Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Trayvon Martin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Zimmerman's Brother's Statement

Latest comment: 12 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

Under Zimmerman's statement, (where it is at least inappropriately placed) the CNN interview with Z's brother is all hearsay and not admissible. He is just repeating what his brother told him, much of which has been disproved. I Will boldly remove this later if there is no great objection. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand where you're coming from with this question or why you believe it should be removed. You say it's not admissible, but this isn't a court of law. Why wouldn't this article report what Zimmerman said through his brother? I would wait on removing it at this point if I were you at least until more people have had their say here. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This interview by Piers Morgan on CNN has been roundly critisized on news radio because Morgan did not challenge any of Robert's statements, even those that were previously disproved. It is listed under the header "Zimmerman's statement" which it implies that is it George.

Robert was not there. He is not a witness. He is just repeating his brother's claims. Hearsay is not acceptable in Wikipedia nor in court.

WP:Hearsay Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the judge and the jury, just something that echos reports. If the article says Zimmerman's brother said this on CNN on behalf of his brother..it's as admissible as as any witness statement, all of which can be scrutinized. It would be inadmissible if we just said X happened without making it clear to the reader where it was coming from. Media critique is irrelevant. --Львівське (говорити) 04:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

But he is NOT a witness, he may as well be a parrot. SEE WP:Hearsay Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Hearsay is just someone's old essay. It is neither policy nor a guideline, and isn't binding on anything. Dragons flight (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If he may as well be a parrot, then that's good, because he's providing more information on Zimmerman's account of the events - which is the purpose of the section. If we're calling into question the veracity of his statement as 'hearsay', as in "I heard from someone that this is what happened..." that doesn't really line up with this situation, as it's his own brother making a televised statement on behalf of his brother. It's not really a game of telephone here. If Zimmerman told the police, or reporters this version of events, and they repeated it, that's no different than this IMO.--Львівське (говорити) 04:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

DocOfSoc, while I agree the brother's statements are clearly hearsay, I don't see where much of the statements of Zimmerman (the shooter) have been disproved. Maybe you have some sort of magic information oracle that is giving you answers, but as far as I can tell, we (the public) are not much farther in terms of solid facts than we were a month ago. -- Avanu (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My Magic Oracle whose name is Logic ;-) after reading Z's account many times, states

Fact: Z lied about who was screaming.

Fact: Z said he was reaching for his cell phone but gun appeared in his hand instead

Fact: While being beaten on the concrete face down he magically flipped over and shot the teenager in the chest

Fact: According to mortician there were no marks on Trayvon's hands as there would be if he was beating Z.

Fact: Shot in "self defense" Was Trayvon going to kill him with his skittles?

There is more, after consulting with my policeman son, who says the whole thing does not make sense. But I will stop here, so you may tell me here I went wrong. Respectfully, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lied about who was screaming? Where is the disproof of that?
Not sure about this cell phone versus gun comment... sounds like it is a bit irrelevant.
Witnesses have said it appeared that Zimmerman was being fought by Martin. As to the status and who was winning at whatever point during the minute or minutes, I don't know how any of us can say. So there's nothing 'magic' there.
According to a mortician... by the way, what does the medical examiner or forensic scientist have to say? Why do we need ME's if we have morticians? This isn't a "fact", it is an observation by a person skilled in embalming corpses, not examining them for police investigations.
It doesn't require any deadly weapon of any kind of self-defense to be asserted. It sure helps, but it is about whether the person rationally felt that their life was in danger and had to respond with deadly force or be killed. I am not George Zimmerman, I don't know his mindset and I wasn't there in this fight and don't know how things went once the two of them were in a confrontation. This again is no fact.

While I don't dispute your son's qualifications, I can clearly say that we simply don't have all the facts and these inconsistencies that you point out are for the most part invalid, and if not invalid, irrelevant. We simply don't know the facts, and the only things the police have are the eyewitnesses and earwitnesses, the 911 calls, and various pieces of forensic evidence. The forensics will speak louder than any statements made by frightened apartment residents or even George Zimmerman, and hopefully the police did their duty, not only for Trayvon's sake, but George's as well. The true facts are what is needed, not armchair quarterbacking by a million people who think they know better. -- Avanu (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not been established in a court of law if Zimmerman was lying about who was screaming. So it can't be considered a fact yet. According to a "mortician"? Who is this alleged mortician and are his comments considered heresay or are they on the legal record that will be presented in court? Since I don't think you were there, I don't think you or anyone else working on this article knows how the whole incident occurred and whether anyone "magically flipped over". Even if your policeman son were there after the incident occurred, I'm assuming he's not with the DAs office where the shooting took place, so how can he know enough of what happened to make an intelligent comment about it all? Even if he were there, would he be giving his opinion to a parent and still hope to retain his badge? With all of this in mind, let's not forget that a trial let alone a charge has yet to be brought against anyone. The incident has been tried in the court of public opinion enough that they may have to try it in another country. Let's not make the same mistake here. This place still isn't a court of law and from all I've read, it's supposed to present UNbiased facts, not personal opinion. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the last comment (re: was trayvon going to kill him with his skittles?) this lines up directly with the brother's quote - trayvon saw the gun and was going to disarm him and used it on Zimmerman. That death threat + the beating...yeah, that's pretty straightforward self defense--Львівське (говорити) 07:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Avanu and Rollo. You did not present one fact in support of your position. Robert Zimmerman backed up his brother's version of the events and offered new information as well. If someone (including a relative) comes out in support of Zimmerman and his version of the events, that is relevant as the media has proven that they are biased against him and anyone who supports him is certainly worth noting in this article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job guys. If this had happened in Calif., where my son is SWAT team member in a large city and decorated for bravery (brag), we wouldn't be having this kind of discussion. With tongue firmly in cheek I will continue to apply logic to a situation that would be untenable in most other states. Keeping it there keeps me from yelling in frustration. BTW we have no proof there WAS a death threat, and I am fairly sure that those of you who do not live in the US cannot comprehend the deep institutional racism in this country, particularly in the South. I do appreciate the effort here of most of you to keep an unbiased stance. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see where you're coming from, what untenable situation you're referring to, what relevance your son and California have to the article, or what deep institutional racism you're seeing in the article as it stands currently. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@Rollo. I suggest you learn to read more carefully and perhaps think "Compare and Contrast" TY. Namaste 00:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your son's service to the citizens he protects and serves is much appreciated. As far as your logic, it sounds more like an opinion based on how you evaluated what has been presented in the media so far. We simply don't know all the facts yet. Circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence (if there is any), witnessess and Zimmerman's statement will be the final arbitrator in this matter. If Zimmerman did say there was a death threat, it really doesn't matter, the question is and always has been if it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman thought he was protecting himself from death or serious bodily harm.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

