Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Splitting the article

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

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

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

• With all the protest and whatnot, there is certainly enough information to fill another article with just the reaction of that. I support creating this. Its a valid content fork. Dream Focus 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Errant's point raises a good issue; just because someone says this or claims that doesn't mean it should be on wikipedia. Just the 'notable' people making statements about it will be as much about the media spin during the time it was said and less about a long-term value. Wikipedia policies are pretty clear on the notability and reactions are not worthy of their own article by themselves; just like Zimmerman or Martin probably wouldn't meet WP:NOTE. Its WP:1E.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Errant that more focus should be put forth on the current content and organize it into a more coherent aricle. It is all over the place right now. The media coverage and the aftermath and the subsequent conclusion to the legal proceedings can all be covered later. It is best to wait until the dust settles so it can be fine tuned into a much more cohesive article that can be referenced in the future with all relevant information that arose out of this tragedy.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • @Errant: No!' It has nothing to do with controversy. I work extensively at the article for occupy wall street, and we did the same thing here which as you can see took a lot of the celebrity reaction, politicians reaction, Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, parents, etc... I'm not trying to create a POV fork at all. I'm simply saying this article is 90% about the reactions to his death, and only 10% focuses on the actual event which took place on Feb 26th. Anything which is not talking about the events of Feb 26th 2012 is simply political afterthought. The article is a mess and we should just rename this article "reaction to..." if you're unwilling to look at how disproportionate the length of coverage is here. I only came here trying to prevent what happened to the OWS article and we worked out a great solution. Just check out how compact everything is at the OWS article and how everything is scaled proportionately to its desired emphasis. This 90% reaction & 10% direct focus of this article is completely upside down. The way to start organizing the information is to create the reaction page, with your blessing (*hopefully*). Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • OWS was a massive international movement (which both articles fail badly in documenting, as it happens). This is a just-about-national media storm in the US; as with other articles of this type, we are able to successfully deal with it all together - forking off "Reactions" (a poor, ambiguous name anyway) is not a good solution. The shooting is a small event that kicked off this larger media storm (people are shot all the time in the US, it's not usually notable). What you seem to be proposing is disecting any commentary of the events into a new article, but keep a description of the commentary happening here. This seems non-opitmal for our readers. (also; and I don't mean to pile on too much, it annoys me when people throw out seemingly random statistics, as you have, in support of a point - provide some analysis to support your figures or it's just misleading) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose This is a high-profile case that has turned into a national event only because of the media reporting on it and that is why there is so much "stuff" out there at the present time. When the inevitable conclusion of this case comes to an end, then a more comprehensive and cohesive article will be able to be produced. If you look at other high-profile cases on WP like OJ Simpson's murder trial and The Death of Caylee Anthony, you will see that they include comprehensvie coverage on the very same issues that this article now faces and they are very readable and a valuable encyclopedic reference to the case and the intense coverage of the case. Readers wishing to access a reference article pertaining to this case and the events surrounding it should be able to find it all within one article.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• strongly oppose I am very much against splitting out anything from this article at this time. First of all, the "readable prose" in this article is 35K, which size guidelines say is well below any threshhold for splitting due to size. Secondly, the reaction to this event is a major part of the story and should not be shunted off to a sub article. Experience shows that sub articles are much less read, and in my view it is important that this material be kept intact in this article as it is a major part of the story - the reaction is why there is any story at all, rather than this kid just being dead and buried without any thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. So I very much oppose this action. However, the article needs more organizational work - I've been doing some as have others - and editing is always a good idea when so many hands are in an article and some material mentioned in more than one place unnecessarily. I do not agree, though, that we should just wait for the reaction stuff - it's too much a part of the story to do that. Tvoz/talk 01:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a story in current events, it is much better to leave the reactions in one place. It does not overwhelm the article at present. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. article needs to be in one place at this time. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is about the incident and the public reaction to it "-the reaction is why there is any story at all." ArishiaNishi (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• support - a split as this incident has recieved so much major national and international attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Split' Please see #History in the Making, below. The fact that the incident is an InterNational news story is news in an of itself and cannot be given justice or space here that it deserves. The media/social/entertainment/congressional "hoodie"/international "story-of-the-day quality of responses will eventual burden the article with undue weight. This story will not fade away. Seperating now will lessen the confusion and decrease the amount of work required to maintain equalibrium. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Items that need attention

• Under section of Persons involved in the case;

we have Neighborhood watch, this is not a person Edit done--looks good.

• Sgt. Anthony Raimondo (persons involved in the case) Edit done --looks good with 1 section

Redundancy, also listed below in previous incidents with racial issues

• Detective Chris Serino (persons involved in the case)-- Edit done--looks good

Redundancy, also listed below in police arrival Edit done-removed for clarity and redundant

• Chief Bill Lee (persons involved in the case)

Redundancy, also listed below police arrival, aftermath, against the sanford police

• State Attorney Norm Wolfinger (persons involved in the case)

Redundancy, also listed below investigations and other offical statement

I do realize that some of the statements may be relevant in relation to the event described below i.e. Chief Lee, but when they are saying the same thing over and over, just in a different section for no other reason than somebody just added them, it's redundant.

• Video released on March 28 (police arrival) Edit done-removed for clarity and redundant

Redundant, also listed below zimmerman's acccount of events-- video still here

• Accusation of jumping to conclusions Edit done--thank you

Commentator Thomas Sowell obviously POV

Isaidnoway (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• typo? Under zimmerman's account of events you refer to him once as Robert Zimmerman not George. Bob Dylan has nothing to do with case!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.123.224 (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that "Neighborhood watch" is a subsection of George Zimmerman, not intended to be a person - but maybe it can be incorporated into his section without the header. I am guessing that in general the idea was to highlight the major players in the case and identify them, so that people can refer there when they're reading the rest of the article and are not sure who is who. That would be why there is redundancy - I didn't set that up, I'm just guessing as to why it was done. I'm not sure it's needed, but if we decide to keep it, would need, also, to add a section for the new State's attorney so we can find her - she shouldn't be included as part of Wolfinger. And what about the various lawyers? If we remove everyone other than Martin and Zimmerman, have to be sure any relevant material that is not elsewhere, and any sources, are moved to appropriate places. Let's see what others think. Tvoz/talk 08:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Who's Who" is a list of people "under suspicion" in the DOJ probe, so Zimmerman and Treyvon for the direct investigation, and on the police side, the lead officer on scene, the officer who contradicts SPD story, and the two officials who've stepped down. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea about incorporating into his section. I agree with the new state attorney as she will become prominent in the days/weeks ahead. Agree with the lawyers as well, Zimmerman's attorney will become more relevant too as the case moves along. The family's attorney was also instrumental in bringing this case before the public. Sgt. Raimondo should be moved down to Allegations of racism--against the police as that is what he is relevant to. Det. Serino should probably stay as his statement indicates he had direct involvement with the case. His statement below in the police arrival section is not relevant to when police arrived at the scene, his interaction with Zimmerman was at the station. The police arrival section needs some clean-up too, it should include information that pertains to the first officers on the scene, and what transpired there. The video wasn't taken at the scene, seems like it was only inserted there to rebut Zimmerman's claim of injuries when directly above that we have statements from police reporting they observed him with injuries--bleeding from the nose and the back of the head.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell quote

Of course the Thomas Sowell quote is POV - that's why I identified him as a "commentator" when I put the quote in the article. The comments from Al Sharpton are also POV, but you don't seem to have a problem with having those in the article. Please explain why you have different standards for the two commentators.

For the record, here is what I think should be included:

Commentator Thomas Sowell wrote, "The man who shot the black teenager in Florida may be as guilty as sin, for all I know — or he may be innocent, for all I know. We pay taxes so that there can be judges and jurors who sort out the facts. We do not need Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the President of the United States spouting off before the trial has even begun. Have we forgotten the media's rush to judgment in the Duke University "rape" case that blew up completely when the facts came out?"

6ty4e (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a minor difference, Sharpton is commenting on the incident itself, and Sowell is commenting on coverage of the incident. But I think they are close enough to be using the same justification. I think your quote could go into the media bias section. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

also, sharpton, etc and their involvement in the case, have themselves been a subject of coverage in the case. Sowell has not been (or not been as much). Same issue with your most recent addition. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think allowing POV or "commentators" or quotes from editorials or opinion based commentary is a path we shouldn't embark on. Readers come here to reference material that is germane to the case and the events surrounding it, not the opinion of others.Isaidnoway (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Not counting my opinion, it looks like the consensus is split. 6ty4e (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to Edit Zimmerman as an additional "Victim"

As Wikipedia and it's editors do not know the facts, and were not there that fateful night, then we need to list BOTH individuals involved as "victims", or neither as "victims". To do otherwise shows a bias on Wikipedia's part. Please remember that this article and it's talk page is being closely followed by the media.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not doneIt is a fact that martin is dead. He is definitely a victim of a shooting. There is no question that the shooting happened. It may or may not be a justified shooting. Zimmerman is the alleged victim of a beating, but questions do remain about if it happened or not, and if it should be described as a beating. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done additionally, Martin is not currently described as a victim, so the point is moot. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps... the article changes by the minute. However, Martin was at one time in this article, and we need to be clear on this so it does not reappear. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a "soft" consensus that if a word must be used to describe martin, "deceased" is best, but that victim and homicide are technically correct (without implying a crime) but since many people incorrectly assume that that implies a crime, we will avoid them. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post describes Trayvon as a "Victim. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good Zimmerman image

I've had a lot of frustration working with the fairuse image upload process. Deletion decisions are made based on knowing the "Secret words" to include an image. I don't know the magic words, so I didn't want to waste my time uploading the new Zimmerman image only to see it deleted.

My thanks to the person that uploaded the new image-- It's more recent and less prejudicial, and it a big improvement to the article over noimage or the mugshot. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A better picture of Trayvon would be welcome as well.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Has a cropped version of this more recent prom photo released by his family been considered? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.71.147 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A cropped version, if we can find a better quality source would be good, that one is very grainy imo. Could you describe why you think that photo is better than the hoodie photo? I do not see a noticeable age difference between themGaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Any of those photos are better than the doctored black/white webcam one.--Львівське (говорити) 16:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• The pic we have now just looks "haunting", imo. The prom pic is not so grainy when you reduce the size of it. I reduced it to size we have here and it didn't look so bad, but his tuxedo kinda stood out more than his face, so it would have to be cropped, and then re-sized again which would run into the grainy problem again.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Photos like [2] (closeup [3]) seem much more proper standard portrait photos for an article Trayvon Martin. But for Shooting of Trayvon Martin, the sort of creepy, less revealing hoodie effect is perhaps justification for using File:Trayvon Martin.jpg due to the cruel context; I would say definitely so if I knew it were the same or a very similar hoodie to the one he was wearing his last day. I would not at all mind using both though, with the portrait style photo leading. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The "hollister" photo, is very widely reproduced, but inappropriate for an article about the shooting, as it is a much younger photograph. If Martin eventually gets a BLP article, it could possibly be used there, as it is one of the more famous photos of him. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• The hoodie image is by far the best I've yet seen because it is now iconic. We've seen newscasters and congressmen imitate it. Adding more recent Martin image would be okay if you find a good one, but the Trayvon-in-hoodie image is, effectly, 'part of the story' now. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Marijuana and suspended

Why does the information about Martin being suspended because of having a bag with marijuana traces in his possession keep getting deleted. There is negative information on Zimmerman on the page, so why is anything about Martin that's negative being removed. Shouldn't this page be balanced with the positive and the negative about all involved represented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollo V. Tomasi (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Given sources like [4] I don't think we have a problem with sourcing. The relevance is more strained, as the story is about the shooting of Trayvon Martin; essentially the provenance is whose account of the shooting we believe <- what is the reason for Martin's presence there, what is his credibility? <- was he a "criminal" <- did he use marijuana? But we don't have to make this decision solely for ourselves; we can go by the fact that sources about the shooting see fit to mention it. Even that someone is cited saying it's not relevant to the shooting is evidence of relevance to the shooting, in the sense of sticking with what the sources do. So I'm in favor of including it. Wnt (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin's suspensions (and the causes of them) are widely sourced and believed by many to be relevant for several reasons (listed above and on other pages discussing the topic.) My understanding is that because there is not a 'consensus' among the editors as to their relevance Wikipedia's policy is to exclude such information. Whether that is their official policy or not, that is the de-facto policy at least in this case. I believe the well-sourced information ought to be included, and leave it up to the reader to decide its relevance when editors cannot reach a consensus. This issue is being discussed at WP:BLPN. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While it is certainly not fair, BLP applies directly to Zimmerman, and if there is any fudging to be done here it should be to present evidence that might exculpate him rather than leaving a stronger impression that he is guilty than the known range of facts warrants. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I'm reading here in this section, it seems we all agree that the marijuana traces and suspension should be included in the article. But it's been removed again. Anyone care to replace it? By the editing rules for this page (it says 1 revert only), I can't put it back in. Who will? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus among editors which is why it keeps getting deleted. Furthermore, it has absolutely no relevance to Martin being stalked and killed by Z. If it is replaced, it will be deleted again. Contributing to this article is a merry-go-round of adds and deletes. This is simply not worth arguing about. There are more pertinent facts that need to be considered. Let it go People. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus here in this section. Who Trayvon Martin was is relevant to the page just as who George Zimmerman is is relevant to the page. Balance is necessary for an encyclopedia page. Painting Martin as an angel by leaving out who he was is irresponsible. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...and helps to justify his murder. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's untrue. Nothing Zimmerman has said or anything surrounding Trayvon Martin's death has anything to do with Zimmerman shooting the boy because of marijuana. And nothing in the information regarding the marijuana was presented in such a fashion that it would give anyone reading the page Trayvon Martin died because he had been suspended from school for suspected marijuana use. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If I could understand that I might respond. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You said that including the information about the suspension and the marijuana helps to justify his murder. Nothing Zimmerman did that night has anything to do with Trayvon Martin getting suspended for marijuana. Because of this, your claim of justification for murder doesn't fly. And let's not forget murder hasn't been established, and neither has a charge of murder been brought against Zimmerman. Add the information about Martin's suspension gives a more complete picture of him at the time of his death. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are at the very least 18 editors contributing to this article. The four editors above do not a consensus make! Again, if it is added again, it will be promptly deleted. There is no relevance to this chronicle of (hopefully) facts. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the editors voicing their opinions about this issue, those for outweigh those against. If that isn't a consensus, what is? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a consensus. That's a vote. Consensus depends on quality of argument convincing those with open minds that another viewpoint is acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally one needs consensus to remove reliably cited material. The onus is on the removers to get consensus. At the moment, how far spread is the for/against ratio, because while "a vote" the margin does matter.--Львівське (говорити) 02:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

DocOfSoc is of course right on this - Rollo, HiLo, please read the rest of this talk page, the talk archives, the edit summaries, and the BLP noticeboard where this has been discussed. What is said in one little section of a very active talk page over a few hours by a few editors in no way represents consensus. One last time: George Zimmerman is not clairvoyant. He did not know who Trayvon Martin was, let alone what his school status was. The fact that the kid was suspended from school, or why, had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. This is not a biography, it is an article about the shooting and its aftermath, so this information has no place in this article. Please don't re-add this unless an actual consensus is reached on it - and I have to say, I don't expect that to happen, so why not work on other aspects of it. Tvoz/talk 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inexperienced with Wikipedia policy. I have heard two different things. You are saying that, by default, reliably-sourced information is omitted unless there is consensus to its relevancy. I have heard others say that, by default, information is included unless there is a consensus as to its lack of relevancy. Which is it, and is there a link that can explain what that policy is to me? Thanks Emeraldflames (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus which says, "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept."--Львівське (говорити) 03:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's actually for deleting articles; I think that for normal editing it is assumed a rough consensus or compromise will emerge eventually, and the default (which should be used sparingly) is to the status quo before the big dispute. On BLP articles some Defenders of BLP claim special powers, but here, Zimmerman is the only actual BLP, much to our regret. In any case I think that NPOV and thorough coverage should be our goals, not Wikilawyering. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no status quo in this case so I figured that's the fallback. In any case, the suspension is mentioned throughout the media coverage of this event, and this article is on the event. If not in the background, the coverage that exposed his suspension history could just as easily be filed under media coverage of the shooting.--Львівське (говорити) 03:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@Wnt: Exactly. @Lvivske: We could put it there, I suppose. But to me it just seems more biographical on where Trayvon's mind and life was at the time of his death to put it in the section specifically about him. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this article is under a 1RR restriction, which means that one person had better not be "promptly removing" stuff over and over again. The way I understand the notice, we each get to make an edit once, and remake the same edit just one more time, before April 6 - after that (if the restriction is extended) I don't know whether there are any more free reverts coming. So it looks like this is liable to be settled according to the majority, not by the person willing to revert the most. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz: What's a "BLP"? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Never mind. I got the answer myself. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to Wikilawyer, but we've been told not to add reliably sourced information until which time there is a consensus to do so (and, also, that there probably will never be a consensus to do so). Also, if you add it then it will be immediately removed. This has been stated as though it were official in some way and I'm just trying to understand it. I'm afraid that I still don't, but I appreciate the attempts and I'll check back on any further answers later. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "if you add it then it will be immediately removed" was official. It looks like trying to push a bully agenda to me. I'm new here, but I know internet bullying when I see it. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

← There is no bullying in what DocOfSoc said. What he or she meant by "promptly removed" is that there are many eyes on this article and one or another editor is likely to promptly remove material that either has been determined not to be relevant, or that is under discussion as this is. The matter of the suspensions and their reasons is a contentious point - there are BLP/BDP considerations - Martin is recently deceased, and BLP policies do apply, or might apply, depending on your interpretation. This is also under discussion at the BLP noticeboard and quite a few editors here and there are against adding anything about the suspensions because they are irrelevant to the shooting. That is what was meant. Tvoz/talk 05:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

TY Tvoz. "Immediately removed" was experience, not <gasp> bullying. Your explanation gets an "A". Old teachers never die, but do tend to speak strongly ;-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, to Wnt - I believe 1RR refers to a 24 hour period - the point, as I understand it, of April 6 is that the 1RR restriction will remain in effect until then. And the idea, I think, is that if you revert some text and someone reverts yours, you are restricted from reverting it again in that 24 hour period. Tvoz/talk 05:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

None of us know for sure WHY things escalated to the point of a shooting, but I would assume that material regarding Trayvon's potential drug use or willingness to be a part of illegal activities as well as being suspended speaks to the idea that he might not have been in his right mind that night, or he might be less than willing to be respectful toward those he perceived as authority figures. That said, it is a very tenuous connection. In a court of law, these things might not matter, but I feel that they are relevant to some people more because of the bias we have seen in the media that is against George Zimmerman. I suppose in a way, people feel better if the same tactics of poor journalism are used against both parties and somehow that is more "fair" in the end. Sad situation, but the media has acted pathetically in this situation. Lets just do our best to focus on the facts that ARE relevant and try to decide what to do with yet another example of the media making a mockery of the idea of a "reliable source". -- Avanu (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

911 call transcripts and chronology

I suggest that there be a section with all the 911 calls, the times they were made, their durations, and a summary with whatever more is known about them (i.e., was Zimmerman on foot, in the car, etc.?). It's very odd that this does not exist on the page now. This is a basic set of the known, on-the-record facts about the shooting. Can we work on this? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Just don't use NBC as a source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-nbc-news-editing-911-call-306359 67.233.247.170 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is detailed out a bit more in the "investigation" article which is linked from the main article. If we do include it, I think it should be a highly summarized one, with only the most crucial "bookmarks" with a link to the longer one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

9/11 is a date (11th day of September). 911 is the three-digit phone number used to reach emergency services in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.101.80 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Statements by Florida attorney general

See: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/03/27/inside-historical-challenge-obamacare?page=2

Relevant statements: "You know, I can tell you, when you have a 17-year-old boy who's walking home and he's shot and killed, there are way too many unanswered questions. And we have got to have all of those questions answered, and right now, they're not answered."

