Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Edit request on 7 October 2013

Please correct the description of George Zimmerman as a "mixed-ethnic", not a "mixed-race" white person. Hispanic/latino is not a race --it is an ethnicity and a reputable site such as Wikipedia should recognize this. Sources to back up my claim are: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/latino-race-census-debate_n_2490592.html, http://www.hispanicresearch.com/hispanic-market-data/faq/87-why-doesnt-the-census-include-hispanic-as-a-race, and https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census. Thank you. SlowSerenade (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. He is not described as "mixed-race white". Please read the current article and notes. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin drug use

No text on Trayvon Martin marijuana use or his use of cough medicine as a drug. 75.142.53.62 (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

So what? Does allegedly being a marijuana user make it OK that he's dead? HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Its well past allegedly. Its right there in his tox report, along with all of his texts and photos. But no, to it does not make it OK (self defense is what made it ok), but it may be relevant (Per the PROSECUTIONS witness who claimed it may have had an effect on his behavior that night) - however to the OP, it is covered somewhat in the trial article where it can be dealt with in context and sourced to the correct evidence/testimony, but is probably not important enough to be covered in the high level shooting article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The finding of marijuana compounds in Martin's body is mentioned in the section of this article discussing the autopsy report. What reliable sources do you have that say Martin used cough medicine as a drug and that such use was related to the shooting? Dezastru (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Although I am NOT ARGUING FOR INCLUSION I will note that the cough syrup allegations are repeated in reliable sources [3] if someone wanted to push the point. (per policy, reliable sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia decide World Net Daily publications were reliable sources? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few times apparently [4] Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

See Bizarro World.TMCk (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, I haven't read the source you linked to, but given who the publisher is and the preview blurb about the book that is available at Amazon.com (which includes such lines as "All that stood between Zimmerman and lifetime internment were two folksy local lawyers, their aides, and some very dedicated citizen journalists, most notably an unpaid handful of truth seekers at the blogging collective known as the Conservative Treehouse"), I sincerely doubt that that source would pass muster as reliable under WP:QS. And, of course, Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) So I ask again, what reliable sources say Martin used cough medicine as a drug and that such use was related to the shooting? Dezastru (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Can the Zimmerman Whitewashing Team please stop trying to prove that Martin was the Devil incarnate? He's dead, for fuck sake! Zimmerman was found not guilty. What else do you need to feed your hatred? Continuing to vilify Martin really does prove that you see this as a racial issue. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you review the tone of your comment, and the tone of my comments and decide who has hatred as an issue... I was quite clear that I was not arguing for inclusion of the material, just stating that I thought there was some sourcing available (certainly there can be discussion about the appropriateness of the source as well). I don't see this as a racial issue at all. (Actually, I DID see it as a racial issue, but in the anti-Zimmerman way, as you can see by looking at when I created this article) [5] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You sure have a problem to understand what RSs are + you only add to the soapboxing with your previous comment above. Time to close the slandering forum soap, not to feed it.TMCk (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Like I'd suggest to the OP, you should look for a "nice" forum where you can opine as much as you'd like. Cheers.TMCk (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
BTW, your link just shows me you went from one extreme to another. You're wrong in both.TMCk (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not wrong at all at the start. The sources were. Everything was well sourced to what reliable sources were saying at the time. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of street names

For reasons known only to him Boneyard90 has an objection to including the names of the streets that most directly define the elements and location of the shooting incident. Without them the description of Zimmerman's movements and exactly *where* the altercation took place is vague and incomplete. An obvious question in a reader's mind is "where?". He parked his truck on Twin Trees, walked across a sidewalk from Twin Trees to Retreat View circle to obtain an address and then was heading back down the same sidewalk to his truck on Twin Trees when he encountered TM. The point of an article is to convey information not obscure it. This is a basic journalistic tenet. There's no reason to not include the street names and fundamental and logically obvious reasons to include them.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Your version is better. The exact location and details are quite relevant here. Dream Focus 06:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My reasons are very simple: (1) referring to street names seems like excessive detail, considering neither I, nor a majority of readers are familiar with the area where the incident took place, (2) there is no street map in the article to help me navigate those names, and (3) very few other articles go into that level of detail (an exception would be Assassination of John F. Kennedy, but this article does not approach that level of notability). So I saw no reason to include street names, the descriptions just make a long article longer, and do not add to the relevance or significance of the events. But, it's all about consensus here, and one other editor has agreed the details should be added. I won't revert the changes, but if the debate arises again, I'll add my opinion then. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"..considering neither I, nor a majority of readers are familiar with the area where the incident took place.." Besides that I doubt you've taken a poll as to what readers are or aren't familiar with, an article shouldn't include anything you don't already know?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• The most important thing here is whether the sources referenced there include this specific detail of precise street names. After reviewing the two sources referenced there at the end of that sentence, [6] and [7], I can't find in either source where it gives specific street names that were added to that sentence, so it would appear that the addition of the street names is WP:OR, which is not allowed. Furthermore, the Miami Herald article says this: But Serino wondered why...he [Zimmerman] didn’t know the street names of a tiny neighborhood where he’d lived for three years... Even in the interview embedded in the Miami Herald article, Zimmerman says he is "unfamiliar with the street names" and also says "there is no street sign". The only time he mentions a street name is in reference to where he resides on Retreat View Circle. So, by including the specific street names, there seems to be an implication that Zimmerman knew the names of the streets and that is not supported by what he told the police in his interviews and the sources referenced there. If you want to include this detail, then you need to find sources to support this addition.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case then it's simple to remedy - as soon as I get a moment I'll make a point of inserting a reference to these facts. Someone else is of course welcome to do so in the meanwhile.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

While it may be true that the specific street names are facts, they are certainly not "facts" that Zimmerman was aware of in his call to the police and in his subsequent interviews after the shooting with the police. That's really the point here. It was also brought out at his trial that he wasn't aware of these facts. I understand what you are trying to convey to the reader, but I also agree with Boneyard90 that unless you live in that area, the specificity of the info is basically useless to the reader. We had this map [8] in the article at one time, maybe with some references, you could re-add it so readers can get an actual view of where the shooting took place.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect - Zimmerman specifically refers to both Retreat View Circle and Twin Trees Lane in the on-scene interview with police. - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the next day if I was sitting right beside the street sign and merely had to look out the window of the car to see it, I think I would know the name of the street too. Like I said, Zimmerman was not aware of the street names in his call to the police and in his subsequent interviews (with Singleton and during his CVSA). In his handwritten statement to police on the night of the shooting, Zimmerman specifically wrote "I could not remember the name of the street", but again, the next day if you are sitting right beside a street sign, it's pretty easy to give the name of the street.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"...Like I said, Zimmerman was not aware of the street names in his call to the police and in his subsequent interviews..." - and it's still incorrect. You're conflating elements. His calls to 911 the night of the shooting aren't part of his later account of events. The subsequent on-scene reconstruction during which he did use the name of both streets *is* one of his interviews with police and is part of his account of the shooting. - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who is confused and incorrect. In every single interview and even in the on-scene reconstruction, Zimmerman has clearly and specifically admitted over and over that he did not know the name of the street. The only reason Zimmerman knew the name of the street in the on-scene reconstruction is because he was made aware of it after the fact, which is not his account of the shooting. When he was interviewed again after the on-scene reconstruction, Singleton asks him - "You're already on Twin Tree, the street you didn't know the name of at the time". Serino asks him after the on-scene reconstruction - "How do you not know the 3 streets in your neighborhood, where you've been living for 3 years?" Serino continues to press him on the issue of his account of the shooting and tells Zimmerman, "How do I explain that one away - that you’re saying you didn’t know what street is one of the 3 streets in the community, that you’re the head of the Homeowners, head of the whatever". Zimmerman's explanation for not giving the name of the street in his account of the shooting is because he says, "I have a bad memory", Serino responds, "OK, so that might explain why you didn't know the street that you were at", and later on in this same interview, Zimmerman states, "I can't even remember the names now".

It's obvious that Zimmerman did not know the name of the street during any recitation of his account of the shooting, which is the relevant point here. The way you inserted the information into the section implies that Zimmerman knew at the time the name of the street, and relayed that information to the dispatcher, and it also misleads the reader into thinking that Zimmerman knew all along the name of the street, which is a false narrative. Just because he used the name of both streets in the on-scene reconstruction does not make it his account of the shooting, especially when he has said otherwise. Obviously there was a lot of information he learned about the shooting, after the fact, and the name of the street was one of those facts, and that's the reason the paragraph was worded like it was, because he didn't know or give the name of the street in his account of the shooting.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"...It's obvious that Zimmerman did not know the name of the street during any recitation of his account of the shooting..." - No matter how many times you say this, it's going to be factually wrong. He uses the names of both streets during the interview/reconstruction with police the next day. He also states that he didn't know the name of Twin Trees lane at the time of the incident. The section in which I've used the street names is called "George Zimmerman's account of events" - i.e. what he said about it after the fact. The section isn't called "Here's what he said during the events leading up to the shooting". The reference is in no way worded in a way that makes it seem like he knew them at the time of the shooting and it's not in a section where such an interpretation would make any sense. It's clear that it was part of his post-shooting account of events. - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this discussion with someone who just keeps on spewing the same bullshit over and over. I will fix the false narrative you created when I have more time.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In other words you don't care about the referenced and verifiable facts, you care about nursing some peeve of yours. In your mind including street names that Zimmerman used in his account of events - in the section called "George Zimmerman's account of events" creates a "false narrative". Lol... TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the part of User:TheDarkOneLives. Even if these facts are "referenced and verifiable", they may not be relevant or necessary - and I'm not convinced the ones ion question are any of the above. If nothing else, consensus is at a weak impasse, with two editors against, and two in favor (though one editor has done nothing to contribute to the discussion, and the main reason is "I like your version better", which is hardly a valid reason, and as such can be dismissed). If one can not see that consensus is against the changes, one can concede the impasse, and as such, the section should retain its default form. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What it is, is a case of you and Isaidnoway having some ridiculous, peevish opposition to inclusion of facts that are cogent and verified. I can hear you both fine, you're wrong. Isaidnoway has repeatedly made a factually incorrect assertion that Zimmerman never used the names of the streets in his account. Yes he did.

