent's replies about those incidents, in fairness to allow the family to offer clarification. All of those details go to explaining why Trayvon was in central Florida, rather than south Florida in the Miami area, on a Sunday night, rather than home preparing to attend the next day's classes, and the length of suspension, as to how many days he was away from Miami, and the fact that his father had brought him to Sanford during the suspension, rather than leave his travels to the scene as unknown. Also, there is no size limit on Wikipedia articles to justify blocking information to reduce size (see: WP:NOTPAPER). I see no justification to block those details from the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why he was not in Miami is of absolutely no relevance to this article. We mention that he was visiting at his father's fiancee's house because that is why he was in that gated community walking home. In other words, it is relevant to establish what he was doing in that location - whether he "belonged" there - but why he was not in Miami is completely irrelevant. The shooter did not know him, was not wondering why he was not in Miami getting ready for school. The facts surrounding his suspension(s) have literally nothing to do with this article - not the reasons for the suspension, not the length of the suspension, not the circumstances. Unless one can show that Zimmerman had reason to be suspicious because of those suspensions - obviously not the case - they do not belong here. This is not censorship, it is NPOV inclusion only of facts relevant to the story. This has been discussed at length on this talk page, and the consensus has been to leave this out of the article, so please don't re-add it without consensus to do so. Tvoz/talk 05:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If I disagree with prior consensus, then there is no longer a wp:consensus. Beware the old "consensus-means-everyone-but-them" viewpoint. Today, when someone disagrees, then consensus is over. -Wikid77 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not qualify the current state of this discussion as consensus, but would go so far as to say there is not consensus for inclusion. If you were to do a !vote I think things would come out pretty evenly, and both sides can extensively quote policy supporting their pov. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately an editor ignored our attempts at agreement and added it again, despite the fact that it's being discussed - I agree that there are alot of opinions and not clear how any vote would come down, but yes, there is no consensus to include, so it should not have been added again. I removed the marijuana reason last night, and don't want to violate 1RR on this point, so would appreciate it if someone else would take out the reason for the suspension, and perhaps the whole sentence . Let's come to some kind of agreement and then enforce it - this is not the way to go, and the last time it went this way we were full protected - which I think no one wants. Thanks Tvoz/talk 17:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at WP:BLPN#Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, where so far the sense is that we should not include the marijuana residue - it is not looking evenly split over there - so what now? This is now the second round (at least) of back and forth, and it seems to me - although I acknowledge that I have taken a position on this - that no consensus to include, and multiple voices to exclude, would mean that we leave it out until a consensus is reached to include it. We have to remain aware of BLP/BDP concerns, and just because some editor threw it back in without noting any of the many discussions that we've had does not seem to be a reason to leave it in. Tvoz/talk 20:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside the current debate, I am unsure how this works in general on Wikipedia. There are no definitive policies prohibiting the information. There are no policies mandating the information be included. There are policies on both sides that can be used to argue the positions. There is no consensus for inclusion. There is also no consensus for removal. There are multiple voices on each side. I think this may be something that flips back and forth depending on who is paying attention at any given time.

Personally, I think (and I think there is general agreement that) the information clearly passes the reliability/notability/BLP/BDP rules. There is not consensus on if it is relevant or not. In such a situation, getting any formal enforcement is going to be difficult. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The default is to allow inclusion, unless there is a consensus to remove. Obviously, if the author wants the text to remain in the article, then there is no consensus to remove the text, and it must stay. However, if a policy forbids the text, then that author cannot override the policy-based consensus, so then the text could be removed. -Wikid77 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the relevance of Martin's suspensions and their causes can be plausibly argued for or against. I don't see a consensus on whether to include them or exclude them. The question is whether, by default, Wikipedia *includes* reliably sourced information or *excludes* reliably sourced information. Personally, I think well-sourced information that is at least plausibly relevant (which I think the case has been made for) ought to be *included* by default, and left to the reader to decide its relevance to them. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevance to school night is clear: A lot of editors get confused about include/exclude. The relevance is clear, as being written in multiple sources about the incident, and also as an explanation as to why student Martin was in central Florida, on a school night, when his home is in Miami Gardens where he should be preparing for classes the next morning. If the reason had been "spring break" then fine. The situation is like having a person drown in their bathtub, and a sourced explanation is added to the text, but another person claims the reason for the drowning is irrelevant to the article, yet multiple sources discuss that reason in reports about the drowning. Oops! Cannot claim "irrelevant" when sources report the reason as relevant to the incident. The sources determine what is notable, what is relevant, what is wp:FRINGE or what is wp:UNDUE text inside an article. -Wikid77 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The BLPN conversation is probably where more of this discussion is happening rather than here. I don't believe the "default in or default out" argument has been made yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Default in Wikipedia is "include" not "exclude" (where excluding requires a consensus backed by policies). For that reason, many articles still contain awkward phrases written years ago, where no one discussed with the original author to remove or reword the old text. The default has been "include" for many years now. That is why there is the forum for WP:Articles_for_Deletion but not WP:Articles_for_Inclusion, because no consensus is required to add articles or text, only to remove it. However, many people try to ignore that reality and pretend there is a deadlock where nothing is allowed without consensus. That deadlock is a false claim, and no one needs to beg permission to create articles or add text. When improper text is added, then it can be quickly removed, in consensus with written policies, such as for wp:BLPVIO rumors or wp:ATTACK slurs. Local consensus cannot override policies. -Wikid77 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@TVOZ - can you read User:Gaijin42/sandbox#Martin.27s_Suspensions and see if you agree with my summation of the current state of this debate? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WIA

