Wikipedia

Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 20

< Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Dimadick in topic The Contradictions in Zimmerman's Story
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the fifth sentence within the third paragraph at the top of the article, could somebody change "On 24 February 2015" to "On February 24, 2015" to correspond towards the American date format.

108.45.29.72 (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the lead too long?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The current lead has WAY too much detail in it, in my opinion. Per MOS:INTRO, I'd like to shorten it to a single paragraph, or two paragraphs at the most. My plan is to extend the opening paragraph slightly and move as much content as I can elsewhere. (The process will likely take a few intermediate edits). Any objections? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: done There are other improvements, too. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding additional information to shooting section

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey everyone. I am adding information about how George Zimmerman described Trayvon Martin wearing a hoodie to the "Shooting" section. I feel like that is relevant to add since athletes wearing hoodies at sporting events became a symbol bringing awareness to Martin's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abamzai (talk • contribs) 04:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I request that in the aftermath section, it should be mention that Zimmerman sold the gun used to kill Martin on an online auction. Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/18/george-zimmerman-sells-gun-trayvon-martin http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-zimmerman-sells-gun-used-to-kill-teen-trayvon-martin-for-more-than-100000-a7037806.html http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/18/us/george-zimmerman-gun-auction/--193.201.132.245 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I request that under the section: analysis of charges they should add that in American democracy there is freedom of movement. I believe that this basic right belonging to Martin was violated by Zimmerman. [1] Allyborghi (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I request that under the section: analysis of charges they should add that in American democracy there is freedom of movement. I believe that this basic right belonging to Martin was violated by Zimmerman. [2]

I believe that in the Analysis of charges section they should mention that Zimmerman violated Martin's basic right to freedom of movement when he attacked Martin.

[3] Allyborghi (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Allyborghi (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Misleading introduction?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The introduction is supposed to summarize the more detailed content later in the article. I haven't read every word, but the article says Martin was "visiting". The introduction says he was "temporarily living". Those two characterizations seem to be at odds with one another. Lou Sander (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed the intro to correspond with the Trayvon_Martin subsection of the Parties involved section. Lou Sander (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

“Fiancée”

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

“On the day he was fatally shot, he and his father were visiting his father's fiancée and her son at her town home in Sanford, Florida.”

The article refers five times to a “fiancée.” A fiancée is someone to whom one is engaged to be married. However, my understanding is that Tracy Martin and the woman in question were never engaged, and thus that she was just his girlfriend. To my knowledge, in the five intervening years they neither married nor ended any “engagement.” 2604:2000:9046:800:EC84:46B9:299B:79DF (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hancock, Ange-Marie. "Trayvon Martin, intersectionality, and the politics of disgust." Theory & Event 15.3 (2012).
  2. ^ Hancock, Ange-Marie. "Trayvon Martin, intersectionality, and the politics of disgust." Theory & Event 15.3 (2012).
  3. ^ Hancock, Ange-Marie. "Trayvon Martin, intersectionality, and the politics of disgust." Theory & Event 15.3 (2012).

Trayvon Martin Foundation

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Trayvon Martin Foundation, founded by his parents, is probably worth talking about. I don't know all that much about it, though. -- SatanicSanta 04:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Jewish or latino, or both, or nothing?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't get if Zimmerman is a Jewish name, or a latino name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

As stated on George Zimmerman, he's mixed-race and his German surname Zimmerman is due to his German paternal ancestry. Jim Michael (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Article title change suggestion