TY!! We appreciate the kudos anytime. You present a very reasonable argument; So I will rephrase: IMO ~~it has always been reasonable to believe that Zimmerman was bound and determined to get himself a "F'ing Coon".~~ Total Bias acknowledged. I feel better now. Back to trying to be fair and balanced. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe you just ascribed such a bigoted, prejudiced feeling to Zimmerman without blinking. Having recently read up on the rules regarding biographies of living persons in Wikipedia, I believe the rules for such biographies apply to talk pages as well. I have no clue how to report such a statement, but hope someone with the know-how will see your comment and do the right thing. Racism and prejudice go both ways, and you have crossed a line that never should have been crossed. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe such comments and soapboxing fall under WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP. DocOfSoc is sure showing he has a WP:POV to push.--Львівське (говорити) 02:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya'll apparently missed the part where I said "with tongue firmly in cheek". Also, I was just quoting George Zimmerman. Sorry you were offended. Black Humour. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't miss it and it still doesn't make what you wrote acceptable or appropriate. I don't care if you are black, in my opinion, your comments are beyond offensive. Like Lvivske said above, you're showing a "POV" and that probably goes against editing rules. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

See the definition of of Black Comedy. I have apologized and crossed out. Back to biting tongue and WP:DNB — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that the original comment was out of line, but that "black humor" being taken wrong was completely hilarious. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm out to lunch when it comes to "black humor". I didn't find it amusing in the least. For what it's worth, I don't think my African-American relatives would have found it humorous, either. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Black humour" has absolutely nothing to do with race. And, No, it was not amusing when George Zimmerman said it. Therein lies the Irony.

— DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. It's not funny when Zimmerman allegedly said it, but you think it's funny when you say it? If it's not funny the first time, it's not funny the second time. I was always taught that hate speech is hate speech and contains no humor no matter who presents it and no matter the justification. That's pretty much all I'm interested in saying on the matter. You apologized and crossed out your offensive words, so that's good enough for me. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he's making an even worse joke about 'black humor' which are jokes about death. Being a matter of race on the term as supposed to be irony because he is making a racist joke in the process. This is way out of line, DocofSoc. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Chris, I really have respected your intuitive input on the article. However you are way off base in your interpretation of what I meant. Gallows humor is about death. Go see Black comedy for illumination on black humour. Goerge Z is the one being racist here. I do not understand where you get racism unless you simply don't understand the Communication terms which I used and have taught in the most multi-cultural University in the country.(CSULA) I don't have a racist bone in my multicultural body. I already apologized and if you want to take this to my talk page we can discuss it further. "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate" Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The communication error is yours. The article you highlighted goes directly to what Chris said it would go to: gallows humor. For the record, nothing's been proven Zimmerman said what you claim he did. He was alleged to say it, but saying Zimmerman is racist based on something he might have said is another rush to judgement editors of the article are supposed to be avoiding. Is it possible your admittedly biased take on the incident had clouded your ability to work on this article and discuss it in a fair and unbiased manner? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Using the term and then referring to is misinterpretation as irony is pretty clear under the definition that it has a double meaning or more; to which one party knows and the other doesn't know. From the Irony definition on its own page, "Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension" So basically I can take your 'black humor' at being a joke about 'black people' and 'black humor' as being a joke about 'death' and because of your specific call that the misinterpretation of the latter can invoke the former. A third possible outcome is humor of 'black people' as it is a joke for them. Sadly, your statement does not give credit to your view as the first line clearly states the connection between black comedy and gallows humor, "A black comedy, or dark comedy, is a comic work that employs black humor or gallows humor." It is just another name for gallow's humor and your 'irony' does much to further confuse your miscommunication. It still crosses the line, no matter how you slice it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

new trayvon picture

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

So some editor has swapped out the hoodie pic for a new pic. The hoodie pic is now down lower.

Can we use two photos? I think the policy technically says 1 fair use photo, but I think we can probably stretch that to two in this case.

Is the new photo acceptable? I think it is not prejudicial (either putting Martin in a bad light, or presenting him as a young kid etc)

I possibly object that everyone else has a nice "headshot" picture, and then we have a very casual, not looking directly at the camera shot for Martin, which seem sort of place comparatively. I would prefer a shot of him looking directly at the camera, but I do not know if that is enough of a reason to formally object to this new photo.

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The provinence of the new image is highly suspect. Until a reliable source makes it clear that it's actually a picture of the subject, it should not be used. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comon, be serious. Its obviously a picture of Trayvon. Be neutral, fight for objectivity, but dont just make objections for the sake of making objections. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "obvious," is my "please find a reliable source." Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember the last set of Trayvon pictures that came out was from someone in Georgia? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A second Trayvon image is justified

The "hoodie" image alone is suboptimal because it's dated but it is iconic. A more recent trayvon image (if sourced) would be a welcome addition. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Most likely we can only use one photo of Trayvon due to copyright issues. There is a fair use exemption for a single photo. If we can get consensus on a photo other than the hoodie one we can switch, but we probably can't add an additional one. As you can see above, some of the editors are going to be sticklers about sourcing to make sure it is authentic, and there will definitely be a debate of balancing the "choir boy" vs "thug" camps. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall a "iconry" section in wikipedia policies. We should use whatever image is the most recent for either person, assuming we have some way to fairly confirm the dates/ages. That's the real difficult part.Whatzinaname (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Right now, this page involves a lot of overlapping issues. Who is at fault, did law enforcement behave appropriately, political impact, etc. Eventually the "actual shooting" will involve into a subarticle just on the shooting itself. When that happens we can't have enough images of the subjects on commons. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of discussion of Martin / Zimmerman's history

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

As far as I can tell, the current article is conspicuously silent about both Zimmerman and Martin's prior character history. That is to say, Zimmerman's prior arrest and subsequent dismissal of those charges, and Martin's suspension. Both of those facts are being reported on widely by reliable sources, and have been in the article earlier, but have now been removed.

I understand the bio concerns, and these are not intentionally public figures, however prior history is immediately relevant to both, and the fact it's not included is strange. The previous discussions about this were a while ago, and it seems ripe to deal with.