-The section is called "George Zimmerman's account of events". Do you dispute that this is what the section is called?

-His account means what he said about the shooting incident after the shooting incident. Do you dispute that this is what an acount is or what is referred to by the section title?

-Statements he made to police after the incident are part of his account of the events. Do you dispute that he went back to the property the next day with detectives and described - i.e. *gave an account* of what he says happened?

-As part of this account, he used the names of the streets within the property that were involved in his movements on foot and in his truck - Retreat View Circle and Twin Trees Lane. He also states that at the time of his calls to 911 the night before he didn't know the name of Twin Trees Lane. Do you dispute that any of this is so?

Since you can't factually or rationally dispute that what I've said is correct, then you have no basis to object to the names of the streets being included and it's ludicrous to voice such an objection since their inclusion only adds clarity. A big part of the problem with Wikipedia is editors who think a lot of time spent on an article somehow conveys ownership and they're more interested in protecting their turf than creating a good article. - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I watched this mans murder trial when it was on TV and two police officers testified that he did not know the name of the streets in that neighborhood where he lived. Why does this article say that he did? The police officers at his trial said he didn't. Did the police officers lie at his trial? If they did lie, that should be included.67.142.235.68 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I smell a meatpuppet. The article clearly states that at the time of his calls to 911 that he didn't know the name of Twin Trees Lane, but when he visited the property the next day with detectives that he knew the name of Twin Trees Lane. - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't see how these facts add "clarity". I don't know where "Twin Trees Lane" is, especially in relation to other landmarks. I don't have to take a poll to assert that the majority of Wikipedia readers - the majority of American W. readers, not to mention international readers - will not be familiar with the street layout of a suburb in some backwoods town in Florida. They may be facts, and they may be verified, but they're not necessary. Oh, and you use "cogent" incorrectly. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"..Don't see how these facts add "clarity".." - They add clarity because they define with more precision where on the property Zimmerman was - which is why he used the street names in talking to detectives, which is also why he had to go to a street that he *did* know the name of when giving an address to police the night before - *so they would know where he was*. You don't want to see because you're devoted to defending your original objection. Your assertion that because you don't already know something it shouldn't be included is ridiculous. Further you need to buy a new dictionary because one of the meanings of cogent is pertinent or relevant. The names of the streets is quite pertinent, cogent. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I'm against including something that I "don't already know" (a bizarre conclusion you have there), it's simply that there is no background for those readers who do not know the streets, no map illustrating spatial relationships. If anything, too many details can detract from clarity. So, no, I do not find the street names pertinent. And you have not provided a cogent argument for their inclusion. - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"...I do not find the street names pertinent. And you have not provided a cogent argument for their inclusion..." - I have, your assertions of ICANTHEARYOU are projection. - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Further, go ahead and describe for the class Zimmerman's movements and exactly where on the property the shooting took place *without* reference to the street names that Zimmerman used. - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Map

Nice map, that helps a great deal. That also dispels a decent portion of my objections. Other than this being a ridiculously long article, and as long as questions by User:ISNWay regarding sources and relevance are satisfied, I will not object further. In the future, please refrain from a hostile tone, assume good faith, prepare to accept consensus, and allow that your view might not be clear or "obvious" to anyone but yourself. You will find you have a more productive and less stressful experience on Wikipedia. - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"...more productive and less stressful experience on Wikipedia..." - Wow, maybe then I'll have a page full of Wikitrinkets like you? First, see WP:YOUAINTTHEBOSSOFME. Second, interesting that though Isaidnoway is the one who resorted to hurling profanity (you devolved into referring to Sanford as "some backwoods town") you don't presume to lecture him and are happy to ignore his harping on an incorrect point. Of course - because he supported your baseless, nonsensical objections. Bees of the Wikiborg-hivemind flock together and all that. - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we have reached an amicable conclusion, and I am encouraged to see you are taking my suggestions in the spirit of good faith as intended, and have embarked on a more diplomatic path. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ICANTHEARYOU - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney

Should Cynthia McKinney be included in the aftermath section? She led a protest against George Zimmerman's acquittal. In Correct (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh. I say no. "Protests" are usually self-serving, and I'd rather Wikipedia didn't assist in that regard.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: The aftermath section is already the size of some B-class articles. If McKinney's primary notability was connected to post-trial protests, then I would be inclined to support the add. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Vandalism by Commissioner Gregor, Sock Puppet

Commissioner Gregor is a "suspected sock puppet of Commissioner Gordon" and as such I am in process of deleting all Talk/Discussion sections initiated by him in this article, as well as any comments that I believe to be irrelevant and insubstantial, non-constructive, etc...Jonny Quick (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mastcell, vandalism, POV-pushing and this wikipage

Mastcell, an editor who previously alluded that anyone who did not consider zimmerman the grand dragon of the Floridian branch of the KKK was simply a right wing hack on here spewing propaganda. That's paraphrased, of course. Now I clearly established above that edits made by Dezastru could even fall into the category of vandalism, since he completely removed a valid source that clearly backed up the material he was removing, all the while having the audacity to claim it had nothing relevant in the source. Now mastcell asserts I'm edit warring and that there was clear consensus reached on this border-line vandalism. There was none reached. it seemed only Isaidnoway was in favor of the changes wholesale, in the discussion recounted above. I and the original editor who reverted clearly did not agree. as far as I can see 2 versus 2 is not "clear consensus" which mastcell now claims was reached in the talk page. Also interesting to note that mastcell had a previous discussion with another user, where it was mentioned that they should wait for this web page to essentially cool off and the people who knew about the case and were actively editing it for a NPOV would get busy with their lives and move on, and they would come in later to insert their own version of the article. I don't have the time to deal with the politics of wikipedia. But this information should be known to any editors here, particularly the ones striving for NPOV and such.Whatzinaname (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I stopped short after I read your fake/bogus vandalism charge. But let me assure you that I too am in favor of the rewrite as being more neutral than you ever could gasp.TMCk (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

hmm. Let's see here. I enter a wikipage. i delete valid information, than I delete the source for that verified that valid information, and then in defense of my behavior I say the information was not sourced. i call that border-line vandalism. I don't care what you call it. It's absolutely unacceptable in either case. Whatzinaname (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What I see is that you have no clue what-so-ever what we here refer to as vandalism.TMCk (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

given the summary edit and responses in talk, good faith is entirely out the window, leaving vandalism via blanking. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this editsummary: "Please educate yourself what vandalism is or is not." part of your comment? If so, I still urge you to read-up what what we here on wiki see as vandalism. It could help you in the future.TMCk (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If this is the edit you all are referring to, it doesn't seem that controversial to me. Cla68 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

On what basis are you suggesting that MastCell "alluded" to anything of that nature? That seems like a pretty horrible thing to insinuate and if it is not a fair interpretation of his words then it is a pretty horrible accusation to make.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"every time I look at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, I feel like I've stepped into an alternate universe, one that destroys my fragile faith in humanity... large number of the most active editors here are clearly partisan and indistinguishable from conservative bloggers" This was back when he was here with his friends trying to hijack the wiki to read like a MSNBC talking pointWhatzinaname (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how that justifies your suggestion above. Having not paid too much attention to the talk page I cannot say whether his assessment of the political biases of editors contributing here is right or wrong, but I don't think he was suggesting Zimmerman should be characterized in such a manner. Of course, this diff seems to indicate his own political biases seeped into his edits, but that was a year ago and the recent edit you are objecting to is appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Any editor who repeatedly uses "leftist" as a pejorative in describing some views on this matter is obviously allowing political views to colour his own. HiLo48 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

more ad hominem out of you? You really don't learn well. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Ad hominem"? LOL. How can one possibly use the term "leftist" as a pejorative and not be taking a political position? HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Photographs used in early media reports on the case

An editor has wholesale reverted changes I made to a section of the article discussing photographs used in media reports on Martin and Zimmerman. The reversion was made with the comment, "‪undid major rewrite of this section by Dezastru. For example, rewrite downplayed Martin's out of date picture, removed discussion of media good and evil depiction, etc. Please get consensus at Talk.‬"

The cited source for the version of the article before I made this change is http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/misconceptions-in-the-trayvon-martin-case . That link is dead. Apparently, the original source was a blog post entitled "Misconceptions in the Trayvon Martin case", by Dan Linehan. The editor-in-chief of wagist.com, the site where the article was posted, wrote an article in March 2012 repudiating Linehan's articles on the Martin shooting, as archived here: "While I believe that Dan has done some stellar investigating surrounding the Martin / Zimmerman shooting, I believe that the articles he’s written on the subject do not live up to the journalistic guidelines required for such an important issue. In other words: he’s dug up good evidence, but I believe he’s presented it improperly.... It should be mentioned that at this time Wagist is not retracting evidence that Dan has gathered, but merely the narrative that was constructed to surround it. A tragedy, particularly one that is racially charged, and has captured the attention of the nation, should have been handled with a degree of neutrality that was not displayed here." I deleted the citation of that source.

I deleted the following statement, which was not supported by its associated source: "Some of these speculations fueled outrage and controversy on both sides; combining scant or misleading information with speculation."

I deleted the following statement because no reliable source was provided (a source was provided, but the reliability of the source is open to question): "Martin's and Zimmerman's height and weight were the subject of contention in the media and blogs and used to inform speculation."

I deleted an unsourced statement: "With the release of witness testimony and the details of the altercation prior to Martin's death, various media had advanced the primary source testimony with speculation surrounding the events which further drove public outcry."