"FDLE -- they're handling the case, and they are doing a thorough investigation, as well as the Justice Department and the United States attorney, who I've been in constant contact with, as well."

Seems worth including, particularly given it's a direct challenge to those claiming that 1) the Florida government is out of contact with the federal government and 2) the Florida government stands by the local police's decision not to arrest Zimmerman. 129.120.4.3 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

He admits right in the interview that he has no jurisdiction, so I think his opinion goes into the "knowledgable and important person, but uninvolved", and so far we are keeping uninvolved opinions out of the article. (The president's opinion is 50/50, its mostly an opinion statement, but technically he is in charge of the DOJ and FBI that are both running investigations, so he is directly involved). However, if we do start to widen the net on the opinoins, this would be absolutely one of the first ones I would include. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to change race title for Trayvon Martin

Currently it lists him as an African American. Is there reliable evidence that his ancestors are from Africa? If not it needs to read "American Teen". And yes, same goes with Zimmerman. If there is no reliable evidence of his origins, then he needs to be listed as a "American Adult" or "American", or "United States Citizen".--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Dont be a troll. You know very well african american is the common word for black in america. And yes, we have very good sourcing for zimmerman's ethnicity as well, His mother is Peruvian, and he lists his official ethnicity as Hispanic. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like for the Administrators to address Gaijin. He has attacked me by calling me a troll. I am merely wanting the article to be as factual as possible. At this time I DEMAND and apology from Gaijin for his "troll" comment. I live where this happened, and most likely know more about it than all here. I am 100% serious about my comment. I travel to London 3 times a year, and they do not address blacks as "African American". There is absolutely zero evidence that Trayvon Martin's ancestors are from Africa. As there is, from what I can tell, zero reliable evidence of Zimmerman's ethnicity. Can someone please tell me how to report Gaijin42 for his nasty, ugly, belittling name he called me?--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

People who are not in America don't use the word American to describe people who live there? I am amazed! How is that relevant? This is an article, about an American, that took place in America. American English and terms are appropriate, as per several wiki policies such as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling No apology forthcoming. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about one American being shot by another American. Period. And even Black American Citizens in England are not referenced as "African American". It is relevant because the article is flawed. Please show reliable information that Trayvon Martin's ancestors are from Africa, and we will be done. With the exception of your apology for calling me a "troll".--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont have to show his ancestry, I can show about 200,000 sources describing him as an African American though. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And are any of these 200,000 sources genealogy experts? I can list a bunch, most likely not 200,000 sources that Area 51 has a spaceship from another planet, but none are reliable. Again, I don't mean to be argumentative. But when it all boils down, what does it matter? This is about one American shooting another American. There are people in the world that hate Americans, they certainly don't take the effort to define which ones. There are Americans fighting for the United States. And it does not matter who is who. The United States HAS to be a color blind society (IMHO) or we are doomed. Am I guilty of trying to plant a seed here for equality? I guess I am. But I am not a troll, just someone who wants to bring it down to the truth... On that fateful night, Zimmerman shot Martin, and we don't know all the facts. I plead with Wikipedia to be bold and strike out on a new frontier. Remove race, and report the facts, nothing more, nothing less.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, this is the last time I am going to respond to this, because you are indeed being a troll, and I will not feed you any longer. African american is not used to actually try and describe ancestry in america. It is a synonym for black. I think you are well aware of this. However, as he is indeed black, there is a 99.9% chance his ancestors are from africa, most likely west africa and were brought over during the slave trade, but its always possible the emigrated later. beyond that, if you want to get pedantic, its a 100% certainty his ancestors were from africa, since that is where our entire species evolved. There is a lot of racial tension regarding this case, and not including their races when it is such a major part of the notability would be non-nonsensical.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and again object to being called a troll. And I "sigh" as well, as this is sad. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove race and you remove the racism that is inherent in this story. "Color Blindness" is a myth you wish to propagate. Remove the race and frankly I believe Trayvon would still be alive. True equality has yet to be achieved. . — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you spoken with Zimmerman, do you know him personally? How can you say that racism is inherent? As for your anti Colorblind comment, I wish the Great Martin Luther King Jr. was around to respond to you. But he is not because of people or a person afraid of a bright future. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I want a color blind society too. This article is not the place to make that happen, we cant ignore what is the central theme of the coverage. Additionally I will note you did not actually ask to make the article colorblind, you asked for sources to prove their ancestry, which is an entirely different matter. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!! C-O-V-E-R-A-G-E! let's not fall in the trap of the media! Let's be on the frontier of putting an article together that speaks the truth! For all I know, Zimmerman liked to track down blacks and "get em". For all I know he was just a responsible citizen. For all I know, Martin was a great kid. For all I know he was a trouble-maker. We don't have the facts, and we need to focus on just that.... facts. Not what the "coverage" necessarily puts out. And race, for now (regardless of what the sensational media says), does not seem to be a part of it. If it is later factually identified that Zimmerman hated blacks, or Martin hated whites, then okay. As for the colorblind vs ancestry.... fine... I am against a Hyphenated American article.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The shooting itself may or may not have anything to do with race. But there are many many shootings and other deaths some involving race, some not, and most of them are not notable. This one is obviously VERY notable, and racial accusations (in all directions) are major, not just in the coverage, but in the actual objective viewing of the protests and accusations etc. If we ignore the racial components and issues going on, not much is actually notable anymore. This is probalby actually more of a race controversy than a shooting controversy. Is that a negative reflection of our society? Maybe, but pretending it isnt real doesn't get us anywhere. You brought up king before. His dream speech spoke of a colorblind society, but note that he used the colors in the speech, to reflect reality of the situation. Take out the colors in that speech, and the speech itself does not make sense anymore. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. And appreciate you taking the time to explain. I suppose we have to recognize this terrible affliction. I pray for the day race no longer matters. Again, thank you for your thoughtful comment. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request To Edit

This sentence under Prelude: "While returning to the house, Trayvon was seen by George Zimmerman,..." Should be changed to "Trayvon Martin". Using just the first name is bias as it familiarizes him to readers. Unless you want to change it to "While returning to the house, Travon was seen by George". --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

TY! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pix of Trayvon

It has just been reported on KGO news ( San Francisco) that that dubious reporter Michelle Malkin has released pictures of a young black man with tattoos that she is claiming are Trayvon, but it has been verified that these are not he. Does she think that all blacks look alike? How sad. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In some (but not very much) defense, they are pics of another kid coincidentally named Trayvon Martin, who lives in Georgia. But they do not look very much like him, so either they didn't examine them closely/at all, or possibly they do think all blacks look alike. I would think Malkin as a minority (and target of racism quite often) would do a better job on that. The pics came up quote a few days ago originally, and I posted about them here (since archived). Gaijin42 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request edit: Robert Zimmerman Sr is a retired magistrate from Virgina.

Robert Zimmerman Sr is a retired magistrate from Virgina. The reference to Zimmerman being a judge is misleading as there is a difference between a judge and a magistrate. A judge is bestowed with more powers than a magistrate. This is an important difference between the two terms. It is important to know that the powers given to a magistrate are akin to those given to an administrator. This is the reason why a magistrate handles small and minor cases only.. In addition, it is import to state that his job as a magistrate was in Virginia as people are trying to create the perception that he had substantial influence that prevent Zimmerman from being arrested.68.3.103.157 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Is Trayvon Martin A Boy

Is there some relevant reason that in the lead, that Trayvon Martin is described as a "boy". Is there some relevant reason that George Zimmerman is described as a "man". Furthermore, is there some relevant reason to say that he was walking to the store "unarmed". Why not include that George Zimmerman was "armed"? Maybe you're not aware that calling a 17 year old african-american teenager a "boy" is considered deragotory by some people. Jeez, people. Their ages are listed as 17 for Martin and 28 for Zimmerman, that is sufficient.--Isaidnoway (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "boy" and "man" additions. I'll take a look at the "unarmed" addition.--Hamitr (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fake photos

Somebody reverted my edit, claiming it was "completely inappropriate", which explained that Business Insider had published some unflattering photos it claimed were of Trayvon Martin, which have been circulated by right-wing websites, which were actually sourced to the Stormfront racist organization and not photos of Martin. [5] I think this is relevant to the media bias news coverage as it demonstrates that the allegations of bias are based on people who are receiving inaccurate information. My sources included Columbia Journalism Review. Anyone interested in discussion? Wnt (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Although your report is entirely accurate, it is not pertinent to the killing of Trayvon Martin. Wiki also demands we keep the article fair and balanced. I personally think, that when it is appropriate to discuss the blatant racism of this killing, an edited version of your edit might be considered appropriate. I did discuss the false pics in a paragraph above. This article has a very long ways to go yet... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If thats what you were trying to get across in your addition, I did not read it that way at all. I took it as trying to get those photos/tweets into the record. If you are aiming for the meta-discussion, then I think the greater issue would be WP:SYNTH, as I do not think thre has been discussion about those leaks/hacks and how those relate to bias. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Business Insider article was actually about media bias - how the mainstream press was portraying Trayvon Martin as this sweet little kid when really, as readers of Stormfront know......... (!) Huffington Post also points out that they were circulating around other right-wing sites. This gives a better background on where the "media bias" really lies. Wnt (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say a comment on the photos would belong in a media coverage section (haven't looked to see if there is one). The fake photos are all part of the aftermath of the shooting and is appropriate to the article since the article is about the shooting as a whole. The shooting has resulted in all sort of media activity, fake photos and everything else. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2012 (politics, mitt romney)

Edit by Elliott, Lawrence D. (March 29, 2012). "Trayvon Martin: Not a Symbol for Vigilante Justice". The Huffington Post.

^ "Why are Mitt Romney and his GOP rivals dodging Trayvon Martin?". The Week. March 23, 2012.

Nope. The article is a mess as is, making it a political silly season article would be worse. Collect (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done additionally, huff post is not an RS, and the week is pure opinion talking about why mitt romney, who is not officially related to this case in any way, hasn't done anything. Pure spin, not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Let us not be too vociferous in our comments about this new editor. I'm sure his edits were an attempt to add to the discussion. His attempt should not be labelled as "silly" or "spin". ```Buster Seven Talk 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, everyone needs to be respectful of each other, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not refering to the editor's comments as spin, rather that the article itself was spin. I apologize if that is the impression I left. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What did police/state atty say, when did they say it?

We need to assemble an order list of all 'official' police statements/press releases/interviews on the case. For interviews, we need links to full videos and transcripts (for readers without audio ability). I find lots of short quotes, but we need to link to the full statments as reference for full context.

So, for example, how many press conferences did Chief Lee give, when, and exactly what did he say? --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the re some significance to the exact timing of the statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the police failed a "no confidence" motion, so their collective actions are "under scrutiny" in the DOJ/FLEP cases. But mostly, I just want to provide readers with refs to the "full contexts". As a reader, I wanted to check refs containg the full transcripts/videos, but couldn't find such lists.

Not saying factor the article itself around it-- but we need it for reference. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where was Zimmerman's truck parked?

Has anyone been able to discover where Zimmerman's truck was parked? How far was Martin found from Zimmerman's truck? Was Zimmerman's truck towed? If Martin was headed from the North entrance at Twin Lakes to the South East back exit of Twin Lakes (Zimmerman's 911 call) he would have almost had to double back to be found where he was found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.66.133 (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Current Photo

The current photo of Trayvon Martin is dated. There ARE more recent photos. If you want to put up a collage of photos of Trayvon... fine. But the current photo by itself is not "Encyclopedia" worthy. It is BLOG related. I will get ready for another ban now. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In that the hoodie has become a symbol of the case, showing the victim in his hoodie is appropriate.--DeknMike (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when does the clothing one wears make the photo relevant? The hoodie is a symbol of a ideology. This article is about an event, and as such should be a factual as possible. Again, the photo is dated, and a more current photo should be used for a current event. Or, no photo at all.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The hoodie is not a symbol of any "ideology." Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera wear them, and Fox News sold logo-emblazoned hoodies until a few days ago. My wife, a middle-aged Reagan supporter, wears them. I teach in a rural middle school, and white, black, and Hispanic kids all wear them. Would you care to expound on exactly what "ideology" the wearing of a hoodie espouses? Black Max (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

And who has determined that he is a "victim"? You used the term "victim" above, and it is in the box also. For all we know Zimmerman may be the "victim". The facts have not come out yet. Again, the article needs to be factual? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon is the victim because he is the one that died. George may or may not have been justified - that is for the courts to decide. As for the hoodie, it was a simple article of athletic and casual wear until this case. Without this case, Congressmen would not have worn it on the House floor. In this case, the picture with the hoodie is especially relevant. (ps - I added indents to your post, which is a common practice within Wikipedia.)--DeknMike (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If we wanted the most current photo, we could use the security cam from the store where he purchased the items, if anyone could identify which exact store it was.--DeknMike (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

such video has not yet been released (which is surprising with the media frenzy). The police may have confiscated it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is not a current photo and is being used to gather political support. This artical should have a recent picutre of both men. I thought more of wiki than to show clear bias. 68.82.143.169 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The zimmerman photo has been updated to a more recent one, we will see if it can survive a fair use fight. If you have a specific photo or photos you would like to have evaluated here to replace the current one, then suggest them. But just saying this one is bad, is not helpful or actionable. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we need restatement of 'carrying skittles'?

In the #Police_arrival section, a standalone paragraph notes "Martin was unarmed, and was carrying a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona brand iced tea" Noting the food items is a talking point on one side of the discussion. It is sufficient to say he was found to be not carrying a weapon.--DeknMike (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, especially if we are not including Martin's suspensions because some argue they aren't directly relevant to the shooting. Some argue otherwise. There are a lot of facts and information in this article that aren't directly relevant to the shooting. This is one of them. What's relevant is that he was not armed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.18.118 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. One of the most frequently cited facts pointing to Martin's innocence of any crime, or posing any discernible threat, is his possession of three main articles: a bag of Skittles, a can of iced tea, and a cellphone earpiece. To expunge that information simply because those items do not constitute weaponry is to censor information that is part of the public discourse. Black Max (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

Cutting the lead

The first thing that jumped out at me upon reading the lead was that it takes some pains to state the racial identity of each person. This seems to be a case of undue weight. Clearly that Mr. Martin was black is part of the story, but that could be clear in the box on the right, and the race of the shooter can be mentioned in the introduction to that individual, rather than so prominently right now in the lead. This form of aggressive presentation of the race of the individuals seems to preempt an understanding of the case from any other frame; it seems a biased way of presenting this, as a strictly or overwhelming racial issue. No doubt there is that component, but I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of defining political frames as first order of the day. These frames can be explored in the course of the actual article; Wikipedia should be neutral. Unless there is a policy where the race of each person should be spelled out at the first mention of their names--and I don't believe there is such a policy, since it would make as much sense as the need to spell out an individual's religious beliefs or sexual preferences, i.e. not much sense--then I suggest we consider revising this. A brick to attract jade. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the lead and took care of that. The race issue has died down since Zimmerman is not white; but there was no need for race to be such a prominent point in the lead. A shorter, tighter worded lead is best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• This case is absolutely about race. There are numerous reasons to believe that Zimmerman's pursuit [BLP violation redacted] of Martin was racially motivated, from his numerous previous calls to the police about black people in the neighborhood to his use of a crude racial slur against Martin just moments before he confronted Martin. It is part of the "pushback" to try to persuade people that the case has nothing to do with race. http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/trayvon-martin-backlash-7650171 Black Max (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

Chris, I think your good faith edit to the lead was far more than just taking out the ethnicity, and I think we need to go through it and get the sense of the editors here before wholesale cutting. I know your intention was to make it NPOV, but, for example, by removing the middle part you set up a description that supports Zimmerman's story which is POV. For example, you eliminated "unarmed" - surely that needs to be in the lead. And you removed the reason for the public uproar. WP:MOSLEAD says that The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Our original version does that - yours takes out way too much for it to stand on its own and accurately reflect the article. Further, WP:MOS#Length expects the lead to be 3-4 paragraphs for an article of this size, and there is no reason to be shortening it. We need to have a larger discussion among the editors here about what, if anything, should be cut from the lead. We already agreed that the bio sections needed cutting because too much irrelevant material had been stuffed in there. As for the race/ethnicity matter, I think Martin's race is unfortunately very much relevant to the article, and we've been struggling with how to describe Zimmerman, but the solution is not to just remove it and hope people get it. Let's talk about all of this some more. Tvoz/talk 06:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• A person's race should not be defined in the opening line including their name. Its bad form to do so even with racial undertones. WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBEGIN are pretty clear. We describe the event with care to specifics. Not confuse matters with the ethnicity makeup of the individuals. I do not know of another article which puts so much emphasis on race background as this. It also should have the location and circumstance; which was not properly done. As for unarmed it is undue; while true given reports that Martin went for Zimmerman's gun and the entire altercation is still being released. He may have been unarmed, but that should not be noted before his activities. It should still be there, it wasn't perfect, but the second paragraph was a section that belonged in the police matters, not in the lead. Shortening it to two paragraphes tightened it by having one for the incident and one for the response it triggers; all of the information to be found within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the races are appropriate in the lead. Significant accusations of racism are at the center of the notability of this story, and that angle of the story becomes basically unintelligible without identifying the races as much as possible. The lead is supposed to summerize the most important information, the racism angle clearly qualifies as part of that.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to convey the relevant racial information elsewhere. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for racial politics. We assess the event from an objective standpoint. The fact that race has been an important part of the discussion is to be stated in the page, but the page itself should distance itself from particular frames of dispute, while presenting the different arguments in accordance with their reliability. The fact that race is an overriding consideration should be mentioned, and clear, but Wikipedia is itself not part of the argument about this. The race of the individuals should not be in the lead as it is now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't cutting the matter of race from the article, I just wanted to give simple facts without making such framing of political or racial divides. The second paragraph was perfect for reactions and coverage of the incident, the first should briefly describe the incident. Since the NBA halftime and 7-11 matter was a story, which some details have proven to be false, I struck those and gave the known interaction and police report version. Now it is bloated with even more speculation and false claims. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do we have a consensus here that we needn't state the race of each party in the introductory sentences of them? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No. This case hinges on race, and the race of the two participants is central to the entire incident and its aftermath. Black Max (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

New Eyewitness Interview - Anderson Cooper

This is a long interview from a town house in site line. Details what this person saw. It is not included in the eye witness accounts but should be.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/trayvon-martin-witness-breaks-silence/

Description of position suggests Zimmerman was on top - Trayvon was face down.