Just wondering if Zimmerman may have been cleaned up and treated before he appeared in the security camera video. Guess the presence of bandages etc. would depend on severity of wounds. Also, is it standard practice to release police security camera video footage these days? Just curious on that one, I guess as to whether it was "leaked" - think I saw how it was released in an article, now can't find it. Sheesh, that brings up the whole medical record privacy issue. SK (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The videos are linked in the above section labelled "police video". There are available on a Sanford, FL website. There weren't "leaked". Guy1890 (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll find out as part of the next wave. It may have been released in response to a FOIA or Sunshine Act request.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The video is about 2 sections up. It has never been in the actual article as far as i am aware. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple reports say he was treated by medical personnel at the scene, which would have included cleaning residual blood to evaluate actual wounds. Video does show possible wound to the back of the head[35]; he reportedly saw a doctor the next day.--DeknMike (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That was kind of what I was getting at. Man, the iReporting up here is phenomenal. Really good stuff, especially when subject matter experts or otherwise chime in. SK (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Expiration of 1RR

1RR is set to expire in about eight hours and semi-protection is set to indefinite. Things seem a bit tense in the edit summaries, but no one has violated 1RR, as best as I can tell. How do people feel about continuing semi-protection after the expiration of 1RR? Does anyone think 1RR should be continued? MBisanz <sup>talk</sup> 13:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

With the sensitivity of the topic and the fact that so much new information is coming out, often in an inflammatory way by the press, I think it's best to continue the policy. It seems to be working.LedRush (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

absolutely should be continued. We have enough trouble gathering consensus on those that have some level of understanding the rules. The flood of random drop ins editing without reading any discussion on such a trafficked and debated article would be highly disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okey, I'll edit the template to make it for another week. MBisanz <sup>talk</sup> 16:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep semi-protection indefinitely and extend 1RR another week. Tvoz/talk 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

blpn post

I have made another post at BLPN to try and get consensus regarding the background information (arrests, domestic abuse, alleged racist statements, and suspensions) of the two participants. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Trayvon_Martin_and_George_Zimmerman Gaijin42 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted this over there, but will post it here as well. I agree with Gaijin. Both sides of this story belong in this article, good or bad. As long as the information is presented in a non-biased view, then we have done our job of creating a complete and informative article that a reader will be able to access and come away with their own opinions. That is what WP was designed for was to create a source of information that is presented in a NPOV that leaves the reader with the satisfaction that he was presented with "all' of the information and not had certain information ommited or censored. We leave it to the reader to form an opinion for themselves, after being presented with all of the reliaby sourced facts in this case.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Geez, I'm not jumping into that mess...lol... As I've said in the "MAJOR NPOV Violation" section of this Talk article, I'd let people post whatever "background" info that they want about whomever they want to. As long as it's factual, Wiki readers should be able to sift through what's obvious obfuscation & what's really relevant about what happened on the night in question (an unarmed, young, black male was shot by an older, Hispanic male). The descriptions of "background" are bound to get "noisy", but this sad incident has unfortunately stirred up some of the best & worst of us. Guy1890 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Caller reports of a second Twitter account of Martin's, with a different picture for his profile.

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} This article from the Daily Caller cites a second Twitter account of Martin's, with a different picture. In this one, he's giving the middle finger, and reveals a large tattoo on his arm.

Previously, the Daily Caller posted this other article, with Martin's other Twitter account (which contains a racial slur), and a different picture, where Martin shows his gold teeth.

Since these are the two pictures that Martin chose to use for his Twitter accounts, and since everything posted at Twitter is in the public domain, we could use either one, or both, of these images in the article.

6ty4e (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

everything on twitter is absolutely not public domain. That being said, if we can get consensus on switching from one fair use photo to another, that might be possible, but I think your chance of getting such consensus for the finger photo is nil. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Public domain? Not in my lifetime at least. NPOV issues and BDP to have any of the photos with Martin flipping the bird, being gangsta or showing off his tattoos. These are pictures that would not be neutral or proper. The same reason why WP:MUG keeps Zimmerman's arrest one off. Best not to go against policy, we can wait until a proper picture is released for both individuals. Seeing as the previous Martin photo was well... photoshopped. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree Gaijin, it is certainly worth it. Particularly because the picture used is a more edited version. The second wiki one probably won't happen, but the first twitter one might. | HERE picture. I don't think it is considered NPOV to report something accurately? I would say it's worse to keep an image up that we know has been photoshopped with the main idea to give a bias to the reader against zimmerman. Look at the article. That image doesn't show him as a Thug, but he apparently has gold teeth in it. The thing is it doesn't show him as a child, and it isn't photoshopped. So let's either remove the picture entirely, or use one that is accurate. Given a few hours with Zimmerman's photo I could make you think he was an angelic white baby Jesus. That doesn't make it accurate. Lunaspike (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"This information, which was in the public domain for months before the Twitter account was disabled, fills in some of that information. We chose that photo of Trayvon Martin because it was the picture he chose to represent himself on Twitter—and also because, unlike the years-old photos of Martin that are accompanying most media reports, it represented what he looked like nearer to the end of his life." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-debate-over-photos-escalates-155103512.html Lunaspike (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The yahoo site is misusing the word public domain to mean "available to the public", not as in "free from copyright burden" in the way wikipedia requires. EVERY (with the exception of some govt photos) photograph is automatically copyrighted in the US, unless explicitly released to the public domain or a CC license, and wikipedia requires proof of such release. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't posting it to say that is public domain, just thought their quote on why they used it might be interesting to the discussion. I have no idea if it's under public domain or not. I'm sure you, and other posters here, are better versed at it than I am. I did want to point out their reasoning for using that photo though. It was the image that he chose to represent himself, and it appears to be far more accurate than the photoshop image that was up. Lunaspike (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I had not thought about the copyright status of Twitter. Now I am pondering: what could you possibly say in 140 bytes that is worthy of copyright protection? But I digress.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

text on twitter is much less likely to be copyrightable (but not impossible, if it is a creative work and not mundane). A picture linked? Well A picture is worth a thousand words. Easily copyrightable :)

