Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 4

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

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


 * This interview by Piers Morgan on CNN has been roundly critisized on news radio because Morgan did not challenge any of Robert's statements, even those that were previously disproved. It is listed under the header "Zimmerman's statement" which it implies that is it George.
 * Robert was not there. He is not a witness. He is just repeating his brother's claims. Hearsay is not acceptable in Wikipedia nor in court.
 * WP:Hearsay Namaste!  — DocOfSoc •  Talk  •  03:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the judge and the jury, just something that echos reports. If the article says Zimmerman's brother said this on CNN on behalf of his brother..it's as admissible as as any witness statement, all of which can be scrutinized. It would be inadmissible if we just said X happened without making it clear to the reader where it was coming from. Media critique is irrelevant. --Львівське (говорити) 04:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But he is NOT a witness, he may as well be a parrot. SEE WP:Hearsay Namaste!  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  04:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Hearsay is just someone's old essay. It is neither policy nor a guideline, and isn't binding on anything.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If he may as well be a parrot, then that's good, because he's providing more information on Zimmerman's account of the events - which is the purpose of the section. If we're calling into question the veracity of his statement as 'hearsay', as in "I heard from someone that this is what happened..." that doesn't really line up with this situation, as it's his own brother making a televised statement on behalf of his brother. It's not really a game of telephone here. If Zimmerman told the police, or reporters this version of events, and they repeated it, that's no different than this IMO.--Львівське (говорити) 04:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

My Magic Oracle whose name is Logic ;-) after reading Z's account many times, states
 * Fact: Z lied about who was screaming.
 * Fact: Z said he was reaching for his cell phone but gun  appeared in his hand instead
 * Fact: While being beaten on the concrete face down he  magically flipped over and shot the teenager in the chest
 * Fact: According to mortician there were no marks on Trayvon's hands as there would be if he was beating Z.
 * Fact: Shot in "self defense" Was Trayvon going to kill him with his skittles?

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

I still don't see where you're coming from, what untenable situation you're referring to, what relevance your son and California have to the article, or what deep institutional racism you're seeing in the article as it stands currently. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rollo. I suggest you learn to read more carefully and perhaps think "Compare and Contrast" TY. Namaste 00:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> • Talk  •  00:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your son's service to the citizens he protects and serves is much appreciated. As far as your logic, it sounds more like an opinion based on how you evaluated what has been presented in the media so far. We simply don't know all the facts yet. Circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence (if there is any), witnessess and Zimmerman's statement will be the final arbitrator in this matter. If Zimmerman did say there was a death threat, it really doesn't matter, the question is and always has been if it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman thought he was protecting himself from death or serious bodily harm.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TY!! We appreciate the kudos anytime.  You present a very reasonable argument;  So I will rephrase: IMO it has always been reasonable to believe that Zimmerman was bound and determined to get himself a "F'ing Coon". Total Bias acknowledged. I feel better now. Back to trying to be fair and balanced. Namaste <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> •  Talk  •  00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you just ascribed such a bigoted, prejudiced feeling to Zimmerman without blinking. Having recently read up on the rules regarding biographies of living persons in Wikipedia, I believe the rules for such biographies apply to talk pages as well.  I have no clue how to report such a statement, but hope someone with the know-how will see your comment and do the right thing.  Racism and prejudice go both ways, and you have crossed a line that never should have been crossed.  Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe such comments and soapboxing fall under WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP. DocOfSoc is sure showing he has a WP:POV to push.--Львівське (говорити) 02:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya'll apparently missed the part where I said "with tongue firmly in cheek". Also, I was just quoting George Zimmerman. Sorry you were offended. Black Humour. Namaste <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> • Talk  •  02:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't miss it and it still doesn't make what you wrote acceptable or appropriate. I don't care if you are black, in my opinion, your comments are beyond offensive. Like Lvivske said above, you're showing a "POV" and that probably goes against editing rules. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See the definition of of Black Comedy. I have apologized and crossed out. Back to biting tongue and WP:DNB<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> •  Talk  •  03:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * I guess I'm out to lunch when it comes to "black humor". I didn't find it amusing in the least.  For what it's worth, I don't think my African-American relatives would have found it humorous, either.  Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Black humour" has absolutely nothing to do with race. And, No, it was not amusing when George Zimmerman said it.  Therein lies the Irony.
 * <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> • Talk  •  03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. It's not funny when Zimmerman allegedly said it, but you think it's funny when you say it?  If it's not funny the first time, it's not funny the second time.  I was always taught that hate speech is hate speech and contains no humor no matter who presents it and no matter the justification.  That's pretty much all I'm interested in saying on the matter.  You apologized and crossed out your offensive words, so that's good enough for me.  Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he's making an even worse joke about 'black humor' which are jokes about death. Being a matter of race on the term as supposed to be irony because he is making a racist joke in the process. This is way out of line, DocofSoc. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Chris, I really have respected your intuitive input on the article. However you are way off base in your interpretation of what I meant. Gallows humor is about death. Go see Black comedy for illumination on black humour. Goerge Z is the one being racist here. I do not understand where you get racism unless you simply don't understand the Communication terms which I used and have taught in the most multi-cultural University in the country.(CSULA) I don't have a racist bone in my multicultural body. I already apologized and if you want to take this to my talk page we can discuss it further. "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate" Namaste! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> • Talk  •  07:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The communication error is yours. The article you highlighted goes directly to what Chris said it would go to: gallows humor. For the record, nothing's been proven Zimmerman said what you claim he did. He was alleged to say it, but saying Zimmerman is racist based on something he might have said is another rush to judgement editors of the article are supposed to be avoiding. Is it possible your admittedly biased take on the incident had clouded your ability to work on this article and discuss it in a fair and unbiased manner? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Using the term and then referring to is misinterpretation as irony is pretty clear under the definition that it has a double meaning or more; to which one party knows and the other doesn't know. From the Irony definition on its own page, "Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension" So basically I can take your 'black humor' at being a joke about 'black people' and 'black humor' as being a joke about 'death' and because of your specific call that the misinterpretation of the latter can invoke the former. A third possible outcome is humor of 'black people' as it is a joke for them. Sadly, your statement does not give credit to your view as the first line clearly states the connection between black comedy and gallows humor, "A black comedy, or dark comedy, is a comic work that employs black humor or gallows humor." It is just another name for gallow's humor and your 'irony' does much to further confuse your miscommunication. It still crosses the line, no matter how you slice it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Wikipedia policy is clear that people notable for one event should not have full biographies on an incident page and to specifically avoid pseudo-bios. Per WP:PSEUDO under inclusion and WP:HARM most of it is not needed or required and only serves to damage the integrity of their character. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an essay, not policy. The policy is WP:BLP1E. Although I think that essay's criteria match what I wrote above. So it's not enough for you to just state the policy and then say end of issue. You need to now apply it. Shadowjams (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I used the wrong one. Sorry. For Zimmerman's 'crime' WP:BLPCRIME "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted." And WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I wish I could find the policy that made mention that a biography should not be tied to a person notable for a single event, but it is growing and I think WP:BLPCRIME covers it well enough. No conviction. No need to plaster it like it was a crime. Same with Martin's so called 'burglary'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I said nothing about a "burglary"... I only used the examples of Zimmerman's arrest and Martin's suspension, which were both widely reported. And we should never suggest or say something that could be disparaging (or glowing for that matter) if there's not a reliable source to back it up. That should go without saying. The policy you're looking for is the one I linked above. It's all part of the same one though: WP:BLP. Shadowjams (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree with this, but do note that we absolutely need to be treating martin and zimmerman the same. (Theoretically martin gets less protection as no longer living, but for this discussion lets say the same). Under the crime etc policies linked above, about 2/3 of the "aftermath" section needs to be deleted. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of it does need to go based on policies. The news is clearly being sensational, misreporting and speculating on a great number of issues. Remember that is was original for violence? Now it was 'without violence'? Each week the entire story changes and the news is clearly not consistent. If our so called reliable sources are not reliable then we should limit our coverage until they become reliable. If we took the case to Reliable Sources and laid out the situation I have no doubts that they will come to the conclusion that the media will not be credible for a great number of these claims put forth. Even common blogs directly have piles of evidence to show for this and specifically cross check sources and material which we could clearly cite as evidence in that case. Face it, the information changes all the time, there has not been one aspect of this case that has been steady other then the fact Zimmerman caused Martin's death. Here's a short list of major issues from the so-called Reliable Sources: Ethnicity, religion, political affilations, two gun shots, the gun itself, execution, lack of injuries, witness accounts, 911 tapes, Zimmerman's that night, police reports, photo manipulation and editing 911 tapes to push racism. Let's not even get into Martin being Jesus Christ.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Isn't it pretty clear cut the only reason Martin was in the area at the time was because he was serving a school suspension? . Seems relevant enough to me to be included. I don't think it's really comparable though as a reason for adding Zimmerman's dropped charges since those are not related in any way to the shooting.Redredryder (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the suspensions are relevant and important to the story. The Miami Herald (the home paper for me and the Martin family) has written several articles about Martin's suspensions BECAUSE THEY ARE RELEVANT. Wikipedia should not be a source that sanitizes a person's history and censors legitimate information simply because it is uncomfortable or inconsistent with an editor's political or world view. Please include the suspension information. Thanks! MiamiManny (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I have to agree that the material regarding Martin's suspension from school is relevant to the article. If for nothing else but to give a reason why he wasn't in school that day and walking through the gated community. Mind you, I'm not saying that he wouldn't have been shot if he had behaved himself in school, just that it gives a more complete picture of why he was where he was when he was there. As far as Zimmerman's claims that Martin looked suspicious and as if he might be on drugs, the reason for Martin's suspension (being in possession of drug paraphernalia and traces of marijuana) also make the suspensions relevant to the article. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed --Львівське (говорити) 21:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Martin and Zimmerman personally, I am mostly in agreement with you. The parent's professions are quite a tenuous link though. There are no allegations of political motivation during the incident, or of political connections etc being used in the aftermath. Some non-reliable, non-notable commentators, who are not included in the article, made disparaging remarks about Zimmerman saying he was a typical right winger, but since we are not referencing those comments, refuting them is not relevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Editor Rollo V. Tomasi (great name) What is your source for "Zimmerman claims.....as if he might be on drugs."? I am not in favor of including prior incedents in the article about the shooting death of Martin. I don't thihk they are pertinent or necessary. During the moments of their extended interplay, neither of the parties had any awareness or cause to be aware of each others history...good or bad. This is the type of information that would flourish at Aftermath of the Trayvon Martin Shooting...or, as suggested above, seperate biography articles. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  23:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Again and again, this must be repeated. The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. (See WP:RS) WKMG-TV is a PUBLISHER, not a SOURCE, but just a COMPONENT of a SOURCE. WKMG-TV may generally have a reputation for reliability, but that does not automatically mean every writer or every article from WKMG-TV is automatically reliable. -- Avanu (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have stated no attribution or independent verification. This one unsourced statement which is unconfirmed, unsupported and unfounded has no ties to any individual and is at best gossip. It infers a conspiracy and has not been attributed and denied by public officials who have multiple documents and statements that point to it being false. Shall we go over Daisey and the Apple Factory from NPR? Just because something is broadcast doesn't make it true, if the fact checking fails even after the statement and it cannot be confirmed and is largely denied doesn't make it automatically true. This American Life officially redacted the entire episode because of those lies which it did not catch. Even if WKMG-TV doesn't take the same stance in this case, evidence from Reuters and other major news sources cannot attribute or confirm it and a good amount of evidence shows that the allegation is unfounded. Without those it should never be on Wikipedia when so much is against it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

Detailed Timeline released
Reuters has released an excellent timeline of events with more background than was previously available. It confirms dad's fiance lived in the community just a short distance from the shooting, but they were out on a date at the time. It also shows how Trayvon's mom found the attorney and how the case was turned into a media event. A very good read. http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-world-heard-cries-183813181.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.187.44 (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very handy. This is so much better than the NYT version, it's really not right. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * Link to original article on reuters

Edit request on 4 April 2012
There is a factual error in the information regarding the father of George Zimmerman. The existing information states,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 4 April 2012
In the 'Zimmerman cell phone call to police' section there is the following statement: "However, before hanging up he changed his mind". The term 'changed his mind' is leading, unsubstantiated and pure speculation. The reference listed does not supply the addition of the 'changed his mind' term. The sentence should read: However, before hanging up he said “Actually, could you have him call me, and I’ll tell him where I’m at?

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

Gaijin is 100% correct and has cited a well established Wikipedia policy, which is to put the statement in the "voice" of the originator, rather than making it seem like Wikipedia is vouching for the content of this particular article. If there is a statement, we must give context to the statement and present it accordingly. Once again, we should make it clear that it is the family's statement of what happened, and not an observed fact. Well said, 완젬스 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the article talking about them going out to dinner and leaving Brandi's son (future step-brother) and Trayvon at home. Who else would know what Trayvon was watching on TV at the time and where he was going? It wasn't reported by Trayvon's girlfriend in their cell phone conversation. These were two of the last people he talked to while he was alive who would know that kind of information. That's why I said it was reasonable to assume that Brandi's son was the source, it would only seem logical that Tracy Martin would ask the kid where Trayvon was when they got home. I think it is also logical to assume the police interviewed the kid as well. They were complaining in the press they didn't know why he didn't come home that night. I wasn't talking about including any of this in the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Under heading "Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch"
Sentence in the second paragraph currently reads as follows: "Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting." Saying "one other shooting" implies that the shooting of Trayvon Martin falls into the category of "crimes committed at The Retreat." Since the question of whether or not the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a crime is still in dispute, I would recommend that the word "other" be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorAaron (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

MiamiManny, you are edit warring, and in violation of the 1rr on the page
Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * dif1
 * dif2
 * dif3
 * Please stop you personal attacks on me and assume good faith. You damaged the article twice with sloppy edits and I fixed it. MiamiManny (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * MiamiManny has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on this article.  MBisanz  talk 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this page still unedr 1rr?? I don't see a mention/warning anywhereWhatzinaname (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When you edit the article, this box is displayed at the top.  MBisanz  talk 22:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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

Photos wanted
We're going to need a free map or aerial photo of the area. The locations are sufficiently relevant that a diagram is called for. We also going to need a "contemporary" photo of Trayvon at some point, but not at the expense of the iconic hoodie image that's become such a symbol. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can devote an entire Wikipedia to the case, so we can list every single detail, map it with GIS software, spell out the words of every single speech, include pictures of every single "I am Trayvon Martin" hoodie, and so on. BTW, I haven't found a section yet on the parents of the owners of the construction company which build the sidewalk on which Trayvon Martin was walking, which must be due to censorship. Was there even a sidewalk? If no, why not? Hey, Hector, maybe you can make an animation of the entire series of events, starting with the birth of his grandparents. We're going to need that. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Shooting of Trayvon Martin neighborhood.png [[File:Shooting of Trayvon Martin neighborhood.png]]. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  00:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What are the colored dots indicating?
 * Here's a google aerial view in an RS for reference. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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