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

This article should not be called "Shooting of Trayvon Martin"; instead, it should be called "Shooting death of Trayvon Martin". It's the fact that he died which made this story so notable. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Or "Killing of Trayvon Martin" ? Do you have RS for the distinction you're suggesting is key here? SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a plethora of them. And taken in aggregate, they make clear that this was notable largely in part because Trayvon died. See this google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=trayvon+martin 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Killing of Trayvon Martin makes sense. It's a redirect now, but should be the article title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
1. "largely in part" is an oxymoron. 2. If you have RS, you would need to provide plethora RS links with rationale, not a google link. 3. @BullRangifer: I would be OK with you making the change, swapping title and redirect. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The phrase "largely in part", is not an oxymoron; and even it were, the meaning of what's being said is plain enough and doesn't diminish the fact that many, many news articles focused on the death of Trayvon as being a significant part of the story. It wasn't just black vs white (Hispanic) or older vs younger or gun vs no gun; rather it was the power disparity often suffered by young Black men - a disparity which sometimes results in their death. Xerton (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be arguing against the original poster's claim that the incident is notable only because Martin died. Did you mean to be responding to me or to OP? Your final "sometimes results in death" seems to agree with me and BullRangifer that the incident would have been notable because it's about an armed vigilante shooting, even if Mr. Martin had not been killed. Or are you favoring the current title over both of the two alternatives? My view is primarily to oppose "shooting death" SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Trayvon was shot and he did die from that shooting. And the farther in time we get away from the events of that day, the more important it is to capture the essential salient facts of that moment in time via a precise titling of what the event was. The event was the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and everything which followed after that stems from these two true facts: he was shot, he died from that shooting. Xerton (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
If we have a consensus for that move, I'd be happy to try, but I'm not an admin. Sometimes that type of move requires admin tools. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I have those kinds of admin tools, and I'd be willing to move the article. But, not with this kind of discussion. I strongly recommend having another full RM discussion (and require some sort of discussion) before any moves are performed, given the controversial nature of this article (and also because at least three such discussions have taken place in the past, and some people might not agree to a move). SkyWarrior 21:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree. We'd need a clear consensus first. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
This was talked about a very long time ago. I thought there was a consensus for "Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin", which I would support. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Trayvon Martin

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
PROCEDURAL CLOSE
(non-admin closure) An AfD discussion has opened up. Please see that venue for further debate on this subject's ability to meet notability criteria. Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Subject is only notable for a single event (see WP:1E). Their biography is otherwise run of the mill. Essential details can be merged to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. But most of this is just fluff. See also WP:VICTIM. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

AfD is not intended as a substitute for merge discussions. I actually considered that but concluded it is very unlikely that the community would !vote to delete the article outright. Out of curiosity, on what do you base your belief that Martin is notable independent of the circumstances surrounding his death? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that AfD shouldn't be a substitute for merge discussions, I would strongly support listing the article at AfD should no consensus to merge be found. Guidelines are unambiguously clear that we shouldn't have these kinds of articles. Therefore, there would be nothing wrong with AfD'ing it, in which case, "merge" would be one of several possible outcomes. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
What guideline exactly?BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
For the clicking convenience of interested editors, here is a link to the AfD discussion referred to above: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin (2nd nomination) — Mudwater (Talk) 18:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed split

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

There is no consensus for a split.

Supporters of a split said that the article is too long. Opponents of a split believe that an article does not necessarily have to be short and that the case is so important and heavily covered that presenting the information in an organized, lengthy format is preferable to splitting it up. Neither position achieved consensus.