I do agree, however, that the character things need to be all or nothing... in other words, if we discuss prior incidents of one individual we must do the other as well. Shadowjams (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No pseudo-bios or bios for this article. Both of their unrelated 'issues' should not be here as they have no background or relation to the incident in question. The last suspension of Martin is questionable as is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's arrest has been put back in, somebody added it in the aftermath section, second paragraph.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues are related to that point. What do you mean questionable. There's multiple reliable sources. If the discussion of Zimmerman's past incidents is included, Martins need to be as well. If the major national papers are reporting on these subjects, your assertions that it's not relevant is unpersuasive. Shadowjams (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, they are related to that point, but I also agree with your above statement, that it should be all or nothing.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason its relevant and the news covers it, is because it suggests how someone may act in the future. That sort of reporting is routine. If someone has a record of being in trouble with the law or otherwise, that reinforces or undermines the notion that did something wrong again.

Of course that inference can be horribly wrong too. That's why rules of evidence routinely exclude exactly that kind of information.

The point is whether or not the coverage of those issues outweighs the prejudicial affect that they might have. The degree to which the mainstream coverage has focused on them is the most relevant part of that question. That's open to debate, so that's why I bring it up. It's also why this is question about a category of information, and why that category is all or nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear that people notable for one event should not have full biographies on an incident page and to specifically avoid pseudo-bios. Per WP:PSEUDO under inclusion and WP:HARM#TEST most of it is not needed or required and only serves to damage the integrity of their character. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an essay, not policy. The policy is WP:BLP1E. Although I think that essay's criteria match what I wrote above. So it's not enough for you to just state the policy and then say end of issue. You need to now apply it. Shadowjams (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I used the wrong one. Sorry. For Zimmerman's 'crime' WP:BLPCRIME "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted." And WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I wish I could find the policy that made mention that a biography should not be tied to a person notable for a single event, but it is growing and I think WP:BLPCRIME covers it well enough. No conviction. No need to plaster it like it was a crime. Same with Martin's so called 'burglary'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I said nothing about a "burglary"... I only used the examples of Zimmerman's arrest and Martin's suspension, which were both widely reported. And we should never suggest or say something that could be disparaging (or glowing for that matter) if there's not a reliable source to back it up. That should go without saying. The policy you're looking for is the one I linked above. It's all part of the same one though: WP:BLP. Shadowjams (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree with this, but do note that we absolutely need to be treating martin and zimmerman the same. (Theoretically martin gets less protection as no longer living, but for this discussion lets say the same). Under the crime etc policies linked above, about 2/3 of the "aftermath" section needs to be deleted. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of it does need to go based on policies. The news is clearly being sensational, misreporting and speculating on a great number of issues. Remember that is was original for violence? Now it was 'without violence'? Each week the entire story changes and the news is clearly not consistent. If our so called reliable sources are not reliable then we should limit our coverage until they become reliable. If we took the case to Reliable Sources and laid out the situation I have no doubts that they will come to the conclusion that the media will not be credible for a great number of these claims put forth. Even common blogs directly have piles of evidence to show for this and specifically cross check sources and material which we could clearly cite as evidence in that case. Face it, the information changes all the time, there has not been one aspect of this case that has been steady other then the fact Zimmerman caused Martin's death. Here's a short list of major issues from the so-called Reliable Sources: Ethnicity, religion, political affilations, two gun shots, the gun itself, execution, lack of injuries, witness accounts, 911 tapes, Zimmerman's that night, police reports, photo manipulation and editing 911 tapes to push racism. Let's not even get into Martin being Jesus Christ.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the with violence->without violence change was part of his plea/pre-trial agreement, but its moot as between the two of us the information is currently gone. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it pretty clear cut the only reason Martin was in the area at the time was because he was serving a school suspension? [1]. Seems relevant enough to me to be included. I don't think it's really comparable though as a reason for adding Zimmerman's dropped charges since those are not related in any way to the shooting.Redredryder (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the suspensions are relevant and important to the story. The Miami Herald (the home paper for me and the Martin family) has written several articles about Martin's suspensions BECAUSE THEY ARE RELEVANT. Wikipedia should not be a source that sanitizes a person's history and censors legitimate information simply because it is uncomfortable or inconsistent with an editor's political or world view. Please include the suspension information. Thanks! MiamiManny (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The bios should be full and complete for both Zimmerman and Martin. I support efforts to put in all information that is well-sourced, whether it reflects negatively or positively on the individual. If the mainstream media is covering an angle of their biographies, that means it is relevant and it has a legitimate citation. Wikipedia should not be used to sanitize their biographies. Wiki readers deserve complete, sourced, unabridged information about both individuals. If we need to set up separate biography pages for both individuals, so be it.MiamiManny (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that the material regarding Martin's suspension from school is relevant to the article. If for nothing else but to give a reason why he wasn't in school that day and walking through the gated community. Mind you, I'm not saying that he wouldn't have been shot if he had behaved himself in school, just that it gives a more complete picture of why he was where he was when he was there. As far as Zimmerman's claims that Martin looked suspicious and as if he might be on drugs, the reason for Martin's suspension (being in possession of drug paraphernalia and traces of marijuana) also make the suspensions relevant to the article. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed --Львівське (говорити) 21:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Martin and Zimmerman personally, I am mostly in agreement with you. The parent's professions are quite a tenuous link though. There are no allegations of political motivation during the incident, or of political connections etc being used in the aftermath. Some non-reliable, non-notable commentators, who are not included in the article, made disparaging remarks about Zimmerman saying he was a typical right winger, but since we are not referencing those comments, refuting them is not relevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Editor Rollo V. Tomasi (great name) What is your source for "Zimmerman claims.....as if he might be on drugs."? I am not in favor of including prior incedents in the article about the shooting death of Martin. I don't thihk they are pertinent or necessary. During the moments of their extended interplay, neither of the parties had any awareness or cause to be aware of each others history...good or bad. This is the type of information that would flourish at Aftermath of the Trayvon Martin Shooting...or, as suggested above, seperate biography articles. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's claim is made on the phone call he made. he obviously had no knowledge of Martin's past, so that leaves three possibilities, actual observation of odd/drugged out behavior, racism, random paranoia. Based on the rate of leaks from the PD, I assume we would know at this point if Martin had significant drugs in his bloodstream, but pot is relatively hard to test for in the short term. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

state attorney acuses martin family of spreading lies

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/State-attorney-outraged-by-federal-review-request-in-Trayvon-Martin-case/-/1637132/10042672/-/13nq8rrz/-/index.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link. Interesting reading. How do you think we should proceed to incorporate it into the article, Gaijin? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The primary source as well (The letter from the martin family attny) http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/10042462/data/2431932/-/12q62jp/-/Crump-letter-for-review.pdf