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


 * I think its going to run into OR/SYNTH rules. Any particular fact on there may be well sourced, but I dont think there is any single source showing them all, which would be needed to avoid SYNTH. I think it is only a matter of time before one of the major news outlets does this though, and then we can make our own copy, using that as a source. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NYT did a fairly comprehensive map. Can someone copy that? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * link? [unsigned]
 * http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be an OR/Synth problem if the following from WP:OI is observed.
 * "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments..."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

so is Obama "multiracial"?
Or does his wiki page call him straight up black. Oh, wait, here is the lede "Obama is the first African American to hold the office." Oh gee, goood ol' wikipedia's double standards as always. I'm sure if Obama were a pedophile or mass murder he wouldn't be called "black" not "multiracial". Whatzinaname (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it has to do with him self identifying as such; even someone who is multiracial would be 'an American of African descent' vis a vis 'African American'--Львівське (говорити) 06:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He's only partially afircan american -- and even then there is debate if that term belongs to Obama since his father was purely African, not african american. That being beside the main point, Zimmerman does identify as hispanic, and his family calls him hispanic, it's even on his voting recordWhatzinaname (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've slightly modified the lead in line with addressing your comments. While I can see the points you are making, the approach you used seems to be lacking in good faith just a bit. Please understand that while not everyone can always agree, we are usually trying to work hard toward the common goal of building a worthwhile encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the angry sarcasm in Whatzinaname's post just doesn't work for me. I have no idea what his point is. (Apart from general whining.) It's a pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why AGF works both ways. While it does have a bit of a tone that isn't necessarily helpful sounding, the point seems to be that we should be consistent with our racial names, not making them up to fit a situation, like the media seems to have done in this story. -- Avanu (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a cultural thing. I'm not American. And I still can't get much sense out of that rant. Surely the real problem with names for racial categorisation is that it's all so artificial. Nothing is precise. Nothing is right, or totally wrong. (Apart, obviously, from the now non-PC terms like nigger.) I don't know why people get so hung up over the names of racial groups, which are mostly only social constructs anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The US population is obsessed with race. They always try to categorize every possible shade of skin color into a separate "race". E.g. the whole categorization of Zimmerman into "half-white-half-hispanic" is plainly idiotic. Hispanics are almost exclusively descended from Europeans and everybody else on the planet would say they are "white". The truth is that everybody who is not of WASP descent is not considered "white" in the US and they make up new categories to fuel their ubiquitous racism. Even though racial segregation was officially ended 40 years ago, everything in the US, especially in the South, is still about race. Or religion. For the rest of the world there are only 3 or 4 "races" while for Americans there are hundreds. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Good call there- Mr. Zimmermann's biological parents were non-Hispanic white (probably 95+% from presently recognized European groups) and Peruvian (likely primarily Amerindian, possibly some African, very likely at least a small component of modern European commonality). He's likely closer to modern European population groups than modern non-admixtured native South American populations, but there really isn't a term in common American English usage for that. If we're going to use social labels, the term which is closest is 'mestizo' (commonly used in South American countries)- 'Hispanic white' includes people fresh off the boat to America from Spain. Nevard (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Nevard, it would be incorrect to describe him as Hispanic white. He is both Hispanic (50%) and white (50%) but the Hispanic part of Zimmerman comes from his mother, who is in all likelihood a woman of mixed descent, going by the pictures we have of Zimmerman. Any more sources on his mother? We know his father is white, but that does not make Zimmerman a white man. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * He's clearly not descended from purely spanish stock when he looks more mongoloid than caucasoid. White hispanics do exists, but it's not a racial term -- white hispanics are simply whites/caucasians, the hispanic part is purely ethnic. This is why the term is idiotic. Whatzinaname (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get who told you white hispanics is a purely racial term, or else what gave you the idea terms have to be purely racial. Many people have been saying before you started this thread and after you started this thread it is not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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

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

Yes




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

Only some  (Please specify which ones.)


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

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


 * strong oppose Were the parents of either involved in the altercation? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo isn't often right, but this time he is. Also, Bob needs to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a record of the world. No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.247.159   (talk • contribs)  01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, a compliment! (I think.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 66.168.247.159, I started this poll because there was an edit war going on. I haven't made up my mind whether the material should or should not be in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, work on that, will you? And polls are useless. Policy matters. (Common sense isn't in great demand here, or in supply for that matter.) 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


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

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

A big 'thank you' to the media for fueling people's rage.....
Hate fueled weekend beating says elderly man

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

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

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

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


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


 * Public policy commentator Richard Land says President Obama and black civil rights activists are using the Trayvon Martin shooting to foment racial strife and boost the president’s re-election chances. He calls Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton “racial ambulance chasers” who are fomenting a “mob mentality” that is akin to what the Ku Klux Klan used to do to blacks in the South.  He claims “This is being done to try to gin up the black vote for an African-American president who is in deep, deep, deep trouble for re-election and who knows that he cannot win re-election without getting the 95 percent of blacks who voted for him in 2008 to come back out and show they are going to vote for him again.” --DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article talk pages are meant for discussion of specific content issues, and are not forums for general discussion of the topic at hand. Treating this talk page like your personal blog is counterproductive. MastCell Talk 04:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * MastCell, if your comment was directed at the article I posted to open this section, please understand that this news story is tangentially related to the "Aftermath" section of the article, however, I am not certain if or how it should be included, so I posted it here in an effort to spur discussion on the subject. Like the various stages of grief, the media has a predictable cycle, and we are here in the "self-blame, but take little responsibility" part of that arc. -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want a serious discussion of a potential source, it's best to avoid melodramatic expressions of personal disgust when you present it. As you can see, the resulting thread was basically mired in a blog-comments-section level of discourse. Regarding the source, you did see the subtitle stating that police don't see it as a hate crime? And that the mob which beat this poor elderly man was composed of both white and black teenagers? And that the only one who appears to have mentioned Martin is the beating victim? How would you propose to actually incorporate this source into the article? MastCell Talk 05:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

critical. contrary point of view in the lede-- or the lack thereof
With several notable people coming out and criticizing the coverage and actions of persons involved in this case, like former NAACP president Lewis, we either need to remove the "blah, blah-- calling for a full investigation" or add the other notable voices criticizing the coverage. Lede now is grossly one-sided in this regard. Whatzinaname (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion for what you feel would fix this? I just looked at the lead paragraphs and they seem adaquate. -- Avanu (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They are plenty adequate, they are just wholly one-sided. Where are the critical voices opposed(like bryant and land, both who have said that the media and usually suspect hucksters like Sharpton are only doing this to gin up the black vote for the next election) to the actions/comments/claims of the people who have stirred the pot in this incident. And obama didn't just call for an investigation, he made racially inflammatory comments. Whatzinaname (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think the opposing side would actually be those people asking for the investigation to play out, not those who counter claims of hidden racism with more claims that are essentially ad hominem attacks on Sharpton and others. -- Avanu (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the lead sentence "The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's Stand Your Ground law and allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct." I'm sure people like land/bryant contend that "police misconduct" "racial motivations(ostensibly of the police/DA) are not the reason for the attention, but instead media's attempt to re-ellect barrack obama and exploiting the kids death.Whatzinaname (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are certainly many factors that allowed this story to gain attention, but I wouldn't clump the entire media into an Obama reelection conspiracy or exploitation conspiracy. You might rephrase that sentence as such:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I think its going to run into OR/SYNTH rules. Any particular fact on there may be well sourced, but I dont think there is any single source showing them all, which would be needed to avoid SYNTH. I think it is only a matter of time before one of the major news outlets does this though, and then we can make our own copy, using that as a source. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NYT did a fairly comprehensive map. Can someone copy that? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * link? [unsigned]
 * http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be an OR/Synth problem if the following from WP:OI is observed.
 * "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments..."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A big 'thank you' to the media for fueling people's rage.....
Hate fueled weekend beating says elderly man

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

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

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

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


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


 * Public policy commentator Richard Land says President Obama and black civil rights activists are using the Trayvon Martin shooting to foment racial strife and boost the president’s re-election chances. He calls Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton “racial ambulance chasers” who are fomenting a “mob mentality” that is akin to what the Ku Klux Klan used to do to blacks in the South.  He claims “This is being done to try to gin up the black vote for an African-American president who is in deep, deep, deep trouble for re-election and who knows that he cannot win re-election without getting the 95 percent of blacks who voted for him in 2008 to come back out and show they are going to vote for him again.” --DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article talk pages are meant for discussion of specific content issues, and are not forums for general discussion of the topic at hand. Treating this talk page like your personal blog is counterproductive. MastCell Talk 04:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * MastCell, if your comment was directed at the article I posted to open this section, please understand that this news story is tangentially related to the "Aftermath" section of the article, however, I am not certain if or how it should be included, so I posted it here in an effort to spur discussion on the subject. Like the various stages of grief, the media has a predictable cycle, and we are here in the "self-blame, but take little responsibility" part of that arc. -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want a serious discussion of a potential source, it's best to avoid melodramatic expressions of personal disgust when you present it. As you can see, the resulting thread was basically mired in a blog-comments-section level of discourse. Regarding the source, you did see the subtitle stating that police don't see it as a hate crime? And that the mob which beat this poor elderly man was composed of both white and black teenagers? And that the only one who appears to have mentioned Martin is the beating victim? How would you propose to actually incorporate this source into the article? MastCell Talk 05:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

critical. contrary point of view in the lede-- or the lack thereof
With several notable people coming out and criticizing the coverage and actions of persons involved in this case, like former NAACP president Lewis, we either need to remove the "blah, blah-- calling for a full investigation" or add the other notable voices criticizing the coverage. Lede now is grossly one-sided in this regard. Whatzinaname (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion for what you feel would fix this? I just looked at the lead paragraphs and they seem adaquate. -- Avanu (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They are plenty adequate, they are just wholly one-sided. Where are the critical voices opposed(like bryant and land, both who have said that the media and usually suspect hucksters like Sharpton are only doing this to gin up the black vote for the next election) to the actions/comments/claims of the people who have stirred the pot in this incident. And obama didn't just call for an investigation, he made racially inflammatory comments. Whatzinaname (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think the opposing side would actually be those people asking for the investigation to play out, not those who counter claims of hidden racism with more claims that are essentially ad hominem attacks on Sharpton and others. -- Avanu (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the lead sentence "The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's Stand Your Ground law and allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct." I'm sure people like land/bryant contend that "police misconduct" "racial motivations(ostensibly of the police/DA) are not the reason for the attention, but instead media's attempt to re-ellect barrack obama and exploiting the kids death.Whatzinaname (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are certainly many factors that allowed this story to gain attention, but I wouldn't clump the entire media into an Obama reelection conspiracy or exploitation conspiracy. You might rephrase that sentence as such:


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


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

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

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

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

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

so is Obama "multiracial"?
Or does his wiki page call him straight up black. Oh, wait, here is the lede "Obama is the first African American to hold the office." Oh gee, goood ol' wikipedia's double standards as always. I'm sure if Obama were a pedophile or mass murder he wouldn't be called "black" not "multiracial". Whatzinaname (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it has to do with him self identifying as such; even someone who is multiracial would be 'an American of African descent' vis a vis 'African American'--Львівське (говорити) 06:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He's only partially afircan american -- and even then there is debate if that term belongs to Obama since his father was purely African, not african american. That being beside the main point, Zimmerman does identify as hispanic, and his family calls him hispanic, it's even on his voting recordWhatzinaname (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've slightly modified the lead in line with addressing your comments. While I can see the points you are making, the approach you used seems to be lacking in good faith just a bit. Please understand that while not everyone can always agree, we are usually trying to work hard toward the common goal of building a worthwhile encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the angry sarcasm in Whatzinaname's post just doesn't work for me. I have no idea what his point is. (Apart from general whining.) It's a pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why AGF works both ways. While it does have a bit of a tone that isn't necessarily helpful sounding, the point seems to be that we should be consistent with our racial names, not making them up to fit a situation, like the media seems to have done in this story. -- Avanu (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a cultural thing. I'm not American. And I still can't get much sense out of that rant. Surely the real problem with names for racial categorisation is that it's all so artificial. Nothing is precise. Nothing is right, or totally wrong. (Apart, obviously, from the now non-PC terms like nigger.) I don't know why people get so hung up over the names of racial groups, which are mostly only social constructs anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The US population is obsessed with race. They always try to categorize every possible shade of skin color into a separate "race". E.g. the whole categorization of Zimmerman into "half-white-half-hispanic" is plainly idiotic. Hispanics are almost exclusively descended from Europeans and everybody else on the planet would say they are "white". The truth is that everybody who is not of WASP descent is not considered "white" in the US and they make up new categories to fuel their ubiquitous racism. Even though racial segregation was officially ended 40 years ago, everything in the US, especially in the South, is still about race. Or religion. For the rest of the world there are only 3 or 4 "races" while for Americans there are hundreds. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Good call there- Mr. Zimmermann's biological parents were non-Hispanic white (probably 95+% from presently recognized European groups) and Peruvian (likely primarily Amerindian, possibly some African, very likely at least a small component of modern European commonality). He's likely closer to modern European population groups than modern non-admixtured native South American populations, but there really isn't a term in common American English usage for that. If we're going to use social labels, the term which is closest is 'mestizo' (commonly used in South American countries)- 'Hispanic white' includes people fresh off the boat to America from Spain. Nevard (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Nevard, it would be incorrect to describe him as Hispanic white. He is both Hispanic (50%) and white (50%) but the Hispanic part of Zimmerman comes from his mother, who is in all likelihood a woman of mixed descent, going by the pictures we have of Zimmerman. Any more sources on his mother? We know his father is white, but that does not make Zimmerman a white man. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * He's clearly not descended from purely spanish stock when he looks more mongoloid than caucasoid. White hispanics do exists, but it's not a racial term -- white hispanics are simply whites/caucasians, the hispanic part is purely ethnic. This is why the term is idiotic. Whatzinaname (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get who told you white hispanics is a purely racial term, or else what gave you the idea terms have to be purely racial. Many people have been saying before you started this thread and after you started this thread it is not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

Yes




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

Only some  (Please specify which ones.)


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

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


 * strong oppose Were the parents of either involved in the altercation? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo isn't often right, but this time he is. Also, Bob needs to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a record of the world. No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.247.159   (talk • contribs)  01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, a compliment! (I think.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 66.168.247.159, I started this poll because there was an edit war going on. I haven't made up my mind whether the material should or should not be in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, work on that, will you? And polls are useless. Policy matters. (Common sense isn't in great demand here, or in supply for that matter.) 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


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

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

First Names and Last Names
At the top of this discussion page there is a request for photos of "Trayvon / Zimmerman" It is obvious that the author has a bias against George Zimmerman. Either write it as "Trayvon / George" (although I doubt ANYONE here would ever refer to George Zimmerman as "George") or Martin / Zimmerman. I am very tired of trying to reign people in on their biases. Enough is enough. Please practice what you preach! Get mad at me if you want, censor me if you want, but where is the interdependent thought process?--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's hopeless and you should give up. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I have been surprised several times at the fairness here by the majority. Still there are some that would love to see Zimmerman hang without due process. And to be fair I have also seen some here that think he is an automatic saint. I just want things to stay balanced and honest. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was kidding. You're offering martyrdom for a notice on a talk page. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you think this subject is a joke. Obviously you don't live here. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject isn't a joke. Your comments are. Also, you shouldn't live on a talk page. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what I meant. I am sure you whois my IP and see where I live, and can see this subject is close to home. Additionally you would be one of the first ones screaming if references were made to George and Martin. So knock it off with the hypocrisy and grow up!--70.119.53.11 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC) I concur. Either use first names or last names as that is fair and reasonable. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB
 * No I don't. I haven't checked who you are; I couldn't care less (you're not that interesting). As for the names--boo hoo. "Trayvon" is a pretty recognizable name, as is "Zimmerman". It doesn't work that way with George and Martin, you brilliant mind, unless one is referring to George Martin.