Cunard (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Article is over 200kB, and should be split into articles entitled Background of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Investigations into the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Aftermath of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Reactions to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Sure. We'll get right on that! Joefromrandb (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Joefromrandb:, can you please clarify your statement? In any event, let's give a major split like this one month before taking any action, unless there is overwhelming consensus to split this article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I think it's better not to split up the article, even though it's on the long side. Let's leave all the info in one place. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ping - @BabbaQ:, thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – This is a large article. The split suggestions are the most appropriate. But Rome was not built in one day, let's create one article at a time and establish it's importance.BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This obviously isn't going to happen, but as a formality... Joefromrandb (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This was a very important, heavily covered case that has had many repercussions for the country. And it's still very important I believe for people to have a good, fact-based account of what it was all about. So I vote to leave the article as is. I'll also add that I was one of the editors who worked a great deal on it back in 2012. We had similar discussions to this one back then as the article grew, and the consensus view each time was to not shorten the article because of the case's importance. A majority of the editors decided that the importance of giving people good information in an organized, handy manner outweighed the relatively unimportant lengthiness of the article, and we also believed that this was one of the advantages of an online encyclopedia that we should take advantage of. An article doesn't necessarily have to be short. People can easily navigate around it and choose what they read. But the information is there for people who do want to have a better understanding of what happened. So I see this article as very useful and informative to people as is and think it's a very valuable resource. Psalm84 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The prosecution decided not to seek the death penalty and instead sought a life sentence. Deputy District Attorney Marcia Clark was designated as the lead prosecutor. Deputy District Attorney Christopher Darden became Clark's co-counsel. Simpson wanted a speedy trial, and the defence and prosecuting attorneys worked around the clock for several months to prepare their cases. In October 1994, Judge Lance Ito started interviewing 304 prospective jurors, each of whom had to fill out a 75-page questionnaire. On November 3, twelve jurors were seated with twelve alternates.
The trial began on January 24, 1995, and was televised by Court TV, and in part by other cable and network news outlets, for 134 days. Darden argued that Simpson killed his ex-wife in a jealous rage; the prosecution opened its case by playing a 9-1-1 call from Nicole Brown Simpson on January 1, 1989, in which she expressed fear that Simpson would physically harm her, and he could be heard yelling at her in the background. Other material related to domestic violence was presented including another 9-1-1 phone call that Nicole made on October 25, 1993, expressing the same thing and Simpson also could be heard shouting in the background, less than eight months before the murders. The prosecution also presented dozens of expert witnesses to place Simpson at the scene of the crime, on subjects ranging from DNA profiling to blood and shoeprint analysis.
There's a similar level of detail to this article, and if you don't give readers that, there's not much meat to the text. You will still have a long article, though. It's just that many readers will feel like they still don't understand what happened and the article was superficial and they didn't get much out of reading it. The O.J. Simpson article is itself shorter, but the case in its essence was less novel than the Martin/Zimmerman case. Again, I recall that there were discussions on the inclusion of individual sections and what information was to be included and excluded from them. Actually, a lot was excluded. Dividing this article would similarly not be a good idea. It would just be disrupting the account of what happened. The best thing to do, I believe, is to let readers decide for themselves when they might want to skim a section or move on to the next, leaving the twists and turns in the development in the case for those who want to know about it. Psalm84 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Afro-Peruvian

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

George Zimmerman is not primarily Afro-Peruvian, and so it makes little sense to describe him as that. He is part white, part hispanic and yes, some part of him may well be Afro-Peruvian, but not the largest part. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The wiki article says that "Zimmerman was Neighborhood Watch coordinator", and nothing could be further from the truth. Neighborhood Watch did put on a recruitment discussion Zimmerman attended, but he refused to follow their rules, so they wanted nothing at all to do with him. For example, Neighborhood Watch has very strict rules that no one may ever be armed. They also must always be with at least one other person, and never work alone. They also must not chase and must follow all police suggestions. Neighborhood Watch disavoed any connection with Zimmerman at all. If he had been following Neighborhood Watch rules, nothing would have happened because the Dispatcher said to not follow.

Suggested correction would be to just remove the false Neighborhood Watch association and not mention the organization at all. More accurate would be to add the fact Zimmerman was rejected as Neighborhood Watch, for violating their basic rules. But to do that, one should likely get a statement from the actual person he talked to, and that was not me. My information is 2nd hand and from memory, so borders more on subjective opinion. 75.161.139.217 (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Personal knowledge is not verifiable and therefore not acceptable. Sorry, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a typo.

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

At the very end of the article it says Marin family instead of Martin family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.155.143 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