Not sure on how to include yet we may need to rearrange some information to make accusations vs defenses, or just add it into the official statements area Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the BLP material it references. That is a VERY serious accusation that was made and should not be attributed to a nameless source on a non-neutral poor fact checking sensationalist source. It is unconfirmed by Reuters. And the source of that information is the media from the family. [2] As far as it is concerned, no source, no fact checking, not on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to claim that WKMG-TV is an unreliable source, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I am unaware of this 'Must Be Mentioned By Reuters' rule you propose. Nevard (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Again and again, this must be repeated. The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. (See WP:RS) WKMG-TV is a PUBLISHER, not a SOURCE, but just a COMPONENT of a SOURCE. WKMG-TV may generally have a reputation for reliability, but that does not automatically mean every writer or every article from WKMG-TV is automatically reliable. -- Avanu (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have stated no attribution or independent verification. This one unsourced statement which is unconfirmed, unsupported and unfounded has no ties to any individual and is at best gossip. It infers a conspiracy and has not been attributed and denied by public officials who have multiple documents and statements that point to it being false. Shall we go over Daisey and the Apple Factory from NPR? Just because something is broadcast doesn't make it true, if the fact checking fails even after the statement and it cannot be confirmed and is largely denied doesn't make it automatically true. This American Life officially redacted the entire episode because of those lies which it did not catch. Even if WKMG-TV doesn't take the same stance in this case, evidence from Reuters and other major news sources cannot attribute or confirm it and a good amount of evidence shows that the allegation is unfounded. Without those it should never be on Wikipedia when so much is against it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. The trace back to the original publisher is The Grio with this article. [3] It states, "A source with knowledge of the investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin tells theGrio that it was then Sanford police chief Bill Lee, along with Capt. Robert O'Connor, the investigations supervisor, who made the decision to release George Zimmerman on the night of February 26th, after consulting with State Attorney Norman Wolfinger -- in person. Wolfinger's presence at the scene or at the police department in the night of a shooting would be unusual, according to the source. On a typical case, police contact the state attorney's office and speak with an on duty assistant state attorney; they either discuss the matter by phone or the on duty assistant state attorney comes to the crime scene - but rarely the state attorney him or herself." This statement was used by the Martin family attorney and the Grio responded to defend this anonymous source with the following, "The letter doesn't doesn't offer any caveats regarding the allegations, including reporting by theGrio, via an anonymous source, that Wolfinger traveled from his home on the night of the shooting, after 7:30 p.m. on a Sunday night, to confer with the police chief and the investigations supervisor, Robert O'Connor. " [4] To sum up the situation, Crump's letter states theGrio's anonymous source which cannot be independently confirmed about this alleged meeting and makes allegations about the way in which it was handled. The fact that other news agencies cannot confirm this 'anonymous source' despite attempting to is a serious counter to its verification and integrity. theGrio is also far from neutral with a clear POV and target audience. Giving the circumstances it is clear that it should not be touted as a fact in the case, which is why I removed it. The allegation was treated as fact despite the evidence against it; it is why I removed it outright under BLP concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that any specific allegations should not be reported as fact, or even as a detailed allegation probably. However, the fact that some non-specific allegations and accusations have been made might be due a line or two in the overall article, as well as the response from the officials. While certainly the family may be mistaken in their claims, aand relying on poor information or logic, I do not think there is any doubt that they indeed are making the claims, and those claims are continuing to drive a good portion of the outrage/response (See the change.org etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not like the example of a 'politician who reported to have an affair and denies it', this is a single anonymous source which has not been verified as having made a statement of an event that they were not present for. If they were present in the meeting then the source of the leak would be known or at least confirmed. Despite attempts at verification, they have failed and Reuters even confirms this. Other works refer to 'theGrio' as their source, but none actually cite an independent confirmation of said statement. Its an allegation of dubious nature by a source with a clear bias. I do not think such damaging information or allegation should be entered without at least confirming a named or verified source. Even blogs (which are rejected as always unreliable) make better arguements then theGrio when considering such allegations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? I am discussing the letter from the Martin family linked above, that is not anonymous. Are you talking about the letter from zimmerman's family saying he was involved inthe Ware case? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

How is this any different than a source leaking information to ABC about the investigation? We have it included in the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The atty for the family has made a serious allegation, the state attorney has disputed it, and both of those things are verified. In light of the Wolfinger denial, we shouldn't report it as fact, but we should report the dispute. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Detailed Timeline released

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Reuters has released an excellent timeline of events with more background than was previously available. It confirms dad's fiance lived in the community just a short distance from the shooting, but they were out on a date at the time. It also shows how Trayvon's mom found the attorney and how the case was turned into a media event. A very good read. http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-world-heard-cries-183813181.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.187.44 (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Very handy. This is so much better than the NYT version, it's really not right. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It was an interesting article. What I found interesting was Tracy Martin's recollection of Det. Serino telling him Zimmerman's story the night of the shooting. Different version of events than previously has been reported.

I also think that Martin's parents and their attorney, Benjamin Crump should be put back into the article in some capacity since they were instrumental in bringing this story to the attention of the media. It wouldn't be necessary to include every single statement they ever made, but a brief synopsis of their involvement is warranted. If it wasn't for their efforts, this article wouldn't even exist.--Isaidnoway (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to original article on reuters

Edit request on 4 April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a factual error in the information regarding the father of George Zimmerman. The existing information states,

"George Michael Zimmerman[25] was born on October 5, 1983, in Virginia,[26] the son of Gladys Zimmerman, who is from Peru, and Robert Zimmerman Sr.,[2] a retired Supreme Court magistrate from the United States.[27]"

The line above, which begins with "George Michael Zimmerman", is factually inaccurate. George Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman Sr. was NOT and was never a "retired Supreme Court magistrate from the United States." Instead, it should be noted that Robert Zimmerman Sr. is a retired magistrate in the State of Virginia. A magistrate, more commonly known as a Justice of the Peace, is not a judge and frequently have no formal, legal background.

Here is a link to a description of the judicial hierarchy of the Virgina judicial system:

^[1]

Another source of information regarding the duties and powers of a Virginia magistrate is located again on the Virginia Judicial system's web site at the following link:

^[2]

The Wiki entry above is prejudicial in that it purports that George Zimmerman's father, Robert, was high in the judicial system of the United States wherein he was actually at the absolute lowest rung of the ladder for justice in the State of Virginia. I suspect that this biased "error" was placed to suggest that Robert Zimmerman had some sort of powerful contacts in the judicial system that will preclude justice from being served.