Wehwalt: haikus - 14 syllables and easily under 140 chars - are certainly Twitterable! Tvoz/talk 23:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair Use doctrine says to take only a portion and not the main portion. 300 words of a 20,000 word document is usually fine, but 80 characters of a tweet is probably not. However, using one tweet out of a list of a hundred might qualify as 'fair use'--DeknMike (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is actually about pictures which may or may not be usable which were posted on twitpic, not actual tweets. Certainly a single tweet could be fair use, but we would be subject to WP:SPS and debate about which tweets were apropriate content. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me about the public domain situation. Since Martin chose to use those pictures to represent himself, I thought they were notable. Since the consensus is against putting them in the article, I will respect that, and won't put them in. 6ty4e (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Caller photos are suspect, inasmuch as at least some of the photos they have published of Martin are falsified or misidentified. http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/irrelevant-dirt-on-treyvon-martin/ Moreover, it seems that some of Martin's social media accounts have been hacked and had false information placed into them by a white supremacist calling himself Klanklannon (link to a Free Republic post is blocked, but Google is your friend). Certainly it is hard to determine the truth about the various photos and information being promulgated about Martin, and hard to determine whether the photos and purported Tweets and FB postings are real or falsified. Best not to use any such information until it is verified that it has not been made public as part of a smear campaign against Martin (or part of a counter-campaign on his behalf). Black Max (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

WP:UNDUE issue

This is clear WP:UNDUE. "In a controversial act that some have noted to be in contravention of Twitter's rules regarding privacy,[97][98] Film director Spike Lee retweeted Zimmerman's purported address on his Twitter account. Although it was later reported that the address was incorrect, belonging to someone unrelated to the incident,[99][100] the occupants of the home have temporarily moved out after having received hate mail, unwanted visits from reporters, and fearful inquiries from neighbors.[101] Lee would in turn be criticized for his retweet.[97][102] Spike Lee settled a lawsuit stemming from his mistweet for an undisclosed amount. [103]" It really should be entirely deleted. It has absolutely no basis for the case, investigation or purpose other then giving negative attention to Spike Lee for his retweeting of said address. A lot of useless details are getting added into the article; like Trayvon's amount of money he had on him. Such information is best left out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal interest only, not relevant to article (breaking talk rules, ohno!) where did you see something that mentioned the amount of money he had? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It was under the "Police arrival" section, end of the 2nd paragraph. It was removed during this edit. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be left in as it is part of the entire story. It shows the hysteria, myths, and false reactions that have gone on, which IS part of the subject. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree with Chris - that is way, way , way out of proportion and only tangential to the story of the article. I'm in process of trimming it down. Tvoz/talk 06:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel more than three people, me, you, and Chris need to chime in on this prior to making a change. It does set a precedence, as there are many items in the article that fall in the same category. Change one, you may have to change all.... to be fair. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah- I see Chris favored deleting it completely - I didn't catch that and was not taking that position at present. I did not take it out completely, but I streamlined the wording and the sourcing which was far more than is needed. I also removed some wholly irrelevant material from elsewhere in that paragrpah and pared the rest down too. Tvoz/talk 07:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Multiple sources determine UNDUE text, not editors: The judgment of what facts are irrelevant to a topic, per WP:UNDUE, is primarily determined by the sources. If numerous sources state, "5 bullets left in gun" or "no bullets left in gun" then that can be included, and should not be excluded if an editor adds that text. However, not everything in multiple sources gets automatically added. Then, if one source notes, "Besides skittles, there was a penny in his pocket" then that could be removed as UNDUE, unless other sources noted the same detail. Remember: with news events, the reports tend to be very short, and already pruned by the reporters, so that is why such details rise to be included in article text. If numerous WP:RS sources state something, such as celebrity tweeted a notable message, then other policies should be checked to justify exclusion. For example, WP:NPOV could be used to deter claiming a tool is a "burglary tool" or that a person is a "drug dealer" as conclusions which are difficult to prove, because a flathead screwdriver could be a "paintscrape tool" or "lid-pry tool" or "screw-driving tool" or "murder weapon". Such questionable conclusions are where reliable sources often push beyond the facts, and that text can be removed with clear discussion. Meanwhile, if multiple sources state, "$22 in his pocket" then that is valid, because there is not a "questionable conclusion" when counting that money. Also, if only one source mentioned "$22" (after several days), then that is likely a case of WP:UNDUE text, and might be a typo of actually "$77" misread as double-two "22". Multiple sources determine what to allow (as what is not undue detail). -Wikid77 (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, without a license to ∞RR, there's only so much you can do. What worries me is that the article is already up to 70K, and it could be early days yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Many trivial details may be covered in multiple sources, especially in a media frenzy like this. That does not affect their triviality. Spike lee's original tweet is certainly relevant to the article, as showing an example of percieved threats made against zimmerman. A brief mention of alleged vigilantes showing up at their house and harassing them might also qualify Subsequent developments related to that tweet (it was the wrong address, he made a settlement, etc) are more and more removed from the actual event, and not relevant to this article. Perhaps they are relevant on spike lee's article. Unless that couple ends up dead/assaulted/etc as a result of this tweet it is indeed undue. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 to Gaijin's assessment here. The fact that vigilante's showed up a house thinking it was Zimmerman's is important because it shows the highly charged atmosphere around this case. After that, the significance begins to fade. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't remove it myself, I still think a good chunk of it is WP:UNDUE, but then again it seems a week will pass before it will be cleaned up. I think a one line is all that is required. "Spike Lee retweeted an erroneous address which forced a family out of their home to avoid harassment." We do not need issue of a settlement or that they had a son with a similar name; that matter should be on Spike Lee's article more so then here. Anyone like this line better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

