Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

Zimmerman's attorney sets up a Twitter account, Facebook page & website

http://usat.ly/JYMTHj Intrepid (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this merits inclusion, this is highly unusual for a defense lawyer in a high profile case to turn to social media sites, I would daresay it's probably never been done on a level like this. Having said that, maybe we should exercise caution and give it a couple of days to see if it backfires on them.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The official page on Facebook for information about the George Zimmerman Legal Case, administered by the Mark O'Mara Law Group https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase Intrepid (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The official George Zimmerman Website & Defense Fund, administered by the Mark O'Mara Law Group http://gzlegalcase.com Intrepid (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added this info to Section 1.6 George Zimmerman's attorneys. Intrepid (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources for criticism of affidavit

I'd like to discuss this one-sentence paragraph. The sourcing, to put it bluntly, sucks. First of all, this article deals extensively with living and recently deceased people and is thus subject to WP:BLP. There is no way that sourcing meets the bar in WP:BLP.

Even if one makes a dubious technical argument that the one paragraph in question is devoid of BLP ramifications, these sources largely fail even our general sourcing guidelines. This is a high-profile case where good sources abound. It's unclear to me why we're insisting on including this material without appropriate sources. The sentence also suffers from citation overkill, under the apparent (but mistaken) assumption that 7 low-quality sources are better than 1 low-quality source. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to use any of these refs?

• Case against George Zimmerman may be doomed Star Tribune
• Where’s the ‘Probable Cause’? National Review
• Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit ‘Irresponsible And Unethical’ Mediaite (reporting what was originally on MSNBC)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of answering a question with a question: do you believe those meet this site's bar for sourcing?

The first and last sources support the claim that a single commentator (Alan Dershowitz) criticized the indictment. The Star Tribune is a good source (although its content still needs to be more accurately reflected as conveying Dershowitz's opinion); Mediaite is a poor, marginal source.

As to the National Review article, I question the current heavy reliance on partisan media in this article, and would prefer not to add to it. If that source is used, it should again be clear that it reflects the view of a single person, John Lott, who happens to be an outspoken believer in "defensive" gun use. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

First, let's address your question, "At the risk of answering a question with a question: do you believe those meet this site's bar for sourcing?" — Yes. If there is anything in policy that you would like to quote that says otherwise, I'd be interested in having you post the excerpt here, so we can look at it carefully. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You've answered my question. I explained my concerns about the sources above. Briefly, the Star Tribune is a good source, but the opinion expressed therein needs to be clearly attributed to Dershowitz, since he is the only apparent critic in that article. The other two sources are suboptimal; one is a partisan source (which are best avoided and already over-represented in the article), while the other is a blog. I'd be fine with the Star Tribune source, properly presented, but I'm going to register another objection to the current sourcing, which doesn't meet WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

this archived discussion has several more sources in this vein (including nytimes, fox, etc) , as well as some proposed text. Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_6#Article_still_missing_entire_.22other_side.22 Gaijin42 (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell, Frankly, your criticisms of the sources don't have much substance, especially since you have declined to use Wikipedia policy as requested. Your criticism of Lott as being too far right is refuted by his basic agreement with Dershowitz who is left. And blogs aren't prohibited by policy, only readers' responses to the blogs. And in this particular case, the Mediaite article gives the video of the original MSNBC telecast that it is reporting on, so its comments can be easily checked by the reader. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are clearly dis-prefered to reliable secondary sources, which there are plenty of. No reason to go to a blog for this. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case, it seems that the only difference between the article in this blog and a non-blog article is that readers have a chance to respond to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There are better sources available, and many of them. (see the archived link I included above). Why use a contentious source that there is dispute over? If you really want to mandate inclusion of this particular source take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and get a wider consensus on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) time, date (UTC)

BTW, it appears it isn't a blog. From the beginning of Blog,

"A blog (a portmanteau of the term web log) is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order so the most recent post appears first. Blogs are usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group, and often are themed on a single subject."