===The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America===

On September 16, 2019, Hollywood film director Joel Gilbert released both a book and a film called "The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking The Witness Fraud That Divided America. He debuted the film at The National Press Club[1] in Washington, DC. The Trayvon Hoax alleges that the key witness for the prosecution, Rachel Jeantel, who claimed to have been on the phone with Trayvon Martin just before he was shot, was an imposter. [2]The real girlfriend of Trayvon Martin is identified as Brittany Diamond Eugene, whose signature was determined by a handwriting expert to have been on the letter signed "Diamond Eugene" that was given to Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton. [3]The film alleges the witness fraud was pushed the by media and politicians for their agendas. [4] In "Exposing the Trayvon Hoax" on Townhall.com, Bill Marshall of Judicial Watch wrote that Gilbert "exposes the much larger fraud on the American people that the Trayvon Martin hoax ignited."[5] Karl Notturno wrote in "The Trayvon Martin Hoax Comes Crashing Down" that "the only way we can make the future better is by learning from the past".[6] Jack Cashill in "Time to Un-tell the Trayvon lies" wrote "We still have the power to rewrite history, and Gilbert has proven as much." In American Thinker, former AP foreign correspondent Frank Hawkins wrote "Filmmaker Joel Gilbert’s new book and film The Trayvon Hoax brilliantly exposes one of the most fraudulent and shameful trials in the history of the United States...It’s a masterpiece of reporting."[7] Billfraz1 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Powers, Patty (September 16, 2019). "Press Conference and Film Screening: The Trayvon Hoax". National Press Club.
  2. ^ Isaac, Rael Jean (January 8, 2020). "Did the Media Force a False Narrative on the Trayvon Martin Case?". The American Spectator.
  3. ^ Barnett, Matthew (February 26, 2020). "Documentary Claims Trayvon Martin Prosecution Hoaxed America". The Federalist.
  4. ^ Zorn, Eric (February 21, 2020). "Here's why, eight years later, the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story won't go away". Chicago Tribune.
  5. ^ Marshall, William (September 13, 2019). "Exposing the Trayvon Hoax". Townhall.com.
  6. ^ Notturno, Karl (September 13, 2019). "The Trayvon Martin Hoax Comes Crashing Down". AmGreatness.
  7. ^ Hawkins, Frank (September 17, 2019). "The Trayvon Hoax – a Fraud on America". The American Thinker.
  Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. This is certainly inappropriate to add as-is. See guidelines and policies like WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
"Joel Gilbert (born April 15, 1964) is an American filmmaker, musician, and conspiracy theorist.[1][2] Gilbert's political films advance right-wing conspiracy theories.[1][2][3][4] He has been a frequent guest on InfoWars.[5]" I think that's all we need to know. Guy (help!) 16:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Stuart, Tessa (January 4, 2016). "Watch Ted Cruz Wield a Constitution-Powered Lightsaber". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2019-08-26.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference THR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Milbank, Dana. "Latest from the Trump conspiracy factory: Bill Clinton's black son". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-08-26.
  4. ^ Goldberg, Michelle (September 28, 2012). "With 'Dreams From My Real Father,' Have Obama Haters Hit Rock Bottom?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2019-08-26.
  5. ^ Milbank, Dana (November 1, 2016). "Latest from the Trump conspiracy factory: Bill Clinton's black son" – via www.washingtonpost.com.

JzG Why is the fact that you may not like the messenger "all we need to know"? There is a $100 million dollar lawsuit filed and this information is well referenced in reliable sources such as already shared above. There should be some mention of this idea, even if you want to put it under the label of "Conspiracy Theories"Sthubbar (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Should it be made clear

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It should be made clear that voice stress analysis is a pseudoscientific technique. The parenthetical in "He also underwent a voice stress analysis test in an attempt to see if he was lying, and he passed (indicating he was likely telling the truth)" makes it seem like it's a trustworthy method, which it's not. 2620:10D:C091:480:0:0:0:1B7C (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. There are enough problems with polygraph tests, let alone voice stress analysis. I agree that it should be noted - NewsGuard (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change Trayvon Martin’s height from his autopsy from 6’ 2” to 5’ 11” as indicated in the actual autopsy (as opposed to a news article) http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/martin.autopsy.pdf 76.100.239.5 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for now. We tend to defer to secondary sources over primary ones. I took a quick look and certainly didn't see a height listed among all sorts of other poorly photocopied bad handwriting. Do you have any other secondary source which can corroborate this? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "racial" category(s)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While retaining the "media-inspired" category, certainly the "racial" categories should be removed. Zimmerman is Hispanic. There was never a conviction. Pretty-much hyped up event.