RifleMat (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done by someone, I dont see supreme court any more Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the 'Zimmerman cell phone call to police' section there is the following statement: "However, before hanging up he changed his mind". The term 'changed his mind' is leading, unsubstantiated and pure speculation. The reference listed does not supply the addition of the 'changed his mind' term. The sentence should read: However, before hanging up he said “Actually, could you have him call me, and I’ll tell him where I’m at?

68.3.103.157 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Done That part was just poorly written. Updated as requested.Redredryder (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

7-Eleven

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

I looked at the three references that are after the sentence that says Martin was returning from a 7-Eleven. I don't see them mention 7-Eleven. One mentions "convenience store". The nearest 7-Eleven appears to be a good walk PAST a Target. (User:Wickorama) —Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Oh firetruck me, here we go again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_2#Request_to_edit_inaccurate_description_.22nearby_7-Eleven.22 FML, 완젬스 (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No RS mentions a 7-11, but only 'convenience store'. To say specifically a 7-11, or as in #Shooting, a specific store, is OR, speculation or reporting rumor. If there is a reputable source, it needs to be in the article.--DeknMike (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're joking right? The 3rd sentence of the article unequivocally says:

The shooting of Trayvon Martin took place on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed,^[3] 17-year-old African American male who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old man of mixed ethnic descent (Latin American mother, white American father).^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] Martin was walking from a 7-Eleven convenience store to the home of his father's fiancée when Zimmerman, a community watch coordinator, began following Martin and called the Sanford Police Department to say he witnessed suspicious behavior^[8]^[9]^[10]

Right, the Wikipedia article on "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" says that he was walking home from a 7-Eleven. I am looking for the newspaper article that is the reference for that. I don't see 7-Eleven mentioned in the 3 articles which are being used as references for the statement that he was coming from a 7-Eleven. Wickorama (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, just being devil's advocate, but if you're saying that we're wrong, then go ahead and remove the 7-eleven reference. I trust the fact you're possibly correcting a major article's basic facts (in the lede of all places!) so if you're right, you're right but don't expect for it peaceably be challenged. (hint: expect a heated, battleground scenario) However, count me as one of your supporters if this spawns an edit war. Cheers, 완젬스 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Can restore if RS determines which store Skittles came from, but it's a trivial point not germaine to the core narritive of the story.--DeknMike (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been reported in the media as both ways, convenience store and 7-11. But he was right, the references cited did not specifically mention a 7-11. In addition, reference number 1 cited after unarmed is tagged as an unreliable source and it links to nothing about being unarmed. However the references cited at the end of that sentence do specifically mention Martin being unarmed. I'm not sure why someone would insert a cite in the middle of the sentence anyway, when the other cited references were adequate.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the duplicitous reality of editing a politically controversial article. Don't say I didn't warn you! 완젬스 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The father and girlfriend were out on a date when Trayvon left the house. No one (NOT ANYONE) can say when he left or where he was going. The story about his leaving at NBA half-time to go to the store was made up after the fact by the Martin family. Just because media picks up false information and publishes it doesn't make it a valid source. The entire reference to where he went or was coming back from should be deleted. True Observer (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon had a younger step-brother who was also home at the time when they went to dinner. It is reasonable to assume the information of when Trayvon left and where he was going came from him. When the parents returned, he told them, and then the family issued that statement. It's also reasonable to assume the step-brother was interviewed by the police.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT reasonable to assume the police interviewed the step brother. First, we MUST have sources. Second, the parents complained in news stories about how they didn't know where Trayvon was, and that he was labeled John Doe at the morgue. My impression is that the step brother would not know who was shot or even if a shooting happened based on his parents expressing ignorance of where Trayvon was. -- Avanu (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Where did this tidbit come from? Are you saying Trayvon was babysitting his dad's girlfriend's son (not a stepbrother) and left the child alone?--DeknMike (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Younger does not imply needs babysitting. I don't know which sources it was, as there are so many at this point, but that is the original source for "break in the game 7-11 trip". as reported by the family I believe. Regarding if it should be deleted or not, we should make it clear that it is the familys statement of what happened, and not an observed fact, but it should not be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin is 100% correct and has cited a well established Wikipedia policy, which is to put the statement in the "voice" of the originator, rather than making it seem like Wikipedia is vouching for the content of this particular article. If there is a statement, we must give context to the statement and present it accordingly. Once again, we should make it clear that it is the family's statement of what happened, and not an observed fact. Well said, 완젬스 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the article talking about them going out to dinner and leaving Brandi's son (future step-brother) and Trayvon at home. Who else would know what Trayvon was watching on TV at the time and where he was going? It wasn't reported by Trayvon's girlfriend in their cell phone conversation. These were two of the last people he talked to while he was alive who would know that kind of information. That's why I said it was reasonable to assume that Brandi's son was the source, it would only seem logical that Tracy Martin would ask the kid where Trayvon was when they got home. I think it is also logical to assume the police interviewed the kid as well. They were complaining in the press they didn't know why he didn't come home that night. I wasn't talking about including any of this in the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Under heading "Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch"

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sentence in the second paragraph currently reads as follows: "Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting." Saying "one other shooting" implies that the shooting of Trayvon Martin falls into the category of "crimes committed at The Retreat." Since the question of whether or not the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a crime is still in dispute, I would recommend that the word "other" be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorAaron (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

MiamiManny, you are edit warring, and in violation of the 1rr on the page

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop you personal attacks on me and assume good faith. You damaged the article twice with sloppy edits and I fixed it. MiamiManny (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

MiamiManny has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on this article. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this page still unedr 1rr?? I don't see a mention/warning anywhereWhatzinaname (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

When you edit the article, this box is displayed at the top. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not being confrontational, please understand that. I just don't understand why MiamiManny was censored, even if just for 24 hours. I read the edits provided, and do not see that they were "warring" as defined by Wikipedia. It does appear that the rules for dealing with new editors is being completely ignored by long-time editors. I know this is challenging as this article has attracted many "newbies", however Wikipedia is built on a certain foundation, and that foundation needs to be respected regardless of the article subject.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There are very specific rules in place on this page, due to the controversy. It is called a 1 Revert Rule. You may only revert a particular change once within 24 hours. MiamiManny made the "Democrat" change 3 times, including after being warned. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I understand now. Still don't think their edits (from what I read) were wrong, but if you can only do it once in 24 hours, and they violated that, then rules are rules, and I respect that. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos wanted

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We're going to need a free map or aerial photo of the area. The locations are sufficiently relevant that a diagram is called for. We also going to need a "contemporary" photo of Trayvon at some point, but not at the expense of the iconic hoodie image that's become such a symbol. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can devote an entire Wikipedia to the case, so we can list every single detail, map it with GIS software, spell out the words of every single speech, include pictures of every single "I am Trayvon Martin" hoodie, and so on. BTW, I haven't found a section yet on the parents of the owners of the construction company which build the sidewalk on which Trayvon Martin was walking, which must be due to censorship. Was there even a sidewalk? If no, why not? Hey, Hector, maybe you can make an animation of the entire series of events, starting with the birth of his grandparents. We're going to need that. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Shooting of Trayvon Martin neighborhood.png

. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the colored dots indicating?