And to answer your question of why use it if its use is contentious here, we don't have to. It contains a video of the original Dershowitz interview, which I think is useful. Also, I don't like the idea of suppressing the use of a source for fallacious reasons, which is not good for Wikipedia in general. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

why not just link directly to the MSNBC copy of the dershowitz video? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Even better, why not use the best available sources? Are we looking for the best sources we can find, or just for sources that agree with our viewpoint and barely slip past the lowest bar of adequacy? To be clear, I don't have a problem with citing Dershowitz's opinion as notable. I do have a problem with the ever-increasing reliance on partisan sources (hence my objection to the National Review opinion piece by a gun-rights advocate). And does anyone except me care that the clearly unacceptable sources have once again been reinserted, this time by an editor who hasn't even bothered to comment here ([1])? I'm not going to edit-war over it, but the editing behavior on display here is sub-optimal on a number of levels. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in practice (for this particular example at least), but in principle the logic you just used would remove most of the sources used in the article. (Anyone think you really couldn't legitimately describe MSNBC, NBC, and CNN etc as liberal and gun-control advocates?) That the sources themselves have bias is just something we have to deal with, and cannot really avoid Gaijin42 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

MSNBC is partisan in the same sense that Fox News is partisan, and both are ideally avoided but potentially useable. On the other hand, NBC and CNN are reliable sources by this site's criteria. NBC and CNN are not "partisan sources", not in the sense of the National Review or Newsbusters or the dozens of other conservative opinion sites upon which this article is currently largely based. I completely reject that as false equivalence, and I'd be happy to take it up at the relevant noticeboards if you're intending that as a serious line of argument as opposed to playing devil's advocate. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell, Re your comment, "reliable sources by this site's criteria" — It would help if you gave the excerpt here from policy regarding "criteria". So far it looks like it's only your criteria. BTW, I've asked this before and if you ignore it again, well....let's say it's better to progress towards cooperation than confrontation. (Just realized that's kind of ironic considering the topic of the article.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The criteria in question are described in the verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline, with stricter criteria in WP:BLP. They boil down to a preference for sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

Blogs are deprecated but not categorically forbidden: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources... Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." The last bit makes clear a preference for higher-quality sources over blogs.

I'm not going to argue about the semantics of the word "blog", but will say only that Mediaite describes itself as "Huffington Post meets Gawker", and as a blog (if you Google "mediaite", the site's self-description reads: "Mediaite is a news and opinion blog and aggregator for the media industry.") Mediaite's disclaimer notes: "The information set forth herein may not necessarily be accurate or current", which is basically an abdication of the responsibility for fact-checking and accuracy set forth in our policies.

More to the point, I'm still at a loss for why there is such vehement resistance to the idea of trying to use high-quality sources. The crappy sources and blogs are still in the article, and instead of trying to improve the quality of sourcing, we're arguing about the dictionary definition of the word "blog", which is disheartening. MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There are blogs and then there are blogs. I notice that some of the legal blogs being used here as references have been awarded by the liberal American Bar Association as "top 100" (or was it "top 10"?) legal blogs. Presumably this counts for something—perhaps that the attorneys commenting there are thoughtful and know something about the law they're discussing. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that we're not talking about facts here, we're talking about the opinions of lawyers. Does it make that much difference where the opinion was recorded as long as we indicate that it's an opinion? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Many legal experts have criticized the affidavit of probable cause that was used to obtain the indictment of Zimmerman as legally deficient." As I noted in my edit summary, there is no possible BLP vio in this text. And that it is factual is demonstrated by the sources I've extracted from the original source, to a blog, provided by the original editor. And I might have added one or two. Anyway, it's basically unanimous, from left to right, that the affadavit is a POS. (The only purported analysis, by anyone with -any- claim to expertise, that disagrees, that I'm aware of, is by David French at NRO.) The main reason you don't want to stop with Dersh is that, while he's absolutely right in the Hardball interview that the Affadavit of Probable Cause doesn't begin to allege the elements of an actual crime (right, except that he thought it would be tossed out by a good judge, while in actual fact the criminal process in Fla is so degraded that the constitutionally-required first hearing is so strictly pro-forma that it's not unusual for Judge Herr to have ruled that the POS was perfectly OK just a minute after announcing that he'd just received it), his analysis in that venue (a TV show) is necessarily much inferior to what is available at, particularly, talkleft and emptywheel, but also practically every other written source. Mastcell prefers NBC ("he's black!"), CNN ("coons!"), ABC ("No visible injuries!") and all the media that kept Z in a perp suit for months. Welcome to WikiWorld ("Eeek! A blog! BLP! BLP!"). Andyvphil (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do prefer NBC, CNN, and ABC to random partisan blogs, but that's a preference solidly based on this site's guidelines and policies. I don't think you can dodge the issue by personalizing it. Gaijin42 recognizes, as I do, that "blogs are clearly dis-prefered to reliable secondary sources, which there are plenty of. No reason to go to a blog for this." In any case, I've asked for additional input from the reliable sources noticeboard, since I don't feel this discussion going in a productive or policy-based direction. MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell, Thanks for the policy excerpts. Are there any excerpts from policy that support your objection to the Lott article in National Review? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in here, sometimes blogs are a reliable source if something relates to them in a particular fashion. Such as Newsbusters reporting the NBC 'editgate', something noticed by Newsbuster and posted by Newsbusters is a better source then Fox News reporting Newsbusters's post. Anyone can spout policy, but a certain matter is always relevant, the source. If 'John Smith' says 'X' then we should use 'John Smith says X' as a source, we should not play hippy-hop with 'Fox News reports John Smith says X'. Acknowledgment and mirroring of a material by a source someone deems reliable is not preferable to the actual source of the information. In this case Fox News would be affirming the matter, not creating it. Another example would be to look in an Encyclopedia for the definition of 'Widgets' and that encyclopedia states 'According to <name> dictionary, Widgets are...' if you have that dictionary you should use that dictionary as the source. Just because someone mirrors or refers to it (the referee being a 'reliable source') should not trump the original source of the information. This is how that 'Neo-nazi's patrolling Sanford' got started, it was entirely false from a blog yet it went to the Washington Post and ABC blindly reporting the matter as true when it was false. Playing 'telephone' with sources is no excuse not to correctly attribute and definitively acknowledge a source. This is done for quotes, why is their push back on entire stories? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'd like to get the phantom nazis story into the section on media insanity, whatever we call it. Andyvphil (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Media bias and malpractice

