![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
No one is allowing anything critical of Zimmerman to be posted in this article. Wikipedia standards are that something must be published by a reliable source and it must be notable. The statements from the Chief of Police of Lake Mary meet those requirements. If people want to have a balanced article then they naturally have to allow both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.104.246 ( talk) 16:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Calling someone a serial killer waiting to happen is an extreme break of POV rules. We do not engage in defamation of private citizens. The police have charged Zimmerman with no crime since his aquital. Police chiefs mouthing off to denounce people they disagree with is not the stuff encyclopedias are made of. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
completely WP:UNDUE ones statement, by one man, regarding a person who is not at this time accused of any crime. This is completely unencyclopedic and a clear WP:BLP violation. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's a new article that mentions the Sandybrook reference in the title http://www.classicalite.com/articles/2807/20130917/george-zimmerman-update-next-sandy-hook-trayvon-martin-murder-trial.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 ( talk) 09:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Florida police chief Steve Bracknell of the Lake Mary police department, which is currently investigating Zimmerman, agreed with a comment made by a member of the community that George Zimmerman is a "Sandy Hook, Aurora waiting to happen," reports The Guardian. [4]
George Zimmerman's brother has now demanded a recusal of Chief Bracknell for his statement that Zimmerman is a Sandy Hook waiting to happen and a ticking time bomb. This statement has now taken on a life of its own, and it is unprofessional of any editor to attempt to remove this statement from this article. This statement is now undeniably notable. http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/20/george-zimmermans-brother-demands-recusal-in-domestic-incident-probe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 ( talk) 00:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
It's inappropriate of you to accuse another editor of such things. Further, your statement is inaccurate. As for the statement by the Police Chief, it's self-evident that the statement has taken on a life of its own and has become an important statement, along the lines of Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 ( talk) 01:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The statement "Six weeks after the shooting, amid widespread, intense, and in some cases misleading media coverage,[20][21]Zimmerman was charged with murder" smacks of pro-Zimmerman POV and implies that charging Zimmerman with murder was influenced by misinformation. But looking at the references cited, the "misleading media coverage" referred to is a single incident of an edited tape aired on a news outlet. If that incident merits mentioning, fine. Explain it properly. But to disingenuously use it to insinuate that "some cases" of misinformation prompted the murder charge is wrong. The overwhelming pressure to charge Zimmerman began before that airing of an edited tape and continued after the editing was exposed. A man with a history of violent encounters admitted to intentionally killing an unarmed child and walked away without charges -- that was the reason for the public outcry. 76.174.24.153 ( talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I believe this reference to the media coverage being misleading should be removed from the article. It's very obvious at this point that people who are editing this article are often very much pro Zimmerman. It seems to be a struggle to keep anything in this article that is critical of this man who was recently charged with murder, An acquittal that led to widespread protests throughout the nation. I believe in keeping things neutral in articles about living people but we also have to keep things realistic. It would be laughable to keep anything critical out of this article because this is a critical situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 ( talk) 09:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It's disgraceful how misleadingly biased the editing is. Nothing about Zimmerman following Martin and saying "they always get away" -- the encounter is instead just described as an "altercation." 76.174.24.153 ( talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Text in question:
"At the time of the Martin shooting, Zimmerman was employed as an insurance underwriter and was in his final semester at Seminole State College for an associate degree in Criminal Justice.[3][12]"
The citations give much more detail thus the paragraph should be expanded like following (or similar):
"His mediocre grades had led to academic probation in 2011 and he was expelled from school less than a month after the Martin incident, citing the safety of students on campus as well as Zimmerman's."."
Note that I summarized it w/o giving every single detail from the sources. I'm placing this here for discussion since the article is protected so there must be some consensus to add the above as is or with the wording tweaked. Comments/thoughts please.
TMCk (
talk)
23:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
NOTE: An editor of this page has now taken this argument even further, filing an incomplete "deletion request" on Wikimedia, attempting to have this image deleted entirely from Wikimedia sources: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Zimmerman,_George_-_Seminole_County_Mug.jpg Mug shot in question.
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)...see WP:MUG.