Here's a google aerial view in an RS for reference.[5] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

edit request, remove magistrate

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I am at my 1rr already on that item, but I think its a very tangential piece of information, that is only being used to imply Zimmerman may have gotten preferential treatment. There is no evidence of that, and no RS/notable accusations of that. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Which section is it in? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. I think. But please check to make sure it is the same thing you were asking for. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it in there anymore. Good Job!--Isaidnoway (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

With the 1 revert rule I didn't want to get it wrong. Glad it was the right one. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I cobbled together File:Shooting of Trayvon Martin neighborhood.png, a map of the 911 calls since Zimmerman apparently moved to the neighborhood in 2009, marking points on Martin's route. Despite much associated publicity, and our own linking to the primary material, I suspect some people would say it is too stalky, and without a doubt it is too crudely drawn to really deserve use here, but I think something of this type should be very beneficial to the article. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think its going to run into OR/SYNTH rules. Any particular fact on there may be well sourced, but I dont think there is any single source showing them all, which would be needed to avoid SYNTH. I think it is only a matter of time before one of the major news outlets does this though, and then we can make our own copy, using that as a source. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

NYT did a fairly comprehensive map. Can someone copy that? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

link? [unsigned]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an OR/Synth problem if the following from WP:OI is observed.

"Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments..."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

so is Obama "multiracial"?

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

Or does his wiki page call him straight up black. Oh, wait, here is the lede "Obama is the first African American to hold the office." Oh gee, goood ol' wikipedia's double standards as always. I'm sure if Obama were a pedophile or mass murder he wouldn't be called "black" not "multiracial". Whatzinaname (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it has to do with him self identifying as such; even someone who is multiracial would be 'an American of African descent' vis a vis 'African American'--Львівське (говорити) 06:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He's only partially afircan american -- and even then there is debate if that term belongs to Obama since his father was purely African, not african american. That being beside the main point, Zimmerman does identify as hispanic, and his family calls him hispanic, it's even on his voting recordWhatzinaname (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've slightly modified the lead in line with addressing your comments. While I can see the points you are making, the approach you used seems to be lacking in good faith just a bit. Please understand that while not everyone can always agree, we are usually trying to work hard toward the common goal of building a worthwhile encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the angry sarcasm in Whatzinaname's post just doesn't work for me. I have no idea what his point is. (Apart from general whining.) It's a pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why AGF works both ways. While it does have a bit of a tone that isn't necessarily helpful sounding, the point seems to be that we should be consistent with our racial names, not making them up to fit a situation, like the media seems to have done in this story. -- Avanu (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's a cultural thing. I'm not American. And I still can't get much sense out of that rant. Surely the real problem with names for racial categorisation is that it's all so artificial. Nothing is precise. Nothing is right, or totally wrong. (Apart, obviously, from the now non-PC terms like nigger.) I don't know why people get so hung up over the names of racial groups, which are mostly only social constructs anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The US population is obsessed with race. They always try to categorize every possible shade of skin color into a separate "race". E.g. the whole categorization of Zimmerman into "half-white-half-hispanic" is plainly idiotic. Hispanics are almost exclusively descended from Europeans and everybody else on the planet would say they are "white". The truth is that everybody who is not of WASP descent is not considered "white" in the US and they make up new categories to fuel their ubiquitous racism. Even though racial segregation was officially ended 40 years ago, everything in the US, especially in the South, is still about race. Or religion. For the rest of the world there are only 3 or 4 "races" while for Americans there are hundreds. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The US population is not obsessed with race, only the left/democrat race hustlers in the USA is/sre concerned with dividing people up into their own respective ethnic concentration camps and telling them about just how aggrieved they are to live in the most free country on planet earth. and how only a democrat/race hustler like them can fix their situation. That said, I'm not going to stand by why you make this stuff up. Some countries are largely European/caucasian in makeup, like argentina, while others are highly mixed like mexico, still others have racial pockets with essentially caucasian people in parts, blacks in others, native americans in others, and mixed in others -- like Brazil. In the future, I wouldn't recommended opining on things you know little of. Whatzinaname (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call there- Mr. Zimmermann's biological parents were non-Hispanic white (probably 95+% from presently recognized European groups) and Peruvian (likely primarily Amerindian, possibly some African, very likely at least a small component of modern European commonality). He's likely closer to modern European population groups than modern non-admixtured native South American populations, but there really isn't a term in common American English usage for that. If we're going to use social labels, the term which is closest is 'mestizo' (commonly used in South American countries)- 'Hispanic white' includes people fresh off the boat to America from Spain. Nevard (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Nevard, it would be incorrect to describe him as Hispanic white. He is both Hispanic (50%) and white (50%) but the Hispanic part of Zimmerman comes from his mother, who is in all likelihood a woman of mixed descent, going by the pictures we have of Zimmerman. Any more sources on his mother? We know his father is white, but that does not make Zimmerman a white man. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone being mixed race (however you define it) doesn't preclude them being the first whatever. No one said Obama is the first 'exclusively African-American' to be president, whatever you mean by that. Take a look at Lewis Hamilton who is commonly called the first black in a number of areas (as identified in our article) despite having a mixed-race background, as also identified in our article. I'm not sure if Lewis Hamilton identifies only as black or also as mixed-race but there are plenty of mixed race people who will identify both as A and as B which means they are both but doesn't mean it's inaccurate to say they are the first A or first B if they are. The idea that racial terms have to be exclusive or precise is a little silly, they are ultimately artificial constructs. And as I've said before, the meaning of such identifies often varies from culture to culture. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is wikipedia "culture", it's also the English wikipedia, and it's also an american-related wiki, all of which go into describing the characters and vernacular involved therein. The point is, there needs to be a standard maintained. You can't call Obama, also an american-related wiki, black or african american, and then come here and call this guy "mixed" or even "white hispanic" which is the most bogus and absurd "racial" description ever known to manWhatzinaname (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