Lighten up. this is a talk page, not the article. The rules are looser here. In the 2007/8 primary campaign people tended to refer to Sen. Clinton as Hillary and Sen. Obama as Obama, and the world didn't come to an end. In the article, of course, we generally go for the formal, full name. Unless you are writing about Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. No issue - move on please. Tvoz / talk 05:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Civility Please
As a personal request, can we limit the language to civility? And limit the profanity to direct quotes? Thanks--DeknMike (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a little breaching of the civility guidelines, rather than maintaining artificial niceness, goes a long way towards resolving massive breaches of the unwritten guidelines on common sense. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo, you're right again. What's gotten into you? 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have one set of rules for some and another set for others. Attacking editors, cussing them out, taunting them, and insulting them. Is this what Wikipedia is about? If you agree with the "established" editors then you are treated as kin, but if you disagree, or questioned your are whipped? What is next? What would you do in the real world of people you claim to not have "common sense"? Exterminate them? There are some folks here who do not like to be questioned, or challenged. I find that interesting for a project like Wikipedia.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Which "you" are you talking about? Who are you proposing to exterminate?  Little breaches of civility are normal in robust debate.  Name calling is not normally tolerated in Wikipedia, nor is profanity.  ANYONE can contribute, but the practices built up over time keep the discussions about the work and not the personalities.  (yes, I have long-standing disputes with some editors on other boards.)  I'm semi-established because I've been at this for several years and have contributed to a variety of types of articles, not simply those that are hot in the news.--DeknMike (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the 'you' was implied for 'HiLo48' because of the earlier cursing in all caps, taunting and attacking. Just was missing the indent. And I don't think you (DeknMike) have done that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

911?
In the beginning of the shooting section it states that Zimmerman called the police non-emergency number. The rest of the article says he called 911. There is nothing in the article to say he made more than one call so something needs correcting. Did he call the non-emergency, 911 or both? Wayne (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Its somewhat WP:OR, but the best guess is he made a call to the non-emergency number. However, it was widely reported as 911. The OR comes in by listening to the phone calls, and the 911 calls all have a 911 greeting, but his is a different greeting. however, 911 is refernced many places because thats what many of the sources say. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the article that "Zimmermans call is often misreported as being a 911 call." Saying he called 911 supports claims that he was assuming Martins intent ie: profiling. Wayne (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A simpler approach might be to simply rephrase it to say "Zimmerman placed a call to law enforcement." -- Avanu (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * NBC Nightly News said that Zimmerman's calls were to a non-emergency number.  I agree with WLRoss above.  Emeraldflames (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good time to begin a review of material in this article
Per Whatsisname's comment in the previous section, I started looking at each sentence in the lead paragraphs. One the first problems I discovered is that an oft-repeated piece of information about Detective Chris Serino is that he supposedly wanted to arrest Zimmerman for manslaughter. However, we have seen a LOT of shoddy and biased reporting in the media, and I could only find one source for this from ABC News. All the other "sources" are simply parroting what ABC News reported. Zimmerman was held in custody and released and this claim from Chris Serino would fall under our Verifiability policy (Exceptional claims require exceptional sources). Without this, it is yet another BLP problem for this article, and it needs to be something that is reviewed before being re-added to the article. I am almost 100% sure there are other parts of the article that need a similar vetting to insure that we are closely following our policies on Verifiability, BLP, and NPOV. -- Avanu (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires that material be relevant and well-sourced. This material is obviously relevant, and ABC News is generally considered a reliable source. I don't see the BLP issue, although arguably the material belongs in the body rather than the lead of the article. It's in no way an "exceptional claim" that a homicide investigator would suggest arresting a man who accosted, pursued, and shot to death an unarmed teenager. MastCell Talk 04:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Verifiability page that I linked to says this: "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". The relevant community was the law enforcement for Sanford, Florida. Apparently the decision was made to release Zimmerman. Yet we have ONE source that claims he should not have been released and no other sources, and no direct quote from the subject of this quote.  It is an extraordinary claim because it goes against the actions of all of law enforcement up to this point and we have no evidence to support that Serino really is making such a statement. -- Avanu (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] I agree with MastCell here - ABC News has not retracted this story, and I think the previous comment brings us dangerously close to OR and SYNTH. We should not be inserting ourselves into the investigative journalism process to decide if a story is credible - as long as we're not quoting from marginal sources. For example, Washington Post here, this week includes reference to the claim about Serino, without saying their investigation finds it lacking; Jonathan Capehart also reported on this - again from the same source, but not questioning its accuracy; I saw the mother of the 13 year old witness interviewed on MSNBC I believe, and she claimed that Serino told her that he didn't believe Zimmerman's story and was trying to prove it - I am looking for a source on that, so am just saying that I saw the interview (not good enough, obviously, but if true, is an entirely separate, verifying source that Serino had that opinion). I don;t know if the story is true, of course, but it has been reported enough by reliable sources that I think it should stay in. I am not comfortable with our deciding to take things out based on our independent analysis of the sources - to this degree -I understand that extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, but I think you're taking this too far. I also think that this approach to editing this article, well-meaning as it may be, is inherently biased, no matter how hard we try not to be - putting sources through our own personal filters means we're using our own personal opinions to help us decide what sounds like bullshit and what sounds real. This may work, but in an article like this, where there are such strong opinions on how we look at the same set of facts, we should be particularly careful about rejecting claims as "extraordinary". So I think the Serino material should stay in, and stay in the lead as it is a summary of the rest of the article, and it is an important point, if it bears out to be true, because some people do think that there may have been some high-up intervention in the decision making regarding why there was no arrest. I do not want to add speculation into the article, but I think we should prominently have - unless it is refuted or retracted - some indication that there might be more to the story than the official police version. Right now, trying to read the article objectively, I think it has become more slanted toward Zimmerman's story than it had been, which I find troubling. If ever there was a news story that it would have been better to not write an article about until more facts emerge, this is it. That's not realistic, but I am starting to think that the encyclopedia would be better off if we just had a "watch this space" placeholder than this constantly changing piece - changing not because of new information emerging as much as changing based on who has the most stamina to add/delete the same text over and over and over. (This comment not directed at Avanu's edit here - I mean this about the overall editing.) Tvoz / talk 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant community is the law enforcement community. Clearly there's a substantial part of that community which feels that arresting Zimmerman should have been considered more seriously; hence the special prosecutor, and all the other levels of inquiry which are currently ongoing. MastCell Talk 05:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Tvoz / talk 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the state of the evidence is that Zimmerman did not "accost" Martin and nor was he "persuing" anyone prior to the shooting. Logically, I cant see any reason for an accusation of manslaughter by Serino before the facts were known. Such an early accusation implies incompetence on Serino's part. The ABC story itself seems to be reporting un-named "sources" beliefs (OR) based on the "unconvinced by Zimmerman's account" affadavit which at best would only result in an investigation not arrest. I've searched other mentions and they largely cite the ABC article as their own source. The remaining sources (such as this one) say that Martins attorney Ben Crump was the source of the claim used by ABC. The original Crump claim is contained in this letter which assistant DA Roy Austin stated was full of "outright lies". If this is the case, it is a BLP violation to attribute the claim directly to Serino rather than Crump. Wayne (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "state of the evidence" - or at least the evidence we've been told about - that you're citing is based completely on Zimmerman's own self-serving narrative, so it's not exactly gospel - the claim about Serino is that he didn't find Z's story credible.  It may not seem logical to you, but we're not supposed to be evaluating whether sources inside of an article were telling the truth  -that is OR to the max.  OR  is what we are not supposed to do - it is not some kind of independent rule out there for investigative journalists.  They are expected to have sources, and they are not required to have named them for us to cite them.  This entire matter may turn out to be untrue - and if so I'd say we'd want to include it along with the fact that it was refuted, once that actually happens, not based on our own interpretations -  but in any case, to say that this is a BLP violation on Serino because you think it implies incompetence on Serino's part is really stretching this policy beyond recognition. You think that, and others think if Serino actually filed that affidavit that he is a hero in the story, not accepting the shooter's story as the truth.  We don't know what actually happened and it is not for us to insert ourselves into the mix in that way. Tvoz / talk 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with this if we had at least that mother's comment because it sounds like an independent verification of the same statement, but I am growing more wary of things coming from the major media on this because they have shown themselves to be very very biased in their reporting of this story. The information we have about the case has barely changed since the day we all first found out about it, yet the media has gone on rampages of alternately villifing the various players in this drama.  Whether left-leaning or right-leaning, the media has shown that it is not reliable when it comes to reporting on this story.  So I would say that prudence would tell us we need to do our best to have multiple, independent sources for our material, especially if it is something highly inflammatory or unusual.  A police detective close to the case saying that he thinks the shooter needs to be locked up despite being free to walk the streets is an inflammatory and prejudicial statement.  I take no position on who was in the right or wrong that night, but we are not dealing with a reliable media, and consequently, we need to carefully examine what we add based on their word. -- Avanu (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK - I agree that more sourcing is always a good idea. I saw the interview myself, but I have to see if I can find a link to it, or, better, some reporting about it. SWill look tomorrow when both eyes are open. Tvoz / talk 06:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I watched that entire 8:14 minute video, but I didn't see the mother's confirmation of Detective Serino's statement. Also, do you think that her statement is an acceptable source for this? The father's retelling of the police description of events described by Zimmerman was one of the most complete versions of the story I have heard, but unfortunately the father feels it is not a truthful description of the facts. -- Avanu (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

← Not sure which video you are talking about - this is the interview I saw (and the length is 10:49, not 8:14) - the one with Cheryl Brown, the eyewitness's mother, and Al Sharpton - and the accompanying article, both of which say that she reported that the lead detective (who was Serino) said to her, on March 5, that he didn't believe it was self-defense. "The lead investigator from the Sanford Police Department stood in my family room and told me that this was absolutely not self-defense and he needed to prove that." And that he went on to imply that it was racial profiling - "stereotyping" he called it. I found her to be credible and clear as she stated what she was told by Serino. I believe this confirms the ABC report more than enough to justify including it, and certainly enough to allay your concerns about an outlier (but not retracted) report. Also I'm not clear what you mean about the father - you mean Tracy Martin I assume - right, he didn't believe the police's retelling of what Zimmerman said happened. How can you say that Zimmerman's story is the most complete version of the story? Surely you would agree that Zimmerman is the least reliable witness about any culpability he has - you just accept his version of the story as true? But what does that have to do with whether Serino doubted the story? Maybe i'm misunderstanding what you're saying on this - are you talking about a different video? Since in fact Cheryl Brown does say exactly what I said she said, and since you said that including the mother's comment would be confirmation of the unrelated ABC report, I am rewording it slightly and including it in the lead with the sourcing. We can of course talk some more about it, but this has been in there for a long time, and is better sourced now, so I think the original concerns you voiced should be allayed. Tvoz / talk 07:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I watched that other video. The 13-year-old's mom seems credible in that statement and it is an independent voice verifying the same information. -- Avanu (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reuters is reporting the same information about Serino with a source that talked to them in this article. Their story is not based on the ABC report about Serino. A law-enforcement source, who had been informed of the case by investigators, told Reuters that Serino was eager to bring a charge but encountered resistance from the office of the prosecutor, State Attorney Norman Wolfinger. This is another independent source, besides ABC and the 13 year old's mother, who I think can be considered reliable and could be cited as well.--Isaidnoway (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem, "A law-enforcement source, who had been informed of the case by investigators..." That is not a source. It is quite literally, "Someone told someone else that..." as the person making the statement wasn't present and was no way involved in the matter. If we cannot get anything better then 'Someone told someone else and that someone told the news' it should not be given any weight as this is no different then other allegations of Zimmerman being a 'jew' or 'KKK member' when this unsourced opinion has such a lash back. That inherent lack of verification MUST be given notice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with that, but something else to consider is the source reporting it. I think ABC and Reuters wouldn't put their butts on the line if they didn't believe their sources were really connected to the investigation. I also tend to agree with Tvoz's observation above that this article is slanting towards Zimmerman a little bit. Obviously, we are only including what has been put out there, but is all of it really that relevant, or are we just looking for ways to include it?-Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Isaidnoway - ABC and Reuters, and the Washington Post, and even CBS and Daily News who trusted the ABC story - and their journalistic standards - enough to republish it. And yes, it looks to me like things that are "anti Zimmerman" are challenged heavily and expunged, and "pro Zimmerman" points are welcomed - I think the balance is off.


 * Chris, I think there comes a time when you have to stop and read what it says, not what we want it to say. He (or she) spoke on condition of anonymity - that does not mean that his identity, and his credentials, were unknown to the investigative reporters.  It means that the source did not want to be identified to the public for reasons that we are not privy to. Perhaps he or she works in the DA's office or for the police or in the courts - "that's the way this county does business" he says. Fear of reprisal is usually the reason a source speaks on condition of anonymity. Not by making a call in the dark without identifying himself to the reporter, but the newspaper just goes ahead and prints it - that is not what a responsible journalist and a responsible media outlet do. This is one of the reasons we are careful about what consider to be a reliable source here - not the source to the reporter, but the source to 'us: the news article, the publisher, its writer.
 * And I'm sorry, but your examples of saying Zimmerman is a Jew or a member of the KKK are absurd, and completely different from this situation.  Those comments were never published in reliable sources as truth as far as I am aware, and they were not sourced to anyone, let alone  someone who speaks on condition of anonymity.  The nonsense about Zimmerman being Jewish or being a member of the KKK are just that - made-up nonsense.  The report that a law enforcement source who spoke on condition of his or her identity not being revealed is classic journalism - think Deep Throat and Woodward/Bernstein on Watergate - they  knew who the source was - the former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt -  but Felt spoke to them with their assurance his identity would not be revealed, which it wasn't until over 30 years later. Obviously the stakes were quite different, but the fact is a source wishing to remain anonymous bears no resemblance to some troll or extremely POV blogger or wherever these false claims came from, announcing that someone is Jewish or in the KKK - a non-fact which no responsible journalist would report.


 * We do not know that this source was telling the truth - of course - any more than we know if any witness, or "expert" or anyone is telling the truth. But we have more than enough sourcing to include this, and we will see where it goes. Our standard is verifiability, yes, but that means readers can, on their own, verify that the news article or report etc said what we claim it said. We do not analyze if the source was telling the truth to the reporter.   Tvoz / talk 23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point. Another thing to consider is the police and state attorney's office has seen all this information being put out there and if they want to refute any of this information being leaked they have that opportunity to do so and that should be included as well. Norm Wolfinger came out recently and vehemently denied reports he had met with anybody in secret the night of the shooting. If the police or state attorney's office or Zimmerman's attorneys offer a rebuttal and it is verifably sourced, then we should include it.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction - Trayvon Martin described as a "man."
"Soon afterward, both men engaged in a confrontation that ended with George Zimmerman fatally shooting Trayvon Martin."

"Man" refers to an adult male. Trayvon Martin did not reach adulthood before death. The sentence should be edited to make note that the confrontation was between a male adolescent and an adult male.