This witness states that he did not see a lot because it was dark and he also states that there were two gunshots so he is in error. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

This witness??? Trayvon was face down with Zimmerman on top and Zimmerman shot him in the Chest? Pardon me but did he borrow a bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald?

Observation from 911 tape excluded from this WP article but pertinent to charge of racial profiling is BIASED REPORTING

The 911 call with Zimmerman speaking to 911 dispatch clearly reveals him saying "Those assholes always get away". This is after the fact that he described the suspicious person as "probably black" (or something similar). These two facts in the same conversation constitute a form of making an Inference about the "suspicious person" (JUDGE) and then disparaging the person with a term generally associated with hatred or great dislike (JURY). Thus the charge that he was RACIALLY profiling. This point, though glaringly obvious on the 911 tape, is routinely brushed aside and ignored (with the inference that since Zimmerman is half Hispanic that it precludes racial profiling). So even WP is showing some bias here (in their editor shootouts). Also, the article should not be locked for editing by some self-appointed 'master' editors. Anybody should be able to edit the article and if the point has merit then it should stay in the article. If not then it should be edited out with a reason given on this page (since not everybody is a 'WP guru' used loosly.).

You can edit it too. Just establish a Wikipedia account and wait a few days, making a few edits. But either way, we have our policies. Take a look at WP:SYNTH, which covers putting two facts like that in conjunction to try to get the reader to jump to conclusions. Thanks for your input though.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(reply==========): I didn't have to do that to edit this talk page. Why so for the main article page? "Jump to conclusions" as in providing a misdirection to imply that no racial profiling could have happened? Iget your point about SYNTH but we're not talking about 'corn flakes' or some other esoterica. We're talking about that since WP is a central hub for information (indulge my delusions -k? )on what could be a 'tipping point' in race relations and especially with regards to police departments and possible resulting violence that it should 'correct' 2+2=4 oversights comitted by biased reporters in the various medias. I don't think providing such a service is outside the purview of the WP mission. Of course, if you wish to nitpick down some narrow hallway of technicality then by all means plug away. Likewise thanks for your input too. Widening your perspective on this particular issue might assist others in defusing the situation in the bigger picture perspective.

Thank you for your insight and suggestions for improving this article. My point would be that Zimmerman was specifically asked by the 911 dispatch what his race was; "white, hispanic, black". It is common for 911 personnel to ask the race of a person to help police identify them after arriving at the scene.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(reply=========): True enuf. However, Zimmerman susequently made a uncalled for presumtious maligning remark and virtually convicted the "suspicious person who is probably Black" by saying "Those assholes always get away". So without evidence in hand, and a trial by peers, and giving Martin a chance too face his accusers, Zimmerman left his vehicle to confront " a suspicious person" in an area where there are no street signs to read. His mindset was clearly negative towards Martin without sufficient evidence. So being asked what race the party is does not imply that because he said he was "probably black" constitutes racial profiling. It is what he said afterward about that party that constitutes or strongly suggests racial profiling. The two toegther are what made the case for that point. T.U. for your reply.

You are not his lawyer or a presiding judge or prosecutor; and this is not racial profiling by the textbook definition. Refrain from putting your interpretation of his mindset as proof of your point of view that alludes to racial profiling and a hate crime. A crime that is committed because of race and no other reason is a hate crime; accounts of the event show that a fight took place and Zimmerman has no previous 'racist' accusations, quite the contrary in fact. Zimmerman wasn't sure Martin was black or not, he could not tell from just looking at him. When he took off running Zimmerman, who previously helped make an arrest in a burglary, stopped another, has had issues with suspects escaping. It is not a matter of race; it is a matter that Martin was possibly scouting possible targets or was linked to the recent crimes in the neighborhood. He was an outsider as well; matching the same description previous suspects. So let's not condemn him for mindset when it is not clear cut. It is for a court to decide. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reply----------------------------------------------------) I never made such claims nor are such credentials needed to listen and understand what was spoken by Zimmerman in the 911 tape. Got a source for your definition? A million people of color disagree with your assessment and that denial is raising the anger level and the future prospects of violence. Do you suppose Zimmerman's phrase "Those assholes always get away" is a term of endearment? You can attempt to foist your narrow scoped definition of what you think racial profiling is however you are merely stoking the flames already started by denying simple facts. The word 'asshole' is a term of hatred and maligning (and is driven by a PRESUMPTION/JUDGEMENT based on WHAT?). Do you disagree? You said: "has had issues with suspects escaping" Police have issues like that and badged and or uniformed at that -- not unidentified parties making agressive maneuvers towards someone in the dark. Your next set of statments are presumptious and contitute PROFILING. Are you aware of that? You said: "He was an outsider as well". Are you making the ridiculous claim that Zimmerman was privy to and memorized all the faces of all owners and legitimate visitors to the place? You said: "So let's not condemn him for mindset when it is not clear cut." What he said is clear cut and is easily listened to on the 911 tape. An objective party would have made no such contemptuous statements to the 911 dispatcher. He clearly made PROFILING assumptions, displayed that with his speech, and then acted on the information. You said: "It is for a court to decide.". That's a red herring freind. My point was that there is a growing large negative momentum building across the country and that mdeia bias is fueling it. They are doing this by denying the claims of those who are justly angered. They are angered because even when they call attention to the "claim of profiling" efforts are made to hide and defuse it (throug reporting bias) thus raising the anger level even more. Editors on this page like to employ cutsie technicalities to sustain the bias while simultaneously (indirectly) fueling the ever growing hostilities between people of color versus police departments and judicial systems which apparently turn a blind eye to what are perceived as dangerously threatening acts and events against people of color. Your response is a text book case of presumptious bias, turning a blind eye to what Zimmerman actually said in the 911 tape, dismissing the profiling claim out of hand and then trying to force feed me to clam up -so the judicial system could handle. Newsflash - that's why this case had gotten so big. This process has failed thusfar in the eyes of many of color. Failing to acknowledge why or how they reached a conclusion of (racial) profiling is merely piling on the anger. As your attitude and perception of ignoring what Zimmerman said on the tape is in line with what has already happened and is fueling an ever increasing scope of anger. BTW, you should research what the old black panther party did to police back in the 1960's. Maybe then you will achieve some perception of the gravity of the situation. Oh - and thank you for your reply.

---

In that the event was at night, "probably black" can just as reliably be an assumption based on looking at a face under a hoodie in the dark - might have been Pakistani or other dark skinned person - we can't say for sure. "those assholes" could refer to suspicious persons of all races that run when asked to identify themselves. I'm making assumptions her, but then so are you. We don't know at this moment what he meant, and you are quoting people with an agenda to make the connection to match their version of the story, again without being certain. Best to leave neutral for now. --DeknMike (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(reply --------------------------------------------------) Yep - racial profiling against 'people of color'. You said: "that run when asked to identify themselves". Would you answer to some unbadged ununiformed party after dark whose has been clearly tailing you? How would you know what their intentions are towards you ? I'm not making any assumptions. I clearly cited the audio on the 911 tape. What part of the word "asshole" did you not understand? Obviously you are responding to some other post. Obviously the media is not neutral. it is biased and is ignoring the allegations by a growing number of people of color. This continuing bias is fueling even more people to join the cause. What you apparently meant was: "Best to leave 'my stilted view of the situation where the word asshole is a term of endearment' for now. And that my fiend is why people are angry and getting angrier by the minute. Again, media bias of ignoring undisputed facts (what Zimmerman actually said) is fueling a growing anger. WP editors are complicit by failing to see the big picture and the big consequences down the road and are invoking various rules and ploys to disallow statements of what are obvious facts (since somebody else didn't say it in some reference). Well newsflash- Zimmerman said it and it is reference in the 911 audio tape linked to this article. This is what is called "PRIMARY SOURCE" material from the shooter's own mouth. How twisted and contorted does your thinking have to be to continue with this invalid line of thinking? Again, I will cop to the idea, however erroneous, that 'a lot' of people read WP on this topic - though it may just be an illusion. Thus WP should "get it right". They should identify the bias and point it out as a means of reaching a NPOV. Get it now? Oh - and thank you for your reply.

---

Do you have a specific suggestion on how to improve this article? If you do, then please just submit it. Thank you--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This will not be charged as a hate crime. The DOJ must show "specific intent" to charge and there is none for the reasons Chris stated aboveIsaidnoway (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• To the person who posted this: you're probably right, but this is an encyclopedia. We go by a principle of "verifiability, not truth". (See "WP:V") In order to actually add your point of view, all you have to do is find a good source, like a reputable newspaper, which makes this connection. As it is so obvious, that shouldn't be hard to do. But you have to actually come to the table with sources, not just your own take from listening to the tapes. That's the way we avoid having endless political debates where people expect to read an article. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request: In the interest of clarity (for my own gratification) and talk flow, can someone identify the unknown editor above. I have searched the diffs but cannot descern who it was. I know its just a loose string, but my detective radar tells me "its important", or will be. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an IP started this one. [6] Wnt (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Email hack

Trayvon Martin's e-mail and social media accounts have been hacked by a white supremacist, according to this article: [7] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The name might be 'white supremacist', but given the source its obviously a troll trolling trolls for trolling the media. To sum it up, someone got into Trayvon's account with one of a dozen known exploits for facebook, password was probably the same for all services and then released all the info and then changed them all to slurs for the lulz. Its the MO of the group and not of KKK. Call my theory OR, but if you realize their history and the source its all you need to know that it wasn't done by the KKK, least not with their stance on the events. Also... Guardian... Hacking... Early april fools? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, the article could talk about the hacking, but I think the hacking itself is not directly relevant to the shooting or investigation. But the IBTimes is an RS if it comes to that, and the story could spread to other RS. The information revealed in the hacking should definitely not be used at this time. It is a known hate group member that leaked the information, and it is very possible things have been taken out of context, or modified to cast Martin in as an unflattering light as possible. The information revealed by the hack would need to be reported in many RS, and have some level of validation regarding the context/authenticity before we could even think about including it. That said, if the information can be verified, and that verification can be sourced to multiple RS, or this hack leads to an investigation that reveals similar information independantly, then I think it would be additional character background to MArtin, as per the suspensions debates which are ongoing. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we reading the same source? The actual images are posted from a reliable source and given that they are from the source. Wouldn't those count as they are verified? As for 'hate group member' it is 4chan. To even make a comment that “Today /pol/, tomorrow CNN.” is obvious the intention. Let's not include this attention grabbing stunt. It will only get worse if we do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The RS is reliable for reporting the story of the hack. They are not reliable for knowing if the photos/text were actually as described, as we have no idea what the hacker may have done, especially a hacker that claims to be from a racist organization. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The posts were not modified or tampered with though. The hacker is not from a racist organization either. He's from 4chan. Its like the Twitter dump. "These were not protected tweets," Martosko said. "While he was alive, these were not outside of the public sphere in any shape or form."" [8] Considering the source posted them, we take it that the RS posted the primary source properly. Multiple sources cover the detail and it is widespread, but critical thinking about it already shows this incident for what it was. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we may be talking about different aspects of the OP's link. But in any case, a RS, reporting about what someone wrote at 4chan, that was put there from an original source that cannot be verified, is not reliable enough for inclusion in the article. If you ahve been following my arguments elsewhere, its pretty clear I am not trying to just whitewash Martin's reputation, but the verifiability of this information is like 4 steps removed from the alleged primary source. We cannot be putting a "telephone game" into the article. That said, this information is controversial enough that it may trigger a more direct investigation of those sources, which could then possibly be more appropriate for inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this story. Note however that the Yahoo/Atlantic Wire version of this story is a bare link ([9], citing [10]); the Huffington post mentions them, but does not "present the allegations as true", in BLP-speak [11] - in short, right now, it's knocking around the press but the bottom line is who trusts a Klansman not to have made the whole thing up? Or, even if he did hack in, not to add more than he took away. I'm not going to add a sentence about this unless I happen to be holding some source more reliable-sounding than Gawker to put at the end of it. Eventually I'm sure someone respectable will comment about it, and if we stick very closely to what they say, it should be informative. -- ooops, actually I see your link was IBTimes, not the Gawker story - we're getting there, but I'd still rather see a big name reference. Hmmm, New York Magazine [12] ... closer ... (P.S. for the primary stuff see [13] - not a usable source, obviously) Wnt (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The identity and associations of the hacker(s) is suspect at best, but it seems undeniable that hacking and planting of false information by someone -- both textual and photographic -- has taken place. Therefore WP must take pains to ensure that what appears in the article is not material sourced from the plants. Black Max (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

Orlando Sentinel: Experts say it's not Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/trayvon-martin-shooting-its-not-george-zimmerman-crying-2274765.html Chuatlukkz (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This could possibly be used in the article, as the people doing the testing are recognized experts, but I would like to see more wide sourcing as I think this will be a fairly controversial addition. Of particular note in the article is where he is talking about the S/N ratio, and the quality of the original recording, as I think we would get a large number of objections regarding those points. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Gaijin, you have two experts, one says Zimmerman, one says Trayvon, one says forensic science, one says forensic experience. Both sides are well represented here and if it was included, both sides would be represented. Who could argue against that.Isaidnoway (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont see anyone saying Trayvon in that source, are you talking about an additional source? Are you really asking who could argue? have you been paying attention to this page? :) Anyway, I think we need more sourcing of something like this, which is dangerously close to determining "fact", which really should be reserved for a trial. If it gets wider coverage, then I can see using it via notability. We also need additional sources regarding the "expert" status of the testers (this could be done already probalby, as they may have sources making them an expert already prior to this case). Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's on the second page, Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology's use in courtroom settings. He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion. I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt, Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming." Zimmerman's call to authorities minutes before the shooting provides a good standard for comparison, Primeau says, because it captures his voice both at rest and in an agitated state. Yes, I have been reading this page, kinda like these two experts, you find one that says no and I'll find one that says yes. But I'm guessing that this story will be picked up, have to wait and see.Isaidnoway (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Forensic evidence is highly notable, and whatever the experts say should be included. If two experts contradict each other, that is certainly worth including as well. 6ty4e (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I think you misdescribed the sitionation in above. " two experts, one says Zimmerman, one says Trayvon", my reading of that article, is one says trayvon, one says not zimmerman (but does not go so far as to identify as trayvon. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I misread the article. My apologies.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, since (according to my reading of the article) both are saying either trayvon or not-zimmerman, that makes it in effect a piece of evidence against zimmerman, so quite controvercial within the context of the article. We weill definatley need additional sources on the expertness of the two guys, and hopefully better coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon's Father states that this was not Trayvon screaming as seen on the news at the 3 minute mark on this referenced video. In the beginning of this video an eyewitness states it is Zimmerman screaming. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvin's sibling, states he was not sure if it was Trayvon screaming. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

I think the family (both families) claims of who it is or isnt should be left out. They are not experts in voice identification, and obviously are not impartial to the results, and are under incredible emotional turmoil and stress on all sides. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, the families are not the best sources on either side. Any testing by the FBI will probably be the most objective, as they won't be hired by the defense or prosecution if this goes to trial, but you do seem to be saying that at this point the experts who have been quoted are all lining up as the voice not being Zimmerman's - if this is reliably reported we can consider including it, as it is certainly relevant - but we should probably wait a bit to see what else shakes out and to be sure we have good sourcing. Tvoz/talk 06:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was an eyewitness who goes by "John" that SAW the fighting and heard the 'guy in the red sweater' (aka Zimmerman) calling for help. Also, the forensic consultant, Tom Owen, in the story above concedes that his software analysis returned a 48 percent match, and he didn't have Trayvon's voice for comparison. So even this analysis of the evidence isn't conclusive. We have an eyewitness who says it was George, we have another earwitness, who didn't see the events but was hiding in her room that assumed it was a boy's voice. No doubt about it, it does sound young, but people's voices get higher when they are stressed, and George already kind of sounded like a higher than normal male pitch just walking around beforehand. So, really this is super unreliable analysis. -- Avanu (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-audio-screams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say MSNBC says two seperate forensic experts have seperately concluded the scream is not Zimmerman's. Neither could confirm or exclude if its Trayvon's because they don't have a usable voice sample. One does go as far as to conclude that the scream is from a "young" man. 99.146.22.217 (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2012

The statement "Patrol sergeant Anthony Raimondo was the officer in charge of the shooting scene" is incorrect. The ranking officer on scene was a Lieutenant Taylor.

68.3.103.157 (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

 Not done This is original research, by Wikipedia standards. We need reliable third-party sources - we don't read police reports and analyze them. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Actually standard procedure is that first on scene is in charge until officers of higher rank arrive. Lieutenant Taylor made the call to major crimes. It is not WP:OR, it is common knowledge. Though giving it was a shooting the medical examiner and homicide detectives; then power rests with them until the scene is processed and released. The statement should be made to be more clear as it is incorrect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done The very next paragraph states, "Chris Serino is a Sanford Police homicide detective and was the lead investigator." According to the sources and statements it was he was in charge. In terms of flow as I mentioned above, Raimondo was no more in charge then he was waiting for the LT to arrive. The LT called Major Crimes who relieved the LT and it was between that group that the investigation of the scene held the power. Raimondo wasn't in charge of the scene. Made the distinction clear and put 'responding officer' rather then 'in charge' because he wasn't in charge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

Quotation marks are necessary when it is a QUOTE, particularly when the information is doubtful.. Robert Z. claiming his family is "Multiracial" is a reaaaaal stretch. It is a quote, NOT a fact, it must be in quotaion marks! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think but am not absolutely sure, that the manual of style suggests avoiding scare quotes as a possible POV that we are casting doubt on the honesty/reliability of the quote. In this case I am not sure why you think it is mandatory, his wife is peruvian/hispanic, he is white/european. How is multiracial a stretch? Gaijin42 (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW I think you are terrif!. BUT, Robert is opining about their heritage which is incoreect. Hispanics/ Latinos/ Caucasion/White is all the same race. The father is trying to downplay the racism. Wiki says if it is a direct quote, as this is, quotation marks are appropriate. Thanks

04:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

MOS:BADEMPHASIS is the policy. If it were clear that the word is being quoted it would be alright, but I do not think it will be taken that way. By putting a single word in quotes it's likely to be taken as Scare quotes. If you feel he must be quoted then quote a full sentence. However I do not see the need. If we say Robert says his family is muti-racial, I am sure the reader can tell it is his opinion. We do not have to spell every thing out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic is not white. And he and his wife are not the same race by extension; multiracial is fine. No need for scare quotes. Self-identification to Hispanic is proper and valid on legal documents. Quote the entire section if you need to, but its not a misrepresentation or lie. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

History in the making

I know this is not a "forum". Please forgive me. But do any of the experienced Wikipedia folks recall another subject that has generated so much discussion. It is actually interesting, and impressive at how things unfold on the talk page, then look at the article as a product of all the discussion on the talk page. I know it can be frustrating, intimidating, and aggravating at times, but it is amazing what can be done when folks listen to each other. I for one have had an almost 180 degree change of opinion since participating here. I know.... not a blog.... just an observation. sorry. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah tons of articles get attention like this when the subject of the article is new. This has also been fairly well behaved considering how much has been made of it in the media. -- Avanu (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As a non-American, can I suggest that yes, this could be history in the making. This has been covered in at least three responsible radio discussions I have heard in the past week in Australia. There have been suggestions of cultural and legal changes in the wind as a result of this. The world is watching. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am from Germany and this shooting is widely reported in our media. It is rather unusual that a single shooting which happened in another country draws so much media attention. Actually till the time of the Travon Martin shootings several shootings which involved young (minor) victims happened in my area of Germany, but those made it only to the local news. However I do not think that everything is reported correctly, as our media typically write that Zimmermann was a white jew. Now according to the US-media he was a mixed race Catholic. I would like to hear if this event is reported in other countries and if yes, what the discussion is like.