White hispanic is not absurd, it makes perfect sense. Anyone whos ancestors are pure spaniard are White hispanic. There are also black hispanics, asian hispanics, and indian (native american) hispanics. Knowing which label correctly applies to Zimmerman is much more complicated, but there is 0 doubt that such a thing as a white hispanic exists. There is however a good argument to be made that we shouldn't track hispanic the way we do, since we do not do so for any other ethnicity. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He's clearly not descended from purely spanish stock when he looks more mongoloid than caucasoid. White hispanics do exists, but it's not a racial term -- white hispanics are simply whites/caucasians, the hispanic part is purely ethnic. This is why the term is idiotic. Whatzinaname (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get who told you white hispanics is a purely racial term, or else what gave you the idea terms have to be purely racial. Many people have been saying before you started this thread and after you started this thread it is not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No one "told me" it was a purely racial term. Using it AS a racial term is wrong, however, as was being done.Whatzinaname (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and his father is Peruvian American, and many of which are mixed european descent. So white/european hispanic makes perfect sense.--Львівське (говорити) 02:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In matters like this wikipedia primarily relies on self identification. In the absence of that, we may go by RS. We don't generally care about maintaining arbitary 'standards' whatever you mean by that, nor do we try to force consistency when things naturally vary for whatever reason. BTW, while this article is US related, wikipedia as a whole is not 'american-related'.

Zimmerman's account of events

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this section should only include what Zimmerman allegedly told police. If you add what his brother says in interviews as "Zimmerman's account of events", then you should also add what his father says in interviews (and for that matter, what his lawyer says in interviews) which includes a statement that Zimmermann walked on the sidewalk all the way to the street (away from where his vehicle was parked and towards where Martin had been walking). The father's statement says that this was not following Martin (even though it was the same direction/route he would have gone if following him), but trying to get a street address to give to the police. The father also says that Martin saw the gun while fighting and added a death threat to his punches. The father does not say that Martin tried to disarm Zimmerman or go for the gun. I think it is very strange that the father says that Martin saw the gun but does not say that Martin tried to get it. Possibly he is concerned with the issue of fingerprints (or lack therof) on the gun. Wickorama (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The accounts of the father and the brother are relevant and should absolutely be included. It may be appropriate to do that under a separate subhead. MiamiManny (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus poll regarding adding the parents' occupations

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion

Should the occupations of the respective parents of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman be included in the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes

.

Strong Support Of course Zimmerman's family history and the occupations of his parents are relevant and should be included! There have been countless articles written in the mainstream media that mention his dad was a magistrate. The fact that Zimmerman's dad was a member of the judiciary is repeatedly brought up in blogs and discussion boards that speculate on the potential influence his dad may have had on local law enforcement and the prosecutor. In fact, I initially visited this article to learn about Zimmerman's dad and his legal position. (I read on a blog that he was a U.S. magistrate, which was inaccurate.) I am sure there are thousands of other users who have done the same. People come to wikipedia to see a full and complete article about a given topic. Why any wiki editor would want to err side of censorship and exclusion is beyond me. It's a shame.MiamiManny (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Only some (Please specify which ones.)

.

Sure:So why the hell not.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No

.

strong oppose Information about the participants themselves and their bio may have value. Their parents bio is a level removed, and therefore also a level less relevant. There are no allegations or accusations from any reliable or notable sources that have any impact on the shooting or its aftermath. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

strong oppose Were the parents of either involved in the altercation? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
HiLo isn't often right, but this time he is. Also, Bob needs to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a record of the world. No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.247.159 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, a compliment! (I think.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

66.168.247.159, I started this poll because there was an edit war going on. I haven't made up my mind whether the material should or should not be in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, work on that, will you? And polls are useless. Policy matters. (Common sense isn't in great demand here, or in supply for that matter.) 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose I don't see how the occupations of Zimmerman's parents would be relevant to this article. If there's even an article on Zimmerman alone, their occupations might be appropriate. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
oppose No need for it, their jobs are not notable for influencing the case in any way and its just extraneous irrelevant material in the article. Like what pair of shoes Trayvon had on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose For the sake of this decision, I don't believe including their occupations would be consistent with the de-facto policies of this article as apparently established through consensus. On a personal level, I find the occupations of the parents interesting and don't see the harm in including them. My philosophy is the more well-sourced facts in the article the better. But if prior suspensions, prior arrests, various audio recordings, and the like are excluded for a lack of relevance then it would be impossible to argue that the occupations of either of their parents is relevant. Emeraldflames (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional Comments

CAN WE DROP THESE FUCKING POLLS? THEY ARE NOT USEFUL PRACTICE IN WIKIPEDIA (especially when called polls) AND DO NOT LEAD TO CONSENSUS. Just use normal discussion. Delvier quality arguments for your point of view. Open your minds. Read what others think. Consider changing your mind. Yes, I know this topic has attracted some newbies, but it's time you all learnt more about how things are supposed to work here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Trayvon's parents deserve some kind of mention in this article, after all they were the ones who brought their son's shooting into the national spotlight. Zimmerman's father has interjected himself into this as well and it's been covered by the media, it should be included. As far as their occupation's go, who cares, unless their jobs somehow become relevant to this in someway.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If an edit war was going on then it is proper that some discussion be brought up, doesn't need to be called a poll, but it seems to be falling under WP:SNOW as to where this is headed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A big 'thank you' to the media for fueling people's rage.....

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hate fueled weekend beating says elderly man

During the attack, Watts says he brought up Trayvon Martin, the Florida teen killed by a block watch member Feb. 26.