George Zimmerman is not currently under arrest, in custody, nor is he facing any criminal charges. If the purpose of the image is to identify Zimmerman, and there's not a suitable picture, then we must rely on a text description of the subject. Using a mugshot is clearly a violation of WP:BLP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The statement is that images of mug shot should not be used out of context. George Zimmerman is most famous for being on trial for the murder of Martin. This article wouldn't exist if not for the murder trial. Frankly I'm surprised that this article exists at all because usually they don't allow Wikipedia articles to exist for people who are primarily famous for only one thing. I suppose this article exists because ever since the acquittal Zimmerman has remained in the media, that is in trouble with the law. At any rate it seems to me that it is very much in-context to have the main picture of Zimmerman be a mug shot because the murder trial of Martin is what is most famous for. Lastly a mug shot is obviously in the public domain which is what Wikipedia biography articles want. What would you prefer? A picture of him with his faced bloodied? That picture is on the main article. A picture of him in the court room on trial for murder? Those pictures have been published all over the media. Pictures of him receiving speeding tickets? Or a picture of him in his recent encounter with the police at Lake Mary? Face it, there aren't many pictures out there of this man that do not involve some sort of confrontation with the law.
In this case the picture is not being used to give a false impression, Zimmerman is only known due to his arrest and trial (see first sentence of article). It would be false if it was a person otherwise known as a politician or movie star for example. However, if there was another public domain picture available, the mug shot could be moved to the crime section of the article. Either way the picture stays in the article. Since it's the only picture we have it makes sense to use it in the infobox. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 15:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the picture into the shooting section where it is used exactly as in the other two articles about the shooting. There is no way anyone can claim BLP when the picture is used in proper context to be about the shooting incident, inside the shooting section, just as in the other two articles ( Shooting of Trayvon Martin, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman), where nobody has complained for the many months that picture has been used exactly as it is being used here (BLP is not limited to just biography articles). -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
My opinion on the matter would be that this image should be used on this article because it is already used on several other articles on this topic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zimmerman,_George_-_Seminole_County_Mug.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 ( talk • contribs)
File:Neighborhood-watch zimmerman.jpg I was just wondering if perhaps this image would be acceptable in the section about his other encounters with the police. This is a screen capture from the dashboard video camera of the police department of Lake Mary, an image of Zimmerman in hand cuffs being detained and questioned by police. It is believed this is in the public domain, so it may be suitable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 ( talk • contribs)
It's your interpretation that it's a negative light. You are suggesting that it is the job of Wikipedia editors to portray people in only a positive light, which seems to be impossible concerning someone known solely for being charged with murder, and whose acquittal outraged a significant portion of the population, even eliciting an unprecedented speech from the president of the nation from the White House. You are implying that it is your job and agenda to police this page to ensure that it remains "positive" -- and that's demonstrating skewed and unencyclopedic bias on your part. This man is not known for positive things, so it makes no sense to think his page would consist of positive portrayals of him. But if you want to portray this man as such, by all means do so -- and thus contribute to the general popular conception that Wikipedia falls short of its aspirations of being a serious encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.223 ( talk) 06:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that although WP:MUG says that mugshots shouldn't be used to represent people out of context, it doesn't make clear exactly what a mugshot represents that may be out of context. Does a mugshot represent that someone is a criminal? If so, then no, it shouldn't be included. Does a mugshot represent that someone is famous for being arrested? If so, then yes, it should be included. We need to figure out exactly what a mugshot implies before we can decide whether to use it. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 20:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