I rewrote the initial paragraph of the section, from this:

The Associated Press noted that initially the most widely used media photo of Martin was several years old and showed him as a "baby-faced boy," rather than as a 17-year-old young man. To represent Zimmerman, the media used a shot of a beefy 21-year-old Zimmerman taken seven years prior to the shooting, whereas recent photos show him as slim-faced and more mature. The two outdated photos used by the media may have helped shape the initial public perception of the shooting. The AP quoted academic Kenny Irby on the expected effect, "When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," and another academic, Betsi Grabe, as saying that journalists will present stories as a struggle between good and evil "[i]f the ingredients are there."[340]

to this:

The contrast in the photos of Martin and of Zimmerman which were most widely used in early media reports of the shooting may have influenced initial public perceptions of the case.[340][341] The only image of Zimmerman initially available to news media was a 7-year-old police booking photograph released by law enforcement officials after the shooting.[341] The image showed a heavy-set Zimmerman who appeared to be unhappy or angry,[341] with an imposing stare.[340] The most commonly published image of Martin, provided to media by his family,[342] showed a smiling teen.[340] (Some sources have described the Martin image as showing a "baby-faced" 13- or 14-year-old,[341] but the Martin family's attorneys reportedly said that that photograph had been taken just a few months prior to the shooting, when Martin was 16 years old.[343][342])

The editor who reverted my revision claims that the rewritten version "‪downplayed Martin's out of date picture‬". The version before my revision had said that the predominant photo used of Martin was several years "out of date". (The sole cited source says, "Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate".) Although that statement was attributed to the reporting of the Associated Press, the phrasing by Wikipedia that "the Associated Press noted" (my emphasis) without any qualification strongly implies that the statement is an uncontroversial fact. In actuality, the Martin family has said that the photo had been taken shortly before the shooting, so it is misleading to say that the photo was several years out of date without indicating that this is a matter of contention. And it just compounds the potential misinformation to then include a quotation from a journalism professor who may be unaware of the dispute ("Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate. Yet they may have helped shape initial public perceptions of the deadly shooting. 'When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment' "). I rewrote the section to neutrally address this issue. In addition, the previous version referred to Martin as a "young man", contrasting the purported out-of-date image of a "boy" with that of the supposed "young man" who had been involved in the altercation with Zimmerman. I changed the ambiguously imprecise "young man" to the unambiguous and more neutral "teen".

The phrasing in the previous version said that the two photos had been "chosen" by the media, and that phrasing was followed by a quote from a journalism media expert that, when taken together with the use of the term "chosen", strongly implied that the media had had a variety of images to choose from and had selected the specific images that were published/broadcast in order to play up a story of good vs evil. Nowhere in that version is it mentioned that at the time that the initial reports about the case were being widely disseminated in the media, Zimmerman was not available to the media to present his side of the story or to provide a personal photograph. The image of Zimmerman that was used was the image that was available -- a mugshot passed out by the sheriff's department. The revised version replaces "chosen" with the more neutral "used".

Also, the revision I posted cites four sources rather than just the single source of the version it replaced. Dezastru (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it back to Dezastru's version. Looks like sound logic to me to replace dead links and questionable sourcing. Consensus is not needed when an editor takes the time to improve an article with material that is reliably sourced and on topic. Maybe Bob K could explain why a dead link, questionable sourcing and unsourced material is preferable to a re-write with current RS.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

consider it re-reverted. Additions add absolutely nothing. Try to lawyer words like "teen" in to the narrative is quite a telling sign this not about improving the wiki, just manipulating the narrative. not happening. Whatzinaname (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence where I used "teen" reads: "The most commonly published image of Martin, provided to media by his family,[340] showed a smiling teen.[341]" Smiling as opposed to how Zimmerman reportedly appeared in the photo used of him: unhappy or angry, staring. The very next sentence in the revised version deals with the issue of Martin having been portrayed in early media reports as a baby-faced young teenager—inaccurately according to some sources, who say that that portrayal was based on a photo that was years out of date—as opposed to as an older "young man". That portrayal is only inaccurate if the Martin photo was in fact years out of date, which the Martin family contests (as that same sentence in the revised version states). The version you are arguing for does not mention at all that there is any disagreement over what Martin's age was at the time that photo was taken. The revision I proposed mentions both sides, in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Dezastru (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

looks like an attempt by you to rewrite history without consensus. Glad you got rejectedWhatzinaname (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you will have to be the one who explains why we should leave unsourced material that can't be verified in this article. Consensus is not required when removing material that is unsourced and/or poorly sourced and can not be verified. Please see WP:V which clearly states that information must come from a reliable source and be verifiable. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed and any material whose verifiability has been challenged must include a citation that directly supports the material. So, it looks like you will have to provide some reliable sources that are verifiable for this previously unsourced and/or poorly sourced material if you wish for it to remain in the article. And the last time I checked, it was perfectly fine to call a 17-year-old-teenager a "teen".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

is it not perfectly fine to call a 17 year old a young man, as well? The main premise of the photo comparison was the media's bias, intentional or not, to portray Martin as a "boy" and zimmerman as a surly "man". That's why the usage existed to begin with instead of just referring to him by his chronological age which is free of any need to debate over teen/young man/adolescent/etc. And what is the problem with sourcing, exactly? What is outsourced? Should I trust sourcing inquiries from an editor who says zimmerman's friend's comments are not reliable when he then trusts so much the family/their attorney who had a fat lot of personal interest invested into the case? Whatzinaname (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the main premise of the source that the version of the article you are arguing for is based on is that the news reports used out-of-date photos to portray Martin as a "boy" and Zimmerman as a "man", with the implication that Martin was really a man and should not have been depicted with the photo that was used because that photo was misleading, insofar as it, allegedly, was several years out of date. (Just read the title of the source for your version: "Old Photos may have Shaped Public Opinion in Martin Case, Experts Say".) As I have already explained, whether the photo was in fact out of date is a matter of dispute, so the Wikipedia article should not describe the events that occurred solely according to the narrative in the version you are defending. If you want to get into the broader topic of how some who commented on the case deliberately worked to cast Martin as a "boy", and therefore an innocent by virtue of his age in contrast to Zimmerman's, then there is an opportunity to do that within the article (or within the article on the trial)—if you have reliable sources to back up that material. But don't try to get all of that out of that one NBC News/Associated Press article, because using that source alone doesn't provide a balanced presentation of the history. And what reliable source backs up your claim that "That's why the usage existed to begin with instead of just referring to him by his chronological age which is free of any need to debate over teen/young man/adolescent/etc"— or is that just your own opinion? Dezastru (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is about as "disputed" as the moon landing being a hoax or the in fact the moon is made of cheese. The martin family and their attorneys chose not release recent photos. this is well established by valid, non biased sources after analyzing other photographic evidence, especially photographs that truly were recent, like his school ID. Whatzinaname (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why we should leave material in the article that can not be verified with reliable sourcing. The material that was sourced to Wagist is a dead link and can not be verified and the other material Dezastru removed was not sourced at all.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

deadlinks happen all the time on the internet. it's not a cause to go delete wikipedia in toto. Be specific on what you are concerned about what needs sourcing.Whatzinaname (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are capable of reading, please see the detailed explanation above given by Dezastru for the unsourced material that he removed and his reasoning for his re-write. Meanwhile, please explain why we should leave material in the article that can not be verified with reliable sourcing. If your only complaint is about calling him a "teen", then for fucks sake, change it to young man and quit being such a dick.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

as I suspected, you have no issue with any sourcing, hence why you can't name the sourcing issues that concern you. This will be the third time you've been asked to specifically state your concerns with sourcing. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.Whatzinaname (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

he has been explicit. Dead links do not pass WP:V. Other portions are unsourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

no, he hasn't. He rewrote a bunch of stuff in a biased and questionable manner. Got rid of a deadlink, which doesn't appear to be needed to substantiate what was already in the article. I'm still waiting to hear what the sourcing issue actually is. As WRITERS for wikipedia phrases can be constructed and are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE VERBATIM copy and pasted form news sources. A sentence such as the one which correctly points out the rampant and misleading information, including the bogus picture of a 13-14 year old passed off as a 17 year old, by all merits of fact is entirely accurate and substantiate all over the place. Whatzinaname (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that the version of the article you are defending needs to include text taken verbatim from other sources. We are saying that Wikipedia policy (WP:V) requires that any information in a Wikipedia article can be shown to have come from a reliable source:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.

When the information involves controversial subjects, it is even more important that the statements in a Wikipedia article be verifiable. I explained in the opening post for this Talk section what the problems were with the lines I deleted. If you have reliable sources to support inclusion of those lines, please provide those sources for each statement you want to include. Dezastru (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatzinanme asked, "Should I trust sourcing inquiries from an editor who says zimmerman's friend's comments are not reliable when he then trusts so much the family/their attorney who had a fat lot of personal interest invested into the case?" You are apparently referring to my deletion of the following statement: "Martin's and Zimmerman's height and weight were the subject of contention in the media and blogs and used to inform speculation." First, the revised version I proposed mentions that there is a dispute over what age Martin was at the time the photo was taken. It does not provide only a single side (the Martin family's side) of the dispute. The version you are defending provides only one side. Second, the source cited for the line I deleted is an interview by a local tv news outlet of Zimmerman's friend (Friend: George Zimmerman scared for his life: Local 6 sits down with a friend of the man who police say shot, killed Trayvon Martin).

Which specific lines from that source are you arguing should be taken as reliable in support of the statement I deleted? Please quote them here. Dezastru (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's that specifc edit https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=587320582&oldid=587320392

Tthe longtime friend of Zimmerman, who knows that the first and for a long time only image of Zimmerman was a mugshot that didn't show Zimmerman's height and showed him as weighing closer to 250 pounds than his actual weight at the time which was closer to 170 pounds, clearly articulates these misleading events in that article:

"That's a perfect example of all the misinformation that is out there. Based upon his 2005 arrest, a mug shot says he weights 250 pounds and that doesn't say he is 5 feet, 8 inches and 170 pounds . . . It's not his appearance it is the information and the accuracy of everything that we have heard from the very beginning characterizing him as white, his size his weight."

Do you even read this stuff with any kind of comprehension? You do know that wikipedia is not supposed to be a copy and paste operation, right? You are supposed to read the information contained is cited source and see if it qualifies as supporting the written statement. you obviously did not bother then or now, and your flippant and hypocritical summary is but icing on the cake Whatzinaname (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Photographs—break1

Looks like there's a lot to discuss here. Here's the first installment.

First off, I fixed a link.[9] Simple enough : ).