"Why me? Remember Trayvon! Remember Trayvon!," Watts recalled. "I meant it as a peaceful way. What happened to Trayvon, I was not responsible for, I live 1,000 miles away! But they kept saying, 'Kill him! Kill Him! Kill him!' because I'm a white man."

http://www.foxtoledo.com/dpp/news/local/hate-fueled-weekend-beating-says-elderly-man

By the way, the media is also doing its typical dance of "How the media went wrong" as well, see http://www.npr.org/2012/04/03/149928191/polarized-coverage-of-the-trayvon-martin-story -- Avanu (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The mainstream media has proven itself anything but a reliable source in this tragedy. 67.233.247.236 (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Public policy commentator Richard Land says President Obama and black civil rights activists are using the Trayvon Martin shooting to foment racial strife and boost the president’s re-election chances. He calls Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton “racial ambulance chasers” who are fomenting a “mob mentality” that is akin to what the Ku Klux Klan used to do to blacks in the South. He claims “This is being done to try to gin up the black vote for an African-American president who is in deep, deep, deep trouble for re-election and who knows that he cannot win re-election without getting the 95 percent of blacks who voted for him in 2008 to come back out and show they are going to vote for him again.” [6]--DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article talk pages are meant for discussion of specific content issues, and are not forums for general discussion of the topic at hand. Treating this talk page like your personal blog is counterproductive. MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, if your comment was directed at the article I posted to open this section, please understand that this news story is tangentially related to the "Aftermath" section of the article, however, I am not certain if or how it should be included, so I posted it here in an effort to spur discussion on the subject. Like the various stages of grief, the media has a predictable cycle, and we are here in the "self-blame, but take little responsibility" part of that arc. -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want a serious discussion of a potential source, it's best to avoid melodramatic expressions of personal disgust when you present it. As you can see, the resulting thread was basically mired in a blog-comments-section level of discourse. Regarding the source, you did see the subtitle stating that police don't see it as a hate crime? And that the mob which beat this poor elderly man was composed of both white and black teenagers? And that the only one who appears to have mentioned Martin is the beating victim? How would you propose to actually incorporate this source into the article? MastCell ^Talk 05:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Land's commentary is way off base and certainly not relevant to the shooting. I think most american's realize Obama's chances of getting re-elected hinge on his record, not this shooting or the racial undertone that Sharpton and Jackson have tried to interject into this incident.--Isaidnoway (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

critical. contrary point of view in the lede-- or the lack thereof

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

With several notable people coming out and criticizing the coverage and actions of persons involved in this case, like former NAACP president Lewis, we either need to remove the "blah, blah-- calling for a full investigation" or add the other notable voices criticizing the coverage. Lede now is grossly one-sided in this regard. Whatzinaname (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for what you feel would fix this? I just looked at the lead paragraphs and they seem adaquate. -- Avanu (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

They are plenty adequate, they are just wholly one-sided. Where are the critical voices opposed(like bryant and land, both who have said that the media and usually suspect hucksters like Sharpton are only doing this to gin up the black vote for the next election) to the actions/comments/claims of the people who have stirred the pot in this incident. And obama didn't just call for an investigation, he made racially inflammatory comments. Whatzinaname (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would think the opposing side would actually be those people asking for the investigation to play out, not those who counter claims of hidden racism with more claims that are essentially ad hominem attacks on Sharpton and others. -- Avanu (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the lead sentence "The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's Stand Your Ground law and allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct." I'm sure people like land/bryant contend that "police misconduct" "racial motivations(ostensibly of the police/DA) are not the reason for the attention, but instead media's attempt to re-ellect barrack obama and exploiting the kids death.Whatzinaname (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly many factors that allowed this story to gain attention, but I wouldn't clump the entire media into an Obama reelection conspiracy or exploitation conspiracy. You might rephrase that sentence as such:

A number of high-profile citizens have made public comments for and against Zimmerman or Martin, including Reverend Al Sharpton,[10] President Barack Obama,[11] Jesse Jackson,[12], (ADD THE OTHER POLITICIANS OR WHOEVER HERE) and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.[13]

How's that? -- Avanu (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the issue I see. Most of the statements in that section "feel" pro martin/anti zimmerman, but from a technical perspective are perfectly neutral "there should be a full investigation". However, being investigated itself probably carries a negative connotation. I think we should expand to say "X, Y, and Z have called for a full investigation, with A and B saying we should not make a rush to judgement" or something, to balance the statements out. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Repetitive out of place section

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The 'Investigations and other official statements' section seems repetitive and out of place since there already is a section on police involvement and investigations. I think something should be done, but don't want to proceed without other input. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The police involvement is dealing with just that night. The investigations section is talking about all the OTHER investigations going on (justice, fbi, special prosecutor, etc) and the official statements from those various investigations and agencies. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. While the content in the sections is different, I guess then it is the title of the sections that seems repetitive. Or maybe they should be combined with sub sections? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I cobbled together File:Shooting of Trayvon Martin neighborhood.png, a map of the 911 calls since Zimmerman apparently moved to the neighborhood in 2009, marking points on Martin's route. Despite much associated publicity, and our own linking to the primary material, I suspect some people would say it is too stalky, and without a doubt it is too crudely drawn to really deserve use here, but I think something of this type should be very beneficial to the article. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think its going to run into OR/SYNTH rules. Any particular fact on there may be well sourced, but I dont think there is any single source showing them all, which would be needed to avoid SYNTH. I think it is only a matter of time before one of the major news outlets does this though, and then we can make our own copy, using that as a source. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

NYT did a fairly comprehensive map. Can someone copy that? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

link? [unsigned]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an OR/Synth problem if the following from WP:OI is observed.

"Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments..."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A big 'thank you' to the media for fueling people's rage.....

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hate fueled weekend beating says elderly man

During the attack, Watts says he brought up Trayvon Martin, the Florida teen killed by a block watch member Feb. 26.

"Why me? Remember Trayvon! Remember Trayvon!," Watts recalled. "I meant it as a peaceful way. What happened to Trayvon, I was not responsible for, I live 1,000 miles away! But they kept saying, 'Kill him! Kill Him! Kill him!' because I'm a white man."

http://www.foxtoledo.com/dpp/news/local/hate-fueled-weekend-beating-says-elderly-man

By the way, the media is also doing its typical dance of "How the media went wrong" as well, see http://www.npr.org/2012/04/03/149928191/polarized-coverage-of-the-trayvon-martin-story -- Avanu (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The mainstream media has proven itself anything but a reliable source in this tragedy. 67.233.247.236 (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Public policy commentator Richard Land says President Obama and black civil rights activists are using the Trayvon Martin shooting to foment racial strife and boost the president’s re-election chances. He calls Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton “racial ambulance chasers” who are fomenting a “mob mentality” that is akin to what the Ku Klux Klan used to do to blacks in the South. He claims “This is being done to try to gin up the black vote for an African-American president who is in deep, deep, deep trouble for re-election and who knows that he cannot win re-election without getting the 95 percent of blacks who voted for him in 2008 to come back out and show they are going to vote for him again.” [7]--DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)