We have control over context. We can write a picture caption and change size of image and placement in article. It is unambiguously clear he is not guilty through these contextual measures. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 23:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is still locked and no one can edit it to make changes. It is hurting the article development. I would like to suggest we try the compromise suggested by Dkriegls above to use an alternative caption of "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012", placed in the trial section, with the photo reduced in size. It is the closest compromise that has been offered so far. If that doesn't work than suggest an alternative picture in the public domain: George Zimmerman white shirt 1. There are a series of these walkthroughs in a white shirt this seemed the most neutral in pose. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 00:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Green Cardamom Actually, the legal team is probably quite wise to not give wikipedia a picture. For the same reason we don't have flattering publicity photos of most celebrities (The NYT wrote an entire article about this). To give a photo to wikipedia is to give a photo to the world, which can be used on any merchandise, posters, etc without any legal recourse. Including if that photo has been significantly manipulted to be unflattering, or making political statements. That is a big can of worms Zimmerman's team is smart not to open. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, back on point with this section. I wanted to see where Bus Stop was going, but that just veered off topic. I agree the white T is too low quality for the top. Otherwise though, I like Green Cardamom's proposal. Perhaps we could add the white T to the Biography and the "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012" to the shooting and trial section. As thumbnails on opposite sides. If we get a better resolution non-mug shot, that should replace the white T and be moved to the top (if good enough). Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I have protected this to stop the edit warring. GB fan 01:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
(1) I've been working on expanding his biography section and was researching some basic info to add about where he attended school and have run into a puzzle - Here are the two RS I am working with: This Reuters article and this Washington Post article. The WaPo says the Zimmerman children attended All Saints Catholic School on Stonewall Road through the eighth grade before going to a public high school. That seems to make sense since he was an altar boy for 10 years and worked in the rectory and his mother was very involved in church activities. However, the Reuter's article says that at age 10, because he was bilingual, he would be called to the principals office of Haydon Elementary School (a public school) to often translate between immigrant parents and school officials. I read the Reuters article first and just assumed (because it implies) that he had attended this elementary school, but then I found the WaPo article which contradicts that assumption. It seems rather strange, doesn't it, that a public elementary school would call on a 10 year old boy who attended parochial school to translate for them? Surely he wasn't the only person in that town who was bilingual. Search engine queries about bio info for Zimmerman yield results that show most sourcing either relied on the Reuter's article or the WaPo article. Any thoughts/comments/suggestions or additional sources? I was wanting to use the fact he was bilingual at an early age to show he had strong ties to his hispanic background, which he has consistently self-identified as throughout his life. But if I added this info, it also seems to imply he attended that elementary school. I used WaPo in the article for Catholic school.
(2) I also just used generic naming for sub-sections that someone may want to look at if they think it needs to be changed. I also moved his 2005 arrest to this section because it seems to fit better there with a chronological biographical timeline of his life before the shooting. The "Other encounters with police" section, I think could be used for encounters after his trial, maybe a section title re-name to that effect? There was also a lot of other background information concerning Zimmerman when he lived at The Retreat, but it's covered pretty thoroughly in the shooting article, so I left it out in this one. I didn't add any current material surrounding Shellie's filing for divorce and details she has given in media interviews, until we gather a consensus on some of those issues.
(3) I also removed the expansion tag from the shooting section, why expand that section, there's an entire article on the shooting. The lede also could use some work and expansion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Another possible source for this article? Reputable, established newspaper.
The statement is actually found in many articles: https://www.google.com/search?q=george+zimmerman+mother+in+law+accuses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=george+zimmerman+mother+in+law+accuses&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.240 ( talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The vast majority of which source the story to TMZ. Add -TMZ to your query, and the results are significantly lower. Of the non-blogs that remain, two that stick out are CBS, and Orlando Sentienl, (along with UPI) which say :
So the facts are, Zimmerman was legally staying in the home. After a messy divorce proceeding begins, The owner of the home claims some damage and missing items. Without evidence (that we are aware of), they have blamed Zimmerman. Police say THEY DONT HAVE ANY SUSPECTS. THEY DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN. IF IT WAS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHO DID IT. Including this story at this time would be a gross violation of WP:BLP, and at this point continued pushing for this story on the talk page here is a violation as well. Gaijin42 ( talk) 13:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/lake-mary-police-talk-to-george-zimmerman-about-reported-theft/-/1637132/22259964/-/kjj42u/-/index.html Erik Sandoval, "Lake Mary police talk to George Zimmerman about reported theft", Click Orlando WKMG, 3 Oct 2013.