66.27.28.71 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Martin was taller and stronger than Zimmerman. "Male adolescent" implies a child. "Youth" may be a better word but this still implies some inequality. I'm sure Martin considered himself a man, "men" is more neutral and accurate. Wayne (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A 17 year-old person can become a U.S. Marine with a parent's signature. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlage.htm 68.3.103.157 (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB
 * Somebody changed it to just read "Soon afterward, both engaged in a confrontation". The word man was just taken out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I took it out. The important thing here is to present the events, and if controversy can be avoided while doing it then it's all for the better. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 13:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the term 'young-man' would be appropriate here? Diraphe (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Use the most neutral terms possible. A 28 year old male (I'm not exactly sure of his age) and a 17 year old male. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is Zimmerman's criminal history absent from the article? I see some discussion about it here, but I don't see why it isn't currently in the article.
Case #s found at http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/ : 2005-CF-009525-A-O 2005-DR-013069-O 2005-DR-012980-O — Preceding unsigned comment added by Error9900 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Need to explain the relevance to the event, rather than simply including ad hominem information. -- Avanu (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevance has been established. Was there consensus to take this out?LedRush (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems that there is/was some sort of agreement to not cover the multiple suspensions of Martin on the grounds they not do the same with Zimmerman's resisting arrest. Makes no sense to me, personally. Martin's suspensions are definitely relevant and should be detailed for a multitude of reasons. Zimmerman's is more debatable and being a living person gets broader protection. Whatzinaname (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So for those of us who didn't hear the explanation of how these prior acts are relevant, please explain how they relate to the night in question? Additionally, the sourcing must be impeccable, and despite Zimmerman being alive and Martin being dead, we still need to present a neutral point of view and treat the 2 primary subjects in a similar manner. NPOV applies no matter what.  But the idea that BLP is a one-way street when one person kills another is somewhat ridiculous. -- Avanu (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They relate to the night in question because zimmerman said he thought Trayvon was on something, and for all we know he was. And he has a drug paraphernalia possession in the past. All connected. Zimmerman also said he was "walking slowly and looking at houses". Martin had been found with women's jewelry and a burglary tool in his backpack. For all we know Martin was casing houses and looking for an easy mark to break into. The media narrative also depicted trayvon as some sort of honor student choir boy who never got in any trouble, which is equally refuted by the very same facts. BLP is what it is, and it doesn't cover dead people.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Zimmerman's arrest record should absolutely be included in this article as well as details about Martin's suspensions. MiamiManny (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - There were a number of prior discussions, spaced out by a few days apart, that dealt with whether or not to include both of these. There was discussion, but not many editors participated. Some opined that these facts weren't relevant; some others had some interpretations of the WP:BLP policy that I don't think are accurate. I'm of the opinion that news coverage should determine the relevance, not the whims of however many half-a-dozen editors notice the thread at that moment. I'm not expressing an opinion either way about whether they should be included, but the relevant criteria is how widespread the news has covered those facts. Of course, every statement like this needs to have a reliable citation. Also, the BLP criteria should apply equally to Zimmerman and Martin. The fact that Martin is not alive should not change the application of the policy in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a mention in the BLP policy page that people that have died with a specific time frame are still considered "living"? News coverage does not determine relevance. Gross coverage only affects notability. The quality of the source and relevance of the information is what is important. No matter how many times something inaccurate is repeated it's still inaccurate.Whatzinaname (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture POV problem
The pictures being used violate WP:NPOV. The one of Trayvon is black and white, with a somewhat blank stare and wearing a hoodie, while the one of Zimmerman is in color and he's smiling. Can someone try to locate more neutral images. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently the hoodie picture is being used because it's "iconic". Whatzinaname (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Zimmerman one isn't neutral? Anyway, we're using the hoodie one for Martin, I thought, because the only other free one was of him when he was around 13...not really NPOV itself.  I agree that a more "normal", recent Martin photo would be best.  The hoodie picture, to me, is still problematic, even if it is "iconic".LedRush (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have a problem with the way the images have changed -in a not so subtle way, the message is being presented that Martin is menacing and Zimmerman a smiling regular guy. That is POV. Tvoz / talk 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the photos of Martin are "free" at this point, we are using a fair use rationale for him no matter what, unless the family releases a photo to the public domain. If we can get consensus on a new pic, we can switch, but it will be tough to find one that satisfied everyone. Interestingly, both sides of the debate don't like the hoodie pic it seems, pro-martin people think its a blank stare, pro-zimmerman people think the "iconic"-ness is pov, and too young. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to some pictures of Trayvon Martin on Google: Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In a Mametesq way this issue has been reversed: the earliest photos of the two were a picture of a much younger smiling Martin and a menacing, mugshot photo of Zimmerman. That has been, at least according to the OP, reversed now. It'd be nice if we could have representative photos of each. Perhaps drivers license photos? I'm at a loss as to why those sorts of neutral pictures haven't been broadcast publicly. They also would have the secondary benefit of being copyright-free. Shadowjams (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be illegal to leak them I think, the DMV does not have any authority to release them, and Martin might not even have one, he just turned 17, and I think Florida is one of the states that highly restricts teen drivers. http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/teendriv.html Gaijin42 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about "leaking" anything... I'm just surprised they haven't released them. They release mugshot photos and apparently police station videos... why is it so strange to release a passport or a driver's license photo. Are you sure there's a law in Florida prohibiting that? There may be, but I don't know for sure. I kind of doubt there is, but of course I could be wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a guess, but it is probably a privacy issue. If it was that easy to obtain them, any news organization could file a FOIA and get them.--Isaidnoway (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FOIA would only apply to federal records, not state based driver's license records. But your find on the DPPA is good. Well done. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You write about a Point Of View problem, yet you refer to Trayvon Martin as "Trayvon" and George Zimmerman as "Zimmerman". Do you not find that a bit hypocritical? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Who knew? It's a federal law passed by congress, the DPPA act: The Drivers Privacy Protection Act requires all States to protect the privacy of personal information contained in an individual's motor vehicle record. This information includes the driver's name, address, phone number, Social Security Number, driver identification number, photograph, height, weight, gender, age, certain medical or disability information, and in some states, fingerprints. It does not include information concerning a driver's traffic violations, license status or accidents. Apparently it was passed because stalkers and junk mailer's were mining the data.--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article would benefit from a second Trayvon image. We'd prefer to only use one, but there are NPOV and BLP issues at stake here.  A recent Trayvon image would inform readers about his age and size-- relevant to Zimmerman's defense.  One image per page is a general guideline we made up-- but we shoudn't let a  guideline trump good faith concerns over NPOV/BLP.     --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

***Time for a Complete Rewrite***
Given all the new facts, it is time for a complete rewrite.

The article needs to be re-written so that the focus is on the harassment of George Zimmerman over defending himself rather on than the aggressor Trayvon Martin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.17.243 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well since your version sounds biased also, I think we won't do it in quite that way. -- Avanu (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly identifying facts from disputed claims...
I noticed a few places in this wiki where claims that were made, and have been disputed are presented as facts. The most glaring example is in the first paragraph of the wiki

"During the event, Martin received a phone call from his girlfriend, and Zimmerman made a phone call to the police during the incident, which was recorded."

The claim by Martin's girlfriend that she was on the phone with him is disputed, and so far as I'm aware hasn't been able to be corroborated by any cell phone or other records from anyone involved. It seems to be presented as a factual statement included with the call that Zimmerman made, which is fact.

Since I am unable to edit, I thought I'd make a note here for those who can do so... — Sothe (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the call from Martin's girlfriend has been corroborated by phone logs released by the Martin family's lawyer and verified by ABC News and CNN . MastCell Talk 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * it's not "verified" by anyone that DURING/immediately prior to the event he was talking to his girlfriend by anyone other than his girlfriend.68.115.51.198 (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong; if you click on the little numbers in brackets in my above post, you'll see that phone logs show Martin was talking to his girlfriend immediately before the incident. MastCell Talk 18:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't know EXACTLY the time the incident occurred, and those cell phone dats/times are not accurate to the minute.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I get it - this is a late April Fools' joke, right? Cell phone records are accurate to the minute. Cell phone plans bill by the minute. How could they do that if their logs were not accurate to the minute? Please, explain this to me. Then you can explain why we should set aside verifiable material from a reliable source in favor of your personal opinion. MastCell Talk 05:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you ignorance is a joke, I'm not sure. It is april, though. Cell phone "time stamps" are rarely ever accurate to the minute as it related to when the call is made/ended. The duration of the call is accurate, probably even to the second. We don't care about the duration. Additionally, no one knows the EXACT time the incident occurred. There is supporting evidence that his girlfirend was talking to him approximately at the time of the incident, but not during or immediately prior. There is a colossal differenceWhatzinaname (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cellular telephone time stamps in the USA are almost always accurate to within less than a second as required by FCC regulations that implement CALEA. See page 49 of FCC 06-56, para 1.207(a)(14) at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf which states:

Timing information. Capability that permits a LEA to associate call-identifying information with the content of a call. A call-identifying message must be sent from the carrier's IAP to the LEA's Collection Function within eight seconds of receipt of that message by the IAP at least 95% of the time, and with the call event time-stamped to an accuracy of at least 200 milliseconds.
 * Please provide reliable sources to support any assertation that cellphone time stamps "are rarely ever accurate to the minute."DocTree (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC) (whose RL job for last 22 years is law enforcement communications)

Phone records count any part of a minute as a full minute. Thus a call might be recorded as having lasted from 7:05 to 7:07 if it started at 7:04 and 59 seconds and ended at 7:06 and 1 second--62 seconds rather than 120. In a case like this, trying to synchronize events, seconds count.70.233.162.238 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Count for what, exactly? This thread started with one false assertion (that phone records didn't corroborate a call), which was repeated after being proven false, then followed by a third false and frankly ludicrous assertion (that cell phone records aren't accurate to the minute). Now you're saying that unless the records are accurate to the second, they're meaningless. Put yourself in my position - would you take this discussion seriously anymore? MastCell Talk 20:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. I didn't say they were meaningless but when you are trying to establish the exact time that actions of numerous individuals occurred in relation to one another--and this is crucial in a case like this--you want to get the times down to the exact second if possible.70.233.140.13 (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012
The statement "Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department police at the non-emergency number at approximately 7:00 p.m." can be be further corrected to read "connected to the police dispatcher at 19:09:34" See page 46 of 911/police call log for George Zimmerman at http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf

68.3.103.157 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB
 * ❌ I can see no cause to change perfectly reasonable prose into unnecessary detail. Pol430  talk to me 22:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a timeline of events, in a case such as this where those events were in quick succession, is very informative to our reader. If and when they become available, I see no reason to exclude them. The change from an approximate to a definitve time is responsible and correct. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not limit ourselves to seconds, then. Surely we can be more specific. After all, our job is not to produce legible prose--it's to report every single fact, preferably before it happens. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that level of precision is not needed, unless some controversy arises regarding down to the second/minute information, which thus far nobody has alleged. The only thing I can see regarding this that could be relevant is the interval between when the phone calls of martin and zimmerman ended, but before the 911 calls started, in order to account for how much "unknown" time there was, and therefore how long the altercation might have gone on before the shot. However, I do not think we have access to that information, as Zimmerman hung up significantly before the interaction, and we do not have that level of accuracy regarding what happened during the girlfriends call, and how long the call continued after the phone was dropped. Therefore, currently the extra detail adds confusion, but no actual informationGaijin42 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC) You time-line is off by 9 minutes and that basically signifies you don't know what happened for 9 minutes. Once again: Dispatch records are an OS and if you feel you do not want to include the seconds it is fine but minutes are important. Main Stream Media is appreciating the time line and if you choose to ignore it than you will be left behind. Last chance warning as I will rub the importance in your face when the case comes down to time lines. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC) AndyB


 * The precise time should absolutely be included. Wikipedia should strive to be a source of accurate information. In this matter, seconds make a difference. I will add it if others will not.MiamiManny (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Information regarding Zimmerman's father being a retired magistrate judge has been removed
Can someone re-add this information: "...the son of Peruvian born Gladys Zimmerman, and Robert Zimmerman Sr., a retired magistrate judge.

<Reference> Neighbors describe watch leader at center of Florida investigation CNN. Accessed: 28 March 2012. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It is relevant and should absolutely be included.MiamiManny (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It serves to indicate a potential source of Zimmerman's interest in community law enforcement.
 * If his father were a former gun dealer or a former paramilitary mercenary contracted out to participate in death squads killing innocent civilians in El Salvador this would also be of similar interest, thus adding to the article. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Magistrate Judge as they are two separate things. Zimmerman's father was a retired Magistrate from Virginia as evidenced by a much earlier edit request.68.3.103.157 (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB


 * I restored it. Let's see if the wikibully attempts to remove it again. --MiamiManny (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a consensus a few days ago about removing Zimmerman's parents' occupations. Their occupations have no relevance to this article. If there was a separate article about Zimmerman himself, then it would be relevant. I have removed it once again (per the consensus tally). Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * False. As you can see here, there is no consensus to exclude it. Please stop trying to remove relevant and sourced information from the article. --MiamiManny (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're incorrect. Look at section 9 (as of today) on this talk page.  There was a fairly overwhelming consensus to keep Zimmerman's parents' occupations out of the article as irrelevant to the incident.  Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR continuation
1RR is due to expire in the next 24 hours and semi-protection remains. Any thoughts on continuing both or expiring both?  MBisanz  talk 00:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel strongly that we need semi-protection to continue indefinitely - that is, until the article stops attracting hordes of POV edits (like we can see a taste of here on Talk). It is hard enough to keep up with edits now, in terms of keeping it neutral and reflective of consensus decisions.  Not quite as sure about 1RR - want to think about that and see what others think. Tvoz / talk 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * continue both, indefinitely. Way too many drop in anon ips (see previous rewrite request). And the 1rr is forcing some level of consensus building, or at least saving up of reverts for things people feel strongly for. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also encourage a continuation of both 1RR and semiprotection. MastCell Talk 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ another week.  MBisanz  talk 03:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree on 1RR too. I think the semi-prot should be indefinite, but you can handle it as you like, Matt, if you don't mind sticking around and watching it. Tvoz / talk 05:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be placed for as long as people have free thought. Once all independent thinking has ended, then I don't see a reason for 1RR. I think we will be safe at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.53.11 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say the logic in this post is impeccable. Tvoz / talk 05:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * AGAINST - This article should be treated the same as other Wikipedia articles. Blocking and repeatedly restricting edits (e.g. 1RR) is a form of wikibullying. There is one editor here who has attempted to claim ownership of this article and who is resisting all efforts to improve it. The same editor repeatedly advocates for 1RR protection and bullies others using the 1RR restrictions. MiamiManny (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Blocking and repeatedly restricting edits (e.g. 1RR) is a form of wikibullying." — I don't see it that way as long as it doesn't favor any POV, which it doesn't seem to in this case. I really appreciate MBisanz's intervention here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Re bullying by an article editor — I don't see how 1rr would lead to more bullying than 3rr. If anything, it seems there would be more bullying with 3rr. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

FOR an extension. I don't see how anyone could be owning the article if they're abiding by a 1RR restriction...--Львівське (говорити) 05:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Against further extension Considering the origin of why we have 1rr, further extension should be avoided. Aside from one instance there is no edit warring and 1RR is far more damaging in terms of editor support then it does to protect. Given the evidence, I say it is not fair and that the calls for 'indefinate' 1rr and others are completely out of line with Wikipedia's policy and it is an action that has little justification. The admin which put full protection on and reverted edits to his own edit warring was an abuse in accordance to those rules, 1RR was not placed due to proper reason but as a limiter in such a case, the editors involved are not even here. I wish that the matter wasn't decided so quickly in an hour and a half when there was no need to rush. Semi-protection is a different matter, which should also be addressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even with the present 1RR, some editors have tried to edit war by requesting others to revert. At least 1RR slows them down.
 * I'm For the extension. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

For It's been effective in an article that has drawn a lot of people with diverse opinions. I think the 1 revert rule has kept things in check. Maybe for all of us. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh please. You recently reverted the article and repeated the damage done by Gaijin42. Your "sentence" made no sense and it ended with a comma. People can see the damage you did here: Diff. You obviously didn't even look to see the damage that Gaijin42 had committed before reflexively restoring his bad edit. I suspect Gaijin42 is gaming the system, whether through proxies or through sockpuppets, to perform his wikibullying. It is sad to see editors improperly attempt to assert ownership over an article and resist reasonable efforts to improve it. --MiamiManny (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your attitude and accusations only cement my feeling the 1RR ruling should stand. I can see from what you've written above you have an edit warring mentality and are aching for a fight.  When I put back Gaijin's edit, I did so in a spirit of helpfulness.  I made a mistake in how I did it (and it was easily fixed).  Why would you get all bothered about someone trying to help?  All in all, I guess it's better you do your fighting here rather than disrupt the article through the edit warring you have already been blocked for.  Which is a perfect example of why the 1 revert rule needs to stay for now.  Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