I restored the section title "Portrayals of Martin and Zimmerman" as more descriptive.[10] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the date of the picture of Martin as a smiling teen wearing a red Hollister tee-shirt, the reference said that the info came from Benjamin Crump, one Martin family attorney not Martin family "attorneys", so I made that change. Also, I changed from "just a few months" to "six months" according to source.[11] --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the phrase "the error was discovered much later" because I didn't see it in either of the sources and didn't see any info that suggested it. Also, I corrected the date of the source: David Martosko (June 26, 2013). "Second Trayvon Martin Twitter feed identified". The Daily Caller. Retrieved June 30, 2013. The correct date of the article was March 29, 2012, not June 26, 2013. And since I accessed the article in the process, I updated the access date too.[12] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Originally in the section, the picture of Martin was discussed first. The issues surrounding Martin's picture were more significant, so I restored the original order of Martin first. In the process I moved the single sentence about "gangsta pose" from its own one-sentence paragraph to the other controversial issue regarding the date of Martin's picture, which was already enclosed in parentheses.[13] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved the phrase "baby-faced" out of the parentheses where the contentious items are, to the preceding sentence because the contention was regarding age, not the baby-faced aspect of the picture. (This was evident when I read in one of the section's sources: "A picture of a 16-year-old, yet baby-faced looking Martin in a red Hollister T-shirt was one of the first we saw of him.")[14] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I made an edit for better wording and closer to the meaning of the source when I changed to "shows him at 13 or 14 years old".[15] (The source said, "The dominant photo of Martin shows him 13 or 14 years old, wearing a red Hollister T-shirt.") --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No objection to these edits. Dezastru (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Photographs—break2

I restored the comments by the two academics Irby and Grabe.[16] From the AP article, Irby "teaches visual journalism at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla." and "Betsi Grabe, a professor at Indiana University-Bloomington who has studied the effect of news images on public opinion." Here's the Grabe-related excerpt from the AP article.

Betsi Grabe, a professor at Indiana University-Bloomington who has studied the effect of news images on public opinion, said photos that gain the most traction play into the desires of both journalists and the public for a story with a distinct victim and aggressor.

"At the center of most stories we tell in our society, cross-culturally and across the centuries, is the struggle between good and evil," she said. "If the ingredients are there, that is what journalists will grab onto and present."

Grabe said it is natural to present the most innocent-looking image of the person believed to be the victim, and the most menacing one of the suspect.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The quotations from Grabe and Irby were made in the context of supporting a possibly dubious claim made in the article from which the quotations were taken, namely that "Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate". Neither of these two quotations is necessary for the Wikipedia article on the shooting, and given the problem with the reliability of the source article on this specific point (that both photos were out of date and not representative of their subjects), it is best to leave these quotations out of the article. Dezastru (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

it's been well established and sourced that that baby trayvon photos have been debunked as being several years older than originally presented as, your fictional versions of reality not withstanding.Whatzinaname (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The quotations of Irby and Grabe do not mention when the picture was taken nor are they dependent on that. They are useful because they explain a main point about influence and media portrayal, which is pertinent to the subject of the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Photographs—break3

I moved to a footnote the part in parentheses, i.e. the part about whether Martin was 13, 14, 16 years old in one picture and a false "Martin" picture.[17] I thought this would improve the flow of the paragraph without hurting its points, the main one being the baby-faced picture vs the mug shot. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the last series of edits that has led to this point is that the article now fails to provide reasonable mention of the fact that there were attempts by a number of individuals across a variety of media to portray Martin in a negative light, either through confusion of his social media images and posts with those of others or through manipulation of his social media accounts.

That there is also a dispute about how old Martin was when that first photo was taken is an important part of the story, and is essential for the readers' ability to properly assess the reliability of the NBC/AP article on which much of the section is based; so the mention of that dispute should not have been moved to a Note. The mention that Martin had been confused with a different person, who had an online gangsta persona, also should not have been moved to a Note. That mention was originally in its own paragraph; and more info on similar issues involving media narratives built around misattribution of social media posts to Martin should be included in the body of the article proper. Dezastru (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry, but no one who followed this case with an IQ over 5 is swallowing this fanciful bilge of some media attempt to portray martin in a less than positive light. far, far, far, far, from that, in fact. The daily caller hardly passes for a proxy for the general media, Im a afraid, again with your fantasies not withstandingWhatzinaname (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding any dispute about Martin's age in the picture being around 13 or 14 years old, it only came from one opinion writer Capehart about a year later. In Feb 2013 Capehart asked Crump about the picture and Crump reportedly said that it was taken in Aug 2011, when Martin was 16. One of the problems with credibility here is that it is a late response to an issue that was raised almost a year earlier. Initially the issue was raised in the media by a widely spread AP article. (See for example, NBC, Denver Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Sun Times, Boston Globe, Florida Today (Gannett), etc.)

Regarding false pictures of Martin, there was very limited presentation of them in the media as real. However, they seemed to be used by some writers in the media to try to confuse the issue when it came to real photos of Martin that portrayed him as looking older than he did in the red shirt Hollister picture. I think we need to mention the real pictures of Martin looking older, which got significant presentation, and not give undue weight to the false pictures which got less attention. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Capehart contributes an opinion column to the Washington Post, but the point we are discussing is a matter of fact, not opinion – whether Crump said or did not say something about the photo. (The idea that Capehart would invent this claim out of partisan bias, and then publish it in more than one article, is a bit silly, frankly.) The second cited source, which is partly based on the author's interview of a different Martin family attorney than Crump,[18] does not attribute the information to either Crump or Capehart. As for what you're calling a late response, whose credibility are you questioning? The job of the editors of the article is to present information and let readers make their own judgments about credibility. If the article is going to offer a section that is largely based on a point that is disputed by one of the main parties involved, WP:NPOV obliges us to prominently note that there is a dispute – by prominently, I mean the information should be in the body of the article, not in a note. Dezastru (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Photographs—break4

I have added additional information to the section to address some of the issues I raised previously, including the lack of mention of attempts by Zimmerman supporters to portray Martin as a menace, even with misidentification of photos other individuals as being of Martin. I've also put the information about the dispute over when the Martin photo in the red Hollister t-shirt was taken back into the body of the article, with additional text to explain why Martin's age in the photo was a matter of debate and how that debate played out in various media.

I've rewritten the lines about the remarks by journalism experts, quoted by the Associated Press. For the reasons I gave above, I still disagree with inclusion of this information in the article. However, I think we can at least present the information in a less problematic way, as I have tried to do. The revised version mentions the journalism experts' comments in the context of questions raised by critics of why media were allegedly using an out-of-date photo for Martin. Dezastru (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The above additions were added by Dezastru,[19] then reverted by Exercisephys,[20], then added again by Dezastru,[21] then reverted by me.[22] The edit gives undue weight to relatively minor material and in some cases presents them in a manner that slants what was in the sources. I would suggest that you leave the original paragraph in the section as is and propose here an addition for discussion that condenses your previous addition from 6 paragraphs to one, which is about the same size as the original paragraph. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What in the article is slanted relative to the sources? Dezastru (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bob K31416. Other talk page discussions suggest that Dezastru is repeatedly injecting really blatant POV into this article. The sources and wording are indefensible in their obvious emotion and bias. Also, most of his edits are on events or scandals traditionally touted by American liberals. This being one of the most bias-prone articles on Wikipedia, we need to keep this kind of stuff in check. Dezastru, please consider rereading the quote on your user page. Exercisephys (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can point to specific examples of proposed text that you feel do not accurately reflect material in the sources, it would be very helpful. So, again, what in the article is slanted relative to the sources? Dezastru (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(For reference: the version before your edit [23]; and the version after your edit [24].)

It looks like there wasn't the slanting that I thought. Just a couple of things. In the 2nd para, 2nd sentence, it was only one Martin family attorney, Crump, not “attorneys”. Crump was mentioned in the second source, and neither source mentioned another attorney saying anything about the date of the red tee shirt picture. Also, using “later” instead of “a year later” suggests a more timely response by Crump, which wasn't the case.

There remains the undue weight issue, and my suggestion of keeping the original paragraph and condensing the six new paragraphs into one. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The original section actually had two paragraphs, not one. The revision you are arguing for, which has one paragraph, glosses over the disagreement about Martin's age in the photo with the red t-shirt and does not mention at all the complaints Zimmerman supporters had about how the media were portraying Martin and Zimmerman, nor does it mention how some of those supporters contributed, in voicing their complaints, to how Martin was subsequently portrayed. I've now condensed the previous version to 4 paragraphs and rephrased the reference to a family attorney.

I think we can all agree that brevity is the ideal goal. However, only so much information can reasonably fit into a single paragraph. There are several different, related topics for this section; they cannot all be fairly covered in just one or two paragraphs. Dezastru (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted and suggest that you make a proposal here and get feedback before making any further attempts at such additions. Adding to my previous comments, here’s some more that I hope will be helpful to you.

The edit frames the criticism of the pictures as coming from “Zimmerman supporters”, a designation which suggests a biased group, instead of coming from the many reliable sources that carried the AP article. (See for example, NBC, Denver Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Sun Times, Boston Globe, Florida Today (Gannett), etc.) A tweet by Robert Zimmerman wouldn’t be considered “Media coverage”, which is the topic of the section that this subsection “Portrayals of Martin and Zimmerman” is a part of. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to your concern about the line that criticism was coming from "Zimmerman supporters", I have changed the sentence "Zimmerman supporters asked why the media were using images of Martin that the supporters believed did not accurately depict how Martin had looked at the time of the shooting" to "Many bloggers and media observers asked why the media were using images that did not seem to accurately depict how Martin had looked at the time of the shooting".

The edits I have made include cites of about 9 sources. The single Associated Press article you are citing is still just one article even if 100 news outlets carry it. Framing the entire section of the Wikipedia article on the content of that single AP article, as you are trying to do, when there are other reliable sources that offer additional relevant perspectives is placing undue weight on a single source. The edits I have made include that AP article but also bring in reporting from other sources.

The tweets from Zimmerman's brother were covered in the media[25][26][27][28][29][30] and were about, according to Zimmerman's brother, how the media were portraying Martin, so they are entirely germane to the section. They also provide another very clear example of how important the issue of race was perceived to be in the discussions about the case – something that some Wikipedia contributors (and presumably some readers) still seem to be unaware of. Dezastru (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your last edit looks like a small token change from the your previous attempt and leaves all the problems that I am concerned about, including the “Zimmerman supporters” problem, which your edit summary incorrectly implied was corrected. So I am reverting it.