I personally have no idea if Zimmermann acted in self-defense or not. I'll wait what is found out during the investigation. But what I do not really understand is why the opinion people have about this depends so much on the political opinion a person has. To me it seems that anybody on the left thinks that Zimmermann MUST be guilty while anybody on the right thinks that he CANNOT be guilty. Why not wait what the investigations find out before jumping to conclusions.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it is more bias than only absolute belief one way or the other. The United States has a history of racial prejudice, and this an unfortunate side effect of that history. Like the shooting of James Powell in 1964, where many whites immediately assumed that the police officer had acted appropriately, many blacks knew instinctively that the facts were different. Today's society is much better in terms of race relations, but we still have a long way to go, in order to fully trust one another. -- Avanu (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This case really has nothing to do about race. The media has been the culprit behind that aspect of this case. Unfortunately, those with weaker minds, believe everything they see and hear on TV, radio and the internet. It's sad.Isaidnoway (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the 'actual' case has nothing to do with race, but from what I can tell, the biases around the case are lining up on political and racial lines. -- Avanu (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The World is indeed watching. My Western European relatives have mentioned it frequently and requested my updates from the American Media. If other international editors "chime in" perhaps the "news within the news" quality will show a need to be split off from the main article here. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:"nothing to do with race". I strongly disagree. While it is no longer the America of the '50's, everything (in US of America) has to do with Race. The response by people around the world is because of Race. The attempt by some editors to exclude Race from the story, (front story and all the back stories), is futile.```Buster Seven Talk 12:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Race isn't so much of an issue when Zimmerman isn't portrayed as white. Counter to the claim of racism, two white boys were killed by a black man and Obama said nothing. [14] Where is that for hate crime? From the article, "It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time." Much worse happens everyday across America, far worse crimes are committed and yet this is an exceptional case because of the media and reduces reality to whether or not media covers it. Its sad, but the race card is a cheap way to get lots of undue attention from the media; this has gotten more coverage then the presidential primaries themselves.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Race isn't so much of an issue when Zimmerman isn't portrayed as white. Not quite sure what you mean. My take on what I have read here and elsewhere is that Race had ALOT to do with the moments surrounding the fatal act of shooting a gun at another person resulting in death. And, bottom line, that is what this article is about: the shooting incident. WE can bicker back and forth about all the fringe theories and observations and blogs about what happened but to ignore that Race was a part of the 'mix of the moment' is unrealistic. Also, this is an exceptional newsworthy case because a "community watch" individual, in a right-to-bear Arms" state, while on his own self-directed patrol of his extended neighborhood made a determination that an individual he saw fit his personal description of a 'person of interest'. He made a radical ill-formed decision based on few facts but many profiling parameters and the result was the shooting of that individual. Blaming the media for the attention is an attempt to deflect the truth of the incident when it happened. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the media coverage of this event, when the local media outlet's were covering this story, race was never mentioned. However, when the Martin's retained an attorney who brought this case into the national spotlight, specifically Al Sharpton, then all of a sudden it became a "white on black" issue. It wasn't until the national media got involved in the reporting of this case, that race became the defining issue. There is no credible evidence whatsoever to believe that Zimmerman targeted Martin specifically because of his race.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. Might as well go on about the newspapers in Germany calling Zimmerman a white jew, which is funny because his religion has never come up and well... he's catholic. So that is obviously incorrect and a lie. Just like that NBC one where they edited the tape to make Zimmerman racist. Buster7 either your sources aren't telling you the truth or they aren't good sources. Race actually isn't a big issue now that the media's lies are being reported back and forth by other outlets and things are settling down for the legal matters. Just need that Grand Jury decision which will once again pick up the news, but if its not controversial then it will probably continue to fade until the courts get it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman looked out into the world he was protecting and saw something. The events that followed were based on decisions he made about that something. The evidence that he acted on his checklist of things to pay attention to is the topic of this article. Everything else is fluff. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of that. He wasn't even patrolling as you claim. He had no checklist physical or mental that said, "oh he's black. he's up to no good. Better shoot him dead." That is the kind of racism and bias that has been supported by various hate groups. "The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers." from SPLC. Last I checked their current version includes all three of those. Wikipedia is not a bastion for extremist hate groups to proliferate a conclusion based on a twisting or crafting evidence to support those views. The racist angle has been inflammed by such fabrications. We even have a section for it! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course this is about race. That's WHY the world is watching. Race may or may not have had anything to do with Zimmerman's actions, and that's for the courts to decide, but without the racial aspect very few people would care about this case. HiLo48 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is false. How can you deny the dozens of murders, black on white or white on black that took place this year? How about the hundreds of murders with clear cut circumstances that are of the same race? Do they get the same coverage? Did those two British tourists who were executed by their black murderer get the same coverage? Even when appealing to Obama 3 times for comment? Race is a cheap issue, but it is not the matter of race which immediately makes it worth reporting. They purposefully have demonized, attacked and pushed political agendas favorable to them with this incident. Race was just the hook. Trayvon is a poster child and Zimmerman is the devil, representing all things which further political power and of course money. Do I need to plaster up other crimes for every single other issue in other cases around this incident? Its a media circus with attention disproportionate to the shooting. It has made a mockery of the very laws and protections Americans as a whole are entitled to. The day extremist hate groups dominate the news for their political posturing is a sad day indeed; and that day has come. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the Amanda Knox case got just as much press, and it wasn't even in the U.S. Also, the issue here for many of us has little to do with race, but rather whether we have more or less legalized murder so long as someone says he has fear in his heart. But none of this is much related to the Wikipedia dispute, as I've seen bitterer debates over things very trivial and obscure. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It concerns an American who was later cleared for murder, I think that is a big deal, but media typically overblows it. The case I specifically mentioned was with a murderer who had no fear and showed no remorse, with the word 'Savage' tattooed across his chest. How does Trayvon get such attention over this? Doesn't seem fair because it isn't fair. Media chooses what makes the news. Perspective is always a given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Another sad aspect of this case, will be the media frenzy surrounding the trial, (if there is one). What juror will honestly be able to say they haven't heard about this case in the media. The media's coverage has been totally biased against Zimmerman and that is simply not fair. Regardless of what you think about him, our justice system was designed so defendant's could get a fair trial, without going through a "pre-trial" in the media. I think that one of the most unjust convictions I have ever seen was in the OJ trial. The only person who was convicted that was directly related to that case was Mark Fuhrman, who was convicted of perjury for lying about saying the "N" word in his past. He was absolutely villified in the media, for having the bad luck to be woke up in the middle of the night to go investigate a homicide.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That reads like soapboxing to me, and it's irrelevant too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What was Martin doing to get the attention of Mr Zimmermann. Was he walking down the street instead of on the sidewalk, looking into cars to rob as he passed? Was he sauntering in that way that youngsters do today? Did he have gang tatoos that were visible from far away? We dont know but something caught the attention of Mr Z. What had he witnessed? "he looked suspicious" is what he said. What looked suspicious? The hoodie? The saunter? The droopy low-hung pant showing off a butt-crack?>. His Jordon Air $100 sneakers? The pigment of Martins skin? We dont know. But something about him caught Mr Zs eye. I think Z pre-judged Martin and assummed too much about him. What about Martin said he was out-of-place? His actions? Something he said or did? Or something else. We dont know. Did he oooggle some girls that had passed by? Perspective is always a given. Something about Mr Zs given perspective gave him false signals and a young man is dead because of it. Talking about all the other stuff (trial, Black panthers, media coverage, etc.etc.etc) is goobledegook. Will Mette (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was given. Suspicious as in checking out the houses in the dark and in the rain wearing a hoodie and no umbrella, in a gated community. Martin was unfamiliar with the area and was visiting. That is from the statement at least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris. Seriously. How many young people nowadays do you see with an umbrella? As to checking out the houses...every night I walk my dog and he stops at almost every house and "checks it out". And I'm standing right next to him doing the same. I guess I should be glad the Neighborhood Watch folks where I live are not armed. As to "He was not patroling": If you know anything about volunteer "eyes and ears" it is that they are ALWAYS on patrol...24/7. They feel it is their civic duty and are proud of their involvement. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 is correct - it wasn't race until the media claimed it was about race. This was a case of a citizen watching his neighborhood and saw suspicious BEHAVIOR and asked for police advice (which sounds like he followed it). The suspicious person appears to have approached him, and started a conversation. At the end of the conversation one was dead and the police questioned the other, ruling the killing justifiable. The teen's mother mounted a social media campaign with a sliver of truth and a bucket of accusation. Fortunately the American system is based on truth not popular opinion or calls to an 800 number. (BTW - this site pales compared to the Arab Spring page in number of contributors and shines in civility by comparison.) --DeknMike (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Editor HiLo48's comment was not as definitive as Editor DeknMike makes it out to be. HiLo stated...Race may or may not have had anything to do with Zimmerman's actions,.... HiLoHe also didn't say anything about the Media playing the racial card. He mentions that race is why people around the world care about this case. There is alot being said in many different threads. It gets confusing. Lets not start substituting what we wish was said for what was actually said. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Where_does_the_father.27s_fiancee_live.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_2#Where_does_the_father.27s_fiancee_live.3F

It's been long enough now for people to find sources for this. Please remove the uncited, and apparently unciteable, suggestion that the dad's fiancee lived in the gated community. Also note the right spelling of fiancee. Thanks. 72.229.0.95 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I put a source in days ago - if it was removed I'll have to go back and find it again. I also corrected the spelling of fiancée at the same time. I'll check - I do wish people would be more careful if your report is right. Tvoz/talk 07:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please look again - the citation is right there in the text where I put it a couple of days ago, in the "Trayvon Martin" section. And "fiancée" is still there, correctly spelled. Your report was wrong, no one took it out. Tvoz/talk 08:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was referring to the section titled "Prelude" under "Shooting." Perhaps the same citation should go there as well, and also note that fiancee is still misspelled there. Thanks again. 72.229.0.95 (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Ok, now I see the second one - sorry for the misunderstanding. It is now fixed and cited again - I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary, but it can't hurt. Thanks Tvoz/talk 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When did Zimmerman first retain atty?

Did Zimmerman retain an attorney prior to March 24? The shooting was on February 26 and his father is was a judge. It's very hard to imagine he wouldn't have retained an attorney prior to the 24th). This edit may be guided by the hypothesis that Zimmerman was without counsel prior to Mar 24, but I'm not if we know this be verified.

Obviously, it was announced on Mar 24 that had retained council, but what happened on the 24? First contact iwth a lawyer or a public statement about having retained one? Do we know? --17:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'd actually like to see another source for it, I'll put the 'announced' back for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a guess, but considering charges were not filed against him at the time and he was released, there would really be no reason to retain an attorney. It wasn't until March 20th. when the announcement's were made about new investigations and a grand jury, so the 24th, sounds reasonable.Isaidnoway (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

March 20th????Will Mette (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's grandfather was career foreign service and worked for CIA

http://international.loc.gov/service/mss/mssmisc/mfdip/2005%20txt%20files/2004zim01.txt George Zimmerman's grandfather, Robert Walter Zimmermann, who joined the U.S. Foreign Service in 1947 after Harvard. As late as this 1992 interview Zimmermann was working for the CIA in Langley Virginia after his retirement from diplomacy. Robert W. Zimmermann's diplomatic career took him all over the world, as the interview shows, ending as consul general in Barcelona. He married a Peruvian woman named Silvia Brull -- George the killer's grandmother. (George's mother Gladys is also Peruvian born.) Grandfather Robert W. Zimmermann's son was born June 13, 1947: Robert J. Zimmerman. This is George the killer's father -- the man who has not shown his face on TV -- for whatever reason. The grandfather's obituary in The Washington Post 3/8/1999, cites Robert J. as from "Chicago and Barcelona".Stulbarge (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is George the killer?Isaidnoway (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Presumably Stulbarge is referring to George Zimmerman, the man who killed Trayvon Martin. Not too hard to follow. That piece is fascinating to read - were we writing a biography of George Zimmerman, and had we verified that this is indeed his grandfather, it could theoretically have some place. Of course this is not that, so it doesn't. But thanks, Stulbarge. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just removed it from the article. There is no RS out there confirming a family relation. The source for this claim most likely comes from this site.TMCk (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that it got in to our article - I only saw it here on talk. (The document itself is on loc.gov - the Library of Congress site - so I don't think we have reason to doubt that it's a real document despite it being found on Democratic Underground.) Tvoz/talk 07:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman Senior a Retired Magistrate? Is Zimmerman Sr an attorney?

The link to magistrate is not very informative with regards to US or Florida law. Does anyone have the knowledge/expertise to describe what type of magistrate Mr Zimmerman was and if his position could have any impact on how his son was handled? It seems that a "Magistrate" is a type of "judge" who can issue arrest warrants etc. In some states the position of Magistrate can lead to actually being appointed into a District Court as a Judge. How does is work in Florida? Is Zimmerman Senior an Attorney like he would have to be in some other states in order to be appointed a magistrate in the first place? I am new here but just thought it seemed important to know exactly what political power and connections the shooter's father has given the father's comments to the media where he took the comments of the hired attorney "George knew one of them was going to die that night" and attributed those word directly to the dead boy as his last words before his son shot him. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9wiki9wiki (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Re-quote: Robert Zimmerman Sr is a retired magistrate from Virgina.http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/robert-j-zimmerman-trayvon-shooters-dad-a-magistrate-in-virginia-court-system.php The reference to Zimmerman being a judge is misleading as there is a difference between a judge and a magistrate. A judge is bestowed with more powers than a magistrate. This is an important difference between the two terms. It is important to know that the powers given to a magistrate are akin to those given to an administrator. This is the reason why a magistrate handles small and minor cases only. http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-judge-and-vs-magistrate. In addition, it is import to state that his job as a magistrate was in Virginia as people are trying to create the perception that he had substantial influence that prevent Zimmerman from being arrested.68.3.103.157 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB68.3.103.157 (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Wannabe cop?

One of the main character criticisms of Zimmerman is that he was/is a wannabe cop and that the shooting arose out of his vigilantism (google search for 'wannabe cop' feature Zimmerman prominently). Are there any sources which state that Zimmerman was trying to or otherwise wanted to become a police officer? This information should go well in the Zimmerman section of the article. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The article noted [15] previously but it was removed probably because of the desire to keep unnecessary biographical details to a minimum. The details on his enrollment at the college remain and it may be acceptable to re-add that he was working towards becoming a police officer if it's properly supported by the sources. Nil Einne (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This article mentions his police officer ambition twice. 98.195.131.84 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that above link does not point to any information about Zimmerman's police ambitions - that link points to a rather short article about the voice heard screaming on the 911 audio recording. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman's Past

According to reliable sources George Zimmerman's father was a member of the Klu Klux Klan. This is information that should be in the article but wiki has deleted it several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.3.166 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What sources? For something this controversial there would need to be many, and extremely reliable, and show that it was the same zimmerman. He is married to a peruvian, so the KKKs objection to miscegenation would seem to be an issue with this hypothesis. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To include such an inflammatory claim, you would need to have a strong reason to include it and like Gaijin42 says above, it would need to be supported by many very reliable sources. You say it 'should be in the article', but it might be nice to have you explain the rationale behind that statement, if it is even true. -- Avanu (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I can find no reference to this story in ANY sources, let alone reliable ones. The closest things are people using the KKK as a metaphor for the "lynch mob" against zimmerman, nothing even completely unreliable blogs is mentioning this. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This smells of trolling. 67.233.243.199 (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Innapropriate implications

The article currently says: On the day he was killed, he was visiting his father and his father's fiancée at her townhome in The Retreat At Twin Lakes in Sanford, Florida. Several sources say he went to the house to stay after being suspended from school that day. I agree that no mention of why he was suspended should be included as his school records are now sealed but the suspension should be as it was the reason he was at the house. It is also relevant to mention his height (6'3") in the first section as the article reads as if he was smaller than Zimmerman (implication that Zimmerman was dominant in the encounter). Trayvon was heavily tattooed but I'm not sure if this should be mentioned as I dont know if they were visable. The article also says: Martin says that the revelation of Zimmerman's previous charge demonstrated his "propensity for violence" and that the police had lied to the family is also misleading due to it's prominence compare with the police reply. Zimmerman had been charged with domestic violence and resisting police in 2005. As a "first-time non-violent defendant" the charges were dropped on condition he do counseling. He had no criminal record and therefor police would not have been aware of the charges and this is not clear from the wording used for the police reply. "Martin says" should be changed to "claims" and Zimmermans record explained. Wayne (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm opposed to using "claims" over "says" due to WP:CLAIM. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Request edit Surveillance video

Higher contrast films, without ABC's bothersome ABC News banner placement, have been made available to the public at the City of Sanford's website. . MSNBC Concedes Injury To Back Of Zimmerman's Head Apparent On Police Video. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

 Not done because it is already done. There is a link to http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html at the bottom of the article titled "All documents from the city of Sanford". The videos are linked from there. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Video where we can Apparently See Nothing

On one picture that I've seen is a big stain just to the left of the opening on his jacket.

Another video has a sheriff staring at the back of Zimmerman's head giving an ouch, that must hurt, expression. As they are leaving the room on this video the image on the back of the head shows a dark area.