WP is accusing the media of malpractice now, seriously?? I have not seen any RS reporting any media outlet of committing malpractice in their coverage of this case. This seems to be a POV driven agenda accusing the media of malpractice without any RS to back up that section title. Furthermore, the CNN coverage of the "alleged" racial slur and the ABC surveillance video have been moved to this section as well. I do not see any RS referenced in this section indicating that CNN or ABC was biased or committed malpractice when covering these events, or any reference sourced indicating that NBC committed malpractice or that the old photos being used at the time were malpractice. If an editor wants to make a serious claim such as malpractice, then they should back that claim up with a RS, instead of pushing their POV agenda in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest another title for the section? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Was there something wrong with the previous title?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed the title. But if consensus forms for a new one, do not object to it moving to that. Just agreed it was obvious the "malpractice" title was pov. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I still object to CNN and ABC being included in this section without a RS referenced indicating their coverage of these incidents were "alleged to have been biased" as the section title indicates and the sub-section titles "against CNN" and "against ABC". Who is alleging that CNN and ABC were biased in their coverage, a RS or an editor? I can understand NBC being here as they edited a tape and there was widespread coverage on the "editgate", but I disagree with CNN and ABC being represented as being biased without a RS to back that claim up, the Daily Caller who first enhanced the video and called ABC out on it, didn't allege their reporting was biased.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, it's a matter of the title "Allegations of media bias", which is the only place there where the word "bias" appears. Would the title "Allegations of misleading reports" work for you? If not, what would you suggest for the title? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My issue is that we have a section title indicating that there were allegations, whether it be bias or misleading, who is alleging this conduct by the media, WP or a RS. Like I stated earlier, I can understand NBC, as it was widely reported on about it being misleading. My suggestion would be to remove the section title of "allegaions of media bias", and leave "Initial coverage", remove "against CNN" and leave it under the sub-section title of "Reporting on Zimmerman call to dispatcher" and remove "against ABC" and leave sub-section title of "surveillance video". NBC can remain the same as it is. Just a suggestion for neutrality.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Re "My issue is that we have a section title indicating that there were allegations, whether it be bias or misleading, who is alleging this conduct by the media, WP or a RS." — "Allegations" seems to be a reasonable description of the articles. I changed from "bias" to "misleading reports" since I think you are right regarding "bias", which goes beyond being misleading. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the "allegations" altogether since there is no RS indicating there were any allegations that their reporting was "misleading". I left the section title of "Initial coverage" and deleted "against CNN" and "against ABC" and left their sub-section titles. I left NBC the same. The reader can decide if their reporting was misleading or biased, we should retain a NPOV when naming section titles.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the edit you made. It doesn't seem quite right, but I'll think about it some more. Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The opinion that media bias and malpractice, akin to the Duke Lacrosse case, has been on obvious display is both widespread and accurate. Denying that the accusations exist is simply insane. E.g., http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/media-malpractice_636993.html, and many others. Andyvphil (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but caution against using the term malpractice, a term which has meaning in the legal and medical communities, but not in the media. The First Amendment essentially gives the media wide latitude to botch the story, provided they don't run afoul of libel laws. The source you cite is using the word figuratively, which might not be apparent to all readers. Fletcher (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that malpractice is a widely understood term of art. It should stay out. The structure of the article needs to be assessed as well. Just removing keywords, ie: media bias, doesn't address all the possible POV issues. Care needs to be taken to not coatrack in Media bias in the US. I need to think about this more...ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree the term is used figuratively in that article and just because it is that guy's opinion doesn't mean that it should be WP's opinion. I don't see anything insane in retaining a NPOV. We let the reader decide if the media was biased or misleading and don't try and push a POV agenda.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You've been editing this article for a while. I can't believe that you haven't noticed that the media has taken some criticism for accepting and running with Crump's story that a racist perp chased down and executed baby Trayvon, and that the criticism is very much that the media has been biased. Nobody is saying that Wikipedia has to agree that the coverage has been biased but there is something pretty putrid going on in WikiWorld if we can't take notice of what's in front of our nose. NPOV isn't ignoring the existance of POVs you don't like. Andyvphil (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What you say is going on in front of our noses, has been ongoing now for decades. This is nothing new, the news media was turned into opinion driven agendas a long time ago, my friend. You can call it biased, misleading, malpractice or whatever you want, but we shouldn't take that approach in an encyclopedia format. Our agenda is to take what the RS are reporting on and deliver it to the reader in a NPOV, without taking sides. We let the readers decide for themselves if the media is biased or misleading in their reporting. There is no doubt in my mind that the initial coverage of this shooting helped form a perception of Zimmerman and Martin, and there are still those who are "looking for the big scoop". I just don't think it is necessary for us to include every single instance of their opinionated agendas. We acknowledge it and move on.