maybe "Spike Lee retweeted an erroneous address which forced a family out of their home to avoid harassment, after protesters/alleged vigilantes came to their home". how to describe the people that showed up is problematic, (how did sources describe?) but I think the fact that someone did show up (making it more than a hypothetical harassment) is important. Obviously we would need to sprinkle refs at the appropriate places. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that we have reporters showing up, some mail and reports not confirmation of people coming to the house to take Zimmerman at gunpoint. We do not know the full details or the exact nature of the situation. Vigilantism is different from angry people complaining or sending nasty letters. They obviously were not comfortable, but the attention they received was largely from reporters then armed vigilantes trying to apprehend Zimmerman. We do not even know if the police were called to the scene or the scale involved. Keep it neutral and simple, the sources were limited in detail. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've condensed it to one line as someone had previously fixed it, and for some inexplicable reason the issue of twitter's privacy was put back up when legal issues were actually brought forth. On grounds of relevancy, its now one line and the rest of the incident should go on Lee's page and not here. Also removed 'vigilante' from statement as no vigilantes were ever reported attempting to take Zimmerman in. Issue was tiny in comparision and importance to the actual detail given. Oh yeah, preemptive nipping before Lee's settlement terms get added in; its private and was supposed to be private. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Full Protection - Again

This article is still a mess. Can we get an admin to put full protection on for a week? The media circus is overflowing onto this article. Redredryder (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• You are welcome to fix it up. Full protection means no one but admins can make edits; and none happened the last time. It'd only lock the article for a week. Lots of WP:UNDUE here, but I'm not bold enough to wipe it all out at once. Too much is controversial still. That is why we discuss it here before making an edit war. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Full protection is (or should be) only done when there is severe edit warring, and it can be any length the protecting admin decides to do it for. It is not done proactively or for messes however. We do need to organize more, but full protection is not the way to go. Tvoz/talk 08:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

agreed, no active edit war going on, and no admins were involved last full protection, so the only thing it would let us do is talk. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin monitoring the page, I see no need for full protection at this time. I will say generally I am reluctant to do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Victim???

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Have all the facts come out yet? Who determined that Martin is a "victim" as described in the intro box, and as stated in the article and many times on this talk page. Unless there has been a trial already that I was unaware of, we have no idea who the "victim" was or is. I request all references to "victim" be removed in the article.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Trials determine guilt or innocence of the perpetrator of a crime, when a grand jury and/or prosecutor believe that a crime has taken place. The definition of "victim" is A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. "Victim" does not imply anything more than being the one who, in this case, is dead. Tvoz/talk 06:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So if a burglar gets shot and killed by a homeowner, the burglar is the victim??? 67.233.242.34 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, and I stand corrected. I still feel that the term "victim" should not be used until Zimmerman is charged. However, in looking back at the article (constantly changing) someone has removed the term "victim" in the box.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

He is the victim of the shooting, and the perpetrator of the burglary. A victim does not necessarily imply a criminal on the other side. BEsides what word would you suggest for martin? Target? Subject? Every word is going to have flaws in some way. We already had this debate on the word homicide, which is also technically correct. however, your analogy is flawed. Equating Martin to a burglar is ridiculously biased. He was not in the commission of a crime when zimmerman began to follow him. He may or my not have been the instigator of the physical confrontation. That physical confrontation may or may not have been such that caused a reasonable belief of imminent major injury or death to zimmerman. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

clearly zimmermen is the victim here 68.82.143.169 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly your ideological zeal is showing through. Zimmerman is walking around Sanford a free man. Martin is dead of a gunshot wound delivered by Zimmerman. We can dispute the accuracy of the term "victim" or not as it applies to Martin, but your statement is nothing but ideological cant. Black Max (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

If Martin was shot without legal cause, then Martin is the victim and Zimmerman is the perpetrator. If Zimmerman was defending himself against an assault in which he was injured, then Zimmerman is the victim and Martin is the perpetrator. Perpetrators are not usually described as victims because their harm was caused by their own criminal actions. For example, a person punished for committing a crime is not considered a victim even though they may be "harmed, injured, or killed as a result of ...[an] event or action" of the state. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin is the "deceased". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin is "deceased" not the victem. its not up to WIKI to decided if he was shot without legal cause. the PD sure seems to think so and i am inclined not to belive this is some sort of racist cover up it is abhorrent that this POV nonsense is permitted here Zimmerman was attacked.... Zimmerman is the victem ... PERIOD of course he is now the victim of some twisted viral smear campaign too 68.82.143.169 (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "victim" is A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. "Victim" does not imply anything more than being the one who, in this case, is dead. Tvoz/talk 04:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do most of the RS's describe Martin as a victim? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post describes Trayvon as a "Victim. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just googled Trayvon Martin victim and I found NEW WITNESS CONFIRMS TRAYVON MARTIN WAS THE VICTIM (Mar 29, 2012) on the Democratic Underground site. From this it looks like it hadn't been determined before whether or not Martin was the victim, even though he was dead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Chronological order

Wouldn't it make sense for purposes of clarity and organizing the article to create a sort of chronological order to this event;

• Location
• Interaction
• Zimmerman police call
• Police arrival
• Sanford Police Department (or something to that effect)

This is where we could incorporate Zimmerman's account of events because the PD is where he gave his account. The video should be here as it was taken at the PD. Statement by Det. Serino would fit here too, as he was at the PD that night. Chief Lee's statement defending PD would look good here. This would be a way of organizing all these accounts and statements into one section.