I think there had to be blood from the shooting victim. We don't seem to see that either. Bad video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.151.24 (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Video details wounds, stills have been shown. Was treated by paramedics on scene. [16] Far as I am concerned, misinformation and spin. Damage is present. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Another source. [17] And another. [18]A quote from that source, "Ron Martinelli, founder of a California forensic consulting firm, said that Mr. Zimmerman was probably cleaned up when he was treated by paramedics at the scene and that in many cases there is no significant visual evidence of an injury." Some state the gash to the back of the head, others don't, but even still we have an expert stating that just because its not obvious, doesn't mean it didn't happen. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris is right in that some see it, some don't. That also seems to happen with alot of the other details about this case as well. For every argument for it, there is an argument against it. Most of this will be clarified once the legal proceeding starts to take place and the evidence is released to the public. Until then, I think we should take a more conservative approach when adding new details.Isaidnoway (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"I think we should take a more conservative approach when adding new details." You do know this is Wikipedia, right? 67.233.242.34 (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish that people would please stop removing reliably sourced material from the article which contradicts ABC's claim that the video doesn't show any bruises on Zimmerman. Such removal is an extreme violation of neutrality. 6ty4e (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to be careful around this. The video is a primary source. ABC's commentary is a reliable secondary source. But ABC making medical evaluations regarding what they see in the video, is a primary source again, and we have no knowledge about the medical aptitude of the person doing that commentary, and in any case, such analysis of a grainy video is obviously suspect. I could see very high level commentary, but we have to be clear to separate what is objective fact, from subjective opinion "ABC could/could not detect noticeable evidence of injury" vs "the video showed there was/was not injury". Additionally, there are mutually incompatible analysis of the videos done by multiple sources, so we would have to balance the description, while carefully avoiding our own SYNTH/OR. "ABC said they saw X. NBC said they saw Y". Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it odd that one says they can't yet others show there is damage consistant with the reports. Also it timeline of the video and police reports are direct evidence he was treated on scene and he wasn't unscathed. A disproportionate amount of evidence mentions he was hurt in some manner versus ABC's 'no visible injuries' which is not equal to 'hurt/bloodied' or anything involving post clean up video. If we go putting in speculation from third parties with recognized POV issues then it is similar to editors putting their own POV into the article. Plenty of attacks on both individuals have taken place lets not confuse reliable sources with neutrality. Do I really need to bring up the cruel comics about Zimmerman again? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The policeman, after searching Zimmerman's pockets, wipes something off his hands that he finds disgusting. Considering the fact that mention is made of injuries that we might guess that it is blood which apparently many don't see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.151.71 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Speculative. We don't know what, if any, substance the officer may or may not be wiping from his hands. Black Max (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

ABC had a rethink - nasty gash on enhanced video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.151.91 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

An opinion - Look at their "new "video which they claim is just an enhanced version of the former vid they used, , it has a time stamp on the bottoom right corner that their "orginal before enhancement" didnt haveThe new video is actually their orginal video they got their hands on, that they blurred , cropped out the outer edges of the video thus removing the timestamp, they played their edited version in their first storyNow they are trying to pass off the orginal video (before editiing) as the product of their edited version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.151.91 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to Edit Trayvon Martin photo

It is not current, and has been shown as "dated" There are more current reliable photos available. The current photo does not represent the way he looked on the night of the event. Additionally it has been shown that the photo is "shopped". Please replace it with an accurate photo reflecting the Trayvon Martin that was involved in the alleged beating of Zimmerman.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

propose a specific photo you would like to be evaluated for use in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

At the moment I would suggest looking at this article.http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/trayvon-martin-new-photos-details-spark-online-debate-2267235.html

--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

based on elimination, I believe you mean this photo http://www.poynter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvonmartin-grill-crop.jpg commonly known as the "gold teeth" photo. Please elaborate why you think this photograph is better than the currently used "hoodie" photo, and that this photo is not prejudicial (either for or against martin). We can only use one photo of martin, so we must have a full consensus on which photo to use. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The "gold teeth" photo as you call it is more current. The "hoodie" photo that is on the article is shopped. Is there no way to do a collage? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We cannot do a collage, there are copyright issues involved. We can have a "fair use" exemption to use one photo of a dead person, since it is not possible to take a new photo that is free.

The hoodie photo was not photoshopped. The people propogating that story are not reading their own sources. The hoodie photo is originally obviously a personal photo of Martin. After the shooting, that photograph was used on protest posters and banners. A photographer took a photo of one of the posters, and cropped it back down to the original photo. A photo of a printing of a photo caused the photo to be dark. This can be confirmed by the caption on the original Miami Herald site, which shows the "darker" photo, where the caption reads that it was used on protest posters, and attributes the photo to Getty Images. Getty Images obviously did not take the original personal photograph. You can confirm this by looking at the photo and caption at the Miami Herald which is linked to by most of the blogs running the "photoshop" story. (I believe the primary one is reihl world view?)

regarding the gold tooth photo, I do not believe there is a reliable source that says that photograph is definitively newer. The two photos are approximately of the same age to my eyes, and both clearly older than the other "hollister" photo. Additionally, the grills do have some prejudcial influence, which we should avoid. (Note we are giving the same deference to Zimmerman, and are using his employee ID photo, rather than the more common mugshot). Gaijin42 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the current photo of Zimmerman in a tie is copyrighted. I won't take it down, but thought you should be aware. As for not using the Martin picture with the "grills", the fact there are arguments about this are absurd. It's a photo of a 17 year old acting like a 17 year old, it's not our job to say we can't use it because of "prejudicial influence". It's a recent photo and would be perfectly acceptable. There's a reason we write an article and not just have pictures. Having said that, I don't really see a need to change the current photo (it seems recent enough). Redredryder (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're going for consensus, I'm for any photo at the moment that does not appear to be doctored, like the above 'hoodie' photo. Sure, we can argue that it's not "proven doctored" but even then, it's stil a terrible photo due to it's poor quality and jacked up brightness and webcam settings in this case. I'll case a vote for the gold-teeth photo if it's between those two at the moment, and a vote against the hoodie photo.--Львівське (говорити) 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather offended that you guys would include a picture of the confirmed shooter of an unarmed minor smiling so widely as if everything is great for him. That is ridiculous to me. 99.146.22.217 (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)]

that is the most recent photo of him unlike the photoshoped picture of martin. Plus it doesn't matter if you are offended nor does it make martin "innocent" that he was unarmed. 68.82.143.169 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

map

several people have asked for a map showing some of the locations involved, I have come across http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

This blog is NOT a reliable source, and their analysis could have major flaws, but many people seem interested. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A map of that kind would be for sure a good addition but that blog is less than reliable. If we can find a RS map fine; If not we'll have to do w/o.TMCk (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto - good idea, but totally unreliable source. I;ve seen maps of the gated community on MSNBC and I think CNN, so we can check their websites. BUT we better be sure they are not copyright protected, because they likely are Tvoz/talk 03:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If we can get a reliable source to produce the map, we can recreate it to avoid the copyright problem, using the RS as the ref. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Would creating a map using GIMP and available map sources violate WP:OR or would that just be changing formats (like converting the .wav files released by Sanford PD to .ogg format)? Agree that the blog is NOT reliable and the described route is speculation by the blogger. A map used in or linked to the article should only show well sourced locations: the clubhouse, mail boxes and site of the shooting as given in the police report. DocTree (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Its gotta be pretty rare for an article like this to have a map. I don't see what it adds to the article. The discription from the prose makes it pretty clear what is going on. With the coord link at the top of the article, google maps is a few clicks away. Also if we put up a map people will start changing it and fighting over what should be on it. I feel it is a bad idea. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would wait for the facts to settle further before considering such a thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. If a suitable one from a RS can be found. When I looked at it, I got a perspective that you just don't capture from the 911 calls.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 to the map idea. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

against.The map was made to tell someones version of events — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.132.7 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to Include Spike Lee Incident

As this certainly is part of the "aftermath" it should be included. Why it was removed does not make sense.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

its already there? Its in the last paragraph of the aftermath section. Extra detail about the subsequent settlement etc was removed as not directly relevant, but I believe we do have consensus that the inital tweet was relevant as a probable call for vigilante response against zimmerman. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please include the fact that Roseanna Barr also tweeted the address. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC) AndyB

Ive seen that, but where I saw it was not RS, do you have any sources for the info? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Initial story was broken by twitcy. com. http://twitchy.com/2012/03/29/roseanne-barr-says-she-will-re-retweet-zimmermans-address/ I am the one who notified The Smoking Gun. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Any reliable sources? As far as I can see no RS news sites have covered this. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2012

"Police had been called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times from January 1, 2011, to February 26, 2012, with Zimmerman placing 46 of those calls." Is a blatant mistruth. Zimmerman placed 46 calls to the police over the period of 7 1/2 years and not all of these calls were in reference to The Retreat. The logs to all of George Zimmerman's calls to police are located at the City of Sanford website.

68.3.103.157 (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

This is an invaluable link; thanks! It's a "primary source" which should be used with caution in this sort of situation, but it is definitely googleable to get secondary news reports, namely [19] which says since 2004. The Orlando Sentinel reported apparently the wrong time interval [20] copied at [21]. Now I personally value primary sources highly so I'm going to go with your primary source plus the News 9 report, and perhaps footnote the Sentinel's take on it. Other people on Wikipedia will treat you like you're doing something wrong by so much as mentioning primary sources; we'll see if our boss here is one of them. Wnt (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Im the one most commonly responding, I assume you are refering to me? In any case, no i have great respect for primary sources, especially when the information presented in them does not require analysis, and is of direct relevance. In this case, the information is already included, and there is a good case for being incorrect, so im fine with the primary, especially if there is a secondary backing it Gaijin42 (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I was a bit snappy there... anyway, here's the diff [22]. Wnt (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If we have conflicting reports in sources we should be careful about which is accurate unless there was a retraction - I find the primary source here somewhat unclear (and chilling, when you look at the entry for 2/26), but a couple look to be duplicates, and some number of them seem to have no name, or say "anon. male" or just "George" as the caller, so I wonder how we can be sure that these were all by Zimmerman. This is on an official site, but the report is not explained or identified, so any interpretation or analysis by us, of course, is OR. Is there more than one source identifying this report as showing 46 calls from Zimmerman? This is why we try not to use primary sources here. Tvoz/talk 07:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, all the secondary sources under consideration say there were 46 calls, and even the ones saying 2011 cite the primary source. The difference is that one says 2004 like the primary source. The others are, IMHO, the victim of a bad edit that conflated the time period for the general crime statistics (the thousands of calls since January 2011) with the period over which Zimmerman made his calls. I'm not using the primary source for the number or type of calls made by Zimmerman, only for whether the start date is 2004 or 2011. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Although this doesn't seem to be supported by the primary source, it's possible of course Zimmerman made no calls to the police between from the beginning of 2004 to the end of 2010 in which case both are technically accurate but the 2011 claim would be less confusing. Nil Einne (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This one states, "Zimmerman called police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents. Nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious.[23] and this one too, "The Orlando Sentinel reports that, in the last 15 months, Zimmerman had called the Sanford police 46 times. So why not begin this latest call by saying, "Hey, it's me, George Zimmerman, from the neighborhood watch?"[24] which refers to the Orlando Sentinel one. Which states, "Records show Zimmerman, 28, called the cops 46 times between January 2011 and Feb. 26."[25] Not sure where they get this from, but it would seem from 2004 then? Under WP:V I'd mention the primary, but many many sources state 46 and the report simply states 46 calls, not all calls. So without retractions then what? We can verify it and it is from a reliable source, so who is to say its not true. Burden is verifiablity, not truth. Mention both because of the dispute. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've argued for "verifiability, not truth", so admittedly it took some ideological gymnastics for me to avoid your conclusion on this point. The way I see it, the article I cited says "Sanford Police records indicate he had called 911 on 46 occasions since 2004 prior to the Feb. 26 call". Two of the articles cite are based on the same Orlando Sentinel report; I thought basically all of them were, and so, I judged them as "one source" in terms of verifiability, thus getting to 1 secondary + primary versus 1 secondary and relegating the latter to a footnote. However, the Miami Herald link you provide is indeed worded as a separate source. I'd wanted to keep such unpleasantness out of the text, but when one newspaper significantly misrepresents the facts of a national news case due to a bad edit, and another appears to have copied and propagated their error without giving them credit (the words "orlando" and "sentinel" do not appear in the Miami Herald story, but how else did they get the same January 1, 2011 start?), it's time for some people to get publicly spanked. - no, actually it was due to a typo, "2011" for "2001", on the first page of the call listing (apparently as handed to reporters, since I don't see it on the website) - see [26]. Wnt (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I should add that hand-counting three times from http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf , there are indeed 46 incidents (incident #4 has an extra page and "Event Report" header. The original Orlando Sentinel article [27] cites "Sanford Police Department records released last week" in a March 19 article. As far as I see this is the only list of 911 calls by Zimmerman from the investigation documents at http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html . Wnt (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

CITEKILL

On the 'Latino American' part of the lede regarding Zimmerman, there's some citation overkill going on. I wasn't sure which ones to remove or move, so just wondering if someone had input on what to do with these refs before I got bold? --Львівське (говорити) 03:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• A. It is Wiki policy to never use a link in a header.
• B. I do not see evidence of citation overkill in the article after quickly perusing it. Can you provide examples? Will go back and read again. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

after carefully re-reading the article, I see no evidence of overkill. Race is only mentioned when pertinent or in a quote. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Um...as I said, the part of the lede regarding him being a Latino American. Read again. "George Zimmerman, a Latino American man.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" --Львівське (говорити) 04:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... On second thought, I have no problem with your removing Latino- American in the lede. Z self identifies as Hispanic as is mentioned later on. Anybody else have an opinion? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to the content - just the citation overkill - we don't need 6 refs in the lede for this one point --Львівське (говорити) 04:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed. Much has been made in the media of misidentifying Zimmerman as "white" in the beginning. But, if "Latino American" for describing Zimmerman is removed from the beginning of the article, then "African American" for describing Martin should be removed too. A hot-button issue article such as this needs to be as balanced as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollo V. Tomasi (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

*facepalm* okay I just went ahead and did it anyway. You guys are April fooling me or something...lol --Львівське (говорити) 05:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It is better with both matters of race removed. Previous discussion said the same thing and I previously did it only to have my entire changes removed. Zimmerman is not white and the issue of media calling him white fueled the racism allegations. No other wiki article directly states <name> <race> in the sentence introducing them. It is rather crude to identify the individuals by their race before we even detail the situation that occured. How would it sound to have "President Obama, black man (six sources) is the current President of the US", its just bad form. We are better then this! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, none of the other people involved in this case have their race listed; Trayvon's parents, police officers, attorneys. I don't see why it is necessary to include that he was unarmed either in the lead, that is covered extensively in other sections. Was he known to be "armed" when he made previous trips to the store or went to school or anywhere else for that matter.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again: see WP:MOSLEAD which says in part The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. Trayvon is identified in the 2nd sentence of the article as African American not as a biography, but in the description of the incident. Same for Zimmerman. It is relevant to the incident, as is the fact that Trayvon was unarmed. The lead needs these details as they are an important part of the story. (And there is no suggestion or implication that Trayvon was ever armed - I don;t know why you keep bringing that up.) Tvoz/talk 09:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If and when this case makes it to the legal arena, race will no longer be an issue as there is no credible evidence that Zimmerman targeted Martin solely because of his race. The media has reported on of allegations that race was an issue in this case, but fortunately, allegations that the media has reported on are not admissable in a court of law. Since RS have reported that race could have been, possibly was, may have been a factor, it is understandable why they are in this article. I think it also safe to assume that most 17 year olds do not walk to the store armed or walk around their neighborhood armed. Once again, if and when this case makes it to the legal arena, the fact that Martin was unarmed, will not be relevant. It might make a nice talking point for the prosecutor's opening statement, but Zimmerman claimed he was justified in using lethal force against Martin because Martin approached him from behind and attacked him and punched him in the face and was slamming his head against the ground. The question before the jury will be if Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force against the force of Martin's. In other words, is it reasonable to believe that Zimmerman was protecting himself from death or serious bodily harm. So, my point is that while it may make a nice talking point for the lead sentence to read that he was unarmed, it is not relevant to Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. If this case had been about Zimmerman simply shooting an unarmed african-american teen, he would obviously be in jail.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Request edit- Addition to Accusations of media bias section

ABC purposely used unnecessary chyron to cover Zimmerman's head, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.103.157 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Thank you, but we need a RS that says this. Wikipedia generally only re-writes what has already been written. (ie WP:VERIFY and WP:THIRDPARTY) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

oops. I missed the refs you supplied. here are clickable links.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2012/03/30/did-abc-news-purposely-use-unnecessary-chyron-cover-zimmermans-head-bru

http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/03/abc-news-doctors-zimmerman-video-to-pedal-false-story-in-trayvon-martin-case

Give me a minute or two to look these over. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Re: newsbusters.org: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 109#Can a blog on newsbusters.org be a reliable source? refers to the site as a professionally run blog site. The writer of article, P J Gladnick, has been cited on wikipedia Special:Search/"p-j-gladnick" seven time, but not on anything like this article. I'm not willing to use it, it looks too much like a WP:Self published source.
• Re: bob-owens.com: This is a clear WP:Self published source and not useable.

Sorry, the "Not Done" stands. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's OK to cite this particular item from Newsbusters. The very first time that I watched the ABC video, I too was suspicious of their on-screen logo covering up much of the relevant part of the video. We all know that the logo covers up part of the video, and the Newsbusters article just verifies what we already knew anyway. I don't think the standards of verifiability for something so obvious need to be as high as for other kinds of claims. I support inclusion of the Newsbusters source. 6ty4e (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it isn't a self published source because the author is Gladnick whereas the publisher is Media Research Center (MRC) which is not Gladnick. In Richard's link to a Wikipedia discussion that was critical of the MRC website, the only thing possibly useful I could find there was the criticism that the blogs on the site had no editorial oversight. In the case here, I didn't see any evidence that there wasn't editorial oversight of Gladnick's article. Considering the conservative slant of the site, there appears to be considerable editorial oversight that is biased towards the conservative point of view.