As far as Crump/Sharpton are concerned, I advocated early on about including their role in this media frenzy that enveloped the country. Crump knew from the very begining about Trayvon's suspension's but yet he let the media "dig" it up, so they could feign outrage about it, Tracy Martin knew that Trayvon had attacked Zimmerman days after the shooting because police had told him, but yet this information was "divulged" by the media as well. Crump has orchestrated the flow of information as he sees fit and then plans press conferences to bloviate about how every little detail they report on "blows Zimmerman's account of events out of the water". Now, having said all that, it is important to remember this is all WP:OR and highly speculative to say the least and will never make it's way into this article due to the inflammatory nature of it, but yeah, I'm not blind, just merely prudent.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"We acknowledge it"? Where? Maybe I missed it. Or do you mean here, out of sight of the unwashed masses? Andyvphil (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Luckily, we, the editors of Wikipedia, don't have to accuse the media of anything. We have the media itself to do that for us. There are widespread reliable sources that talk about the bias that was exceptionally prevalent in this incident, and it is in fact absurdly obvious to anyone who is even half awake. HOWEVER, despite it being obvious, the way in which we characterize the bias is still something that we must return to reliable secondary sources to provide analysis. By the way, the word 'malpractice' discussed above is completely inappropriate in the context of news media. -- Avanu (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: we already have someone from the Washington Post describing the NBC edits as "high editorial malpractice" — see the section "Misleading edit". --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, use of the word 'malpractice' is not limited to the legal and medical professions. Look it up at merriam-webster.com. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and many words can be used in non-normative ways. You usually see it in the papers of high school kids who don't know how to write and pull out a thesaurus in an attempt to sound smart. You might notice that in the article on Yellow journalism, we don't see the word 'malpractice' one time. A word like malpractice in relation to something so subjective as news coverage is that it often doesn't clearly fit. Sure, some action might have been biased, or unethical, but did it rise to the level of 'malpractice'? In the United States, we're pretty much free to say almost anything unless we start making threats of violence. So while I think it was fine for the Washington Post to use the term "high editorial malpractice", after all, writing gets boring unless you color it with interesting phrases, its not a responsible section header for Wikipedia unless the term comes into common use, and it hasn't. (And by the way, in that Merriam Webster definition, the initial definition even mentions a physician as an example, but nothing else.) -- Avanu (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, you are simply mistaken. The term is in common use and has been for years. There's even a movie with the title Media Malpractice. If it's an accusation to say that the media are guilty of malpractice and bias in covering this incident, then it's an accusation to say that water is wet. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit "cleanup and clarification"

In part of a recent edit of Isaidnoway,[2] there was the change from,

"considered Martin's behavior suspicious because he was walking between the townhomes rather than on the street or sidewalk"

to

"thought that it was suspicious that someone was walking by the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk".