The relative weight given topics should reflect their relative prominence in reliable sources, and your version doesn’t do that. Also, the prominence of an article is determined by how prominent it is in reliable sources and its use in a Wikipedia article should be weighted correspondingly, so your comment about 100 news outlets is incorrect.

Regarding the part about Robert Zimmerman’s (RZ’s) tweets, as I mentioned before I don’t think it should be in this section. The sources you gave were about RZ’s tweets, i.e. his portrayal of Martin and his opinion about African Americans in general, his reason for making the tweets, and his apology for making them. The sources you gave weren’t about the portrayal of Martin in media coverage.

So you need to modify your version accordingly for me to accept it, as I’ve been repeatedly trying to suggest to you. Considering that we don’t seem to be converging very well to agreement, you might consider putting your proposal in an RfC to get other editors’ opinions in order to get consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

RfCs can be very useful for addressing specific, discrete questions which respondents can weigh in on with a "Support" or "Oppose", along with a description of their reasoning. We don't yet have specific questions to address, which is one of the reasons I have been asking those who disagree with the proposed revision to be more precise in describing what they disagree with.

I agree, however, that input from others would be helpful in this discussion, so I am posting a notice at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for comments on questions related specifically to how the Associated Press article by Sedensky is being used in this article. Dezastru (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

how exactly does "god's plan" make this a better article?

Dezastru, I wish i had more time for this, but it seems many of your edits are either biased or extremely questionable. I don't have a life a waste looking at your numerous edits as of late, but I just saw your insertion of zimmerman saying "it's all god's plan" for no real reason than your own. Feel free to explain why such an vague, out of context statement makes the article more encyclopedic and informative. Whatzinaname (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Most news sources that reported on the Zimmerman interview highlighted the fact that Zimmerman attributed the course of events to God's plan (many published sources even mentioned Zimmerman's reference to God's plan in the titles of the articles, while broadcast sources mentioned it in the leads to the news reports). In addition, the Martin family had a strong reaction to Zimmerman's reference to God's plan, and that reaction was also reported on. (Incidentally, you may have noticed that the current version of the Wikipedia article on George Zimmerman notes that he was reared as a Roman Catholic and served as an altar boy, so his reference to religious beliefs during one of the few interviews he has given discussing the most important event of his life—from Wikipedia's standpoint—is noteworthy.) Dezastru (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly significant to me that Zimmerman attributed what happened to "God's plan". How a key player rationalises such unfortunate events is very important in helping us to understand them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

leftist trash propaganda makes you giddy. I'm sure you ennjoy the insertion of more of it. Unfortunately, as explained below, the comment is grotesquely taken out of context. Whatzinaname (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

you are actually reposting bigoted, leftist crank memes about the case and taking the comments out of context, which is the reason that I'll probably have to undo many of your recent edits when I have more time, as it is clear to me you are not here to improve the article but inserting such absurdities as this that add nothing to the article. zimmerman never said that the whole incident was "god's plan". he was specifically asked if thought he would be alive today is he didn't have a gun with him that night. So he attributes the fact the HE LIVED THAT NIGHT to the grace of God's regardless if he had a gun or not; he survived that night because he believed God intended him to. It's a common expression in Christianity : "but for the grace of God go I". Whatzinaname (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you know what he meant? Surely it's best to report what he said, in context of course, and let readers draw their own conclusions. An awful lot of people would not have said what he said. I certainly wouldn't have. It's part of what Zimmerman is, and that's relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I love how you add "the in context" part. Funny stuff. How is this even relevant to the shooting itself? Be very specific. An "awful lot" of people thank God when the escape a near death experience, do they not? As far as "part of what zimmerman is"? What the hell does that even mean? I take it you are in full agreement that anything trayvon has ever said is then open to be included as part of "what Martin was", right? Whatzinaname (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously we're talking about something Zimmerman said after the incident. Martin didn't say anything. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

you are saying someone's "after event" responses are more relevant than someone's "before event" responses that are taken before the actual event in question occurs. Do you seriously ever spend one moment thinking about this stuff before you blithely post it on the internet? Your homework assignment for this year is to find out what causality isWhatzinaname (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, I meant to ask... What's "leftist" about the quotation under discussion? That really puzzles me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your confusion because the left never ever criticizes Christian beliefs or principles. Never ever.Whatzinaname (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I move that all further mentions of what is "left", "leftist", or "propaganda" be suspended. To maintain balance, the words "GOP", "conservative" (in a political context), and "fundamentalist" should also be avoided. Also avoid use of Christians, Christianity, criticism of either, except unless one of them is specifically in relation to Zimmerman or Martin (as in, "Zimmerman was a Christian"). It's very simple: don't use those words. Remain focused on article content, quality, and relevance. Address the question, if there is a complete quote by Zimmerman regarding the incident, is it relevant? - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Dezastru (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You've already been busted, man. Whatzinaname (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Many news reports highlighted that particular statement from Zimmerman's interview. Some examples:

• Zimmerman: Trayvon’s death was 'God’s plan'
  

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/18/2902003/zimmerman-trayvons-death-was-gods.html

• Zimmerman Says He Doesn’t Regret Actions in Shooting
  

"In his first interview with the news media, George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman charged with second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin, apologized on Wednesday to Mr. Martin’s parents for the death of their son but said he did not regret his actions.

'It was all God’s plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it,' Mr. Zimmerman said, his voice trailing off."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/zimmerman-says-no-regret-for-actions-in-trayvon-martin-shooting.html

• Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman tells Sean Hannity: 'I feel that it was all God's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it ...'
  

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-charged-murder-trayvon-martin-tells-sean-hannity-fox-news-prays-daily-parents-florida-teen-article-1.1117282

• 'God's Plan' Led To Deadly Encounter With Trayvon, Zimmerman Says
  

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/19/157028277/video-gods-plan-led-to-deadly-encounter-with-trayvon-zimmerman-says

• George Zimmerman apologizes in interview with Sean Hannity
  

"George Zimmerman told a national TV audience on Wednesday that he doesn't regret anything that happened the night he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

'I feel like it was all God's plan,' he told conservative talk show host Sean Hannity in Zimmerman's first interview since the shooting."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-18/news/os-george-zimmerman-sean-hannity-20120718_1_trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-mark-o-mara

• Will George Zimmerman regret Hannity interview?
  

"Last July, George Zimmerman sat down with Sean Hannity of Fox News for a multi-topic and much-viewed interview. The discussion went into minute detail on Zimmerman’s deadly encounter with Trayvon Martin, from the moment he spotted Martin to the initial violence to his reflections on the whole thing: 'I feel it was all God’s plan,' Zimmerman told Hannity."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2012/12/10/will-george-zimmerman-regret-hannity-interview/

• "Just ahead in the NEWSROOM, the man who shot and killed an unarmed teenager speaks publicly for the first time. Says the incident was quote, 'God's plan.' ...

But we begin with George Zimmerman. The man who admitted to shooting and killing Trayvon Martin said it was God's plan. Asked if he had regrets, he said no."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/19/cnr.02.html

• Zimmerman's First Interview : No Regrets, It Must Be God's Plan
  

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/07/19/zimmermans-first-interview-no-regrets-it-must-be-gods-plan

• Zimmerman: Trayvon Martin Shooting 'God's Plan'
  

http://news.sky.com/story/962185/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-shooting-gods-plan

• It was God's plan, says killer of black teenager
  

http://www.smh.com.au/world/it-was-gods-plan-says-killer-of-black-teenager-20120720-22dpj.html

• "Der Killer von Trayvon Martin († 17) hat die Eltern des getöteten Teenagers im US-Fernsehen um Entschuldigung gebeten. Für seine Tat gibt George Zimmerman (28) eine eigenwillige Erklärung: „Es war Gottes Plan!“"
  

http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/trayvon-martin/killer-gibt-tv-interview-25233350.bild.html

• El asesino de Trayvon Martin dice que su muerte fue 'un plan de Dios'
  

http://www.elmundo.es/america/2012/07/20/estados_unidos/1342753680.html

• "The parents of slain black teenager Trayvon Martin have rejected a remark by the man charged with their son's death that it was God's plan."
  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18897480

• "The volunteer neighborhood watch leader spoke about details of the shooting, said he's sorry that Martin’s mother and father had to bury their child and, when asked if he regrets anything that happened that February night, he said, 'No.'

'I feel that it was all God's plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it,' Zimmerman shook his head."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/zimmerman-says-sorry-trayvon-martin-family-had-to-bury-their-child-family-calls/

Dezastru (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Many news articles mentioned almost every aspect of the case and every word uttered by every witness, and every lawyer. What makes this statement more significant than all of the others. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, consensus has already supported mentioning Zimmerman's interview with Hannity in the article, so I gather your question is why this particular statement from that interview is significant. The reason, as I've shown above, is that most sources that reported on the interview highlighted the statement as being one of the most noteworthy aspects of the interview. Dezastru (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

there was no consensus about adding a nonsensical, out context quote about God's plan. That's the "consensus" you would need. Consensus is something you should have asked for before adding such material to the wiki, and definitely before you decide to vandalize valid, sourced information as wellWhatzinaname (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Proper weight? If the killing of one who turned out innocent was "God's plan", maybe 9/11 was God's plan too and if a publicly notable person would've said such thing then, there sure would've been plenty of weight to mention it at least in the BLP of that person. So why not here???TMCk (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has established how this statement has any relationship to the shooting. care to try? Dezastru took the quote entirely out of context, as did many of the racist, leftist pieces of trash in the media who turned this case into a race hustle. Zimmerman was answering a very specific question, and that answer has been perversely distorted by those with a political and racial agenda. Dezastru was well aware of this, no doubt, when he tried adding it out of the blue. I'm afraid to look at his/her other edits cause I smell a whole rollback before he/she ever touched this wiki in this kind of nonsense is representative. Whatzinaname (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your out of line baseless attacks just shows me an editor to seem to have quite some extreme views related to the subject and should not be allowed to edit at such a contentious article anyway but rather should get sanctioned like getting banned from this and related articles. Of course there is a relationship to the shooting. You seem to deny that fact w/o reason, besides your "the fucking left made this up, etc." The rest of your post doesn't make sense at all, sounds just like some general baseless rant as there are no diffs provided to back up your claims against a fellow editor. Maybe you should take a rest re. this subject and for sure not wishing other editors "a good vacation" after hitting 3RR as you yourself were exactly at the same when you placed such remark in your edit summary. If you'd like to improve the article you'd cut off your insults and work towards an acceptable rewrite as was tried in good faith (don't see such in your comments).TMCk (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