The article fails to mention that a prosecutor from Osceola-Brevard refused to prosecute for lack of evidence. With the accompanying media furor, the case was removed from his jurisdiction and given to another. Student7 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The article has extensive sources citing the fact that the incident has serious implications for race-relations in America. Whether you think it should have or not doesn't matter; it clearly did, which makes the race-related categories appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after relist. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


Shooting of Trayvon Martin → Killing of Trayvon Martin – Per now established WP:CONSISTENT titles: [1]. Martin was killed and did not just get shot. The fact that he was killed is the most notable aspect of this subject. Albertaont (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

title of article

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

yeah, i agree, it should be called 'HOMICIDE OF TRAYVON MARTIN' atleast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeylady999 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The title is inaccurate. It should be changed to THE LYNCHING OF TRAYVON MARTIN or THE MURDER OF TRAYVON MARTIN. The child is black, unarmed and where he is supposed to be as stated by your own sources and by testimony. The 911 operator told the Murder to not follow him. The murder did not listen and chose to stalk and murder Trayvon as he screamed helplessly. 72.141.147.207 (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There is consensus for the current title. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
He was a year away from being legally an adult so he was certainly not a child. He attacked George Zimmerman who had would be reason to believe that Trayvon Martin would continue to inflict serious bodily harm, he had given him a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury. He was clearly casing houses because who walks in the rain at night looking at winddowns while wearing a hoodie? Also, just following somebody doesn't mean you deserve to be seriously injured in a beating. Also this wouldn't be a lynching because lynchings are group activities. Also Zimmerman is not a murderer because he was acquitted. Also Trayvon had weed in his system and his father initially claimed the screams weren't that of his son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinara Trench2 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be "Murder of Trayvon Martin", but how is that this wiki's fault? Take it up with the racist court system that got George Zimmerman off. We just report the events here, we don't make them. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Public response section

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The public response section is bloated with random opinion-pieces and factoids that had no long-term significance. We ought to trim it down and rewrite it to summarize the broad public response, as well as secondary coverage of the response by high-quality sources, rather than a wall of random forgotten opinion pieces from 2012 that Wikipedia editors at the time thought were cool. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Levivich 17:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin → Killing of Trayvon Martin – As between "shooting of Trayvon Martin" and "killing of Trayvon Martin", there is no single WP:COMMONNAME, as both are commonly used (NGrams, GScholar "killing", GScholar "shooting"). When there is no clear COMMONNAME, WP:DEATHS indicates that "killing" should be used for a homicide (such as this topic). Anyway, if there is a COMMONNAME, it's "killing", which is more prevalent than "shooting" per the aforementioned NGrams and Google Scholar hits. Levivich 17:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Killing of Eurie Martin

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I encourage your help on a new article I posted. PaulinSaudi (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Curfew

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Originally reports stated at the time of the incident there was a curfew in place. Why is there no longer any mention of this curfew in any of the reports? 100.34.146.90 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


incorrect text

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

at the end of the article at "see also" there is a list of links. The link:

"Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales, 2021 Florida case where no charges were filed against a motorcyclist who fatally shot a pregnant woman on her front lawn after she deliberately struck his motorcycle with hercar, since she was waving a gun at him at the time."

states that she was pregnant. That's obviously not true. See the wiki post: "Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales". There it says: Police also determined that the woman was not pregnant after an autopsy was performed. [3 and adds the resource #3

What somebody change this? 2A02:8109:BCC0:1A94:AC29:A04C:C07A:14D9 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zariagibson (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zariagibson (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To change the spelling mistake of "inured" instead of "injured". Incessant worthlessness (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Done General Ization Talk 04:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This Wikipedia story incorrectly describes the events under which an adult killed a child.

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

This Wikipedia story incorrectly describes the events under which an adult killed a child. Zimmerman did not kill Martin is self defense. Under Florida law, Martin was allowed to stand his ground against an armed adult who was stalking him. Martin was killed while attempting to defend himself. Zimmerman did not shoot Martin in self defense. Martin was killed by an armed adult who instigated an assault on a child. That’s not self defense. 138.88.157.54 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