There is nothing that fits WP:RS like an estranged mother-in-law unless it is an estranged wife. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 20:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The present picture of Zimmerman makes him look like a total conman. It may reflect his true inner being but what others see is someone they should keep their kids away from. Is that picture some kind of a joke? 203.131.210.82 ( talk) 05:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
No one is allowing anything critical of Zimmerman to be posted in this article. Wikipedia standards are that something must be published by a reliable source and it must be notable. The statements from the Chief of Police of Lake Mary meet those requirements. If people want to have a balanced article then they naturally have to allow both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.104.246 ( talk) 16:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Calling someone a serial killer waiting to happen is an extreme break of POV rules. We do not engage in defamation of private citizens. The police have charged Zimmerman with no crime since his aquital. Police chiefs mouthing off to denounce people they disagree with is not the stuff encyclopedias are made of. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
completely WP:UNDUE ones statement, by one man, regarding a person who is not at this time accused of any crime. This is completely unencyclopedic and a clear WP:BLP violation. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's a new article that mentions the Sandybrook reference in the title http://www.classicalite.com/articles/2807/20130917/george-zimmerman-update-next-sandy-hook-trayvon-martin-murder-trial.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 ( talk) 09:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Florida police chief Steve Bracknell of the Lake Mary police department, which is currently investigating Zimmerman, agreed with a comment made by a member of the community that George Zimmerman is a "Sandy Hook, Aurora waiting to happen," reports The Guardian. [4]
George Zimmerman's brother has now demanded a recusal of Chief Bracknell for his statement that Zimmerman is a Sandy Hook waiting to happen and a ticking time bomb. This statement has now taken on a life of its own, and it is unprofessional of any editor to attempt to remove this statement from this article. This statement is now undeniably notable. http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/20/george-zimmermans-brother-demands-recusal-in-domestic-incident-probe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 ( talk) 00:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
It's inappropriate of you to accuse another editor of such things. Further, your statement is inaccurate. As for the statement by the Police Chief, it's self-evident that the statement has taken on a life of its own and has become an important statement, along the lines of Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 ( talk) 01:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The statement "Six weeks after the shooting, amid widespread, intense, and in some cases misleading media coverage,[20][21]Zimmerman was charged with murder" smacks of pro-Zimmerman POV and implies that charging Zimmerman with murder was influenced by misinformation. But looking at the references cited, the "misleading media coverage" referred to is a single incident of an edited tape aired on a news outlet. If that incident merits mentioning, fine. Explain it properly. But to disingenuously use it to insinuate that "some cases" of misinformation prompted the murder charge is wrong. The overwhelming pressure to charge Zimmerman began before that airing of an edited tape and continued after the editing was exposed. A man with a history of violent encounters admitted to intentionally killing an unarmed child and walked away without charges -- that was the reason for the public outcry. 76.174.24.153 ( talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I believe this reference to the media coverage being misleading should be removed from the article. It's very obvious at this point that people who are editing this article are often very much pro Zimmerman. It seems to be a struggle to keep anything in this article that is critical of this man who was recently charged with murder, An acquittal that led to widespread protests throughout the nation. I believe in keeping things neutral in articles about living people but we also have to keep things realistic. It would be laughable to keep anything critical out of this article because this is a critical situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 ( talk) 09:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It's disgraceful how misleadingly biased the editing is. Nothing about Zimmerman following Martin and saying "they always get away" -- the encounter is instead just described as an "altercation." 76.174.24.153 ( talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Text in question:
"At the time of the Martin shooting, Zimmerman was employed as an insurance underwriter and was in his final semester at Seminole State College for an associate degree in Criminal Justice.[3][12]"
The citations give much more detail thus the paragraph should be expanded like following (or similar):
"His mediocre grades had led to academic probation in 2011 and he was expelled from school less than a month after the Martin incident, citing the safety of students on campus as well as Zimmerman's."."
Note that I summarized it w/o giving every single detail from the sources. I'm placing this here for discussion since the article is protected so there must be some consensus to add the above as is or with the wording tweaked. Comments/thoughts please.
TMCk (
talk)
23:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
NOTE: An editor of this page has now taken this argument even further, filing an incomplete "deletion request" on Wikimedia, attempting to have this image deleted entirely from Wikimedia sources: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Zimmerman,_George_-_Seminole_County_Mug.jpg Mug shot in question.
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)...see WP:MUG.