i'll make as many attacks on the morally and intellectually bankrupt media as I want to, as long as it applies to the issue at hand. now are you going to continue with your ad hominem or support the heretofore unproven association of this out of context comment have some effect on the shooting itself? Whatzinaname (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It should not be in the article as it is too open to misinterpretation and adds absolutely nothing to the article. Zimmerman said "I do wish there was something, anything I could have done that wouldn’t have put me in the position where I had to take his life." That it happened was God's plan seems like a "it is what it is" comment, basically that it happened and can't be undone. But how can anyone interpret what Zimmerman meant anyway without intimately knowing his religious beliefs? Tracy Martin's comment illustrates another reason it should be excluded. Martin said "We must worship a different God, because there’s no way my God would have wanted George Zimmerman to kill my son." How can Martin know that God didn't want George Zimmerman to kill his son? Anyone heard the saying; God works in mysterious ways? If God doesn't exist then it was a series of events which unfortunately led to a mans death so why interject religious bias into it. Wayne (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Being open to interpretation". I give you that as a possibility for general readers but then again, for American readers it's another issue. Basepoint: Interpretation we should leave to the readers and as far as I checked there is no interpration provided (and shouldn't).TMCk (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything is "open to interpenetration". That's not an argument for inclusion. The only way even remotely to consider this material would require the entity of the interview for context. That's definitely undue weight given no one has established any relevance to the actual shooting. Oh, and standing on your head and saying "of course it's relevant, you moron" is not a valid establishment of a relationship, I'm afraid.Whatzinaname (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That was never brought up as an argument for inclusion. You seem to read posts and then trying to put a meaning (spin) on them that isn't there. "...no one has established any relevance to the actual shooting." You must be living in a bizarro world as there is clearly a relevance established. maybe you don't like it but it doesn't change the fact. And BTW, Extreme stupid comments like: "Oh, and standing on your head and saying "of course it's relevant, you moron"... is hardly giving you an edge here. Quite the opposite of your intention it does.TMCk (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"That's definitely undue weight given no one has established any relevance to the actual shooting". George Zimmerman himself established the relevance to the shooting when he explained that the encounter with Martin, which led to his shooting Martin, was God's plan. Dezastru (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

He/she's putting it just in plan text what I was referring to regarding due weight.TMCk (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

unfortunately for you two, zimmerman was not asked why he shot TM that night and then responded with the God's plan quote. Instead, he was specifically asked a question about his own survival that night. The reason he believed he lived that night has no bearing on the actual shooting, which this article is supposed to be about. And people saying things such as "thank God" after a near death experience are hardly notable or relevant to what they lived through. It's about time that, as wiki editor, you start reading sourced information instead of reflexively deleting/adding it. That seems to be too much to ask at wikipedia however. i could just see it now, where the sole survivor of a horrific passenger airplane crash is recounted on wikipedia as blaming the crash and deaths on God, when all he was quoted on saying was thanking God he somehow survived. This is what happens when you copy and paste leftist bigotry from websites instead of using your head and reading the sources. Whatzinaname (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Utter nonsense.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS' "HANNITY": Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that time has passed a little bit?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. I feel it was all God's plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it --
TMCk (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

well, I owon't fault you for falling for the lies of the racist, leftist media. Nonethless, you can choose to believe your lying ears or the lying race hustling lefties. CNN had a field day with this story. Here is the ACTUAL INTERVIEW at the appropriate time this "god's plan" came up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaua8aAUpOs#t=19m15s Consider yourself a little wiser. Whatzinaname (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ranting seems to be your second name. Watching the video you linked, at 19 hours, you'll find exactly the quote I placed above from CNN with no context you're implying in your previous post post above. What about some honesty for a change?TMCk (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I still want to know what's leftist about noting that someone attributes what happens in their life to God. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask for something that doesn't exist besides in rants of one single editor.TMCk (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a second and third part of the question: Does being "leftist" disqualify someone from the right to an opinion? When will this editor be properly sanctioned for persistently writing such bigoted nonsense? HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What a shock you consider truth-telling to be "bigoted nonsense". Your posts are clearly ad hominem, bordering on personal attacks, so it is you I'd caution to worry about being sanctioned. I can call the media anything I want. Ufortunately dealing with the various bigotries of the media becomes a necessity in this article, as this whole tangent about "god's plan" has shown, which is just another drop in the "he looks like he's up to no good. He looks black" bucket of racist garbage the lefties media has vomit outWhatzinaname (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is confusing when one refers to mainstream corporate-owned media as "left-wing", especially when left-wing sources refer to it as "right-wing." TFD (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

i'm sure it's all very confusing for you. Sadly, Wikipedia is not a forum.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So keep shallow, inflammatory, forum style language like "leftist" out of it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider it factual and erudite. And my opinion is all that matters in this case.Whatzinaname (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

God's plan

In a 1996 movie, faced with the death of their son, the mother consoles the father: "But the truth is we fed into God's plan. We have to believe that." This is a common meme used by a lot of people to cope with some overwelming tragic event. "It's all in God's plan." "God works in mysterious ways." "Everything happens for a reason." --Naaman Brown (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

race in the lede

I dont have the time or energy to fight this battle, but my memory is that there is a pretty wide consensus to keep racial identification of TM and GZ in the lede. But apparently Candleabracadabra disagrees. Weigh in and lets rehash this issue for the 427248th time. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted this, with a request for the editor to review the archives and come here to discuss if he/she so wishes. It is too provocative an edit, on too contentious a topic, to let stand while yet another discussion goes on. I also do not have the energy to go over this again, but I also recall that there was a wide consensus to have the wording more or less the way it has been, and I am therefore weighing in to say it should remain in the lede as it was. Tvoz/talk 19:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I included the fact that Martin was African American in the lead and explained the relevance. What you've restored is a poorly written racial charicature of the two humans beings involved in this dispute without any explanation of why you're emphasizing Zimmerman's Peruvian-American background or Martin's ethnicity. Please weigh in with reasoning that supports your version if you want it kept. I don't think we should write articles focusing on unexplained racial stereotypes that dehumanize the subjects and continue a legacy of ugly discrimination. We're better than that. At least I am. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is up to you to build consensus for a change, not up to us to prove that the current version should be kept. This has been discussed ad nauseam, and your lack of awareness or unwillingness to investigate those discussions is not cause for us to rehash them here. Watch the left handed WP:NPAs. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning. Consensus can (and hopefully will) change in favor of appropriate encyclopedic standards. Please explain why we should throw around ethnic descriptors as opposed to other aspects of who these people were without explanation. If your argument is so strong why are you having so much trouble articulating it? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The race\ethnicity of Martin and Zimmerman is very relevant in the case, as it was the main reason for the controversy surrounding the case and was written about a lot in the media. I see no reason to remove it. And there's a wide consensus already for having it, which was reached years ago back when the article was written firstly. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Candleabracadabra, I didn't say it was my wording - in fact it is not my wording. It is the wording that had been agreed on here over time and what I did was restore it, because unlike you I am aware that there was much discussion over these points and slash and burn is not collegial editing. Make your case, and see if you get consensus to change among the editors here. But coming in here with guns blazing, forgive the reference, is not going to fly. Consider that you actually don't know, and don't seem to care, how the wording came to be, and then address that instead of casting aspersions on the people who do. And by the way - if you actually offered improvements to the wording that took into account what was being done here, you likely would receive some support. But a weak edit while making accusations and using innuendo is not the way to do it. Tvoz/talk 07:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually think the lede should reflect his self-identification rather than what the media labeled him. Zimmerman has consistently throughout his life self-identified as Hispanic and the lede of this article should reflect that - rather than a label the media imposed upon him.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Many of us said that in a previous discussion. Right now it says mixed race Hispanic, instead of just Hispanic. That should be correct to simply Hispanic. Dream Focus 15:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Race is mentioned in the lede because the media and protesters made a big issue about it. Dream Focus 15:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"White Hispanic" category discussion

This CFD may be of interest to the editors of this article Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_22#Category:White_Hispanic Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance in relation to this particular article as Mr. Zimmerman is himself of mixed ancestry and does not fall under said category. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Mythic Writerlord The term "White Hispanic" was applied to Zimmerman by the media. That caused its own media/political controversy in the real world, which spilled into wiki-land. There was a significant debate about if we should include that descriptor or not in this article. If the category survives, there would likely be a future debate on whether to include him in that category or not. Therefore the editors of this article may be interested in the lifecycle of that category. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"White Hispanic" was applied to Zimmerman by the media for the purpose of sensationalizing the case to sell more newspapers. It's use did not make it true. The "White" controversy regarding Zimmerman is only notable regarding the publics racism and hysteria that surrounded the case. "White Hispanic" may be a legitimate category but it would be inappropriate and definitely racist to apply it to anyone who is not self describing themselves as such. Wayne (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• The category will most likely be deleted. I don't think it should exist, and this article certainly shouldn't have that category in it. Dream Focus 15:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As a white Hispanic myself, I don't see the problem with this category or description. Most all Hispanics are mix of ancestral backgrounds, though most have one that sort of predominates in lineage and/or physical appearance. There are Black Hispanics, there are White Hispanics, and there are Mestizos, in which Native American heritage prevails, and is probably the ethnic group most recognized or thought of when Americans think of Hispanic people. Whatever the motives of the media should not detract from a fairly straightforward descriptive, which it is, even with Zimmerman's "mixed" background. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

George Zimmerman may have been described as a White Hispanic in the media, but he does not identify himself as such. His mother is of Amerindian-Black mixed background and his father's white of German ancestry. Yes he is white on the paternal side of his family, but on his mother's side he is not. Why a biracial man who identifies as such was described as white by so many media outlets really is beyond me but just because some media did describe him as such (with arguably questionable motives) this does not mean wikipedia should join them in this absurdity. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Native American heritage" does not "prevail" in mestizos. In fact, the lack of a prevailing identifiable characteristic (whether European or Amerindian) is what makes them mestizo. Anyone with a prevailing "indigenous" heritage is, well, indigenous. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Caprarescu accuses CIA and SRI of assassinating Trayvon Martin

Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotional material.