'Comment Bob K31416: Give me a case where they were edit warring and not trying to act under WP:STATUSQUO by an editor who violated 1RR and despite warnings continued to? Anyone can 'edit war', but policy is pretty clear that asking it be discussed and going by previous consensus and going in line with the policy. It is more obvious that those editors are drawing attention to the changes and cannot act or be blocked themselves, it is not WP:MEAT either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The case I had in mind when I made my comment was in the archived section Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_4. After rereading it, the de facto result looks closer to gaining some consensus (3 editors) instead of an edit war. This useful pause from re-reverting to get others' approval would not have happened without the 1rr and there could have been more back and forth reverting by the editors in the dispute if there was 3RR.
 * Regarding your comment about someone breaking the 1RR without penalty — Could you give the diffs on that and the corresponding discussion about it? Did anyone report it to MBisanz? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That one is not an edit war, but it was trying to act within previous concensus and without discussion back to WP:Statusquo. Which is actually proper under the policy. MiamiManny was the only one who broke 1RR and was blocked for 24 hours. It was in its own section because of MiamiManny's edits. Discussion is taking place and it seems wrong to try and push for indefinite 1RR or keep extending it when there is no valid argument on it. Rather then contribute or clean up issues I am largely avoiding editing because I don't want to accidentally cross 1RR or get stuck on someone's side for an 'edit war'. Furthermore I question that under the circumstances if 1RR is even proper here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How much would you like to bet discussion is happening BECAUSE of the 1RR limit placed on this article? I'm new to Wikipeida and have learned more about how things are/should be done and not done here because of the cooperation at this article.  I really believe things here have been calm and cooperative as a direct result of the the 1RR restriction. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong about this, but it is not even listed at WP:General Sanctions where it should be and the case for it absent. This seems to be highly irregular. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1RR facilitates good editing practices on controversial topics. There is no deadline; it's more important for us to get material right than to get material up right away, so slowing down the pace of editing is not really a problem. 1RR encourages editors to make one (hopefully well-thought-out) addition per day rather than numerous reverts, and encourages the use of a bold-revert-discuss cycle, which is often the most productive approach to controversial content. I don't quite understand the argument against extending 1RR; it seems to have worked reasonably well so far in terms of avoiding edit-wars, as evidenced by the fact that only one block has been handed out and the article hasn't required full protection since the 1RR was instituted. That's pretty unusual, and impressive, for an article this current and controversial. MastCell Talk 17:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that reasoning because of the circumstances which involved that admin and the issues which were involved. Your reasoning does not cover admin tools being used in a manner which according to some, were a violation of policy itself. While the 1RR came as a result, I doubt that as the process did not call for sanctions on an article that they expire properly and not be extended without justified reasons. Most of the current editors were not even involved during that time. Let it go back to semi-protection first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As best I recall, the use of admin tools was reviewed and was felt to be appropriate (if you have diffs/links showing otherwise, I'd be happy to be corrected). In any case, I don't see how a process-based complaint about the original application of sanctions is relevant to a discussion of whether they should currently be continued. MastCell Talk 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion took place and some felt strongly against his actions, it wasn't proper under the guidelines even with self-reporting of the issue due to his involvement in the article itself, it is supposed to be someone uninvolved and not currently edit warring- admin or not. Let's not discuss the matter here, its done and over with, the concern is whether or not 1RR is justified and just because X hasn't happened doesn't mean 1RR is the reason for it. The whole matter of 1RR is limited in scope and not just because something is 'controversial' it must have a protracted issue; and quite frankly it has not shown to be that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

big interview with zimmerman's new lawyer
http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/george-zimmermans-new-attorney-hal-uhrig.php?page=2

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/george-zimmerman-hires-criminal-defense-attorney-hal-uhrig-drops-joe-oliver-in-trayvon-martin-case

also an interview with Trayvon's father.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/article_8719.shtml Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting articles. Shouldn't we include his lawyer's in the section People involved in the case now. They have really been out in the media lately, plenty of RS. The state attorney's are listed there. BTW, did you see in the wptv interview in the 4th. paragraph where it said "prosecutors' gathered at the state capitol to demand justice for Martin. You think that was a typo and should have said "protestors." If it really was "prosecutors", that would be a story in itself.--Isaidnoway (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

✅ --Isaidnoway (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Smaller Photos
I'm concerned about the pictures of Martin and Zimmerman having been made considerably smaller. Plus they now seem weirdly cramped in the spots they are located in. I personally think they should go back to the size they were before and would love to see what others think. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. I think they are the proper size and in the proper location. This is an encyclopedia not a blog. I do appreciate what you are saying, but look at it from the "encyclopedia view". --12.196.33.229 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have put a lot of effort in making the pictures similar sizes appropriate for an encyclopedia. TY to above.


 * At this time, after repeated attacks, we are relatively sure that Rollo is a sockpuppet of a banned user that follows me around and has since I was a newbie. She has been reported.:.  Doc   talk  23:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> •  Talk  •  23:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Added George Zimmerman's attorneys to people involved in case
Pics, suggestions, improvements welcome.--Isaidnoway (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the section, or at least the wording "legal team", is a little premature. Zimmerman hasn't been charged with anything. Why are we creating a whole section to lawyers who aren't defending him yet? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Zimmerman hired them to represent him in this incident and they have recently been all over the news defending him. Also for the same reason the state attorney's are listed and they haven't charged him yet.--Isaidnoway (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * They are certainly defending him, just not from charges. They are representing him in the media, advising him, and doing coordination and communication with law enforcement. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As usual, you are correct. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's another source with info on Sonner.
 * Perhaps there should be a section on attorneys for the Martin family too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the source. I was thinking the same thing about the family's attorneys and the parents as well. The parents are noticeably absent from this article, I see three brief mentions of them (1) pertaining to the missing persons report (2) mentioned in media coverage (3) listed as Trayvon's parents in his section. I think they are very relevant to this shooting as they were the ones who brought this into the national spotlight and have been quite vocal since then. I guess I was thinking to the future when this story is long gone from the national media, when reader's reference this article, shouldn't they know why/how this shooting became such a national event, it's not even mentioned in the lead, it just merely says the circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, shouldn't the reader know why. I wouldn't advocate to include every single statement they have made in the media, but a section explaining their diligence in seeking justice for their son, I think is warranted. Benjamin Crump could be listed with the other attorney's, he is involved in this case.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman passes Voice-stress test which is similiar to lie detector test.
New source revealing more information that Zimmerman passed a voice-stress test. "Late Tuesday, veteran Orlando-area criminal defense attorney Hal Uhrig, who often works on cases with Sonner, announced that he was joining the defense team. He is confident of their client's self-defense claim, Uhrig told WOFL, in part because Zimmerman has already passed a voice-stress test, something similar to a lie-detector test, administered by Sanford police." Which is actually very limited in detail, but data mining shows that Zimmerman had this test done and he passed which should further be noted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is pretty significant news, I'd say. Would be wise to include. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ya should be included. Question is where : As this is a police run test, something tells me up by the 911 calls and surveilence video, but on the other hand those both happened the night of the incident, so this may be more relevant in the investigations area? Or the defense of zimmerman area? I found the snippet very interesting in the article that Zimmerman has not met his lawyers yet due to danger. Highly  unusual, and perhaps useful in the threats section. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It is relevant to his credibility and it absolutely should be included.MiamiManny (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Whether or not it is usable in the court of law, it supports Zimmerman's perception of events in a quantifiable way. Not proof, but definitely support. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is an additional source on the test, which also includes a new pic of Trayvon I haven't seen before. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57409329-504083/veteran-attorney-hal-uhrig-joins-george-zimmermans-defense-team-reports-say/ Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is that significant. It's not going to be admissable in court, unless both sides agree to it, and there is no way the prosecution would agree to it. It only shows that Zimmerman believed he acted in self-defense and was possibly telling the truth about his version of the events. Even with the police administering the test, Serino still wanted to pursue charges against him. The circumstantial evidence, physical evidence, witnessess and Zimmerman's statements will be the key factors in this case. For every expert for something like this or the voice analysis of the screaming for help, there is plenty of experts against it.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "It only shows that Zimmerman believed he acted in self-defense and was possibly telling the truth about his version of the events." I don't think it even shows that. Voice-stress tests- and lie detector tests for that matter- are notoriously unreliable.  Emeraldflames (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would what's admissible in court be important to this article? Like I said a few days ago to someone else (don't remember who right now), this isn't a court of law.  We're supposed to include facts relevant to the incident and investigation in this article, aren't we? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If this were a test arranged by the defense, using some private researcher, I would agree with you. As a test performed by the police, I think there is very little chance it would not be considered admissible, unless the defense objected (which clearly they wouldn't in this case). Showing that zimmerman believed it was self defense is 90% of the case. If he did not believe it, it is clearly not self defense. If he does believe it, the prosecution must prove that such belief was unreasonable, which is a really high bar to reach, especially as there are conflicting witness accounts. Those conflicting witnesses do not prove anything one way or another, but the certainly do raise "reasonable doubt". The voice analysis for identification, your logic is much more sound, as that particular test will certainly wont be admissible (although an expert witness on either side certainly could happen) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon further research, polygraphs are not admissible in court in florida in general, regardless of circumstance. (Not an RS, but does cite the relevant case law )http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2011/06/are_lie_detector_test_results.html. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is significant regardless of whether or not they will later use it in court documents, it is a law enforcement tool that is recognized in multiple countries and by the CIA and FBI and the state judicial systems. You might as well remove Ms. Cutcher's testimony as she is unreliable for court, but then again we are not debating whether or not this is court permissible, we are debating that the police did this test on Zimmerman and he passed which lends credibility to his statements. It is the same as Zimmerman passing a lie-detector test (because it is the same type of test under a different name and system) which is also widely recognized. Florida courts can come up with what they want to be permissible, but other states recognize it and even without it being in court, gives weight to Zimmerman's statements independent of any pending court matters for reliability in said statements. It is relevant because it influences the interaction between the police and Zimmerman. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) Lie detectors are generally inadmissable in court, whether performed by the police or third parties; (b) lie detector (or stress tests) are commonly used by police as part of their investigation, for example to decide on what leads they should focus; (c) WP isn't a court of law and whether or not something is admissable in court has little (not "no", but "little") value in determining whether it is useful here; and (d) I think the information should be included. It is relevant and widely reported.LedRush (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The prosecution reviews the investigative work and then they decide what evidence they will present. Yes, it is often used to determine if a person is telling the truth or not, but we have Serino still wanting to pursue charges against him anyway, that tells me there must be other evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's statements or just flat out didn't believe him. This will be included in the discovery that is turned over to the defense, but if they want to include it, the prosecution must agree. Lie-detector tests are generally not admissable unless both sides agree to admitting it. The only way the prosecution would use it is if they can impeach Zimmerman's statements with other evidence they have. I think this is more of a play by Zimmerman's defense team trying to improve his image in the media.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * They get to decide what evidence they will present, but not presenting exonerating evidence is a good way to end up with a mistrial, and actions taken against the prosecution. We do not know the timing of the test, if it happened that night, or after, which would have a big impact on how that influenced Serino. In any case the test will be inadmissible under florida's Frye standard regardless of who would agree. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares? This is WP, not a court of law, and the information is obviously relevant as part of the police investigation and it is widely reported in RSs, so we should put it in.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The prosecution does not have to present exonerating evidence. They turn over the discovery of the investigation to the defense and they can use it if they want too. Now, if they didn't include the exonerating evidence in the discovery, then yes, a mistrial would be called for. If this voice stress test exonerated Zimmerman, then the investigation would already be over. The DOJ and FBI would have been made aware of this as well and all the evidence has to be considered when filing charges. It really doesn't matter if Zimmerman believes he acted in self-defense, of course that will be his defense. What matters is if the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman's belief was unreasonable with the other evidence they have collected. Anyway, we are getting way off topic here, is it relevant to this article. I don't think it is, but if the consensus is that the media is reporting on it and that is the way it is presented then I am OK with that, but it shouldn't be included as to represent any credibility to Zimmerman's statements. I still believe that this is just his defense team trying to combat his negative image in the media and they know it doesn't carry any weight either.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While it's obvious you have some knowledge of the law (is your knowledge of the law applicable to Florida where this will be tried?), the question is whether or not this new material is relevant to the article and if it belongs in the article. I think it is and does AND should be presented to support Zimmerman's statements (in a non-biased manner).  Without a clear rationale as to why it's relevant, it shouldn't be included.  I don't think an article's talk page is supposed to be a forum for hashing out what we know about the law and what we don't, because the article isn't about that, it's about the incident.  Someone put a link related to talk pages not being a forum a day or so ago.  We could probably try harder to abide by that.  Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I stated above, I don't think it is relevant, but if the consensus is that the media is reporting on it, then I'm OK with that, as long as that is the way it is presented. I don't think we should include it in a way that suggests it lends credibility to Zimmerman's statements though. And yes I did veer off topic and yes I do work for a law firm.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to those of us with no more then average knowledge of the law, this news does in fact lend credibility to Zimmerman's claim. As is what the news articles suggest. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It obviously lends credibility to Zimmerman's statements. It is evidence that he believed he was in danger.  That's the heart of the credibility issue.  While pehaps proving that point is not enough to satisfy the requirements of an affirmative defense, it goes a long way to showing both his state of mind and making it harder to show that his actions were unreasonable under the circumstances.  And, as we've said, this isn't a court of law.  Evidence of his state of mind is of paramount importance in this article.LedRush (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think, more importantly here, is that it lends credibility to the police department/DA decisions following the shooting. It should definitely be included as it contradicts a common media narrative the police just patted zimmerman on the head and told him "ya dun real gud" and let him go home. Also, important to include, that he offered to take the test, which he had no legal obligation to do. 68.115.51.198 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You're missing my point, and I wasn't trying to be a wiseass about where I work, sorry if it sounded that way. My point is if Zimmerman actually believed he was acting in self-defense, then there is no reason he shouldn't have passed the voice stress test. Of course he thought he was acting reasonable, what else is he going to say. The test only indicates that Zimmerman thought he was acting reasonable. It doesn't make his statements any more credible if there is other evidence that contradicts his statements. I just think it should be included that the media is the one saying it lends credibility and we maintain a NPOV when presenting it in the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. If Zimmerman believed he was in danger, that greatly helps his case and, more importantly, is relevant to this article.  Furthermore, if Zimmerman believes in his account of events (that he was being beaten, that Martin said that Zimmerman would die or that Martin went for the gun), it makes it exceedingly difficult to prove his actions weren't reasonable.  I understand what you're saying, to a degree.  This information, even if allowed in court, isn't dispositive of the legal issues.  But surely it helps incredibly.  Furthermore, as has been pointed out, we are talking about the article.  If Zimmerman believes in his public account of the events (meaning, it's not spin or a lie, which would be normal in a case like this), it adds tremendous credibility to his claims.  However, there is no need to say that anyone says it adds credibility to his claims.  We just put in the information in a NPOV way and let readers do with it what they will.LedRush (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were being a wiseass, Isaidnoway, but I do think your experience in the law doesn't lend credibility to your editing this article. There's no legal analysis to put in the article, so why would it matter what you know about the law in your state and what you don't?  I know nothing of the law in Florida, and I have no professional or layman's experience in law, but I can still edit the article (as others can).  So, back to whether or not the voice stress test is relevant and adds credibility to Zimmerman's statements: as others have pointed out, it does.  I'm not going to rehash what they already said in regard to this, because they presented what I already think about it in terms of the article.  And, as LedRush said just a few minutes ago, when it's included, it only needs to be done in a non-biased manner.  There's no experience in an legal profession necessary for doing so. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be almost an assumption that if Zimmerman passed the voice-stress test that he *believed* what he was saying. I think some folks are giving this voice-stress test way too much credit. I think it's credibility is on par with flipping a coin and Ouija boards. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Isaidnoway's point is that the "reasonable belief" part is an objective standard, not a subjective one. Would a reasonable person in the same shoes think the same thing, not did he think the same thing. Of course how this relates to the article, let alone the original point in this thread is beyond me. Shadowjams (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Reasonable depends on the subject(defendant) in question, so it's also going to have a subjective standard element to it. An 80 year old woman might have more reasonable belief her life is in danger when a 300 pound 30 year old male pushes her down to the ground than would, say, another 300 pound 30 year old maleWhatzinaname (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to not understand what's been said. "Reasonable person" is a standard in common law jurisdictions. You don't seem to understand what that means. Your example is also horrible contrived and confuses the subjective part. What you think is "subjective" is actually quite objective. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

nice article discussing media coverage, and media mistakes which may be useful for the relevant sections
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-media-20120401,0,1199315.story Gaijin42 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * LA Times moves stories to an archive after a while; biblio cite for above link: James Rainey, "Media gives ample coverage, little clarity to Trayvon Martin case", Los Angeles Times, 31 Mar 2012. might be useful later. --Naaman Brown (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Biased info from Young Turks being forced into article
Since we still have the 1RR rule...

Editor Wickorama added the following:

However, in a separate recounting to the press of what George Zimmerman allegedly told him, his father, while saying that Trayvon saw the gun, does not mention a struggle for the gun. To the contrary, he says that after Trayvon saw the gun he made a death threat and continued beating his son, and at some point, his son "pulled his pistol and did what he did". REF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFsEoZQY_NE

A simple review of the material shows that this is not what the Young Turks even directly say in the video, and also the statement makes this appear to contradict information we have already included in the article, when it simply involves something not being stated, and ALSO when we are talking about hearsay information. This is a very tenuous line of material, and if it cannot follow its own source, and is merely synthesized material that cannot possibly be substantiated, it needs to go. I have used rollback on it once, but Wickorama very quickly re-added the material.