George Zimmerman is not currently under arrest, in custody, nor is he facing any criminal charges. If the purpose of the image is to identify Zimmerman, and there's not a suitable picture, then we must rely on a text description of the subject. Using a mugshot is clearly a violation of WP:BLP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The statement is that images of mug shot should not be used out of context. George Zimmerman is most famous for being on trial for the murder of Martin. This article wouldn't exist if not for the murder trial. Frankly I'm surprised that this article exists at all because usually they don't allow Wikipedia articles to exist for people who are primarily famous for only one thing. I suppose this article exists because ever since the acquittal Zimmerman has remained in the media, that is in trouble with the law. At any rate it seems to me that it is very much in-context to have the main picture of Zimmerman be a mug shot because the murder trial of Martin is what is most famous for. Lastly a mug shot is obviously in the public domain which is what Wikipedia biography articles want. What would you prefer? A picture of him with his faced bloodied? That picture is on the main article. A picture of him in the court room on trial for murder? Those pictures have been published all over the media. Pictures of him receiving speeding tickets? Or a picture of him in his recent encounter with the police at Lake Mary? Face it, there aren't many pictures out there of this man that do not involve some sort of confrontation with the law.
In this case the picture is not being used to give a false impression, Zimmerman is only known due to his arrest and trial (see first sentence of article). It would be false if it was a person otherwise known as a politician or movie star for example. However, if there was another public domain picture available, the mug shot could be moved to the crime section of the article. Either way the picture stays in the article. Since it's the only picture we have it makes sense to use it in the infobox. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 15:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the picture into the shooting section where it is used exactly as in the other two articles about the shooting. There is no way anyone can claim BLP when the picture is used in proper context to be about the shooting incident, inside the shooting section, just as in the other two articles ( Shooting of Trayvon Martin, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman), where nobody has complained for the many months that picture has been used exactly as it is being used here (BLP is not limited to just biography articles). -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
My opinion on the matter would be that this image should be used on this article because it is already used on several other articles on this topic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zimmerman,_George_-_Seminole_County_Mug.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 ( talk • contribs)
File:Neighborhood-watch zimmerman.jpg I was just wondering if perhaps this image would be acceptable in the section about his other encounters with the police. This is a screen capture from the dashboard video camera of the police department of Lake Mary, an image of Zimmerman in hand cuffs being detained and questioned by police. It is believed this is in the public domain, so it may be suitable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.182 ( talk • contribs)
It's your interpretation that it's a negative light. You are suggesting that it is the job of Wikipedia editors to portray people in only a positive light, which seems to be impossible concerning someone known solely for being charged with murder, and whose acquittal outraged a significant portion of the population, even eliciting an unprecedented speech from the president of the nation from the White House. You are implying that it is your job and agenda to police this page to ensure that it remains "positive" -- and that's demonstrating skewed and unencyclopedic bias on your part. This man is not known for positive things, so it makes no sense to think his page would consist of positive portrayals of him. But if you want to portray this man as such, by all means do so -- and thus contribute to the general popular conception that Wikipedia falls short of its aspirations of being a serious encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.223 ( talk) 06:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that although WP:MUG says that mugshots shouldn't be used to represent people out of context, it doesn't make clear exactly what a mugshot represents that may be out of context. Does a mugshot represent that someone is a criminal? If so, then no, it shouldn't be included. Does a mugshot represent that someone is famous for being arrested? If so, then yes, it should be included. We need to figure out exactly what a mugshot implies before we can decide whether to use it. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 20:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
We have control over context. We can write a picture caption and change size of image and placement in article. It is unambiguously clear he is not guilty through these contextual measures. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 23:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is still locked and no one can edit it to make changes. It is hurting the article development. I would like to suggest we try the compromise suggested by Dkriegls above to use an alternative caption of "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012", placed in the trial section, with the photo reduced in size. It is the closest compromise that has been offered so far. If that doesn't work than suggest an alternative picture in the public domain: George Zimmerman white shirt 1. There are a series of these walkthroughs in a white shirt this seemed the most neutral in pose. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 00:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Green Cardamom Actually, the legal team is probably quite wise to not give wikipedia a picture. For the same reason we don't have flattering publicity photos of most celebrities (The NYT wrote an entire article about this). To give a photo to wikipedia is to give a photo to the world, which can be used on any merchandise, posters, etc without any legal recourse. Including if that photo has been significantly manipulted to be unflattering, or making political statements. That is a big can of worms Zimmerman's team is smart not to open. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, back on point with this section. I wanted to see where Bus Stop was going, but that just veered off topic. I agree the white T is too low quality for the top. Otherwise though, I like Green Cardamom's proposal. Perhaps we could add the white T to the Biography and the "Identification Photo used in court proceedings; taken at Seminole County Sheriff's Office in 2012" to the shooting and trial section. As thumbnails on opposite sides. If we get a better resolution non-mug shot, that should replace the white T and be moved to the top (if good enough). Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I have protected this to stop the edit warring. GB fan 01:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
(1) I've been working on expanding his biography section and was researching some basic info to add about where he attended school and have run into a puzzle - Here are the two RS I am working with: This Reuters article and this Washington Post article. The WaPo says the Zimmerman children attended All Saints Catholic School on Stonewall Road through the eighth grade before going to a public high school. That seems to make sense since he was an altar boy for 10 years and worked in the rectory and his mother was very involved in church activities. However, the Reuter's article says that at age 10, because he was bilingual, he would be called to the principals office of Haydon Elementary School (a public school) to often translate between immigrant parents and school officials. I read the Reuters article first and just assumed (because it implies) that he had attended this elementary school, but then I found the WaPo article which contradicts that assumption. It seems rather strange, doesn't it, that a public elementary school would call on a 10 year old boy who attended parochial school to translate for them? Surely he wasn't the only person in that town who was bilingual. Search engine queries about bio info for Zimmerman yield results that show most sourcing either relied on the Reuter's article or the WaPo article. Any thoughts/comments/suggestions or additional sources? I was wanting to use the fact he was bilingual at an early age to show he had strong ties to his hispanic background, which he has consistently self-identified as throughout his life. But if I added this info, it also seems to imply he attended that elementary school. I used WaPo in the article for Catholic school.
(2) I also just used generic naming for sub-sections that someone may want to look at if they think it needs to be changed. I also moved his 2005 arrest to this section because it seems to fit better there with a chronological biographical timeline of his life before the shooting. The "Other encounters with police" section, I think could be used for encounters after his trial, maybe a section title re-name to that effect? There was also a lot of other background information concerning Zimmerman when he lived at The Retreat, but it's covered pretty thoroughly in the shooting article, so I left it out in this one. I didn't add any current material surrounding Shellie's filing for divorce and details she has given in media interviews, until we gather a consensus on some of those issues.
(3) I also removed the expansion tag from the shooting section, why expand that section, there's an entire article on the shooting. The lede also could use some work and expansion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Another possible source for this article? Reputable, established newspaper.
The statement is actually found in many articles: https://www.google.com/search?q=george+zimmerman+mother+in+law+accuses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=george+zimmerman+mother+in+law+accuses&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.66.240 ( talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The vast majority of which source the story to TMZ. Add -TMZ to your query, and the results are significantly lower. Of the non-blogs that remain, two that stick out are CBS, and Orlando Sentienl, (along with UPI) which say :
So the facts are, Zimmerman was legally staying in the home. After a messy divorce proceeding begins, The owner of the home claims some damage and missing items. Without evidence (that we are aware of), they have blamed Zimmerman. Police say THEY DONT HAVE ANY SUSPECTS. THEY DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN. IF IT WAS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHO DID IT. Including this story at this time would be a gross violation of WP:BLP, and at this point continued pushing for this story on the talk page here is a violation as well. Gaijin42 ( talk) 13:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/lake-mary-police-talk-to-george-zimmerman-about-reported-theft/-/1637132/22259964/-/kjj42u/-/index.html Erik Sandoval, "Lake Mary police talk to George Zimmerman about reported theft", Click Orlando WKMG, 3 Oct 2013.
There is nothing that fits WP:RS like an estranged mother-in-law unless it is an estranged wife. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 20:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The present picture of Zimmerman makes him look like a total conman. It may reflect his true inner being but what others see is someone they should keep their kids away from. Is that picture some kind of a joke? 203.131.210.82 ( talk) 05:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)