I propose to add the following text as the last paragraph of the "Aftermath" chapter: Bogdan Alexandru Caprarescu published a document called "The Secret Organized Crime" in which he accuses an international criminal organization composed of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI), and presumably other secret services of many crimes including the assassination of Trayvon Martin. In the same document Caprarescu witnesses that CIA and SRI read the thoughts of people and control the bodies of people.  Not done Welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately the content you're proposing violates several of Wikipedia's policies and cannot be added. Most importantly, material must be verifiable using published reliable sources such as newspapers or other media with editorial review. The sources you cite aren't reliable because they appear to be self-published. In addition, based on your username you appear to be engaged in self-promotion, which is not allowed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC) References

Interesting read

Fascinating article if anyone is interested.[31]

One of the biggest news stories of 2012, the killing of Trayvon Martin, nearly disappeared from public view, initially receiving only cursory local news coverage. But the story gained attention and controversy over Martin’s death dominated headlines, airwaves, and Twitter for months, thanks to a savvy publicist working on behalf of the victim’s parents and a series of campaigns off–line and online. Using the theories of networked gatekeeping and networked framing, we map out the vast media ecosystem using quantitative data about the content generated around the Trayvon Martin story in both off–line and online media, as well as measures of engagement with the story, to trace the interrelations among mainstream media, nonprofessional and social media, and their audiences. We consider the attention and link economies among the collected media sources in order to understand who was influential when, finding that broadcast media is still important as an amplifier and gatekeeper, but that it is susceptible to media activists working through participatory or nonprofessional media to co–create the news and influence the framing of major controversies. (emphasis by me)

Any thoughts on this statistical analysis - should we cover this? Haven't seen any mainstream pick up on this yet, only tech oriented blogs and sites so far. [32] [33]-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be included in the Media Portrayals section. The investigators concluded from their anlaysis that

"On 25 March, Dan Linehan, lead author of the Wagist blog, asserted that Trayvon was a drug dealer [32]. This reframing of the shooting victim was then amplified by a number of right wing blogs. The frame gained even greater momentum when the Miami Herald reported that Martin had been suspended from school for marijuana residue in a baggie in his possession [33], seen prominently in our ‘marijuana’ sub–graph in Figure 8.

Although there was no solid evidence to support the Wagist’s claim that Martin was a drug dealer, the narrative was effective in that it ended up being echoed by those in the mainstream media, if only to report that there was no credible evidence that the claim was accurate. In terms of total mentions, there were more stories mentioning Trayvon and “marijuana,” or Trayvon and “drug dealer,” in mainstream sources than in conservative blogs, suggesting that this strategy of introducing a possible framing worked, at least as determined by volume of mentions of the frame. Research has shown that restating a myth in order to negate it can actually produce familiarity and thereby help further propagate the misinformation (Johnson and Seifert, 1994; Skurnik, et al., 2005; Weaver, et al., 2007). This thread of the narrative would even continue into Zimmerman’s court case a year later with his lawyers releasing photos of Martin smoking marijuana, retrieved from Martin’s phone, and seeking to introduce the photos as evidence in court (which was denied) [34]."

This is evidence that the portrayals of Martin in alternative media, such as conservative blogs, influenced how the mainstream news media covered the Martin shooting, a point that has been a source of controversy in the recent editing of this article. Dezastru (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more - on both points you raise. However, it's only fair to point out that the liberal media was just as guilty at influencing this story as well, which is highlighted in that article too. Ryan Julison, Natalie Jackson, Benjamin Crump, Al Sharpton/MSNBC all played a significant role in influencing this story, and NBC shamefully edited a tape that caused a shitstorm and CNN drove audiences nuts with analyzing that tape over and over trying to figure out if Zimmerman said coon or cold or whatever.

I can't tell you if it's fair or not the way the conservative blogs/media went after Martin, but I do know that in this day and age if you have an active social media presence online via tweets, texts, Facebook, blogs, posts or any other of the zillion social outlets, you are leaving behind a digital footprint that can and will be analyzed and parsed into little sound bites that may not accurately reflect who you really are. I would daresay that if the mainstream news outlets had investigated and vetted this story out a little bit beforehand, instead of relying on a press release from a publicist, we would have never heard of Zimmerman or Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not really a matter of "guilt" or "fairness". If the article is going to discuss media coverage of the case, it should not ignore the impact that alternative media had on mainstream media coverage. There is already a mention in the Media Coverage section of some of the influence that Ryan Julison and Natalie Jackson had in expanding the exposure of the case in the media. Sharpton's role is also mentioned in a few places (although more as a civil rights activist than a media figure). Also, I don't think it is fair to say that the only reason the case attracted national attention was that some misleading information was reported early on. There were a number of important issues of national significance involved in the case that would have potentially warranted discussion by a national audience (but that's a larger discussion that really isn't appropriate for this Talk page).

What text are you proposing to add to the article based on this new source? Dezastru (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That really is a very good article, especially since it is from a peer-reviewed, academic journal. A summary of what it says should be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

At this time, I have no specific proposal for any addition of the material. I was merely looking for other editor's opinions about this article, but feel free to propose or edit what you think would be useful and NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

interesting but appears to be intellectually bankrupt. This supposed "analysis" goes on to qualify the "drug dealing nature" of trayvon or lack thereof supposedly imputed by the a "right wing blogger". But it never mentions the massive mis-information by leftist in the case originally and through its entirety. why? additionally, it refers to "solid" evidence of drug dealing behavior. These are obvious weasel words here on wikipedia, making one question when a fair and honest source wold choose to apply them. Even more, you will see that the term "left" isn't ever even used at all until "right" is used -- even though the story was driven by leftist sources. why do they wait until "act 4" to bring out this dichotomous trope? Whatzinaname (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Link to Martin in the lead.

Please may someone place a link to Trayvon Martin in the lead? This could be done in the first or second sentence. To access the article from this article, one has to scroll down past the lead to the section on Martin. I think having a link in the lead could be helpful (it certainly would have been for me when I accessed this article). 131.111.185.66 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Dwpaul ^Talk 01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Trayvon's true personality

Many people, lead by erroneous media, have portrayed Trayvon as a sweet, innocent teenager who had loving family. Truth is, he had a criminal record, had burglary tools in his locker at school, was expelled from school twice, we are aware of. His parents were never told and only learned about these things long after the incident. Trayvon's history is very important in this case, but, the media choose to complete ignore it and focus their energies on cowtowing to black hysteria and Zimmerman condemnation. Once again, the media has created a problem instead of identifying and reporting the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.198.13 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

He was shot by someone who knew none of things, so they're irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk)

Not relevant? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The depth of and wisdom displayed in that post is astounding. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not just irrelevant background, it's patently inaccurate. TM was never "expelled" from any school, much less "twice...that we know of"(!) I especially appreciate IP's touch in impugning the media as biased for failing to perpetuate his misinformation. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He was shot by someone he assaulted, that's what's relevant here. Some background info rounds of the article. --154.69.14.137 (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that per RS, the evidence that TM first "assaulted" GM is scant, and the contention that TM's "background " constitutes some kind of evidence in itself is complete synthesis. It's for this same reason Wiki can't cite GZ's history of assault & resisting arrest as "evidence" that he shot TM out of paranoid, over-zealous, vigilante aggression, even though others might say it would "round out" your rounding-out. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"...the evidence that TM first "assaulted" GM is scant..." - There's plenty of evidence - besides GZ's broken, bloody nose and the bleeding wounds on the back of his head we know for a fact that TM waited for GZ, there's no other explanation for his even being where the altercation took place. The only other wound on TM besides the gunshot wound was a scuff on his knuckle from punching GZ. There's nothing to suggest TM was assaulted, it's irrefutable that GZ was assaulted. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a discussion about the opinions of WP editors re whether GZ, TM, both, or neither deserve a "bad guy" designation, or a discussion about how to improve the article? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Local Disturbances"?

"Zimmerman had made nearly 50 calls to police between 2004 and 2012 to report various local disturbances, such as loud parties, open garage doors, potholes, and children playing in the street."

Seriously? An open garage door is a "disturbance"?

You call the police about potholes?

Rather than "reports of local disturbances," seems like these would more appropriately be called "annoyance calls to the police". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article says GZ made 50 calls to police. We didn't say they appreciated them. Is there a suggestion for improvement of the article in there somewhere? Dwpaul ^Talk 22:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

Please change: Trial and verdict Main article: State of Florida v. George Zimmerman

On April 11, 2012, Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder in Martin's death. The trial began on June 24, 2013, and was presented to the jury for deliberations on July 12. The defendant was found not guilty the following day.[386]

To: Trial and verdict Main article: State of Florida v. George Zimmerman

On April 11, 2012, Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder in Martin's death. The trial began on June 24, 2013, and was presented to the jury for deliberations on July 12. The defendant was found not guilty the following day.[386]

Opening statements on June 24th, 2013 included many things ranging from the name calling Zimmerman used on the 911 call he made the night of Martins death to a knock-knock joke. On this day the sides became clear, the defense believed that Zimmerman was acting in self defense when he shot Martin and the prosecution believed that Zimmerman was a cold-hearted killer. Both side brought up evidence in their opening statements that they elaborated on in the following days.

As the trial proceeded the jurors saw pictures of Martin's body, witnesses came forward from the night and neighbors testified. Police, the medical examiner, and experts also testified. Both Zimmerman and Martin's mothers testified that it was their own son's screaming voice on the phone recording. Martin's Father and Zimmerman's friends also testified on behalf of the phone call. Towards the end of the trial forensic experts backed Zimmerman's story of self defense.

Zimmerman chose not to take the stand and testify. After closing arguments, the jury deliberated for over two days and the jury made up of six women found George Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder in the 2012 death of Trayvon Martin. The jury deliberated for 16 hours spread over two days. Hours before the decision was made the jury had ask for clarification of manslaughter because they had the power to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. In the end Zimmerman was found not guilty and free to go.