• Witness accounts
• Aftermath
• additional sections if needed

Seems kind of logical, doesn't it?Isaidnoway (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure chronological is the most useful, but I have no specific objections. If the case proceeds, that will likely become the most important section, as it will determine "facts" regarding what happened, and everyone's testimony will be cleanly documented. at that point a small timeline/chronology section might be appropriate, but the sections should be arranged by affect on the outcome I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My argument for chronological is that it would just seem natural for the reader to want to start at the beginning of the event and then proceed in an order that is clear of the way it went down. I think it would also be easier for editors to decide which info goes where.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Which came first: Martin call to girlfriend or Zimmerman call to police? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman didn't say on 911 call he saw Martin on phone, only acting suspicious, walking around, looking at me. That indicates to me Martin called girlfriend after, he told her that someone was following him.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I also think a chronological presentation to begin with would serve everyone very well. Especially readers new to the topic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

this is as close as I have seen as to something with the times, and the last call started at 7:12 accoring to tmobile. So that would put zimmerman's call first, except for us not knowing if the clocks are synched. However, the article also mentions being on many calls together, so they could have been on the phone previously. Additionally, we do not know if martin was wearing a headset or not, which would completely invalidate zimmerman's ability to tell he was on the phone. In any case, I don't think it is a huge deal, the calls happened within 1-2 minutes of each other, and are effectively simultaneous, so I don't think it matters a ton which order we put them in in the article, as at this point the order of the calls is not impacting perception of the event at all. If martin's gf comes forward and says "he called me and the first thing he said was someone started following him", then thats a different matter. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Another case of conflicting reports in the media, here's what I found:

At 6:54 p.m., Trayvon received a phone call on his cell from his girlfriend. Phone records show they talked for 18 minutes. Towards the end of the conversation, Trayvon said he was being followed. At 7:00, Zimmerman called police to report a suspicious person. The dispatcher told him not to follow that person. Twelve minutes later, Trayvon's cell phone conversation was dropped. His girlfriend tried calling him back. But five minutes later, at 7:17, police arrived to find Trayvon dead. http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Timeline-could-be-critical-in-Trayvon-Martin-case/d5W0hP_OeUC_jxIRGCkIGQ.cspx You are right though, it's not a huge deal.--Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The first report referred to her as a girlfriend. After that the media just started referring to her as the girl friend. Her story did not come up until one month after the fact. In her introduction, the story said she had given her story to a lawyer. Only later did we learn that it was the Martin family lawyer. If she was the girl friend, you would think she would inquire about what happened to him. But apparently she never bothered. Even the father didn't know he was missing until the next day. There is also no report of when the family visited the morgue to identify the body. It is possible the body was shipped to the funeral home without a family member having viewed it. If they had, we would have heard about it. Also, why is there no commentary on Trayvon's funeral. It's also strange that with a story this sensational, no one has published his 75.21.147.150 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)official obituary, which would not have any bias in it, has not been published by any source.75.21.147.150 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the idea of a genuine chronology, of known facts of the case, or reported facts, in a time sequence, going to happen? Could we start on it in a separate space, then when it is complete move it into the article? At the moment the piece starts with a cast of characters. Not what I'd consider the best introduction to the facts of the case. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont know that a chronology, other than one specifically around the shooting, is a good idea. The chronology of the investigation, and when various witnesses came forth is not very important, unless a particular revelation caused a big flip-flop in someone elses position. I think its more valuable to group the actions and opinions by the person who did them (again, with the exception of what happened immediately during the incident) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A chronology of the known things that happened surrounding the shooting incident. Not a chronology of the protagonists lives or whatever. The article is at the moment a bit confused and doesn't present a clear set of "facts we know in the order they happened." The facts will have gaps in them that the ideologically inclined can fill with theories, but that is for other sections. A straight statement of all the facts at play, and their order, would help greatly. Are there any objections? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I see it differently. I think about how a reader would look at this article, rather than how we wish for it to look. For instance, if a reader were to reference this article and find that the section about the video surveillance was at the top of the article, how would they know what events took place that resulted in the surveillance being taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaidnoway (talk • contribs) 21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Interaction

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} The section title "Interaction" doesn't seem very descriptive. Suggest changing it to "Preceding events" which is actually what is currently in the section . --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Changed by another editor to "Prelude".[36] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity is wrong

The only way he could be Jewish is if he had CONVERTED. HIS FATHER ISN'T JEWISH. HIS MOTHER ISN'T JEWISH. Why does BLACK AMERICA want to make him Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.41.41 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} The only people calling Zimmerman's father Robert Zimmerman "American White" are journalists or journalists taking their information from "neighbours", when he in fact a German born Ashkenazi Jew. The sources cited for this in the page are not appropriate and the first line of the page should be changed 143.117.49.74 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jew is not a race. There are genetically european. Do you have a reliable source for the jewishness to begin with? There have been several RS reporting him as Christian. In any case, The father's religion, or what the ethnicity of his ancestors from the 11th century is, is really irrelevant. If he is an immigrant, that might possibly be viable for inclusion, but probably not, and in any case would need a reliable source. You should look up WP:RELIABILESOURCES and WP:VERIFIABILITY and how they affect this information. Your opinion that it is incorrect or poorly sourced is not worth much in the face of tens of thousands of people's consensus regarding policyGaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Genetically Semitic...so it'd depend if you consider Jews to be white or not. 'Race' can be vague.--Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, the Police Report listed George Zimmerman as white. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

He is Hispanic on voter registration. His background is not 'white'. Ethnicity is not always reported as race either and police reports can get certain aspects wrong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's religion, and Martin's, are irrelevant to this story and should absolutely not be in the article - it is not a biography. As a point of information, Zimmerman has been reported as being Catholic and even a former altar boy, so the speculation that he is Jewish or adopted by a Jewish family is utterly unfounded as well as irrelevant and some of the commentary above is borderline offensive, so let's move on. Tvoz/talk 23:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman is described as a Catholic and a former altar boy. Does not sound particulary Jewish to me. I have read multiple sources describing him as Latino, Hispanic, Catholic, but none that describe him as Jewish. We should not make assumptions because some of us believe Zimmerman to be a Jewish-sounding name. Let's stick to the facts here. If anyone finds reliable source(s) that Zimmerman is Jewish, feel free to add it to the page. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman is a German surname meaning Carpenter. Implying anything beyond that fact is OR. Implying that he is even German is OR (since for all we know he's only 1/32nd German or whatever and it's just a family name)--Львівське (говорити) 00:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

