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 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
Isaidnoway ( talk) 07:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
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?" [1]
6ty4e ( talk) 02:50, 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)
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 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'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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
← 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Robert Zimmerman Sr is a retired magistrate from Virgina. [2] 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. [3]. 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 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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.).
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 above
Isaidnoway (
talk) 20:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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. [4] 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. [5] 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [6]
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)
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 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)
04:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 [7] 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 [8]. 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 68.3.103.157 ( talk) 06:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [9]. MSNBC Concedes Injury To Back Of Zimmerman's Head Apparent On Police Video. [10] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [11] 68.3.103.157 ( talk) 03:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC) AndyB
Initial story was broken by twitcy. com. http://twitchy.com/2012/03/29/roseanne-barr-says-she-will-re-retweet-zimmermans-address/ [12] I am the one who notified The Smoking Gun. 68.3.103.157 ( talk) 05:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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. [13]
68.3.103.157 ( talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB
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)
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)
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)
ABC purposely used unnecessary chyron to cover Zimmerman's head, [14] [15] — 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
This eyewitness believes it was self-defense. -- DeknMike ( talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 agree that
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)
Done changed to Hispanic, which is supported by many RS. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:12, 2 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)
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)
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 [16] 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
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)
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)
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 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)
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?
Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:53, 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:45, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
Isaidnoway ( talk) 07:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
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?" [1]
6ty4e ( talk) 02:50, 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)
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 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'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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
← 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Robert Zimmerman Sr is a retired magistrate from Virgina. [2] 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. [3]. 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 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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.).
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 above
Isaidnoway (
talk) 20:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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. [4] 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. [5] 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [6]
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)
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 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)
04:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 [7] 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 [8]. 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 68.3.103.157 ( talk) 06:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [9]. MSNBC Concedes Injury To Back Of Zimmerman's Head Apparent On Police Video. [10] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [11] 68.3.103.157 ( talk) 03:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC) AndyB
Initial story was broken by twitcy. com. http://twitchy.com/2012/03/29/roseanne-barr-says-she-will-re-retweet-zimmermans-address/ [12] I am the one who notified The Smoking Gun. 68.3.103.157 ( talk) 05:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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. [13]
68.3.103.157 ( talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB
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)
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)
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)
ABC purposely used unnecessary chyron to cover Zimmerman's head, [14] [15] — 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
This eyewitness believes it was self-defense. -- DeknMike ( talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 agree that
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)
Done changed to Hispanic, which is supported by many RS. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:12, 2 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)
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)
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 [16] 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
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)
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)
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 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)
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?
Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:53, 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:45, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)