Also, see the section below, #Surveillance Video, where it is mentioned that ABC recently enhanced the video and ABC now says, "But the video does show what could be an injury to the back of Zimmerman's head." --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the abc video in Gladnick's article and the chyron has been shrunk, if my memory is correct, and it now shows the marks on the back of Zimmerman's head without enhancement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

blog/source

Here is a blog talking about media spin, particularly in regards to relative sizes of martin and zimmerman.

blog is clearly not RS, however, does link to many sources that are, which may be useful to various editors. blog is doing some SYNTH of its own, be careful not top copy that into the article.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/is-the-ny-times-breaking-news-or-breaking-wind.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And so it begins...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-case-exposes-worst-media-210020839.html

Of course, those of us following this story with a clear head knew this was the case, and what strikes me as funny is even in the link above, they can't quite bring themselves to fully admit they've been stoking people's emotions and playing with fire. There are so many serious concerns that the media could be focusing on while covering this case with integrity, yet true to form, our media doesn't care about much more than just getting ratings. -- Avanu (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that Breitbart is not a RS, but nonetheless, they presented an interesting analysis via a timeline of how the media was involved in making this local crime story a case of national outrage.--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/29/The-Trayvon-Timeline-How-a-Local-Crime-Story-Became-a-National-Racial-Outrage

Anything can be a reliable source for some purpose, and many things prevent themselves from being reliable sources for other purposes. The general news media has not been a reliable source for this case, but they have been gleefully putting gossip out as news. The instant recognition of a national media outlet as a "RELIABLE SOURCE" or instant dimissal of a small media outlet as unreliable is part of the problem with fact-checking here at Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly a valid critique of wikipedia, but this individual article is not the place to fix that problem. Start a general RFC if you want to change overall wikipedia policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not describing a policy problem. The RS policy is clear, well written, and a good policy. The problem is editors who ignore the policy in favor of claiming a national news source is automatically reliable when the policy is more comprehensive than that. -- Avanu (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

neighbor describing zimmerman's injuries the next day

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/neighbor-defends-george-zimmerman-03302012

probably could use an additional source before inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Eyewitness to injury

News is reporting that a neighbor saw Zimmerman the next day, bandaged and bruised. He pointed out that bruises often don't emerge until the next day. The article continues

"I think something happened that night where he had to defend himself," the neighbor said. He says that the voice heard screaming on the 911 call is that of George Zimmerman. "I hear his voice every single day, I talk to him every single day," he said. He says the case has haunted him."I've been thinking about it morning noon and night ever since I seen the bandages on him," he said. He believes Zimmerman was defending his life, and that's why he's defending Zimmerman now. He says he doesn't believe race played a role in what happened."I don't think race is involved at all, because I've seen black, African-American folks come to George's house," he said.

This eyewitness believes it was self-defense. --DeknMike (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The witnesses description might be valuable. The witnesses opinion of it it was self defense or not is irrelevant as they were not there at the time. Also , zimmerman being injuried is not proof of self defense, the aggressor in the situation could very well end up injured (and under the "self defense theory", that is what happened. The aggressor is dead).

No need to make this about anything other than factual!

I would just like to say,before writing any anticles on this matter and make any decisions. Please consider,we all should let the truth and facts be the method of future editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.33.197 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Morning America's Enhanced Video

Good Morning America showed a digitally enhanced version of the police surveillance video showing injury to the back of Zimmerman's head. It can be found on Yahoo news here. Someone should probably edit the section of the article dealing with the video to reflect this new information. Benignuman (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

CNN video

Is currently used (video) to support a claim that CNN specifically supported that a slur was said in the phone call. What is clear from watching the video, however, is that CNN (Anderson Cooper) did not make the claim, but said he could see how others heard the slur. Thus the current claim now misuses CNN and the video. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

White American ??

This article appears to coining a new term. When people want to use a phrase in tune with the racial/country designation "African American" they say "European American". But they normally would refer to a "White American" as white or caucasion. Capitalized White American would appear to be the counterpart to capitalized Black American. I don't recall ever seeing someone referred to as a Black American. User:Wickorama(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

 Done changed to Caucasian. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman Exclusive Interview With WHAR?

Why is the WHAR interview with George Zimmerman not included? It can be found here: http://wehitandrun.info/?p=1957 It is the only known interview he has done since the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antdominator (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it is some loser's fake twitter account pretending to be George Zimmerman.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

In the 2nd paragraph there is still a clarification needed tag still there, pertaining to Zimmerman's previous charges. Did we ever reach a consensus on including them there?Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been shown how previous charges (not leading to conviction) are relevant to the facts of the story.--DeknMike (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like somebody thought it was relevant to the facts of the story. Somebody put it back in there and listed his charge as "resisting officer without violence". He was initially charged with resisting arrest with violence and then that was reduced to resisting arrest without violence. Maybe somebody could take it out or edit it for clarity or just leave it the way it is??--Isaidnoway (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Title of Article

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.

---

I want to get people's thoughts on the title of the article. The closest example to something like this that I can think of would be the Bernie Goetz[[28]] incident. We currently have that article titled under Bernie's name as opposed to "Shooting of Barry Allen, Troy Canty, Darrell Cabey and James Ramseur" Personally I think it would be better if we retitled the article as just "Trayvon Martin" because I think in it's current state it's a little biased/unclear, especially since we are still waiting on the facts. Just want to know what everyone else thinks about the current title? Thanks Redredryder (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. However, I think the article title needs to stay the same. My reason is that the article is about "The shooting of Trayvon Martin" not about Trayvon Martin himself. As can be seen by my comments here I am the biggest supporter of keeping the article as neutral as possible. But still feel the title is appropriate. I think everyone agrees that Trayvon Martin was shot. So calling it the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" is not necessarily biased. If there were to be any change, I would vote for, at the very least, "The Trayvon Martin Incident", or "The Trayvon Martin Shooting". --70.119.53.11 (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a conversation taking place about this here - let's keep it in one place. I will move it down so it is easier to find. Tvoz/talk 08:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Change title of article?

Most Wikipedia articles regarding the death of someone do not refer to how the person died, but instead refers to the death. (See Death of Caylee Anthony, as a for instance) The title of the article implies that Martin was shot, but did not die. How do editors feel about changing the article title to Death of Travyon Martin? Angryapathy (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not firmly opposed to the change, but will note that in the caylee situation, the exact circumstances of her death are not known, and the controversy is much more about coverups, trial, etc. In this case, the context of the shooting itself is the subject of the most scrutiny. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was lazy in providing more "Death of..." examples. Death of Michael Jackson isn't Overdose of Micahel Jackson, Death of Osama bin Laden isn't Shooting of Osama bin Laden, and Death of Diana, Princess of Wales isn't Car accident of Princess Diana. Angryapathy (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that Death of would be more customary, but a name change may be politically charged. "Shooting of" may appeal to some who perhaps want to keep the focus on the gun. Whereas death may be deemed insufficiently precise or impersonal.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we should use "Death of" rather than "Shooting of" unless there is a policy argument I am unaware of.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that

The Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin ;) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is, obviously, a major difference between the way Diana died and the way Trayvon died - to me "Death of" just doesn't capture it. This article is about the shooting and the circumstances surrounding the shooting, but "Shooting of" could sound like Trayvon did not die. We are not going to say "Murder of" - at least not at this juncture - so we need to capture the fact that he was actively killed. That's the point of Gaijin's suggestion, but it's really awkward. So I would like to suggest Killing of Trayvon Martin - the method of his death is not as relevant as the fact that he was killed - he didn't just die. The uproar is not so much about the fact that it was a gun death as that it was the killing of a 17 year old unarmed kid. And "Killing of" is NPOV - even George Zimmerman agrees that he killed Trayvon. What do y'all think? Tvoz/talk 05:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a title change, but I do not feel it would be an improvement. The shooting is the event. Even if Trayvon did not die, the shooting would still be the event. "Death of" articles are often spin-offs from articles about notable people. It is harsh to say, but Trayvon Martin was not notable for anything else but getting shot. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are handy links for looking at other articles with such prefixes: Special:PrefixIndex/Killing of, Special:PrefixIndex/Death of, Special:PrefixIndex/Murder of, Special:PrefixIndex/Homicide of, Special:PrefixIndex/Shooting of.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note some of the shootings (and likely others) are just redirects. The only two which seem to use this specific format are Shooting of Hosie Miller and Shooting of Kayla Rolland. We also have some other similar stuff like Kathryn Johnston shooting, Amadou Diallo shooting and BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant (list not intended to be exhaustive). (I'm ignoring cases like Shooting of the Romanov family and 2011 Tucson shooting as of a somewhat different character due to the fact they involve multiple victims.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, while I'm not arguing against a move, I don't know if all the earlier examples are great comparisons. As I understand it, the cause of Caylee Anthony's death remains undetermined. Whether she was killed or the cause of death was homicide remains disputed. She definitely wasn't shot. So death really seems the best simple title. And perhaps it's just me but 'overdose of ....' or 'car accident of ....' just sounds awkward whereas shooting does not, even if the person died. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shooting of..." is ambiguous. "Shooting Death of..." gets right to the point and sets the tone for the reader. "Killing of..." is a bit heavy handed. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shooting of JFK" and "Shooting of John Lennon" are also redirects to "Assassination of"[29] and "Death of"[30] respectively. When it reads as "shooting of", it victimizes the person who died. Considering the facts aren't clear cut and there exists the possibility that the shooting was in self-defense, I think "Death of" would be a much more appropriate title at this point. Redredryder (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with redred. Is there a forum for officially evaluating the options with a new title? How can we vote? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no "vote" per-se, but the correct forum is right here. If consensus is reached, we just change the title. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go with "Death of Trayvon Martin". Have the current 'Shooting of' redirect to the new page. It is inline with other pages and avoids issues of point of view and the resounding controversy that is taking place. Shooting doesn't mean death either; people can be shot and don't die. The title should reflect that Trayvon Martin is dead in no uncertain terms. If someone is pummeled to death would it be "Pummeling of..." or if it was poison "Poisining of...' we should be clear with the title, "Death of Trayvon Martin." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I think we're still talking about this - not clear that consensus is reached, so maybe wait a bit longer.COmments seem to be still coming in, and the last thing we want is an edit war over the title. Tvoz/talk 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What are the serious arguments opposed to "The death of..." Let's hear them. If none are forthcoming then I'd see Monday being a good time to move. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking some more about this - despite my initial feeling that it was awkward, I think, as Buster7 said upstream, that Gaijin's suggestion of Shooting death of Trayvon Martin gets right to the point and satisfies both problems: that it be clear that it was a death, and that it was not an accident or some kind of natural cause - this is what I was trying to get at with the suggestion of Killing of. Since that didn't fly, I think Shooting death is the best option. Tvoz/talk 04:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support "The Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin" ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Shooting Death" would be a step up from what we have now, but I still think "Death of" would be the best choice, and we can redirect "Shooting of" and "Shooting Death of" to this article. My main arguments would be

• No other articles of similar situations that I could find use "Shooting death of"
• While both "Shooting of" and "Shooting Death of" are technically correct, I feel like "Shooting" is a charged word. Keeping it simply as "Death of" would be much more neutral IMO. Redredryder (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If the story was just about a death, this article wouldn't exist. It's only because Martin was deliberately shot that this is news. Removing that fact from the title is whitewashing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussed before. Policy is clear. "Death of Trayvon Martin" is the correct term. There is no 'whitewashing'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Arrogant, bullying style discussion posts like that suggest that there is. Thanks for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, the story IS about Martin's death and not the shooting. Are you telling me that the shooting is so pivotal that this wouldn't be news if he was stabbed or strangled? This is headlines because a 17 year old is dead. That fact alone and not how it happened is what's important. Also I don't see how you can call it "whitewashing" when the first sentence clearly states how Martin died. Redredryder (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So why not put it in the title? I'm truly confused. Oh, and it's not just that he's dead. He was killed by someone, who just happened to have a deadly weapon, a gun. This is all relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree that if this was just about a death, there wouldn't be an article. Trayvon Martin would still be unknown to the public if it were "just" a death. Previous examples of article titles given here ("Death of Michael Jackson", "Death of Princess Diana") are about famous people, therefore, it makes sense there would be a "Death of..." article for them. I think that until this case/incident develops more and more information is available, it should stay "Shooting of Trayvon Martin". That's my opinion, anyway. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if Martin was stabbed it would be titled "Stabbing of Trayvon Martin", etc. I was leaning tword "Shooting of", but frankly just because I like it, it is punchy and dramatic. But this is an encyclopedia and "Richard likes it", punchy and dramatic are not reasons to choose a title. I favor "Death of Trayvon Martin" (sterile boring encyclopedic). Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily be "stabbing of". I don't see any pages titled like that, and an example off the top of my head that would be similar would be Kitty Genovese [31], currently "murder of". Redredryder (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It can not be "Murder of" until a court of law says it is. Otherwise it would be POV pushing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As was said earlier, this is not an article about a single person, Trayvon Martin, it is about an event, specifically a shooting. The title as it is currently "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" is fine, because it describes an event in terms that are very clear. He didn't simply 'die', but was shot and that is the reason people are so up in arms. The shooting event is the key part of this article and it should be reflected in its title. As was said earlier, Trayvon Martin was not 'notable' in life, but how he was shot was very notable. -- Avanu (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that people are "up in arms" because Martin was shot, but, rather, because he was killed. If Zimmerman had killed Martin with a knife or a screwdriver or a punch, claiming the "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law, the community would still be "up in arms". I don't think it's the shooting per se that is necessarily relevant; rather, it is the death. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about within the USA, but in "the community" outside the USA the shooting aspect is critical, if only because most people in the rest of the civilised world regard America's gun laws as insane. (Not looking for a debate on that matter here. Just stating a fact.) A knifing or a punch would definitely not have the same impact on the global news front. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if the relevant policy has been linked in this discussion; it is at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Among other things, the name needs to be neutral, concise, and precise. "Shooting death of Trayvon Martin" is not concise; "Death of" communicates that this is an article about an event with fewer words. To me, both "Shooting of" and "Death of" are equally natural and recognizable, and both have advantages and disadvantages with respect to concision. "Murder of" is not neutral, since it indicates an unlawful act when there has been no conviction of that act. VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the policy link. I notice a section of the policy WP:TITLECHANGES seems to imply that; 1) Where there is no consensus no change should be made and 2) We shouldn't spend a lot of time debating title changes when we could be doing something more productive. I think that is what applies at this point. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Chris, we did not reach consensus, so we're still discussing. No harm in letting the conversation go until we reach consensus, which, as you know, does not mean majority vote, it means agreement. Until it's decided, Shooting of is certainly not wrong, and has been fine since it was changed from Trayvon Martin, as you'll recall. (Feels like months ago.) But there was concern that Shooting alone doesn't go far enough - he was not just shot, he was killed. However, I have a problem with Death of alone as below.
2. Redredryder, true that the specific manner of death isn't crucial for the title, but to me the reason we have an article is that Martin was shot to death - that is, he did not die in an accident or of illness, or by suicide. He was shot to death, so I think we need to be clear that it was not an accidental or natural death, which Death of would not reveal. Shooting may be a "charged" word, but he was shot - that is undeniable and it is absolutely not un-neutral to say that. Hard to say if there would be a Wiki article if he were strangled or even stabbed to death, actually, as if one of those were the case it would be more likely that it was some kind of even or almost even fight between two people that led to one killing the other. That probably would not have been news or raised the uproar that this case has - which is why we're writing the article. Let's not pretend that we routinely write articles about such deaths. And that would be quite a POV interpretation of the facts that we know to be true in this case - he was shot to death, and the rest remains to be determined.
3. I would therefore be ok with Shooting death of Trayvon Martin, which is neutral and precise, and although not super concise, it's hardly wordy - one more word doesn't make it unconcise.
4. But I still think that Killing of Trayvon Martin does what I think we need to do - gets across that he is dead, and that it was not an accidental or natural death, is neutral, precise, and concise, if that's what we're looking for. (Note that I didn't suggest Murder of, which is not appropriate at this time, although it certainly could be in the future, depending on how the case develops.) Tvoz/talk 07:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Shooting death of Trayvon Martin tells the uninformed reader (if there is such a person) the type of weapon used in the altercation, the result of the altercation, and the victim. I still think Killing of..... is too charged but would also support (based on Editor Tvoz above) if that is the consensus.```Buster Seven Talk 07:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I opened up a requested move so we can get a cleaner view on which way people are leaning, and hopefully bring in some outside opinion. Link here [32]. Redredryder (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2012 (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.

Peruvian "ethnicity"

The issue here is that "Peruvian" is not an ethnicity. Just as there are White Americans, there are also White Peruvians (someone should create the article; these include mostly Spanish Peruvians, British Peruvians, Italian Peruvians, etc. Albeit some of these people of mixed Peruvian-European nationalities are not white). Let's also remember Afro-Peruvians, and all those other ethnicities listed in "Category:Ethnic groups in Peru". This is important. What was the actual ethnicity of Gladys Zimmerman? Just writing her off as "Peruvian" is ambiguous (based on the given examples, she could be black). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The ehtnicity of his mother is irrelevant. George identifies as hispanic, his claim is accepted and vetted by many reliable sources. If he is right or wrong to do so is not our concern. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

She appears to be partly Hispanic and partly Native American - she is decidely not 'white." (going by pictures, as I find stuff about genealogy to be remarkably useless in any Wikipedia article anyway. Collect (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it a pointless topic as well, but in the first sentence of the article we read the following:

"George Zimmerman, a man of mixed ethnicity (Peruvian and white American)."