While you are entitled to your opinion, the jury that heard the case and acquitted Zimmerman found otherwise. All of the content in the article, including the discussion of various dissenting opinions about Zimmerman's state of mind and whether the acquittal was justified, is based on citations of published, reliable sources. We are not permitted as editors of an encyclopedia to promote your opinion to fact simply because it is your opinion. General Ization Talk 05:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Then it should be clear in the wording that a jury found Martin acted in self defense. Not that it is a fact that he fired in self defense. "A jury found Zimmerman shot Martin in self- defense" is way different than "Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense." Even if it was added that Zimmerman maintains he shot Martin in self defense it would be much more accurate. It also maintains that Zimmerman was injured in the physical altercation, but does not mention that Martin was shot and died during said altercation which should also be added to be more fair and unbias 74.12.38.57 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
What exactly do you find unclear about this wording? In a widely reported trial, Zimmerman was charged with murder of the second degree for Martin's death, but acquitted by the jury after claiming self-defense. From a legal perspective, the finding of the jury is a finding of fact. We will not retry the case in an encyclopedia. And yes, the article makes abundantly clear that Martin died during the altercation, beginning with the first sentence: On the evening of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, United States, George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American teenager. General Ization Talk 16:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Cases like the murder of Emmett Till or the Scottsboro boys should make it clear that the finding of any Jury is not a finding of "Fact". Oftentimes the jury will make bias decisions, have important information hidden from them, be fed fake information, or choose to ignore the evidence presented to them just because. Many of these things happen entirely based on whether or not a jury, prosecution, defense, country, etc. like someone or not.
Martin, being a black child, was subject to all sorts of slander. Attacked and killed by someone who is both largely seen as white by his supporters and opponents, and has no problem associating with white nationalists to make money or gain internet fame. The Jury that acquitted Martin, like the one that acquitted Till's murderers, was entirely white.
The article's wording is fine but your justification for it ("The Jury's opinion is fact") is not fine, and anything considered using that justification should be discussed beforehand. MayDay2099 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The jury at Z's trial was comprised of five white women and a Hispanic woman. No guilty verdict was returned so per WP:BLPCRIME, which is policy, we continue to presume Z's innocence. VQuakr (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for showing that to me. I read through it all.
We should only presume Zimmerman was found "Not Guilty" and faced no consequences for shooting Martin. Not his "Innocence". 1. The court of law does not rule "Innocent" and 2. We are smart enough to know the court of law is not infallable.
The undeniable fact is that Zimmerman shot Martin, resulting in Martin's death. And that, for valid and historically obvious reasons (Assuming you are American), there is intense "Discussion" on whether or not the not guilty verdict was factually correct and justified. As said earlier, Till's murderers were acquitted, but I am still able to refer to them as "Murderers" IRL because of the undeniable fact they killed him, as well as on this website due to the the undeniable fact that they admitted to it, and later analysis that basically confirmed what black americans already knew back in the 50s.
Like I said the wording is perfectly okay (Since it says "Zimmerman was ruled not guilty after *claiming* her defended himself" and not "Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense") but I do not agree with the justification ("The court of law + jury are omnipotent and everything they say is fact")
Thus I don't plan on making any changes to the page unless the original phrasing is altered to imply Zimmerman's innocence as fact, since plenty of internet users love to slander dead black people. I will also change it back if it tries to insist his legal guilt as fact, since he faced no legal consequences. We both can say he shot Martin and that many people found this to be extremely uncool.
And considering the isue of Zimmerman's race, who's to say that one hispanic woman was not entirely of European descent? Thus white? Hispanic in this context is a culture and in my experience it is invoked by white and black people to try and hide the fact they are white or black. MayDay2099 (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Contradictions in Zimmerman's Story

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A while back I wrote a paragraph about the contradictions in Zimmerman's description of the phone call with a police dispatcher in his recorded interview with police the day after he killed Martin. I used the video Entitled "The Killing Of Trayvon Martin" by left-leaning YouTube Shaun as the primary source, who referred to Zimmerman's claims as provable lies. In verifying that people had noticed this, I also included an article by left-leaning news organization Mother Jones who noted the inconsistency of Zimmerman claiming he fell at the first punch. My edit was removed from the page due to the fact I edited Bill Maher's page in reference to several accusations of Transphobia from 2017 to the present, and accused of POV-pushing. Only one thing that I said in the actual article was somewhat opinion based, but in my description of why I edited the page I see why it was removed. For the editors of their article, I would recommend watching Shaun's video so that the page could be properly edited by someone other than myself to include the contradictions, and if other sources considered less biased than him and Mother Jones could be cited, this would be very beneficial to highlighting context that went ignored otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE84fH_Pc9c

Above is the video. JPHC2003 (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source, and OR is not allowed. No objection if you can source your changes to Mother Jones, since it is listed as a reliable source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:
    • "There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." Dimadick (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_20&oldid=1246256489"