-- Avanu (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I would add that from what I can tell, The Young Turks clearly shows an anti-Zimmerman bias, and while I have seen and often respected the material that they produce, I cannot see how we can accept this as a sole source for any statement. One more thing, the source in question here was created March 29, 2012, which makes it over a week old, and we all know how quickly the various interpretations of the "facts" seem to change in this case. -- Avanu (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There seemed to be a WP:SYNTH problem there. If a RS compares them and draws conclusions, then it might be OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why did your simple review of the material deal with what the "Young Turks" are saying? The video was referenced for the portion with video/audio of the father of George Zimmerman being interviewed. The Wikipedia text didn't reference a single statement by the "Young Turks". And the statement of his father does contradict the statement of his brother with respect to the gun. The father says Martin saw the gun and continued to beat Zimmerman who later drew the gun. The brother says Martin "attempted to disarm him". The father's retelling of what Zimmerman allegedly told him is no more hearsay than the brother's retelling of what Zimmerman allegedly told him. In summary, I quote the father - who is shown and speaks in the video - and you come back with "But that's not what the "Young Turks" said". ????
 * Both of the relatives are working the "self defense" angle. They both make a "you're gonna die" type comment from Martin, and claim it came after he saw the gun. Only one - the brother - talks about a struggle for the gun. The father does not talk about Martin trying to get the gun or any struggle with the gun and also says something to support that it never occured - he says that Martin saw the gun but continued to beat his son. And at some point his son "drew it and did what he did". This is not a minor contradiction. Whether or not there was a struggle for the gun is huge in Zimmerman justifying shooting Martin. If there was a struggle for the gun then self-defense as a defense is assured. And it is not a detail that is likely to be left out by George Zimmerman when talking to his father or his brother or a detail they would forget. The discrepancy between the two relatives raises the issue of are these "relative recollections" made up details, or real. One thing about claiming a struggle for the gun occurred is that the police may expect to see Martin's fingerprints on the gun and if they don't find them it looks like a lie. Reflecting on that may have changed the story.


 * Here is the original youtube video of the father interview without any "Young Turks" to confuse you
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSEa5yPDWY8 Wickorama (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That being said, I would think it better to allow the MSM to make the connection (if there is one to be made) and then us report on it once RS are available, assuming there is consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the advantage of reporting only what the brother said with respect to a "struggle for the gun" which is contradicted by the father who doesn't mention a struggle for the gun an in fact says that at some point his son "drew the gun"? Wickorama (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness, they were struggling, and Trayvon uttered a death threat ('you have a gun, you're gonna die' or something like that). I think debating whether there was a struggle for a gun is splitting hairs - there was a struggle, trayvon saw the gun and wanted to kill zimmerman...whether he fought for the gun or eluded to it in his threat isn't a huge differentiating factor IMO --Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a huge factor and not even close to splitting hairs. If someone is grabbing for your gun, you have reason to believe they are gonna use it to kill you and can claim self-defense. If someone is punching you - in between two rows of townhouses at 7:15PM with people walking their dogs nearby and with the police on the way - you don't have reason to believe they are going to kill you. All you can claim is that you were gonna get a bad beating (which could still fall under Stand Your Ground but would have a chance of being disputed). And the suggestion that Martin saw a holstered handgun and ignored it is quite implausible. They want a viewing of the gun to be in the story since they think it adds credibility to their claim of a death threat (and if saying "I'm gonna kill you" or something similar in a fist fight by a teenage boy is a death threat, then there would be a lot of teenage boys in jail for attempted murder). But if there are no fingerprints on the gun of Martin a claim of a struggle for the gun is going to be tough to make. Wickorama (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Then take them both out. But don't add in material that implies that Zimmerman was lying unless it is something that is clearly a massive difference in the stories. "Robert said Trayvon, "continued to beat George, and at some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did." That quote doesn't say that there wasn't a struggle for the gun, and in fact it doesn't even say he shot Martin. The elder Zimmerman doesn't state things in specific terms, he is euphemizing, possibly because he doesn't want to emotionally deal with the idea that his son shot someone. But in any event, he doesn't contradict what the brother said, the idea that this is a contradiction comes from The Young Turks, who are simply synthesizing a conflict where none exists. Your statement is not found in the original video and is simply an opinion of The Young Turks, but it isn't in line with NPOV or BLP. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well said Avanu. This is a fast-changing story, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper or tabloid, it is an encyclopedia of confirmed information.--DeknMike (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The father's interview doesn't imply that George Zimmerman was lying. It implies that HIS BROTHER was lying. As I pointed out befoer, the statements of George Zimmerman's brother have made it into a section on George Zimmerman's story which should only be what George Zimmerman has said. Wickorama (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is there even material associated with TYT in this article. They hardly match the requirements for being considered an unbiased reliable source. 67.233.245.93 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. Why is the Young Turks even being considered. They are clearly NOT a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. If they are going to be allowed, there is an entire boatload of other "sources" that could be used.--12.196.33.229 (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Enough with the "Young Turks" references. Their video was the first that comes up with a youtube search of "George Zimmerman father". Their video was linked for the portion where George Zimmerman's father was being interviewed. As I pointed out above the original video of the interview with Zimmerman's father is also on youtube and can be the reference. Wickorama (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no RS anywhere that gives credence to Trayvon saying he was going to kill Z. The article this is drawn from says Trayvon said ""I'm gonna kill you" or something similar ! Talk about Weasel words. This should not even be included! Namaste! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> •  Talk  •  23:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been mainstream coverage that's reported similar wording to that. I'm not sure how you say with a straight face that it hasn't been reported. You, obviously, seem to disagree that that is accurate... how you would know better is surprising, but it's been widely reported. I have no idea about this website that's the subject of this thread, but you can't possibly be serious when you say that this is not reliably sourced (fix your link by the way). Shadowjams (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It should go into the statement section because we cannot determine whether or not that was ever said or if it was even those words. Other sources have reported it, but it still is more of a 'he said' kind of thing. Something along the lines of 'It's coming right for us' as a 'legal' protection against shooting endangered or forbidden animals. As it cannot be confirmed, it could be 'justification' and without verification I would not put it in the 'event' section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

reuters reporting additional details on NBC editing of 911 call
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/06/us-usa-crime-martin-nbc-idUSBRE83502B20120406


 * Also:
 * Brian Stelter, "NBC Fires Producer of Misleading Zimmerman Tape", New York Times, 6 Apr 2012.
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-tape_n_1409405.html
 * http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/
 * --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange emphasis on shooter's mixed ethnic descent
While obviously verifiable as a fact in and of itself, I don't see any justification for the very prominent emphasis on the shooter's not-entirely-white ethnic background. The relative prominence assigned to this particular factoid needs to be explained in the article. Why would the shooter's ethnic background matter? And don't tell me "it's obvious". It's not. --87.79.228.226 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it does not matter then tell me why the ethnicity of Trayvon Martin matters? He is specifically described as an African American teenager. His race matters. After all the accusations of racism, so does Zimmerman's. And I wouldn't describe a half-white Hispanic as not-entirely-white, btw. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're either supremely naive or willfully ignorant if you think race doesn't factor into this. The entire impetus behind the fact this is national news is driven by race-based politics. Whether right or wrong, it's incredibly race based. The fact that the story started out as 'white shoots black' in the media is notable in an of itself. That the real story is more complicated, only makes it more relevant. I'm not sure what universe you're living in where that fact is apparently irrelevant. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Martin's race has been highlighted in most if not all news reports. The accusations of an alleged racist background to the shooting are quite at the front of the entire news reporting. By contrast, Zimmerman's racial background is entirely irrelevant for everyone but those who would like to paint this (no pun intended) as not being a racial thing at all. So you believe that Zimmerman's race matters. Does the overall news coverage back you up on that? Nope, not at all. It's just your personal opinion against the sum total of news coverage on this event. Just saying. The current version is highly biased in that it implies a high relevance of Zimmerman's race as opposed to say his calling Martin "coon" (which is not mentioned in the lead). Anyway, I don't like debating racists and racist apologists. Zimmerman's race is given far too prominent a status, and that's it. --87.79.228.226 (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't say "coon". I think that's been disproven here. I'm also not sure how "Zimmerman's racial background is entirely irrelevant for everyone but those who would like to paint this ... as not being a racial thing". His race (ethnicity, actually, but no one nowadays seems to comprehend the difference between the words "Hispanic" and "mestizo") has been the subject of great media coverage and the explicit cause behind much of the (highly publicised) social activism surrounding this case, thus it is included. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been dis-proven, but it is a theory because enhancement can go one way or the other and it was not very clear. Though it is from experts and it is the best available right now. 87.79.228.226 please don't refer to other editors as racists and racist apologists; we try to keep things neutral and fair. A great deal of smearing and attacking has taken place by the media, much of it disproven or allegations found too weak to stand. I'd like to use the case from the German papers which refer to Zimmerman as Jewish rather then Catholic. The media will say anything it seems, and plenty of retractions or errors have not been commented on despite a good deal of misinformation being generated. They even reported Zimmerman fired two shots, not one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2012
Please consider adding a list of persons responding publically with racist beliefs (racists), racial bias, or actions indicative of race hatred. As a nation, we need to be honest about racists, and call them out appropriately. Some examples may be:

Racist Beliefs (Racists): Al Sharpton Jesse Jackson Young Turks Martin King III

Racial Bias: Eric Holder Barack Obama NBC

Race Hatred: Six juveniles (ages 11 to 17) beat and kicked 78-year-old Dallas Watts in East Toledo, Ohio. Spike Lee New Black Panther Party

C0mm3nt3r123 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Quite simplely, WP:BLP to call people/anyone racist and categorize them in a way which vilifies them for their statements or beliefs. For the attack on Dallas Watts it must be given confirmation as a hate crime before we can label it as such. It has to be legally recognized as such, no media speculation or opinion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, please note that information added to articles must be verifiable using only reliable sources that have been  published. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

per above. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman's attorneys: changed to "contacting and trying to discuss the case" per sources)
Just a comment about this recent edit. What it was changed to may not be that accurate, at least without being clear that's what Zimmerman's attorneys say happened. In the evidence recently released with the FBI interviews, there's testimony that Zimmerman called Corey's office because he either believed or was told that Corey wanted to talk to him, if I recall correctly. At that point, the office contacted his lawyers (as a courtesy call) and they tried to set up a three-way call. But after Zimmerman found out that his attorney was on the other line, he apparently hung up, and they tried calling him back and got no answer. So it may not be quite true that he had tried discussing the case with Corey. Psalm84 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sonner and Uhrig were not his attorneys according to what he told prosecutors. Zimmerman told prosecutors that they were "legal advisors" and were not representing him in reference to the incident that occured on 2-26-12. Zimmerman said he did not have a contract signed with them and said they were not representing him on this case.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard that but I don't know if it's clear what it all means legally. I know I read somewhere recently but don't remember where that there was some sort of agreement like the services of at least one of the attorneys would be pro bono unless, if I recall correctly, he was charged in the case. Well, I went and found a source on that. That was the agreement with Sonner. It also says this: "Uhrig went on to clarify that Zimmerman had told prosecutors that he did not have any lawyers, only legal advisors. “I’m not sure what the distinction is, but in his mind there’s a distinction,” Uhrig said." Psalm84 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Psalm84, For the info in your first message, could you give a link to a source for that? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's in the documents on this page. Page 38. Zimmerman called, talked to the receptionist and "advised her that he was told Angela Corey was looking for him and wanted to schedule a meeting with him." Later Sonner asked for a 3-way call with Zimmerman, and De la Rionda set it up. Psalm84 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * After looking at O'Steen's account on p. 38, it looks like Zimmerman didn't contact Corey, but rather Corey's office. For now, I just deleted "contacting" from the article.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012
At the time of his murder, Trayvon Martin's height was not 5'11" but 6'3".

178.197.232.45 (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. This article does not seem to list Martin's height. Please specify what you want changed.  Also provide a reliable source for the info.  RudolfRed (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Although some public figures (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) have inadvisedly used the term "murder," to do so is highly prejudicial and must be avoided. Apostle12 (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The autopsy gave Martin's heighth as 5' 11" and his weight as 158 lbs. The information supplied to the media, presumably by the Martin family or their lawyer or their public relations firm, gave Martin's height as 6' 3" and 140 lbs. I would presume that the Seminole county medical examiner gave accurate measurements. The various measurements and sources were at one time in the article, along with the different weights given for Zimmerman. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from using the term "murder" as well when describing Martin's death. That is what the prosecution alleges happened. Right now, all we know is that Martin died as a result of a shooting, a court/jury will determine whether it was justifiable or not. His height and weight came from the autopsy report at the time of his death.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  06:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman's account & Autopsy reports
The following text was (good faith) included by Apostle12 into the section "George Zimmerman's account of events".


 * Physicians who reviewed the official autopsy report for the Orlando Sentinel, stated in their opinion that Martin lived anywhere from 20 seconds to several minutes after he was shot, and that Martin likely remained conscious "for a time anyway."

I have removed it. I do not object to the content overall, but this is the wrong place for it. (The content is also already included in the "Autopsy report" section. This section is for George Zimmermans account. The other reports/evidence in this section are directly supporting or refuting Zimmerman's account, or his honesty/reliability. This item has no relevance to what he said, what his injuries were, or if he is being honest or not.

Beyond that, I am not sure why this information is "an important collaborative detail", or even realy important to the article at all - its not unusual for someone who is shot to live seconds to minutes, thats how blood loss works. However, as I said before, I don't object to the information overall (and it remains in the Autopsy section), just this location. Other opinions? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for acknowledging my good faith, as I do yours. My edit summary should, of course, have said "an important corroborative detail."  (Do need to pay more attention...realized my error right away, but couldn't edit the edit summary.)


 * Just as there was once a great deal of skepticism about Zimmerman being significantly injured, quite a bit of skepticism has arisen regarding Zimmerman's report of Martin speaking coherently after he was shot and Zimmerman's felt need to straddle him and restrain him. This content supports the possibility that Zimmerman is telling the truth about what Martin said ("You got me.").  It also supports his contention that, even though the bullet had struck Martin's heart, he couldn't at first be sure whether or not he had missed. Thus I see the content as directly relevant, just as relevant as the other reports/evidence.


 * Many people assume that Zimmerman's direct shot to the chest area, which badly damaged Martin's heart, would be instantly fatal, and that Zimmerman's report is far-fetched. We still don't know whether or not Zimmerman is telling the truth, however this content supports the possibility that he is.


 * I agreed with your first objection as to where I positioned this content, since I initially included it within the paragraph where Zimmerman's account is being presented. This latter positioning seems more appropriate, and I would like to reinstate it.  In toto, the paragraph would read:


 * Police reports state Zimmerman "appeared to have a broken and a bloody nose and swelling of his face." Zimmerman was offered three chances to be taken to the hospital, but Zimmerman declined each time, according to police reports released by the prosecution.[181] ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.[183]Physicians who reviewed the official autopsy report for the Orlando Sentinel, stated in their opinion that Martin lived anywhere from 20 seconds to several minutes after he was shot, and that Martin likely remained conscious "for a time anyway." [132]


 * Perhaps if you object to the redundancy of including it both here and in the "Autopsy report" section, it could be eliminated from "Autopsy report" section in favor of including it here.  It is, after all, not part of the autopsy report (though it is relevant to it); I do see it as directly related to whether or not Zimmerman's account is credible, and therefore quite important. Comments? Apostle12 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ironically, I misread Collaborative as Corroborative anyway, so I understood what you meant even though you didnt write it :). As written however, I think it is not corroborative anyway. We dont have the "you got me", in the article, so there is nothing to corroborate. We do have the "unsure if hit and then got on top" thing, but it is very subtle/glossed over and I think should be expanded.
 * I think a quote from Zimmerman is appropriate for the "on top" part, and the extra detail from the CNN article to flesh this out (plagarized CNN text below).