Again, the problem here is that "Peruvian" is not an ethnicity. So three options exist here:

1. Remove that information given that it is not accurate; or,
2. Rewrite the information and note that "Peruvian" is a nationality; or,
3. Find the actual ethnicity of the mother.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Or simply state that he is "Hispanic" which seems the logical course as that is how he is self-identified per reliable sources. Collect (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's another good option. Perhaps even White Hispanic would be more accurate.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is more interesting that his mother is of Peruvian nationality than the precise color of her skin. Dragons flight (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And, as a non-American, I'm quite confused by Hispanic as an ethnicity distinct from white. Do they really look any different? My impression is that the only distinguishing feature for many Hispanics is a Spanish accent. That's NOT ethnicity. Americans may understand the difference, but it may need explaining to the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The usage of the term "Hispanic" in the United States is a really confusing subject. Note that even Wikipedia has a page on White Hispanics, and there are also "black hispanics". Let's remember that race and ethnicity are not the same thing (and, of course, nationality is not the same thing either). My understanding of Zimmer is the following: He is racially white, his nationality is American, and ethnically a white hispanic. His mother's nationality is Peruvian (and we don't know her race or ethnicity), and his father is white (race) and an American (nationality)...and his "ethnicity" is White American? Confusing, but the article seriously needs to improve on this information. Calling "Peruvian" an ethnicity is erroneous.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but now I'm even more confused. HiLo48 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, Hispanics in America include the descendants of the Spanish who colonized the area, and perhaps only interbred so are effectively pure European. However, Pretty much the entire south American, central American, and a decent portion of the north American indigenous populations were forced to learn Spanish, convert to Catholicism, etc, and it is the descendants of those people that are largely meant when referring to Hispanic in the states. Latino is a good synonym for this as well (From Latin America). Of course, in reality a large amount of interbreeding occurred, so the situation is even more muddled, but this probably re-inforces the point. The majority of people refereed to as Hispanic in the US probably have a decent portion of "non-white" ancestry. To further complicate it, according to official Census rules (and common politics in the US) Hispanic is an ethnicity (language and culture deliniated), not a race. Members of any race can be Hispanic. (But as above, there is an unstated assumption about Native American blood. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Back to the Point: "Peruvian" is a nationality, not an ethnicity. Therefore, the text in the first sentence of the introduction is incorrect. We need to correct that information.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done changed to Hispanic, which is supported by many RS. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of purported "reliable" sources (yes, shameless use of scare quotes there) have resorted to using the rather idiotic "White Hispanic" to describe Zimmerman. I suspect you will be fighting a battle over this with race-baiters in the future. 67.233.247.127 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can see a valid case for it. The cops did describe him as white, and his father is white, so I think it could actually be a reasonable compromise. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see a valid case for it. Especially when you consider President Obama's mother was as white as white could be, but he's referred to as African American and not White Black or Black White (which is as idiotic as "White Hispanic"). Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Some would argue that the whole American obsession with "race" is pretty idiotic (although at least partly understandable in historical context), but since some of that idiocy may be relevant to this story, I guess we have to try our best. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

the president isn't really an analogue.. There is a (not necessarily good, not necessarily logically defensible) long standing precedent that any black makes the person black. Originally this was for slave reasons, then civil rights reasons, and now mostly cultural reasons. Black seems to be the only race subject to this, originally for discrimination, now mostly for politics. As Hispanic is an ethnicity and not a race, there are absolutely white Hispanics (pure spainard decent), native american (Indian) Hispanics, black Hispanics, etc The term makes absolute sense.. I personally think it should not be used the way it is, since no other ethnicity is tracked ithe same way, but that is a ginormous political issue Whether or not it accurately applies to Zimmerman is another thing entirely. By most other racial terms, he would be mixed/half. This is very common to see, Eurasian, etc. identity politics in the us however as minorities which are considered disadvantaged identify as the minority when in doubt. Shrug. In any case, he is obviously white enough that police did not identify him as a Hispanic, but Hispanic enough that that is the way he chooses to self identify. That's why I said there was a case for it.. It's complicated, and probably no "correct" answer, since the political, social, and scientific logic do not follow the same set of rules. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. I'm talking about how specifically calling Zimmerman white hispanic is as idiotic as calling Barack Obama white black. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that "black" follows different rules than many other races when mixing. (Also see Tiger Woods, Black/Asian but almost always called Black) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. In the United Stated it does but elsewhere in the world? But again, you're focusing in on the "Black" part of my illustration while still missing the point as a whole. No matter. It doesn't mean anything to the article as long as Zimmerman isn't referred to as White Hispanic (which he isn't). Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The term white hispanic is an accepted one used for a long time in the US (even if not common in the media) and some other countries whereas white black isn't, so your examples aren't exactly comparable. (A term that may be used in some cultures is mixed white & black or black & white.) Note in case there is any confusion, the white bit has is actually not primarily because of his father, I'm guessing there's a fair chance his mother would be identified as white hispanic as well by some (e.g. according to FBI observation, I showed [33] a few days back which is from 2004, in terms of skin colour I wonder if his mother looks that different from the woman in the photo). And if George himself is seen as different from his mother, it's more to do with what he looks like then because of what his father is (as terms such as 'black' and 'white' have more to do with perceived skin colour then heritage). The meaning of such terms are always imprecise and based on a complex mix of social, cultural and historic factors. And they tend vary from culture to culture (e.g. consider the meaning of the term Asian from country to country, or the term Eurasian between the modern day Indian non-usage of the term to refer to Anglo-Indians even if it was the origins of the term and likelihood of them being considered Eurasian in a number of other countries). Trying to say one is 'wrong' because the other ones doesn't exist or works in a different way doesn't really work when it comes to the encylopaedia. In the specific case of white hispanic, it's an attempt to describe what's intepreted as the 'race' (white) and the 'ethnicity' (hispanic) and although many may consider such definitions inaccurate, confusing and possibly pointless, it's the way things are nevertheless. There's a good reason here in wikipedia we prefer self identification. Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the impossible challenge of trying to find precision in the incomprehensible mess of racial/ethnic naming conventions in America. Don't fight over it guys. Just go with what's most likely to be understood by the masses. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To address the original statement in this thread... why does 'ethnicity' matter and nationality doesn't? Zimmerman doesn't look like a 'white' guy per se, but who cares, he says he's hispanic, just take it at that. Black parents can have white-looking kids, and mixed parents can too. Also the one-drop rule wasn't always the case, and isn't the case now. It was once quite the reverse. You had to show a significant African heritage to be considered racially black, and there were even various sub-categories for what we might now just consider black. This is a silly thing to be fighting over, and it seems that it was already settled as Hispanic for Zimmerman and Black for Martin. If it was the one-drop rule Zimmerman would be black too, according to sources, he has many black relatives. -- Avanu (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not addressing the original statement. The point of this section was to point out that "Peruvian" is a nationality and not an ethnicity. The point has been addressed and fixed.

Regarding the other topic, "Hispanic" is used (erroneously by the government, albeit that makes it legal) in the US as a race, when in reality it is a really ambiguous term that encompasses way too many people. Spaniards left plenty of blacks, whites, and "brown-skinned" peoples as their descendants in the Americas, and all of them can rightfully claim to be "Hispanics". Let's also not forget the several Asians (Philipinos, Japanese, & Chinese mainly) that are also "Hispanic" by heritage (the latter two by migrants in Latin America). In this case, considering Zimmerman is an American, his ethnicity would be most closely associated with those of White Hispanics (NOTE: He would not be considered a White Latin American).

In any case, HiLo's comment is right. I'll add that trying to untangle this mess is nothing more than WP:OR and will never get into the article (unless some reliable source actually bothers to analyze this subject...but even then that would relate more to another article and not this one). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Request addition to Legal Issues

A Stand Your Ground case was concluded on 3/28/12. It this case an offender chased a suspect car radio thief and when the thief swing a bag of radios at him the pursuer stabbed the thief to death. The pursuer has been found not guilty due to the stand your ground law. Legal precedence has been set http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-blotter-idUS416295476820120329 68.3.103.157 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

 Not done There have been several SYG cases already gone to trial, this one is not particularly notable or relevant to this case. In any case, while SYG is getting a lot of play by pundits (especially those looking to use this incident to roll back SYG and other gun rights issues), it really isnt involved in this case.

Here are the main possible ways this thing went down

• Zimmerman's version : He was walking away, Martin jumped him, He was on the ground, shot. While on the ground, he had no ability to retreat, so SYG is not in play.
• Zimmerman is a racist murderer version : There was no SD in play, zimmerman shot an unarmed kid doing nothing. SYG obviously not in play.
• Anything else - Basically for SYG to be in play, they would have had to be standing, with Zimmerman having a good way to get away, while not being attacked from behind. None of the hypothetical situations are covering this.

Of much more interest legally, is : If Zimmerman hypothetically was in a SD situation, did he burn that defense by pursuing Martin.

Obviously OR, but thats why I am not doing it at least. Others may have their own reasons for doing/not doing. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh... Stand Your Ground law specifically states he doesn't have to run away. I don't know what is the issue with 'they would have had to be standing', doesn't make sense. There are numerous other ones covered that a legal precedent has been established that even with a current understanding of the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Prior to SYG, self defense was still a valid defense, you just had to have retreated as far as possible first. SYG expands that to say you don't have to retreat first. That only has an effect if a retreat was actually possible at the time. If no retreat is possible, then plain old "self defense" is already granting protection. Therefore, for SYG to be granting some sort of protection (beyond what was already available by normal self defense), they would have had to be standing, or in some other situation which a retreat was possible. In none of the hypotheticals is that the situation. If they were on the ground with Martin on top, then SYG is not granting anything that regular self defense didn't already. If Zimmerman was the total aggressor, then obviously self defense isn't an issue there at all. (Basically, if you were to retroactively repeal SYG, I don't think it changes what legally will happen in this case at all.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Self defense is not a 'right' under the law, it must be proven in court. SYG gives protection unless evidence indicates otherwise, which can and in this case did prevent the arrest and charges at that particular time. There is a big difference between the two legally and I don't think it should be up to your interpretation of the law whether or not. The case in the source is a precedent and a recent development in the SYG matter despite the publicity. It deserves a place in the SYG section here and on the SYG article page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not contradicting you here, but do we have any sources saying that the immunity from prosecution was passed as part of the SYG, and wasn't already part of the florida self defense statutes? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It is in the source. Read it. "A Miami man who chased a thief and stabbed him to death cannot be prosecuted because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, a judge said in a written opinion released Wednesday."ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on some google searches, it appears that SYG did include the immunity provision. However, I am not convinced this particular edit request case has any special relevance to this incident. It was not the first SYG case to aqquit. It could be a great addition to a SYG article though (if there is one) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It does. It specifically refutes the central point in the argument that even though Zimmerman followed Martin, or gave chase, does not mean Stand You Ground is no longer a defense. When he swung that bag of radios at him, the man responded with deadly force and killed him. Despite chasing the thief, SYG was the reason he could not be prosecuted and that comes from a judge's interpretation of the law. This refutes the current claim in the article and is a legal precedent for that very reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

hrm, I had not considered that, and agree. However, I don't think we can make that point without an RS doing it. (in terms of it meaning Zimmerman gets to keep using the self defense defense even though he pursued.) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a RS and it does specifically states, "However, ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who signed the law, has said it shouldn't apply when a person chases a victim. But in Greyston Garcia's case, a judge disagreed." That is key. How a law is interpreted by the judicial branch can be different from what the makers originally intended. This refutes the speculation already in the article with a specific example from a credible source, a judge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We can put in that analysis certainly, I am just saying we can't specifically say that it would (or how it would) apply to this shooting without the source saying that.

It would be wise for the state to challenge this judge's interpretaion of the law. This sets a dangerous precedent.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are others, this is only the most recent and I currently do not know if challenging it is underway. What is clear as a judge has ruled on the matter and the result was that he cannot be prosecuted for it; all other actions aside, the judge's rule carries weight and I am not even sure if they can appeal as it was in his jurisdiction to make that ruling. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how it was dismissed. If it was an acquittal, then certainly there is no appeal possible. If it was just a dismissal of the charges, based on a presumed immunity, perhaps on a pre-trial motion, then that would be subject to appeal, if the charges were dismissed without prejudice. If they were dismissed with prejudice, then that is pretty much an acquittal, although I think there are some grounds that that can be appealed in certain corner cases. It will be interesting to see if the subject of that case sues the state and where that goes, as that could have an affect on the decision any prosecutors make - but I think the the public will demand a resolution (to charge or not) to this case before any suit in the other situation got anywhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Prosecutors plan to appeal, but for now it still draws attention with regards to the Trayvon Martin case. [34] I mentioned it because the dismissal is important and the appeal draws attention leading up the Grand Jury decision on April 10th. So it is a precedent during that time window. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This won't have that much effect on this case. The state attorney can still charge, she is not bound by this precedent. A new judge wouldn't be bound by it either. It's well within his discretion to rule how he interprets the law as it applies to this case.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've said in other cases, this is irrelevant to the case unless we have some WP:RS showing relevance (i.e. mentioning the judgement in the context of this case). Otherwise all we have is editors POVs that the case has some relevance which isn't good enough particularly in an issue with as much RS coverage as this. Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The two sources currently cited in the article (Miami Herald and Reuters) both tie it to this case. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Which sources? The connection cites in this Reuters article is rather weak [35]:

It's not clear how Greyston Garcia's Stand Your Ground stabbing may affect how the law is applied in other Florida cases. A grand jury is set to convene April 10 to consider charges in George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin.

In this Miami Times article, it doesn't really connect them at all (the only thing it says is "In the midst of the Trayvon Martin controversy, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom has cited")

So I'm still not seeing much evidence of a strong amount of relevance from RS considering the coverage this is getting. This suggests it's not seen as particularly significant at this time.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The only relevance that I can see is that SYG is a component of both these cases. The timing of her ruling just happened to coincide with Martin's case. The Associated Press mentioned Martin's case in their opening paragraph and the newspapers that carried the AP article did the same. Fox News is the only source that I saw that expounded on the Martin case and it was just a re-hash of the initial reporting surrounding this case. It's hard to see a connection because the circumstances in each case are different, the only thing they share in common is SYG. Apparently she based her decision in part due to a M.E. testifying that a 4-6 pound bag of metal being swung at one's head would lead to serious bodily injury or death. Like I said earlier this ruling will have no effect on Martin's case.--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Surveillance Video

ABC releases new enchanced video and is now back pedaling after originally showing this video and declaring they had proof that Zimmerman had no injuries ect....

Enhanced video footage of George Zimmerman being taken into custody less than 30 minutes after he shot and killed Florida teenTrayvon Martin shows the neighborhood watch captain with what could be an injury to the back of his head. The never-before-seen evidence of an injury to Zimmerman, in this case a gash or mark to his head, would appear to back his claim that he was in an altercation with Martin on the night of Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla.

ABC News link --Tazerdog (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I love it when they do this and never issue a formal retraction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised ABC was the network releasing the enhanced image proving Zimmerman had a head injury. Fox I can see doing it, but ABC is pretty well known for obscuring such revelations in order to advance a more liberal agenda. Too late, though. Cat's already out of the bag. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're revealing you don't really understand how the media works. In a case like this, all media is much more interested in advancing the agenda of making money by getting more people to watch/read them by getting scoops etc then in advancing any political agenda. The only reason politics may come in to it is because of the preconceptions of their journalists and perhaps perceptions of what their audience is interested in, but by this stage, any scoop is likely to be of interest. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're making a judgement about someone you don't know in a place where it's entirely inappropriate. I understand how the media works just fine. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you make an OT and irrelevant statement suggesting you did not? That was the inappropriate bit, no one cared about what you believed about the media until you made a flawed statement on how the media works. If you want to make OT, irrelevant, flawed statements, you should expect them to be challenged. I admit, my statement 'I think you're revealing you don't really understand how the media works' was a little wrong, I should have said, 'Your statement suggests you have an inaccurate understanding of how the media works' or something of that sort to make it clear I was making a judgement of your statement not of you, but it was what I meant as I'm well aware of WP:NPA. This page has had way too much OT commentary on media political agendas, it's really starting to get old, hence my response. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to the two posts above mine. I'm not interested in arguing with you over something so ridiculous and I'm not interested in your opinion of what you think you might know about my knowledge of the media. Because your comments in response to mine seem troll-like in nature, I'm done with you on this subject. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tazerdog said nothing about how the media works. CG simply commented on the lack of a formal retraction without being the political agenda in to it. As as I've already said, I'm not interested in discussing my opinion of what you know (or what you know), simply interested in pointing out that what you've said is inaccurate and flawed. Neither of these are comparable to your comment or invited random passerbys to give their personal opinions on the media political agenda, nor did they need to be clarified with your personal opinion of the media's political agendas. Also, I already mentioned it in relation to my point, but it seems it also applies to you, please take a read of WP:NPA and also WP:AGF before you accuse people of being 'troll-like' as I've made clear I never intended to make any comments suggesting your behaviour was not in good faith or to comment on you personally, simply suggesting it was OT and unneeded. Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

martin & jewelry

More confirmation of the jewelry suspension, and lack of criminal findings. Blaze probably not RS, but it is really an AP story, which is. I will of course expect that the lack of crime gets the same judgement that the accusation did - not relevant?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/miami-dade-police-department-trayvon-martin-not-tied-to-jewelry-theft

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Gaijin. Trayvon not arrested so all that info is irrelevant. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the Federal Rules of Evidence... there's no reason that the question of relevance would turn on that factor. Shadowjams (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing new there. The jewelery and 'burglary tool' (screwdriver) were found which searching his belongings after being caught tagging but could not be linked to a crime by either the police or the school. Also the source does not suggest he was ever suspended for the jewelery. He was only ever suspended for the grafitti (+ the other suspensions for other reasons) which also concurs with what we were discussing. In other words, this is entirely the same stuff we were discussing with RS several days ago (not surprising since the source is dated 27 March). Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is relevant because the media does; they're swarming all over it. We shouldn't pick and choose what aspects of the story as they cover it which we choose to mention; we should take it the way it's given to us in the reporting. Wikipedia should allow the reader to navigate the sources, not try to hold him captive within some private subset of what they deal with.

I have to wonder - has anyone investigated whether he had a breakup with a girl? Apart from burglary, that's the most plausible other situation I can think of where a guy might end up with a bunch of women's jewelry in his possession, e.g., if it had been thrown back at him with some force. Wnt (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant but you'll have a hard time getting it included in this article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant. There is no rs information that the jewelry wasn't in his possession legally. Let's not get mired down in innuendo. ArishiaNishi (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's confirmed it would be relevant, as would other evidence about the two people involved. If, however, it's of questionable reliability... then it's a different issue. You guys are mixing up the two points though. Shadowjams (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for racial description of Zimmerman

In response to an editor complaint and an attempt to avoid unusual racial or national descriptions that seem to have been created specifically for this article, I changed:

1. George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old man of mixed ethnic descent (Peruvian and white American).