Ilovebowssomuch (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: tone issues; source provided does not support all this information. More generally, overcoverage for an article on the shooting not the trial. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Infoboxes in "Parties involved" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Now that we have Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman article, shall we remove or keep the infoboxes in the "Parties involved" section? --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What? VQuakr (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are the infobox needed? We already have separate biographies. --George Ho (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does the presence or absence of biographies influence the decision to have infoboxes on this page? VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me the relevance and/or prevalence of those infobox. --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As discussed in the talk page archives, they are relevant to the article on the event because they are the two persons most central to said event. You started this RfC; please present a cogent line of reasoning explaining what is your suggestion, why, and why you felt an RfC was necessary. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I want the bot to invite people; that's all. The topic must have lost luster when the verdict was reached. At least there are similar cases, like 2014 Ferguson unrest. And I really want a consensus. Also, keep the photos if infoboxes are to be removed. I checked the archives, and that was when Martin and Zimmerman biographies didn't exist. --George Ho (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As said before, we already have stand-alone biographies. VQuakr, what's your decision? --George Ho (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The infoboxes are probably not needed anymore. They only serve to clutter the page and the information offered within them is already present either outside of them or on the biographies. Now that they have their own pages I don't think the infoboxes are necessary, though the pictures should probably remain. Weedwacker (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Remove The main articles contain infoboxes already. No need for it here. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Remove the infoboxes, if we have separate articles, why do we need this infobox? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think we need these infoboxes here. Information in the text and a link to the main articles should suffice. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The picture of Martin should be updated to one more contemporary to the shooting.

There are lots of other pictures circulating. Which one is most current? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coeholbrook (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. XavierItzm (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. We need a more recent picture, not the one of him looking younger used for propaganda purposes. The younger image was used to make people feel sorry for him, as a helpless little boy. Dream Focus 00:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The audio recording of the phone call urgently needs to be edited

The transcript of the call and the captions that appear when you listen to the audio both say that Zimmerman's home number was redacted. If you listen to the audio itself, though, Zimmerman's phone number hasn't been edited out and you can hear his phone number pretty clearly at two different points. I don't know how to edit recordings, but the actual phone number definitely needs to be cut out somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichigogogirl (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded a redacted copy, with just silence both times. (You might need to clear your browser cache to get the new version.) The previous version still exists on the wikimedia commons page, I have no idea how to delete just that version of the file, or even if we should - hopefully somebody else can do so? Cosmogoblin (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's probably pretty safe to say he's changed that number by now. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015

The article says that the police sited "Stand your Ground" law as the reason for releasing Zimmerman. Fact is the only ones who brought up that were those where illegally trying to get Zimmerman convicted without a trial. The police stated that it was a clear-cut case of self-defense. 71.74.110.233 (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, you'll need to cite reliable sources to support your requested edit. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Press mention I wish we hadn't gotten

The accused Charleston killer, in his manifesto, says it was reading this Wikipedia article about Trayvon Martin that radicalized him.[34] I added a "press mention" notice at the top of this page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He says the case "awakened him" and that he learned most about it by reading "the Wikipedia article." He actually does not mention which one, for all we know he might only have read the Trayvon Martin article. He determined Zimmerman acted in the right but what actually radicalized him was the Council of Conservative Citizens, he says. I do not think without knowing which article he read we can mention it. TFD (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that he specifically references Zimmerman being "in the right." I think in context, it's pretty obvious which article he's citing. Dyrnych (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman articles also mention the killing. I don't think we can assume anything. It's not like Roof is a methodical researcher. TFD (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It requires no great logical leap to conclude that he's referencing the article that discusses the shooting at length rather than articles that briefly mention the shooting. Let's not be obtuse. Dyrnych (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article (Shooting of Trayvon Martin, originally created as Trayvon Martin) was the first Wikipedia article created, in March 2012, and for six months it was the only article on the subject. The Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman redirects weren't expanded into articles until September. So it's a virtual certainty that this was the article he read. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Trial of George Zimmerman (another article he might have read) did not begin until 2013. I am sure your guesswork is good, but it is still original research. For all we know, he did not even look at any of these articles. We need a reliable source that says he did, and the Telegraph article merely quotes him. But in time no doubt his search history will be disclosed. TFD (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For the context of the Wikipedia comment, here's the 1st two paragraphs.[35]

I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country. But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes. Me and White friends would sometimes would watch things that would make us think that “blacks were the real racists” and other elementary thoughts like this, but there was no real understanding behind it.

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? TFD (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Just making it easier for editors to see the situation directly, instead of relying on the interpretations of intermediaries. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's how the news article described what set him off.[36]

He says the event that awakened his feelings was the murder of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old black high-school student shot dead by a white neighbourhood watch co-ordinator in 2012.
“I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was,” he wrote.
From there, he said, it was a short step to becoming more “racially aware”.

The phrase "racially aware" first occurs at the end of the 3rd paragraph of the manifesto[37] and Roof's text doesn't seem to support the news article's statement, "From there, he said, it was a short step to becoming more “racially aware”." --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Fresh eyes here. I can see where he was coming from. He says that 'right away' he was unable to understand what the big deal was. 'Right away' in a Wikipedia article is the lede. And this lede gives the very strong impression that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Whether that is in keeping with WP:NPOV, I'll leave you to decide. Handpolk (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead of this article somehow manages to completely avoid explaining why anyone might think that George Zimmerman did something wrong or even mentioning that race (i.e. racial profiling) was widely considered to be a contributing factor in the shooting. The lead's lack of context is a disservice to our readers. Kaldari (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter

I moved this recent addition in the article to this Talk page because it doesn't seem to be supported by the sources.

The 2013 acquittal of Zimmerman of the murder of Martin directly inspired the Black Lives Matter movement.

After carefully reading the sources, they seem to contradict each other and don't support the above material. If anyone thinks otherwise, please quote here the excerpts from the sources that are used to support the material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The first source seems to support it (although I could do with some proof from that time period and not just this person's say so) - is there a way to search twitter/facebook for the hashtag in the Martin timeframe?. The second does not support the MArtin conneciton, but does support the Garza coining. I don't see anything that contradicts the first source though, just emphasis on the recent cases. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Give the excerpts that you're using and I'll try to show you the problems. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not the one who added this, I'm just responding to your post. but Martin could just as easily have been her brother, a gentle, 6-foot, 25-year-old with a big Afro "who could never hurt a fly," Garza said. "I felt not only enraged but a deep sense of grief that I can't protect him. I can't protect him against this cancer," she said. So she composed a love note to black people on Facebook, urging them to come together to ensure "that black lives matter."Her friend, Patrisse Cullors, a community organizer from Los Angeles, spotted the Facebook post and put a hashtag in front of those three words. #BlackLivesMatter was born. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The better argument against including this is that it seems like trivia for this article (but could be good background in the BLM article). In this article a see also link is sufficient I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

From the Guynn article,[38]

Garza saw Zimmerman's acquittal on TV news.

She thought it was unfair to black people.

She made a Facebook posting that included the phrase "black lives matter".

Cullors added a hashtag to the phrase.

The hashtag spread on social media.

The slogan was used in street protests.

It's not clear when the slogan became the name of a movement, Black Lives Matter.

I'd suggest changing the sentence to the following,

The 2013 acquittal of Zimmerman on the charge of murdering Martin, inspired a Facebook posting that included the phrase "black lives matter", which later became the name of the Black Lives Matter movement.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Okay. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Cyberbot II has detected links on Shooting of Trayvon Martin which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/prosecute-the-killer-of-our-son-17-year-old-trayvon-martin

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin's death provoking a larger national conversation about race

Hi all, I would argue that at least some discussion must be given to the way that Trayvon Martin's death seems to have provoked a larger national conversation about race. Race is now omnipresent in public discourse, and by my memory it just wasn't that way before Martin's death. Can't provide any direct citations, but I imagine they could be found. The significance of this event in the context of broader events is not really carefully treated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.247.194 (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130715203604/http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/police-incident-fills-in-details-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/ to http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/police-incident-fills-in-details-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120519000523/http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/18/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 to http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/18/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130514115240/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57417825/george-zimmermans-bail-set-at-$150000/ to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57417825/george-zimmermans-bail-set-at-$150000/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120421021516/http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/19/justice/florida-stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 to http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/19/justice/florida-stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120429154945/http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/25/2767769/nbc6-fires-local-reporter-in-editing.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/25/2767769/nbc6-fires-local-reporter-in-editing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Neighborhood Watch Coordinator"

Wikipedia's "Neighborhood Watch" page:

"A neighborhood watch or neighbourhood watch (see spelling differences), also called a crime watch or neighbourhood crime watch, is an organized group of civilians devoted to crime and vandalism prevention within a neighborhood. In other words, neighborhood watch is a crime prevention scheme under which civilians agree together to keep an eye on one another's properties, patrol the street, and report suspicious incidents to law enforcement."

Has there at any point ever been any indication that Zimmerman was part of a group? I don't recall ever seeing even mention of other group members who "would prefer to remain anonymous".

If there were no other members of a group, then he was not a coordinator. "Neighborhood watch coordinator" is a more favorable frame than "vigilante", but repeating a fiction infinitely does not make it fact. I think the term should be removed.

Alienkind (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Or possibly changed from "coordinator" to volunteer". The NYT article used as reference:

"SANFORD, Fla. — Last August, Wendy Dorival got a call about setting up a local neighborhood watch. As the volunteer coordinator for the Police Department here, she gets such calls regularly, and the city already had at least 10 active watch groups. So she thought nothing of this call, from George Zimmerman.

She set up a visit for the next month at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community that had been dealing with a string of burglaries. When 25 residents showed up, a decent turnout, she had the residents introduce themselves; after all, people join the groups to look out for each other. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a handbook. As she always does, she emphasized what a neighborhood watch is — and what it is not.

In every presentation, “I go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday. The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.”

Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question, she said in an interview.

Mr. Zimmerman was there, she recalled, and the local group appointed him their coordinator. But on Feb. 26, Mr. Zimmerman, 28, pursued, confronted and fatally shot Trayvon Martin, 17, an unarmed black high school student who had been carrying only an iced tea and a bag of Skittles."

In summary, one meeting six months prior. During which, the actual coordinator employed by the police explicitly indicated a neighborhood watch program is not to carry a weapon or confront anyone.

Zimmerman's interaction with Martin was not part of any neighborhood watch program. It is misleading to suggest that it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienkind (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SYN. VQuakr (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)