 * During the videotaped voice stress test, he seemed to suggest that he wasn't sure he had hit Martin when he fired his gun, saying that he "thought that he heard the shot and he was giving up" and that he pushed Martin off of him.


 * "Either way, I ended up on top of him, straddling him," he said, but he claimed he "felt like (Martin) was hitting me with something in his hands" so he grabbed the youth's hands to restrain him. Martin was saying something like "ah, ah," and cursing, Zimmerman said, and he told him, "Stop. Don't move."


 * If those items were added/expanded, then I could see adding a one liner ref to the autopsy report to support it. I disagree with your proposed text/positioning though. I think the relevance is too difficult to understand at that location. It should be right there with the statements it is corroborating, not later. The other reports (medical reports etc) are more extensive, and complicated, so I think they are a slightly different case in terms of location. Also, I do think the level of detail you previously included should only be in the autopsy section (the quotes etc). Something just like "The coroner said Martin may have been alive and possibly concious for a few minutes after the shooting" immediately after the "got on top because Zimmerman thought he was alive and struggling" or something..

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We are in substantial agreement. Perhaps you can take a shot at editing this section to include the relevant CNN content.  You are probably right about the location of the content I want to include, and I could support less detail given its continuing inclusion in the "Autopsy report" session.  Certainly the location you suggest would make things clearer to our readers.  We can't say the coroner said it, however, since it was an independent report. Apostle12 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Independent analysis of the coroner's report regarding this issue of whether Martin was still alive for a few seconds after being shot by Zimmerman doesn't help Zimmerman's credibility about his claim of self-defense, which is the crux of this case.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course. The independent analysis only goes to the reliability of Zimmerman's statement--that Martin spoke to him, that he was unsure whether or not he had hit Martin, that he pushed Martin off, then felt the need to straddle Martin and hold his arms because Martin was still moving and he wasn't sure.  Doubt has been raised about Zimmerman's statement on the assumption that Martin could not have remained conscious for any significant amount of time with a shot to his chest at close range, especially a shot that hit his heart.  The independent analysis does not confirm the truth of Zimmerman's statement; it does lend credence to the possibility that his statement might be true. Apostle12 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are trying to say/help with. What confuses me is that I have not seen this be a controversial issue. Maybe in some forums or something, but have any more reliable/notable people been talking about zimmermans actions immediately after the shooting (and more specifically the reliability/honesty of his statements about being on top)? It seems like you are pre-emtively trying to cut off an objection that nobody is making? That said, the content is sourced, so I don't object to it being included, I just don't see the point of it very much. Its pretty obvious that people can live for some time after being shot. That Martin lived for seconds/minutes doesn't seem controvercial at all. Beyond that, Im not sure that it helps/is relevant to Zimmerman anyway. sure Martin might have been concious/breathing, but was he struggling or moving or doing anything that would require restraint? The quoted sources have no knowledge of Martin's actual actions at that point, and didn't make any hypotheticals either, so I don't see how that coroborates Zimmerman's opinion that he needed to restrain him. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been some controversy about the way Martin was found when the Sanford police arrived at the scene, they said Martin had his arms and hands tucked up underneath him, which contradicts Zimmerman's statement of straddling him and placing his arms and hands out to restrain him. The police didn't find him that way, so these expert's analysis of Martin still being alive/conscious, gives Zimmerman some wiggle room on his contradictory statement.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the sort of thing I'm referring to. Will try to find the time to add something appropriate. Apostle12 (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A physician's definition of "death" is a bit different than the lay understanding of the term. Death is a process, not an instantaneous event. By alive they probably mean that he still had some form of electrical activity in his heart, and some electrical activity in the brain. I doubt they mean he was able to function long enough to move about voluntarily after the blood began being pumped from his heart into his lung space, collapsing his lungs, and not circulating oxygen to his brain and the rest of his body. Alive, not as in brain and motor functional, but as in agonal, most likely. ArishiaNishi (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The independent analysts opined that Martin remained alive and conscious (as in brain and motor functional) for a time; this could explain what he purportedly said to Zimmerman ("You got me.") and supports Zimmerman's claim that Martin sat up. As you point out, the severity of his injury probably meant that Martin continued to be alive, though progressively less able, for a subsequent period (you use the term "agonal," meaning "in agony" with involuntary movement).  After Zimmerman stopped straddling Martin, it is possible Martin drew his hands in toward his injured chest (voluntary, involuntary?), which could account for his posture at time of death.Apostle12 (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC
 * The two doctor's said he likely remained conscious, which means he was capable of thought and/or perception of what happened. They gave no opinion of whether he was still capable of physical/motor functions. The independent analysis only tells us that Martin was possibly still conscious and capable of mental activity, not physical movement. The doctor's will have to specifically say that Martin was still capable of voluntary/involuntary motor functionality in order for this information to help Zimmerman.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  13:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Apostle12 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

agonal-- Relating to that which occurs just before death. ArishiaNishi (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of word "fight" in the lead is mis-leading
Zimmerman would not use the term "fight", he would use the word assault. Since we don't know for certain which one it was, it makes sense to describe it as an encounter. Just because a source happens to use a misleading, inappropriate term such as "fight" is not grounds for Wikipedia to do the same. Many other sources- including the police - use the term encounter. The Wikipedia article itself uses the word encounter. As far as I know, we are on a 1R thing, so you shouldn't have undone my edit twice (unless I'm mistaken.) Emeraldflames (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with your thinking, Emeraldflames. A "physical encounter" applies whether Martin attacked Zimmerman (Zimmerman's version) or Zimmerman attacked Martin (the prosecution's version).  "Fight" doesn't really apply in either case, no matter what the source says.  We can choose a better word given the context of all that has been written about the physical encounter between Zimmerman and Martin.


 * Don't believe the 1R thing still applies however. Apostle12 (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the 1R, it expired back in June. You are also mistaken about the word fight as well. It is not misleading or inappropriate to describe what took place as a fight. Reliable sources described it as a fight, the police described it as a fight, Zimmerman's attorney described it as a fight, the prosecution described it as a fight. If multiple reliable sources and all the parties involved use the descriptive term fight, why should WP change their terminology? The sources referenced for this paragraph use the word fight and there has been no consensus to change it, therefore I'm changing it back to fight per WP:STATUSQUO. We shouldn't be injecting our own editorial opinions in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If your rationale to justify a copy edit in a WP article is how many sources do I have to find, then you are just shopping for RS to merely justify your own editorial slant in this article, how sad. The present sources referenced in that paragraph have been there for quite some time and are reliable sources and accurate and appropriate in their description.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First, reliable sources have described a LOT of things about this event that have been absolutely misleading and inaccurate. The fact that you've found some sources that call it a fight is irrelevant.  The police used the word encounter and there are many, many sources that use the word encounter.  So, to say that we should use fight because the "sources" used the term fight is silly.


 * Second, fight is clearly POV. I'm sure you can find a singular definition of it that would be applicable, but, by and large, nobody would use the term "fight" to describe someone getting the crap beaten out of them. When a man beats their wife, would you say they had a "fight"?  Of course not.  When a mugger beats someone up, would you say they had a "fight"?  Of course not.  It is hard to assume good faith when you seem to have a desire to use a word that has pretty obvious POV connotations.


 * George Zimmerman did not describe a fight. He described a one-sided assault on him from which he tried to escape.  (In fact, the evidence appears to be consistent with this, since there is only evidence of one person receiving any blows).  If I had changed the word to "assault", then I could see the objection. Because that would be POV (in the other direction).  Physical encounter is not POV.  It could be an assault- or it could be a fight. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. I agree


 * Some sources reflexively use the word "fight," however mostly this term is used by those who wish to promote the idea that this was a "fight" that turned ugly, that Martin was getting the better of Zimmerman during the "fight," and that Zimmerman unfairly used his weapon to murder Martin. That's a very POV way of interpreting the facts of this incident.


 * No one can object that "physical encounter" has the same POV problem, because it does not. A better term all around. Apostle12 (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There were two participants involved in this incident. George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin is dead, shot and killed by George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman himself has described the event as a "fight". Zimmerman's father has described it as a "fight". Zimmerman's brother has described it as a "fight". The Sanford Police described it as a "fight". The F.B.I. has described it as a "fight". Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara has described it as a "fight". The prosecution has described it as a "fight". Hundreds of reliable sources have described it as a "fight". His friend Joe Oliver has described it a a "fight". His friend Osterman (the Air Marshal), whom he stayed with for six weeks in hiding after the shooting, described it as a "fight". The FDLE has described it as a "fight". Zimmerman told his co-workers the next day after the shooting, he was in a "fight". Zimmerman told his neighbors the next day when they saw him in bandages after the shooting, that he had been in a "fight". Multiple eyewitnesses described it as a "fight".

Since Zimmerman himself has described it as a "fight" and everybody else remotely involved with the incident has used the word "fight", it would seem you are the only person on the planet who cannot acknowledge that a "fight" took place that evening. Seems like the use of the word "fight" is a POV that Zimmerman himself acknowledges and is comfortable with, since he has described it as a "fight". His father, his brother, the police, the FBI, Zimmerman's lawyer, the prosecution, the FDLE, his friends, his co-workers, his neighbors, multiple eyewitnesses, hundreds of reliable sources can acknowledge it as a "fight" as well. Looks like you are sitting on the sidelines by yourself on this one, there is absolutely nothing misleading or inaccurate about all these people, including George Zimmerman, using the word "fight".

To use your terminology, Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin. What did he do after being assaulted? Did he just lay there and let Martin beat the crap out of him? Did he do nothing but just calmly lay there and wait for an opportunity to pull out his gun and shoot Martin? Do you honestly believe that Zimmerman wasn't "fighting" back against being assaulted? Zimmerman was "fighting" for his life, because he thought his life was in danger. Zimmerman has acknowledged that a "fight" took place which placed his life in direct danger so badly that he had no choice but to shoot Martin in self-defense. I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge these facts as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  22:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have a strong opinion either way on the use of this term in the article, but all parties need to stop the reversions on the article please. Work it out here; I suggest using WP:RFC if needed to break an impasse. VQuakr (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely, Isaidnoway, you have no call to say to Emeraldflames "Looks like you are sitting on the sidelines by yourself on this one."  As you know, the police report says "there is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter" (emphasis added). Tried to confirm your other assertions regarding Osterman et al calling it a "fight," but couldn't.  My preference for "physical encounter" over "fight" is based partly on the fact that it sounds decidedly more encyclopedic--suspect that may have been why "encounter" was used in the police report. Apostle12 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've already said, the fact that people have used the word "fight" is not relevant. Many people have ALSO used the word "encounter" as well.  (Google "Zimmerman encounter".  Google "Zimmerman "physical encounter"")  George Zimmerman also used the word "skip" to describe Trayvon's departure.  Was that really what he meant?  No.   It is irrelevant how *often* a word is used, or even by *who*.  The question is which is the *BEST* word to use. And fight isn't it.


 * Calling it a fight is a quick and lazy way of describing what happened. If I were describing this case to someone conversationally and didn't intend to go into a lot of detail, I might use the word "fight". "Fight" is an easy, natural word to use.  It just happens not to be a particularly good one.


 * Going back to the man beating up his wife, or the mugger beating up a victim.. again, you would not describe their physical encounter as a "fight". Unless, they were "fighting" for their life, etc.  Yes, Zimmerman was "fighting" for his life.  But that's obviously not the sense in which we are talking about.  The article is summing up their physical encounter as "a fight", and that is misleading.


 * And I am obviously not alone in my interpretation of it's misleading connotation. Apostle12 has voiced the same concerns in the same way, for the same reasons.  (And, although they won't admit this, VQuakr thinks it's misleading too.) But it's not just here in the talk section of Wikipedia, either. Do a Google search for "Zimmerman "not a fight"", and look through all the results at people making the point that the word fight is inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading.


 * Now how many people would say "physical encounter" is misleading, inappropriate, or inaccurate? Not very many. It doesn't have the misleading connotations that fight does.  (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Physical encounter does not accurately reflect the totality of what took place between Martin and Zimmerman that night. Physical encounter can mean alot of things from touching, pushing, shoving, kicking, slapping, etc. It's misleading to say physical encounter when it was more than that. All parties involved agree there was a "fight" that took place that night that allegedly placed Zimmerman's life in danger.


 * Surely you understand that the police report reflects that the "encounter" they are referring to is when Zimmerman first "encountered" Martin, walking in the rain, minding his own business, not commiting a crime. You do understand that this is what the police meant. When Zimmerman first "encountered" Martin, there was no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity. You get that right? Zimmerman falsely assumed that Martin was a criminal when he first "encountered" him walking in the rain. Zimmerman falsely assumed that Martin may have been involved in some sort of criminal activity. That is why the police said in their report to make it crystal clear that at the time Zimmerman first "encountered" Martin, he was not involved in any criminal activity and Zimmerman's observation was based on a false assumption.


 * There have been literally hundreds of pages of documents released about this case. The word "fight" is used numerous times throughout those documents. Zimmerman told police that he was "fighting" for his life. Zimmerman told police that they were "fighting" over control of the gun. Zimmerman's father said that his son told him they were in a "fight" for life and death, and it was either him or Martin. Zimmerman told his brother the same thing. When the FBI interviewed his co-workers, they told the FBI that Zimmerman had told them he had been in a "fight" the night before.


 * Yes, the evidence does seem to suggest that Martin may have been the aggressor and attacked or assaulted Zimmerman first. But then to say that Zimmerman wasn't "fighting" back or wasn't "fighting" for his life is just plain ludicrous. To describe what happened as a physical encounter and that Zimmerman was in fear for his life because of a physical encounter is misleading and inappropriate. Zimmerman himself, along with a whole slew of other people including the police, FBI, Zimmerman's relatives, witnesses, co-workers and neighbors all report that Zimmerman said he was "fighting" with Martin for his life and he had to choose between his life and Martin's life, he claims the "fight" ended with him shooting Martin in self-defense. You are not going to hear Zimmerman's attorney get up before a jury and describe this as a physical encounter, it will be described as a "fight" for his life or death.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  03:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your opinion that the police report's use of the word "encounter" refers strictly to Zimmerman's first sighting of Martin. I also do not agree that Zimmerman "falsely assumed that Martin was a criminal" - his suspicions were aroused, that's all. The tragedy is that things escalated from the time of first suspicion.  A physical encounter occurred between Martin and Zimmerman; the exact nature of that encounter remains unclear.    Your tone strikes me as strident and insulting. Apostle12 (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read and analyzed hundreds of police reports in the course of my job. That is exactly what they meant.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There are sources that use both the words fight, and sources that use the word encounter, therefore we have the freedom to build consensus either way. Fight is an accurate but very imprisise word. A "fight" could be anywhere from spouses yelling at each other,someone getting beat up, two drunks in the back alley, a west-side-story rumble, to an actual military engagement. In the context of this case, there is a lot of controversy about what was happening at those exact moments. There are (at least) two major theories/points of view as to what was happening at those moements. Neither of them would I personally describe as a "fight" (although I feely admit that others, inclusding reliable sources have). I further admit that the word "fight" does cover both of the theories. However, it leaves a lot of guesswork as to what type of fight was going on. It implies strongly that the encounter was mutually voluntary. Under both of the theories, at least one of the participants was not voluntarily involved. "Physical encouter" is also accurate, also used by reliable sources, but lacks the "baggage" of the word "fight". I would also support physical altercation or struggle. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise, physical encounter has a myriad of meanings as well. A physcial encounter could be anywhere from a touch, push, shoving, slap, kick, spouses going at one another, two drunks in an alley to sex with your partner. Zimmerman didn't go to work the next day and tell his co-workers, "I was in an physical encounter". When your claim is that you fear your life was in imminent danger because of a beat-down, "physical encounter" does not accurately portray the intensity of that situation. The word "fight" brings to mind a more violent scenario, which in this case, according to Zimmerman, is exactly what prompted him to shoot Martin. If someone comes up to you and confronts you and curses at you and then attacks and assaults you, bashes your head on the sidewalk, is repeatedly punching you so badly that you fear for your life, "physical encounter" is not the phrase that accurately represents that scenario. According to Zimmerman, this was a violent attack and assault on him. So bad in fact, he had to "fight" back in order to save his life. He has repeatedly said to his co-workers and friends and family and the police that he was "fighting" Martin in self-defense. Using the word "fight" doesn't necessarily imply that it was mutually voluntary either, you have to look at the totality of the situation that he was placed in. He was attacked and assaulted and of course he would "fight" back in self-defense if he thought his life was being put in imminent danger. Just because you are in a fight with someone, doesn't mean you were a voluntary participant, in this case, Zimmerman claims he was fighting back in self-defense, there's a big difference there. The way the word "fight" is presented in the article leaves no doubt that he was not a voluntary participant, but rather "fighting" in self-defense.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with your narrative, but it does take the POV of Zimmerman, that he was assaulted by Martin, which we should avoid (except in Zimmerman's section). I would NOT object to saying "Zimmerman [claimed he?] fought back from [Martin's alleged assault?]", because "fought back" is not ambiguous in meaning, and does accurately and precisiely describe Zimmerman's testimony. But describing the that entire part of the encounter as "a fight" has problems imo. Both sides describe the event as an assault (switching perp/vict obv.) Someone fighting back does not turn an assault into a fight is my general argumentGaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether you are fighting back in self-defense or you are voluntarily engaged, it's still a fight. I think part of the problem is that we are leaving out a crucial part of the event. After the phone call ended, they didn't immediately start fighting. Zimmerman's version is that he was confronted and assaulted first, then the fight (self-defense) started. Maybe a re-wording is in order to clarify that part of the event.
 * After the phone call ended, Zimmerman claimed Martin confronted and attacked him, resulting in Zimmerman fighting back in self-defense, he said. The altercation ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the chest at close range.
 * If we clarify that portion of the event, then it doesn't imply that Zimmerman voluntarily engaged in a fight with Martin, but rather was fighting in self-defense.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are on the right track here. Language is a bit awkward (esp. "...resulting in Zimmerman fighting back in self-defense, he said."); not sure how to fix that. Apostle12 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is on the right track. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