to

2. George Zimmerman, whom sources have called both Hispanic and Caucasian, but identifies as Hispanic.

It was almost immediately changed back by another editor without explanation. I'd like to see if there is consensus for one or the other. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We should find some more information on his mother. His picture does not look like a white man at all (the light brown skin, almond eyes, shape of the face). His father can be a white man but Zimmerman looks like a Latino. There is no way his mother is a "White Peruvian" and had a son looking this mixed. Of course I realise this is original research, but we should not describe Zimmerman as a white man as it would be as incorrect as describing Martin as Korean. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The question of 'identification' is rather unfortunate- one would have to be a little mad not to identify as 'hispanic' rather than 'non-hispanic' on government forms. I would wager that a haplotype analysis of his DNA would show him to be closest to modern European groups, but that's really rather irrelevant; he's just some middle-class American guy. Your revised version is definately the Least Bad. Nevard (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman is WHITE. Whitey McWhiterson. Hispanics are "white" (being descended from Europeans and all). Stop making up pointless racial categories. Heck, I know a Polish guy who looks a lot like him. Everyone who tries to deduce someone's "race" from looking at a picture is just a dumb racist. This whole discussion is so unencyclopedic and filled with US-American stereotypes, it ain't even funny any more. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hispanics are often also the descendents of Native American people, many have black ancestry too. Many of them are mixed. You cannot simply assume that just because some Hispanics are white, all Hispanics are white. Look at the Zimmerman picture, does not look like a white man to me. Assad of Syria looks like a white man, yet he is Arab. It happens. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting racism on Wikipedia. Nevard (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should read up on the history of the Spanish colonial empire in the Americas. There is no such thing as a distinct Hispanic "race". That's only a categorization created by US-Americans to have another we-against-them distinction (also because Hispanics are mostly Catholics). Hispanics are mainly of European descent. The small Native American and African influx is negligible. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I guess we should just generalize then. Z-man was just some honky cracker. There is no difference between the average bloke in Brazil and the average bloke in Mexico or Peru- no difference between your everyday man in Mexico or Peru and a straight-up honest working bloke in Argentina- it's just 7500km of Alonsos and De Soto's. Nevard (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am just stating my opinion here, fellow contributor. I respect yours and hope for you to respect mine. It's sad that people are being called "dumb racists" for it, though. Personal attacks are just a sign of people knowing they are wrong and refusing to admit it. Why get angry when you're right? Now to get back on topic: can we find a good source on Zimmerman's mother, other then "he (Zimmerman) grew up in a multracial household" (his father's words)? His father saying he grew up in a multiracial seems significant, anyway you look at it, because if his mother would be white like his father Zimmerman would not have grown up in a "multiracial household". Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See, you and the Zimmermans are conforming to US-American racial stereotypes about look, cultural affiliation and behavior. That is not encyclopedic. It is rather bigoted. If you didn't know who Zimmerman was, you could only tell that he is "white" from looking at the pictures, but that's all. He could be from almost everywhere in Europe or from the Americas. Your obsession with racial categorization honestly makes me sick. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you, for once again insulting me. First I was a "dumb racist" and now I am "obsessed"? Let's stick with the facts, I would like you to comment on the following: George Zimmerman's father (who is described as a white man) told the press that his son grew up in a multiracial household. Had his wife (George's mother) been white too, Zimmerman would not have grown up in such a family, because both of his parents would have been white. Thus it is only logical to assume (also looking to the latest photo we have of Zimmerman) that he is not a white man, but a man of mixed descent. Also your claim: "Hispanics are mainly of European descent. The small Native American and African influx is negligible" is just simply not true. That, my friend, is called historical revisionism. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A totally out-of-leftfield observation - in NCIS, María José de Pablo Fernández a Chilean Catholic, has for years very successfully played the role of the Israeli Jewish Ziva David (despite her Hispanic looks?). Race is so obvious, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the appearance of de Pablo Fernández, who looks rather similar to many Sephardic Jews, bears on this matter. Nevard (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I, but maybe it was meant to illustrate that Jews\Arabs, like Hispanics, come in different shades and colours and some could be identified as white? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Humans of all backgrounds come in many shades. To pretend any precision in this very artificial area is silly. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah, but I fail to see how this is very helpful. Like Booker T. Washington, Zimmermann probably has more ancestral connections to modern European groups than African ones. In neither case are their skin colour and facial features particularly useful in sorting either into any crisply-defined group- they're both multiracial people. Nevard (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be getting off track. I am not obsessed, nor would I particularly care in everyday life what racial or national categorization Mr. Zimmerman or Mr. Martin might be, but for purposes of this article, it is a key categorization that has led to a national debate on the subject. Please keep this in mind. These things are not included simply because we think they ought to be, but in all honesty, we simply could not leave this out entirely. Too many editors would be opposed. So a reasonable phrasing needs to be in place. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I support leaving out his ethnicity, or reducing to just "mixed ethnic descent" or even just "Hispanic" (since that seems to be how he self-identifies). He is evidently somewhat hard to fit in a neat little box, so why are we trying to fully explain his heritage in the very first sentence of this article? Such details can be explained more easily in his biographical section. By going through contortions to explain his ancestry at the very front of the article, we are placing more emphasis on racial / ethnic issues then they necessarily deserve. Dragons flight (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. -- Avanu (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Dragons flight on describing Zimmerman. Just "mixed ethnic descent" or "Hispanic" would suffice. We can just leave out his parents altogether. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally hate the term "hispanic" , same as "latin" when applied to a person. Even sometimes when applied to culture I hate the term, though that's far more forgivable-- as "hispaics" from cuba" are completely different culturally than those from Guatemala. Nonetheless, wikipedia is not a place where we get to fix the sins of of commonly used vernacular. In a racial context, Zimmerman looks more polynesian than white, to me. But that doesn't really matter. He is hispanic according to the US government, himself and his family. Whether people think he is "white" or not they can ordain for themselvs, since we have included a picture. Whether someone is or is not a "white" hispanic is purely in the eye of the beholder anyway. There is not litmus test.Whatzinaname (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In America, race is what you identify as and what you are identified as-- not who your parents are. There's no such thing as saying he "is" white or he "is" latino. Sanford PD identified him as a white male in their report, which is obviously relevant. As for Zimmerman prior to the shooting, do we have any evidence about how Zimmerman self-identified? (Hearsay third-party statements after the fact obviously are less reliable. ) Just Remember that racial identification always has a source-- race exists in the eye of the beholders, not the genes of the beholden. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He saw himself as Latino On voter registration forms, George Zimmerman identified himself as Hispanic, as did his mother. His father, Robert, listed himself as white on voter registration forms. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the police report should take precedence over reliable secondary sources here- after all, the police report estimated Mr. Martin's weight at 160 pounds, heavier than his family's lawyer has said, and just a little lighter than the actual weight of the much chubbier Mr. Zimermann, who the New York Times has told us actually weighed closer to 240 pounds (about two years ago). Clearly one cannot rely on the police report. Nevard (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Their race/ethnicity should be left out of the lead. The tag at the beginning of the article makes it clear that this is a current event and information may change rapidly as the event progresses. It is certainly understandable at one time this might have been relevant. We are past that point in this event. The media is no longer stoking the fires of racial profiling as they have moved on to new ways to disparage Zimmerman. I wouldn't object to this issue being referenced in a paragraph in the article, discussing how Al Sharpton and others in the media jumped to conclusions that were not supported by the facts of the case.--Isaidnoway (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Their race, as in both Zimmerman's and Martin's? Because the fact the Trayvon Martin is African American is the main reason for the huge media hype (unarmed little black boy murdered for being black by evil white man). I think race is very relevance. And since the race of the person getting shot is relevant, so is the race of the shooter. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, both of them. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Like I said, at one time this might have been relevant, but the media seems to have moved on to new ways to disparage Zimmerman.--Isaidnoway (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In Re: Mythic Writerlord -- I think George Zimmerman's past identification as Hispanic is a fact that belongs in this article I believe the SPD's identification Zimmerman as a white male should also be a fact related in this article. Beyond making those two statements, I think we should 'steer cleer' of what race Zimmerman is. Being Hispanic/Mutiracial is hardly exculpatory, after all, nor is being white directly incriminating.

This stance may change in the inevitable "reactions to" article, where race was a paramount concern. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that nationality, ethnicity, and race are three different concepts. It's a bit funny that some of you seem to think that certain people cannot be white. There are white Arabs, there are white Spaniards, there are white Peruvians, there are white Jews, there are white South Africans, and so on. The concept of "race" as a whole is idiotic, as it's not the color of a person's skin which determines their culture (which was one of the old beliefs in past centuries; i.e., "all blacks are the same"). For example, blacks in the US have a completely different mindset than blacks in the rest of the Americas. The complicated thing here is that, in the US, "Hispanic" is treated as a race (when, even in Latin America, it is used as an ethnicity specifically referring to Spaniards). Yet, the funny thing is that there are terms like White Hispanic, which is correct when seen as "race & ethnicity" and incorrect when seen as "race & race" (i.e., white black). In any case, going deep into this subject is a matter of WP:OR and does not really concern this article. Finally, considering this is not a racially motivated situation, this should be the introductory sentence to the article: "The shooting of Trayvon Martin took place on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed 17-year-old African American male who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old community watch coordinator." The race of Zimmerman should only appear in the introduction of the article if it actually becomes relevant to the crime (albeit the justice system has not even charged it as a crime). Martin's race, on the other hand, is relevant as it is effectively the focus people have made on him. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Option #2 If we're going for consensus, I prefer "George Zimmerman, whom sources have called both Hispanic and Caucasian, but identifies as Hispanic". He identifies as Hispanic, he is part Hispanic, he's considered Hispanic based on personal documents he holds, where's the argument? I have to wonder why people editing Wikipedia think they have the right to change or play semantics with someone's ethnicity. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• He is Hispanic. His own legal documents and self-identification are Hispanic. So you have one police report that listed him as 'white' and the whole argument of race blown up by the media. Yeah and the German news calls him a Jew despite him being Catholic. The news has clearly not shown to be reliable or proper on this case and the list of their distortions grows ever larger. Geneology identifies as Hispanic. Convention identifies him as Hispanic. The fact Zimmerman himself, his family and his legal documents say Hispanic should rest the case. A note about being 'White' by the media and police report should be addressed due to the initial 'racism' uproar, but it is pretty clear Zimmerman doesn't identify himself as being Caucasian or White. Both terms which have been forced upon him. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If race needs to be mentioned at all, it should be listed as Hispanic, how he self-identifies. Most reliable sources after the initial media push recognize this, and we generally allow people to self-identify (see Barack Obama, who is listed as African American and not mixed race).LedRush (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In general I agree with your opinion. Heres the only issue I see. There is an accusation against the police, that they sided with the "white" guy over the "black" guy. If the police identified him as white (which they did according to the police records), then that accusation is possible. If the police did not identify him as white, then that accusation breaks down. We have that accusation as a fairly important part of this article, so we should include the information relevant to it.

Note that I am not trying to weigh in on the accusation, if it is right, or wrong, or plausible, etc. I am just saying we need to include the information that is relevant to that accusation, and how the police identified him as white at the time. Rollos "option 2" above seems like a good compromise. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Let's go with all the facts, provided they're true and well sourced. I'm seeing that George Zimmerman has a Peruvian mother and is conversant in Spanish [36] - the latter fact being IMHO at least as important for whether someone in the U.S. is viewed as a member of the Hispanic race as any genetic material. If the sources designate him as Hispanic, or white, or neither, it should be stated, and if they conflict with one another on that point, that should be said too. Race is very important to the publicity surrounding this issue. I understand that some people want to limit discussion only to things pertinent to the shooting, in which case any biographical information about Zimmerman would be out, but I think that if the sources find it relevant so should we, even if it's not. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, focus on what the reliable sources are using to describe him. The wall of text of personal musings about race and ethnic categories is completely irrelevant. Focus on how most reliable sources have described him, including any deviation or issues around that. For example, the "white-hispanic" label is being talked about by other newspapers currently. But focus on what matters... the reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  His father provided most information we have on Zimmerman. He never described his son as white, only as Hispanic. He mentioned his son growing up in a multiracial household. Zimmerman Sr. identifies himself as a white man, thus we can safely assume that for Zimmerman to have grown up in a multiracial family, his mother would be another non-white ethnicity. George Zimmerman did not identify as white on his voting ballot. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Expired?

The semi-protected icon states "until March 29, 2012". It's April 3. If it's still protected, please update the date. If it's not protected, I highly recommend that the semi-protection be extended. Thank You. Intrepid-NY (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done by MBisanz, protection was indefinite, icon updated. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OR by SYNTH

Could someone explain how this is not obvious WP:SYNTH? The text linked to contains not a single mention of this case. Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The expert being quoted by ABC, in the previous sentences of that same section, gives specific criteria under which voice analysis can be found useful. In any case, I have added an additional RS making the linkage. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Searching on a random website for things they have said in relation to other things, and then saying those things about this thing is improper synthesis. Please restore my tag, cease edit warring, and allow others to comment about your disruptive changes. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am baffled that you can think that the experts own statements, regarding the type of work he was doing, is syth. This is not some other expert, it is the SAME EXPERT quoted by ABC. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The same expert discussing something else. This is impermissable SYNTH. Let someone else comment on your actions, let someone else remove tags on text you wrote, let someone else get a word in edgewise, dear creator and protector of this article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It was clearly synth. And most of this method is entirely unfounded as a method, we do not even get the statistics value properly. A 48% is not a 48% chance is not Zimmerman, it is the ratio of the voice difference to Zimmermans. Its like saying DNA wise that humans are 1% different, but a jellyfish is scientificially related at 48%. That's just an example though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support gutting the entire call forensic analysis section. I agree it is very shakey science. "coincidentally" (notice the scare quotes), the software the guy used was written by... himself, and was released... 2 days ago march 1st (misread). He was trying to drum up press for himsself. He is certified by the board that he is the chairman of, etc Here is some clearly non RS analysis of him, so we can't include it, but I would say its enough to say we should not have the information in the article unless backed up by more verification/vetting. This is too close to a "finding of fact" imo, which should be reserved for the court

• http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/this-is-the-expert-witness-the-orlando-sentinel-is-touting.html
• http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/are-there-any-media-people-in-new-york-city.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop linking to random blogs. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Go bother someone else. I stated specifically that they were not reliable sources. I know they are not for inclusion in the article. That does not mean as non reliable sources they cannot be used to point at some information which can be helpful in making a decision. Thanks for not calling me a racist this time though. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you like reading the conservative blog that you keep linking to randomly. Please stop. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually it puts forth some good claims, but we should only use the current recognized one, not this self-proclaimed expert. And the board chairman is actually going against his own conventions and standards with said claim as listed in other reliable sources. Seems that the section is opinion and not actual legal evidence and should be treated accordingly with other matter of opinion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

is there a consensus to remove the forensic analysis content at this point then? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Its not a consensus. It should be addressed, not entirely removed. Though the source clearly did not do good fact checking, but the official stance must be noted for their statement and criteria is notable and takes clear stance against it. It should be noted that it is not evidence for court and it should reflect it as opinion and not a legal analysis. State it for what it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's make an effort to focus on what sources say, rather than our opinions. The cited sources indicate that the role of voiceprint analysis is unsettled and its record of admissibility in court is mixed. The sources also question the reliability of voiceprint analysis in this setting, but they do not dismiss it out of hand. WP:BLP does apply to the voice analysis experts quoted by the Sentinel, so rather than editorially impugning their professional credentials, it's probably worth focusing on the content of reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Split to "Reaction to the shooting of Trayvon Martin"

Split if article grows - If the article makes it over 100kB, then split part of it into "Reaction to the shooting of Trayvon Martin", if not, then it doesn't need its own article at this time.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support a split - It's getting large and I doubt that will change. It's also a brightline split and will be easy to move large sections into the new article. This is a customary subject on which to split an article too. Shadowjams (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose a split - Yes it will get big, but later it is likely to get smaller again as details that are not really needed are removed. Then there will have to be AfDs to remove the splts and reintegrate them into the main article. And really, it's the way people are reacting to this event that makes it notable, so it shouldn't be hidden in a seperate article. Eventually, I could see some timeline articles being created since we are chronicling an event, but more time needs to pass to make it worth it. Lastly, 175kb would be a better point for consideriing a split, because articles like this are citation heavy. Over half of this article is citation. (Just copy and paste the text to your sandbox to see.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose a split When writing about a current event, there is the constant need for editing and re-editing as the story unfolds. Splitting would be a disservice to the readers, Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Resisting officer without violence

Aftermath section, second paragraph. Is this some kind of new charge? The 2005 charge was resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law-enforcement officer, it was later reduced to the misdemeanor charge. This info was left out for awhile, was a consensus reached on putting it back in?--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If the charge changed then that has to be mentioned, if there is a reliable source to back this up. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no such charge as resisting officer without violence.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In Florida there is "resisting arrest without violence" (which means just about nothing). Collect (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted [37] "Resisting officer without violence" ... it is real. Collect (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see that, but regardless, according to the Orange County Clerk's website, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest with violence and then that charge was reduced to resisting arrest without violence.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If the person did not realize the officer was a police officer, then no felony ensues as I read the cite. If he does, then even touching the officer may be "violence" - I suspect that the case for a felony was nearly non-existent, especially if the defendant seeks a trial. Collect (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the officers were not police officers. They were officers of the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco who had gone to the University of Central Florida to arrest an employee when they spoke to a friend of Zimmermans for underage drinking. According to the report of agent Paul Fleishman, Zimmerman walked up to the friend, began chatting and refused to leave. Zimmerman then pushed the agent. The agent arrested Zimmerman for "battery on a law enforcement officer and obstructing justice" but when charged this was amended to "resisting officer with violence." When it went to court the charge was amended to "resisting officer without violence" and he was placed in the "pre-trial diversion program". Wayne (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

major talk vandal

Someone replaced major sections of the talk page, with what I think was previous archives. I have reverted to before the vandalism, There were a few edits lost from Shadow that need to be replaced. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• It wasn't recorded to a user. I doubt it was vandalism and probably some other error. Should be reported still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was... I've fixed it. Don't worry about replacing what I added... some of it was initially misinformed for exactly the reason that I couldn't see the talk. I've warned the editor that did the removal. Shadowjams (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It was this edit, very subtle vandalism, marked as minor! [38] Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow... that's not even on my history as a removal. Its an addition. Clever. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem intentional, was very weird. Why warn him twice for the same post? Whatever happened wasn't normal and I do vandalism patrols. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be hard to do by accident. It wasn't just a simple revert to a previous version, which maybe you could do somehow without noticing. I went with the second warning as a more formal warning to set up a block if he comes back again, vs shadow's more informal (imo) warning. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is something really scary about that diff. Wow. Congratulations for catching it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like what he did was edit some old version of the talk page and saved not realizing that would undo 2 days worths of edits. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Help defending the article

I notice an individual has been trying to get the images of the Chief and the hooded representative on the floor of the US House removed. Am I correct in thinking both images should remain? --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think there are any overriding policies mandating one way or another, so it would just be whatever consensus decides. Personally I think the chief one should definitely stay, as illustrating someone directly involved in the case. The hooded rep image im neutral about. It can illustrate one of the more notable protests, but it it were to go away, I don't think it would be a big deal. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't he affiliated with the NBPP? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he was. Could you explain the relevance of your question? MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The congresman? not as far as I am aware, but I haven't looked deeply into his background. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he was a member of the panthers in the 60s, but I do not see anything about recent affiliations (not making a statement either way as to if he is or is not currently affiliated, just saying I didnt see any in a casual search) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Congressman Bobby Rush from Chicago, IL has been in Congress for 20 years. In the 1960s he was involved in the civil-rights movement. He worked in civil-disobedience campaigns in the South, and co-founded the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers in 1968 and was made its "defense minister". Rush was present when fellow Black Panther Fred Hampton was killed in a police raid. So that we all know...what does NBPP stand for? ```Buster Seven Talk 22:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

National Black Panther Party Gaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So, do I hear a consensus for including both images in the article? --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unnecessary, he is unrelated to the case. It would make more sense to have a picture of Jackson or Sharpton first. It was a political move and in no way related to the current case. Obama's comments were more important, why not have a picture of him to? It is unnecessary. Several of the pictures are already pushing the limit. I say keep them off. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. This would be fine on a Reaction to the death of Trayvon Martin page if we ever decide to spin one off, but at the present it would just make the article a soapbox for Rush. We should always be cautious before including political stunts.Redredryder (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I'd still contest a picture of Rush even on a reaction page. His importance is limited and doesn't meet the requirement for a picture for many more reasons other then the single sentence or half paragraph that would possibly be generated in an article that will dwarf the current one with the overload of information which cannot be included under matters of relevance or weight here. It just really isn't that important, and its not even being discussed. Its more of a news blurb which deserves a mention on his bio, but not much more then that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• The Rush picture should be removed. Including the Rush picture, there are now 4 pictures related to protest using hoodies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Going to remove it per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE as Rush is no way directly related to the incident. Others should be removed, but this one is a good option to go first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Also, in the section "Allegations of racism", there are two pictures of Million Hoodies March. One should be removed. I would suggest keeping the top one because it has the most people. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It should go too, but I will not remove it at this time. You can if you want. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

nbc apologizes for deception in editing of tape

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-issues-apology-on-zimmerman-tape-screw-up/2012/04/03/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html Gaijin42 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)