White is not an ethnicity

White is an inaccurate designation for "small amount of pigment." If you compare white & black pieces of paper with human skin, you will see that hardly anyone has white or black skin, not even an albino is white; and most Afro-americans are not at all black. "White" should be deleted from the article, since Zimmerman's appearance would clearly be described to a 911 operator who asked, as Hispanic instead of White. We may argue about the propriety of "Hispanic," but that is the functional term that would be used to id someone to 911 or the police. If the ethnicity of Zim's father is to be given, one must rule out adoption to be relevant, and then instead of calling him white, he should be called whatever he was descended from, German, Jewish or whatever. If an ethnicity is to be given, it should be accurate. It might turn out that Zimmerman's father was of mixed northern European ethnicity; if so, that is what it should be called. But since appearance is what counts in this situation, the correct designation for Zimmerman is Hispanic to reflect common usage in the USA. (EnochBethany (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC))

Two photos of each

I think we should add the photos of Trayvon as a 12-year-old and the more current photo of the thinner George Zimmerman smiling. Can we only have 1 photo of each? The photo of Trayvon at 12 years is the one a lot of people used to jump to their conclusions, and having only George's 2005 pudgy mugshot is prejudicial. --Kenatipo <sup>speak!</sup> 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. Replied down below since it was moved down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the 12 year old picture is misleading if it does not have an appropriate caption clarifying it's date.--Львівське (говорити) 19:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If photos which have been released to the public domain, or CC can be found, we can have as many as are appropriate for context. As it is there are only copyrighted private photos available (except for the mugshot, which is public domain). The wikipedia rules say only one fair use photo may be used. the young "hollister" photo could be useful in the media/reporting section but as we do not have rights it would be inappropriate to use as the primary image. Martin, as someone who is dead, has slightly less protection in his photos, as it is impossible to get a new photo of him for use. Zimmerman as someone who is still alive, has more protection, and we cannot use any photo that is not properly licensed. The mugshot is the only photo we have, unless he releases a new one. The new croped grayscale photo is much less of a problem, because it is not obviously a mugshot, but it would be better to get a more recent one. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Last I checked, altering with a filter doesn't change that the photo is a mugshot. It is still a mugshot through and through and per WP:MUG it should not be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Львівське (говорити) 19:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012 (Zimmerman Mugshot)

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

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

I removed the mugshot for now. That other photo might make light of the situation with the big toothy grin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

TY Chris, I didn't consider that, but I think you're right. I will hunt for another one. Visavismeyou (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone put it back up, but might go to a greyscale to avoid the prison oranges. The highschool photo is probably copyrighted as per discussion on IRC with editors. [37] So its probably not okay to use even if edited. No real good picture of Zimmerman has been released; which for the sake of WP:MUG I'd just keep it off because the policy is clear as pointed out by the previous editor. "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)..." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Greyscale is a good idea and could be temporarily used until a better pic is found, Trayvon's pic seems to be greyscale as well.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

No, greyscale is not a good idea for the same reason the photo of Zimmerman with the "toothy grin" is not a good idea. The "tone" and "connotations" of the toothy grin photo are inappropriate given the subject. The same is true for the mugshot. The mugshot implies criminality when Zimmerman has not been charged much less convicted. Moreover, even in greyscale, the mugshot is not neutral. It shows Zimmerman at in a bad light, probably at his worst, and with a dour, unpleasant expression. And it's still mugshot, and one taken for an arrest not a conviction I might add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.17.243 (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Caption common photo as 5 years old or such: Any photo is likely to be debated or disliked for potential bias, so just counter a major bias in the photo's caption, such as stating, "(photo of 5 years earlier, 2007)". Remember, Wikipedia's wp:NPOV does not strive to achieve utopian Platonic "Fairness" but merely reflects the balance of major opinions in sources, and hence, if many sources show a mugshot, then that's what Wikipedia shows, rather than a recent "glamor shot" by "Photos to Make You Like Mother Teresa in Court". Wikipedia's efforts at fairness should reflect what the sources say, not personal opinions of ultimate fairness. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no RS that dates the photo. If one is made available, we can caption it better. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the mugshot? It shows him as he looked that night and it is evident from this shot that injuries claimed are not shown. BTW Movies stars mugshots are ALWAYS shown!00:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The mugshot is from 2005, not that night. If it was the mugshot from this incident, then it owuld be easy to include, but it is too prejudicial considering its from a different event Gaijin42 (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(forgive me, i'm new at editing wikipedia) but can we use the pictures that Trayvon published on his Twitter and Facebook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDLKD (talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't. We can only use one picture of Trayvon via Fair Use rules, since the photos are all copyrighted. Additionally, many of the photos posted on his twitter or facebook would be unsuitable for this article, unless they are being discussed by reliable sources, and would cause a firestorm of POV warring. If you believe there is a single photo from the twitter/facebook that would be a better representation, to replace the current photo, you may propose it here, but be warned, if that photo is selected to push a point of view (positive or negative) you will not get farGaijin42 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved this down here and want to clarify that the mugshot is in use because it's the only fair use image available of Zimmerman. The "toothy grin" was from a former employer and is currently copyrighted. Please see this Poynter article [38] for more detail on the subject. Redredryder (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is not neutral to have a 5-6 year old photo of his childhood as it does not represent Trayvon Martin properly. For the one of George Zimmerman smiling...well, do I really need to explain the importance of context? It would not be neutral no matter how it would be worked in. The gangsta one is also not exactly 'neutral' in most editors opinions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, but the current Zimmerman photo is 7 years old. The smiling one would be at least more recent but can't be used due to copyright. And yes, the way the media juxtaposed a 5 year old photo of Martin next to a police mugshot was horrendous.Redredryder (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FAQ section

Would it make sense to have a FAQ section for commonly asked questions/issues so we don't have to answer the same questions over and over again? (or at least we can just point people to the established answer?)

things like why we dont use different pictures of the two, or why piece of information X is not being mentioned, or why their race is whatever. For most of the issues we have a good consensus, and where we do not have a good consensus (marijuana, suspensions, etc) we can explain the two sides, and say we do not have a consensus. or we can not put any information in that does not have complete consensus, and just deal with it the way we do now. Even the simple stuff would cut down a lot on the repetitive issues.

our archives are ridiculously long at this point, and asking people to read through that is not realistic, but maybe we can cut down on some of the information?