concur that expanding this out a bit resolves the problem we were discussing above. However, are we going to get POV objections by taking zimmerman's POV here? It is a fact that some sort of altercation happened. Precicily what happened is unknown. Should we be handling that at all in the lede, or should we be leaving that for the zimmerman/prosecution sections? Do we need to identify both POVs here? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC) we already use Zimmermans POV in the very next sentence, which covers the ground we are talking about here, so I think just combining the two paragraphs and rewording can deal with it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We only have two POV's to work with. Zimmerman's and the prosecution. The prosecution's POV is that Zimmerman profiled, stalked and murdered Martin. That POV is not likely to make it into the lead section of this article anytime soon. If you look at the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the lead now, it is mostly from Zimmerman's version anyway. We can expand it out to clarify it further that Zimmerman claimed he was attacked  which resulted in the two fighting. The prosecution has  admitted they don't know who started it, so they don't deny that a fight took place. Their contention is that Zimmerman's life was not in imminent danger at the time he pulled out his gun and shot Martin. If you really want to include the prosecution's POV in this paragraph, I would suggest that after expanding and clarifying, we tack a sentence on the end that reads "the prosecution contends that Zimmerman did not shoot Martin in self-defense". A short and simple statement conveys their POV in a nutshell.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  21:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya, my strike was to acknowledge we were already using the Zimmerman POV in the lede. I think your proposal is good. Merge those paragraphs, use roughly Zimmerman's POV but qualify it appropriately with "claimed, alleged" etc. Qualify at the end with prosecutions counter POV. I want to avoid the unqualified "fight/fighting" still though, the proposed text above of "Zimmerman claimed Martin assaulted him, and he fought back in self defense, ultimately shooting Martin in the chest" or something however, I can support. Open to how many times we have to repeat "claimed" to distinguish where we are stating the POV (SD) vs stating fact (shot). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What about a "violent encounter"? "violent engagement"? I agree that physical encounter is not specific enough. This at least would distinguish it from sex (most forms anyway) Emeraldflames (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Violent incident. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Violent encounter" sounds good to me. Apostle12 (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * im ok with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42  (talk • contribs)  14:02, 11 September 2012
 * The way it reads now, "violent encounter" implies that Zimmerman shot Martin in a violent rage. Is that the implication you were looking for? "Violent encounter" is exactly the POV of the prosecution, Zimmerman was so enraged (violent) that he took out his gun and murdered Martin. Wow, you've managed to turn the sentence around to imply that Zimmerman is a violent person who shoots an unarmed teenager in a fit of violence.


 * Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him, which resulted in the two fighting and Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin. That's how it should read. We shouldn't be giving the impression here that Zimmerman was a violent person. I will work on re-wording this later when I have more time.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It does not imply that at all. It was an encounter. There was violence. We do not state who did violence to whom. You are reading your own spin into the statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence reads that there was a violent encounter that ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin. Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin is the "violent encounter". This sentence needs to be clarified like I explained above.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin is the 'violent encounter'." Well, not necessarily. The "violent encounter" could be (as per Zimmerman) Martin hitting him,knocking him to the ground, pounding his head into the sidewalk, concluding with Zimmerman shooting Martin in the chest in self-defense.  In this first scenario, the violence begins long before Zimmerman shoots Martin.  Or the "violent encounter" could be (as per the prosecution) Zimmerman physically attacking Martin after following him, then murderering him by shooting him in the chest. Apostle12 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Who knows what "violent encounter" means in this instance. Without clarifying the meaning, this term is ambiguous and could mean a variety of things as you aptly point out. As I pointed out above, this sentence needs to be clarified further. All we know at this point is that Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him and they had a fight (per Zimmerman's statements and reliable sources), which ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin in the chest at close range. I'm not sure what the purpose of changing the meaning of this sentence by using an unclear, inappropriate and mis-leading phrase such as "violent encounter" serves. Usually in cases like this, it's best to go with what the reliable sources are saying, and they all seem to agree that "fight" is the most clear, appropriate and correct term to use.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  01:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ????Apostle12 (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But they do NOT *all* seem to agree that "fight" is the most clear, appropriate, and correct term to use. In fact, Chris Serino himself uses the phrase "violent encounter" in his report. http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-lead-homicide-investigator-skeptical/story?id=16653793#.UE_u741lQqF Maybe that term wasn't used in the hundreds of police reports you've analyzed in your line of work, but it was used in this one.  So, why didn't he use fight?  I'm sorry but I do not understand the [We have to use "fight"!] argument.


 * I don't see anything wrong with violent encounter. That's exactly what it was.  It was an encounter that was violent.  And to define it any further than that seems to carry POV connotations. In short, if it isn't the way you'd describe someone beating the hell out of someone then it isn't appropriate.  Let's apply this test to your proposed sentence.  <A man beats the crap out of his wife>: "The wife claims her husband attacked her, which resulted in the two fighting.."   (No it didn't, it resulted in her getting beaten.)  Or fighting *for her life*.  <A father beats the crap out of his six year old kid>  The six year old kid claims his father attacked him, which resulted in the two fighting...>   No it didn't, it resulted in the kid getting beaten.


 * The word fight or fighting implies a reciprocity in the encounter, attack/counter-attack, an exchange of blows, etc. There is no indication Zimmerman landed a single blow on Trayvon Martin or did anything but scream for help, block attacks, and try to get away.  There is no indication he was even fighting BACK.  Yes, if you want to say that Zimmerman was "fighting *for his life", sure.  But that is extremely POV in the other direction. And, by the way, "fight" has a lot of different uses, too.  Maybe they had "an intense verbal dispute" that led to Zimmerman killing him?  Neither word is perfect, but violent encounter is the most neutral of the two.


 * But that doesn't mean we can't further define it. I don't really like "violent encounter" as it stands either, because I agree that it does make it sound like Zimmerman might have been the one being violent.  I don't think "fighting" is right though. I think, by nature, we can't really define it too well, because it depends on what you think actually happened.  A violent encounter "of some kind"?  I'm all for further defining it so long as it doesn't carry the wrong connotations either way.  Emeraldflames (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated above, in cases like this, it's best to go with what the reliable sources said, and the reliable sources referenced here for this paragraph all use "fight" because it is the most clear, appropriate and correct term to use.


 * "George Zimmerman reenacted the fatal shooting and gave police a blow-by-blow account of his fight with the unarmed Miami teen".


 * "Several witnesses told police they saw the two on the ground fighting, but investigators talked to no one who saw how the fight started".


 * "Zimmerman, 28, gives a blow by blow description of how the fight began".

Just stick with the sources, it really is that simple.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  08:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If it were as simple as you claim, Isaidnoway, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As you well know, reliable sources say a lot of things and it is up to us to choose the best terminology.


 * As for "violent encounter" (as opposed to "encounter" or "physical encounter"), I continue to agree with Emeraldflames that it bests "fight" because it does not imply reciprocity. It is neutral in the sense that it doesn't load us with any preconceptions about either participant; neither is identified as being  "the violent one" precisely because we don't know who instigated the violence. Martin might have been the one being violent, or Zimmerman might have been the one being violent--all we know is that someone started it, that it quickly became violent, and that it ended in Martin's death.   This whole fight (here on "Talk") is about how best to refer to the event.  For me "fight" simply doesn't cut it because, as Emeraldflames puts it so well, "fighting implies a reciprocity in the encounter, attack/counter-attack, an exchange of blows, etc.."....like we are doing here. Clearly that sort of thing never happened the night of February 26. Apostle12 (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Isaidnoway, there is a clear consensus against "fight" here. (although I think there could be support for "fought back" "fought for his life" etc if we are using Zimmerman POV. I believe you are acting in good faith, but on wikipedia, one man with conviction does not make a majority. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The argument I see being presented here against using the word "fight" seems to consist of "implied reciprocity" and "there is no indication he was even fighting BACK". George Zimmerman has admitted that he was in a fight/struggle/confrontation/altercation/violent encounter/physical encounter/(insert your own ambiguous term here), with Trayvon Martin. So, "reciprocity" and "fighting BACK" is not only implied by Zimmerman, but is actually verified and "indicated" by Zimmerman's own statements. Considering that Zimmerman has admitted his "reciprocity" and "fighting BACK", that argument goes against what Zimmerman has stated to be a fact.

Additionally, the definition of fight is a "violent confrontation and/or struggle". You want to use the definition of what a "fight" is, but you object to using the word "fight". Where is the logic in that?

Finally, disputes over content are rarely solved by debating on the basis of merit, but rather by the numerical dominance of one group.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Violent encounter" is the most neutral and least accusatory term we can use. I am against replacing that with "fight". Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My impression is that the main thrust of your argument has been the numerical dominance of the word "fight" being used by reliable sources. I believe you also said to me "Looks like you are sitting on the sidelines by yourself on this one."  Now, you imply that numerical dominance is irrelevant. Good, we're finally in agreement.


 * But it so happens that you are wrong on the merits. A significant number of readers/editors/people intuitively see PoV implications with the words "fight" or "fighting" (in the way you have presented them).  That's a fact.  That alone suggests we ought to pick a phrase that has less PoV implications.


 * You think the word fight is the best term to describe the event and you think that the term "violent encounter" is the *definition* of the word fight. To me, the latter is not "the" definition, but "a" definition, not necessarily the one I think of when I hear the word 'fight'.  But if they are equivalent in *your* mind, then why are you not content with using either one? Emeraldflames (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All the exchanges above seem to assume that whatever took place between Zimmerman and Martin needs to be neatly characterized by either one or two words. However, that kind of simplicity simply doesn't occur in any human interaction which lasts any longer than a few seconds. What took place was in fact a complex sequence of events, not a single event. Fight? Violent encounter? These are the words which people use when they speak for effect, not write for precision. What precision demands here is not, as was suggested earlier, a roll call of what was said by the the principal players or by those who spoke with or about the principal players. What I sense here is an overzealous effort by all sides to avoid jargon, legal or otherwise. Yet it is precisely such jargon which will ultimately be placed in the hands of 12 non-lawyers. They will have to deal with it then and those who are trying to avoid ponderous definitions here should remain cognizant of that and operate with like precision. I myself would refer to what happened as a complex sequence of events and interractions which lead to two people being seriously injured by each other, one fatally. It does not exact roll off the tongue but then neither does the increasing confused and ponderous discussion that has been under way for many days in order to streamline complex human interaction into a comic-book level phrase. QuintBy (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The only way I see that the POV could be changed in this paragraph is if we used the prosecutions version that he profiled, stalked and murdered Martin. Changing one word (fight) does not change the meaning or POV of that sentence. The 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the lead is mostly from Zimmerman's POV anyway. I am perfectly content with using Zimmerman's POV to describe those few minutes vs. the prosecutor's POV. I think a reasonable solution is to expand and clarify this paragraph to indicate that he claims he was attacked (or assaulted) which resulted in the two engaged in a fight/struggle/alercation. After re-reading the article, the word fight is not used to describe the incident between the two. The words "struggle" and "altercation" seem to be the most dominant. Here is a sample edit, feel free to strike out and/or add what you think would work. Let's get past this arguing and work on a compromise.


 * While in his vehicle on a private errand, Zimmerman noticed Martin walking inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, because he said that Martin was "cutting in-between houses...walking very leisurely for the [rainy] weather" and "looking at all the houses". According to a police report, "there is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter". While on the phone with the police dispatcher, Zimmerman left his vehicle. After the phone call ended, Zimmerman claimed that Martin attacked him which resulted in a (struggle/altercation) between the two that ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the chest at close range. Zimmerman said that he shot Martin in self-defense, but the prosecution disputed Zimmerman acted in self-defense. (???According to the prosecution, they do not know who started the (struggle/altercation).???) >>> Not sure if this is needed.


 * When police arrived on the scene, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and from two vertical lacerations on the back of his head. EMTs treated Zimmerman at the scene, after which he was taken to the Sanford Police Department. Zimmerman was detained and questioned for approximately five hours. He was then released without being charged. At the time, police said they found no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

support I am fine with this wording. I think everyone else was too, you were the holdout saying we had to use fight at that location. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

do not support This wording has been here on the talk page for a while now, but it seemed tentative, so I haven't commented. Now a version of it suddenly appears in the article, which one involved editor clearly objects to. I also believe the previous version was far superior and consider today's change heavy-handed. Just because Isaidnoway promotes something tentative here does not obviate weeks of discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's friend and book published and Dr. Phil interview
I think that Zimmerman's friend, Mark Osterman, who Zimmerman stayed with for six weeks immediately following the shooting, and has now published a book and appeared on Dr. Phil should be mentioned in the article. Osterman says in the book that Zimmerman told him that Martin grabbed the gun and Zimmerman clutched Martin's wrist and broke his grip on the gun. That account appears in the book written by Osterman. Zimmerman never said that to the police and the newly released DNA tests seem to indicate otherwise as well.

Osterman also says in the book that Zimmerman told him that Martin first approached Zimmerman from a distance of at least 15 feet and asked him if he had a problem, while Zimmerman told the police that Martin jumped him from out of nowhere and asked him if he had a problem. In the TV interview, Osterman also claimed Zimmerman had a concussion, which was not in medical records or Zimmerman ever claimed.

The book, Defending Our Friend: The Most Hated Man in America, and Osterman’s two television interviews are on the prosecution evidence list. -- Isaidnoway (talk)  12:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly a pertinent development. I believe we can mention the existence of the book; not sure about reported content, although the source you cite goes into pretty good detail.  I would want to verify that the Kansas City Star piece is accurate and NPOV before presenting book content in the article.  Not sure I want to buy the book in order to be able to do that. Apostle12 (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The KC Star article is just a rehash from the Miami Herald's article and leading journalist, Frances Roble, who has been on this case from day one. I'm content with waiting until the trial when it is brought out there along with his other inconsistent statements and impeachable testimony.-- Isaidnoway (talk)