I would propose a FAQ only section, where there is no discussion allowed, at the top of the page, bolded with "READ THIS OR ELSE" type stuff in it. question, and brief summary answer. If anyone comments in it, it gets deleted, or moved down to a new section for response.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone do a draft in userspace, then discuss whether to adopt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like a faq that corresponds to those issues of consensus and directly deals with the more controversial aspects of the coverage. Zimmerman's mugshot, the marjuana bag and pipe, etc things that come up time and time again and are removed and replaced often enough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Working on a draft in my sandbox User:Gaijin42/sandbox edits/new sections welcome, but please make sure you include all viewpoints/ are very neutral in your edits. I would prefer only the more "established" editors help edit it for now, until it is in a more final state. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

someone take a look and provide some feedback on what I have so far, I dont want to spend a ton of time doing this if its going to get shot down as not viable. I think it makes sense to add refs to this as if it was the article, so people can see where we got the faq info from as well. Obviously where I am saying what consensus is or isnt, we cannot provide refs. For places where the consensus is lacking (marijuana) I think it would best to only briefly summarize the issue, and tell people to discuss it, because putting the full debate into a faq would be very difficult to do cleanly. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Well done. Broad-based, seems to touch on most of the issues that are/willbe brought up as editors plug into the article. Where will it go and how will readers/questioners find it? ```Buster Seven Talk 21:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gaijin, for starting this. I have a few comments from my experience with FAQs here: I think a FAQ - a simple list of questions and answers - can be useful. We use it on pages like Barack Obama's -Talk: Barack Obama/FAQ - with some success - at least it is easier for the regular editors to point to Qu# 2 to reply to new editors, rather than explaining once again why we refer to him as African American (because, they say, maybe you didn't know, but he has a white mother!). But I have found that having a FAQ is only really helpful to us, the regulars, who get tired of re-typing the explanation - it is useful shorthand. It doesn't on its own deter anything - it's just a place to point to so we don't get burned out, and I guess some responsible souls might check there first, but I have no evidence of that. But here's the other thing: we would only add something to the FAQ if it had been thoroughly discussed and argued and the answer agreed to by the vast majority of the people who edit there day in and day out - only hard-and-fast consensus points go in there. It is not really a place, in my opinion, to outline the arguments pro and con. I don't really think we are at a place yet on this article where we have much that is hard-and-fast - it is changing too quickly, and we don't have the history here yet of established consensus as you know. I think you laid it out quite fairly - that's not my problem with it - but we are still arguing amongst ourselves on many points, let alone with new editors who drive by, about basic matters. So I'm not sure this is the time for it. Just my first thought on this - I can see that there might be value in saying about, say, the marijuana thing, that it needs to be discussed, not added, but I'm just not sure a FAQ will do what we want on that kind of thing. But good start, and let's see what others think. Tvoz/talk 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to edit inaccurate description "nearby 7-Eleven"

According to the following subsection under the Shooting section:

"Prelude

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

According to Google maps the estimated travel time for walking from the Retreat at Twin Lakes to the nearest 7-Eleven is around 45 minutes one way. This makes for an hour and half round trip. This is in no way a "nearby" 7-Eleven. Not only is the use of the term "nearby" incorrect, the entire context of the paragraph is misleading with this fact.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Twin+Trees&daddr=2700+West+25th+Street&hl=en&ll=28.788874,-81.313505&spn=0.020536,0.042272&sll=28.78968,-81.31344&sspn=0.020535,0.042272&geocode=FdBTtwEdngMn-w%3BFbpAtwEdXX0n-ymFUr633xLniDEY0bDYGOmO4Q&t=h&dirflg=w&mra=dme&mrsp=0&sz=15&z=15&source=gplus-ogsb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.16.172 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

an hour walk when you are a kid who has never had regular access to a car is a lot different than what an adult perceives. I walked that far to the store for snacks when I was that age, but wouldn't dream of it now. The work you have done is WP:OR, but I will try and see if there is a way to reword the section to be more insightful about the distance. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Nearby" can easily be removed with very little change in meaning. Only those editors already working here will remember that it was at one time referred to as "nearby" in our article. Since the incident happened in close proximity to Trayvon's returning destination, how far he had to go for the skittles is of little bearing or importance. . One may wonder why he still had un-eaten skittles after a 45 minute walk, but there are many viable reasons. If the article was not about THE main page story, removing "'nearby" based on the distance from where he was visiting would be an easy edit. New editors and more importantly readers will not miss "Nearby". ```Buster Seven Talk 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Stick as close to the sources as you can.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin42, I seriously question your judgement. First of all, most if not all of this page is based on unverified hearsay WP:OR and my very simple research was actually more original than most of the page. Secondly, the fact that you rounded down from 1.5 hours to 1 hour (33% reduction) is manipulation. Lastly, considering the position you just stated - my contribution is WP:OR - it is an ironic fallacy for your argument to be supported by a vague reference to your personal opinion; "I walked that far to the store for snacks when I was that age."

Buster, "Nearby" has severe implications. The farther the store is from Trayvon's destination, the entire position that Trayvon was walking back home from the store (as opposed to being engaged in some other activity ---i.e. suspicious activity warranting Zimmerman to take action) becomes less credible...There is a severe lack of logic on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.16.172 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

News articles stating hearsay are not original sources. The news agencies protect themselves against charges of fraud because they cite the fact that the information presented is based on someone's statements. They do not explicitly state they are verified facts nor do they state there is reason to believe they are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.16.172 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The amount of WP:OR in this article approaches 0. You do not know what that term means in within the context of wikipedia if you think otherwise. Original research performed by reliable media sources, is NOT WP:OR. My point about distance was not dependant on any particular time or distance, just that what is a reasonable walk for a kid, is different than a reasonable walk for an adult. We are very careful to attribute what is fact vs what is allegation, and if you think you can find places where we represent one as another, please point them out so they can be fixed. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a closer 7-eleven googlemaps doesn't know about

Searching with google maps doesn't locate all the local 7-eleven stores. The database is incomplete. There is one at 1125 Rinehart Rd 28.792238°N 81.34142°W / 28.792238; -81.34142 (7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd, Sanford, Florida) 15 minutes away from the north gate. But this is WP:OR. Do you have a RS that proclaims to know what store he went to? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Handy links: Directions to it from the north gate --and-- Street view where you can see the 7-eleven Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Were people really relying solely on the Google Maps database? If so, an excellent reminder of why we don't allow WP:OR. I thought they were at least using the 7-Eleven website, which while still easily incomplete is at least slightly less unresonable to choose. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• They were and it was why I removed the section tagging distance because the statements of distance to nearest 7-11 were incorrect, even from google maps info at that particular time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to add section

A new section needs to be added "The beating of George Zimmerman"--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done zimmerman's version of events is already in the article, and there is no proof official decision he was beat. His testimony, and some non-eyewitness testimony. If a judge/jury/etc rules he was being beat then we can qualify it as such, but probably would still not name the section that way. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but under your RMS Titanic article do you have ACTUAL witness accounts that saw the ship hit an iceberg. My point is that it has been reported many times he was beat by Trayvon Martin. This needs to be included as a section of it's own. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Titanic comparison? You're funny :) TMCk (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a section of its own, its called "Zimmerman's account of events", and also other witness accounts which also mention a beating. And yes, the titanic actually hitting the iceberg was at one point sourced to several hundred people who were there and were interviewed by newspapers authors, and radio reportsGaijin42 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request Administrators to address deletions on talk page

Many opinions, suggestions, and requests have been removed on this talk page. From my understanding the "talk page" is the place to discuss improvements of the article. Deleting other's opinions, suggestions and requests is very biased. It is requested that the Administrators monitor this, and address the vandals appropriately.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The deleted comments have been restored. However, sections which have not been updated for 36 hours are automatically archived to try and keep this discussion page manageable. deleting others comments is not acceptable, and will be dealt with. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Could the Administrators continue to monitor please? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Non-constructive soap will be removed per wp:TPG.TMCk (talk) 9:15 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I accidentally removed your comment when reverting your change. Apologies. Please read WP:TPO and note that the comments you removed do not meet these criteria. If you think the comments you are removing violate policy, report the users, but do not violate policy yourself. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To make it more clear: Violations (which the removed part was) will be reverted on sight. I'm not the first editor to remove those comments so maybe you're not not quite right about your interpretation of the rules?TMCk (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem Gaijin. ------- Magnificent Clean-keeper.... what do YOU consider "Non-constructive soap"? Just because "you" feel that way does not mean that "others" feel that way. That is why there is a talk page. Anything else melts down into dictatorship.

It has nothing to do with "feelings" but with rules we have here at wp.TMCk (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It was actually Magnificent's comment I deleted accidentally. The comments in question, are accusations of bias, and a defense of that bias. That is clearly on topic for the talk page, regardless of if you think there is or isn't bias. However, both commenters could have done so in a more constructive way. But in the somewhat lacking way there were expressed, they are valid commentary, and should not be deleted. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy Gaijin - no need for edit summaries like that, especially when you're talking to an experienced editor who is obviously aware of policy - I read the comments Magnificent removed as non-constructive attacks too, and it's totally common to remove such attacks. "Showing the true colors of the editors", "liberal bias" - this isn't being said to improve the article, it's just disruptive trolling. Looser rules may apply on talk pages, but they're not anything goes. Tvoz/talk 03:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2012

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

The pictures posted of Zimmerman and Trayvon are as misleading as the ones posted by the Media. Either post pictures of both of them at their best, or both of them at their worst, or don't post pictures.

G50112 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently (semi) unprotected, and more sources are better - note, however, that some photos being circulated by Stormfront and right-wing sites are not photos of the boy! (Added [39] myself just now) Wnt (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The {{edit semiprotected}} template requires a specific request. If you want to identify pictures to add or remove, please upload the pictures and open a new request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar and a bit more

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} "After being handcuffed, Smith observed that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass and he was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head.[61][63]"

Later reports indicate that gun was fired only once.[100]... that the gun?

This sentence makes it sound like Smith was handcuffed. In addition, I think it would be more accurate to say that Smith wrote in the police report that "Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass and he was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head." It is not certain that he actually observed that, but only that he reported observing that. Police video suggests that his report may not be completely accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnieU (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Fixed grammar.[40] --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight and suggestions. I see this as clearly an issue of semantics. If you look at the sentence preceding this one, you will see that it specifically states that "Zimmerman was handcuffed", the next sentence begins "After being handcuffed", the logical conclusion being that it was Zimmerman. Why would a police officer handcuff himself? Again semantics, it is certain if he observed it and put it in his report. The police video is not relevant as to what he observed at the scene.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)