What does the source(s) say regarding "walking between the townhomes" vs. "walking by the town homes"? Please give excerpt. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quote from Zimmerman's father: “Because there had been a lot of break-ins in the area, he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk, but they'd be walking right behind the townhomes.” There is a common walkway 'behind' and between the townhomes where the incident took place, however, so the way it's written now might mislead those that aren't yet familiar with the layout to think that Martin was walking somewhere unusual. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Both versions could be improved on. BTW, I incorrectly understood the "between" version to mean between individual houses. Maybe we should quote the source's phrase "right behind the townhomes". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[Edited for clarification on source] Sorry about that, it is my fault, I forgot to change the reference from MSNBC to MyFox Tampay Bay Orlando who originally did the interview with Robert Zimmerman. Here is the actual quote he gave to FOX 35. "he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk. That he'd be walking between the town homes." I have no idea why MSNBC or FoxTampaBay changed the quote, so I went with the original source instead of a secondary. I deleted MSNBC and added myfoxorlando. Here's the actual interview. [3] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I listened to the video at the link you provided, and it corroborated the quote in the msnbc article mentioned above, i.e. "right behind the townhomes". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify the situation some more.

• In the Fox video at 00:32, Robert Zimmerman says, "Because there had been a lot of break-ins in the area, he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk, but they'd be walking right behind the townhomes."[4]
• In the text of the Fox Orlando article which has the video, it does not directly quote Robert Zimmerman but there is the text,

Because there has been a lot of break-ins in the area, Robert said George thought it suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk on a rainy night -- that Martin would be walking between the town homes.

Robert Zimmerman did not say, "between the town names".

• In the text of the msnbc article, the correct quote of Robert Zimmerman from the Fox video is given, "Because there had been a lot of break-ins in the area, he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk, but they'd be walking right behind the townhomes."[5]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So, what do you think, between, behind or by, which one do you think? Do you think readers would watch the interview or will they just read the text. Either one is fine with me and I think technically both are an accurate description of the area where he was walking.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed to "behind" etc.[6] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Allegations against NBC

Re: "Fox News newsmagazine host Geraldo Rivera, a former NBC employee, asserted that NBC "made an ideological decision that... they would argue strenuously for the prosecution of George Zimmerman and the ultimate conviction of George Zimmerman... [T]hey are cheerleading for the conviction of George Zimmerman."[232]" I don't watch tv except sports, and even I am aware of the ideological feud between NBC and Fox. Do you guys really want to trot that out here? I'm against it. I can say more if you don't understand what I'm getting at. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much substance in Rivera's personal inflammatory impressions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't much substance to to anything in this wiki or legal case for that matter.18:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I want to "trot that out" here, and did. Rivera said it, he's remarkably well qualified to reach the opinion he expressed, and I see no reason to suppress mention of it in the appropriate part of the article, where it is. If you find someone significant saying "he just said that because he hates NBC" we'll put that in too. Andyvphil (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What about O'Reilly's opinion of Rivera's point of view(shortened of course) as well then? "As for the case itself, Rivera insisted that the media had done enough harm. “This never should have been a Murder-2 wrap,” he argued, “this was involuntary manslaughter at best.” O’Reilly objected to this, noting that Rivera was “doing the same thing on the other side.” Rivera tried to tell O’Reilly “I am agreeing with you” on the damage the media can do, but O’Reilly still considered Rivera dismissing the possibility of a conviction to be just as bad as the opposite claims. “I don’t know what they have, so I am going to withhold judgment,” O’Reilly concluded." I'm questioning the inclusion of opinion pundits' comments in an encyclopedic article. I'm new here and I'm curious what other editors think is appropriate and why. ArishiaNishi (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think certain opinion's are OK, as long as they are attributed to the person saying it and they are well-known individuals. I also think it must be relevant to the article, and in this case, I think it is because NBC made quite a gaffe with their misleading edit, and it would appear by their reporting on this case that they did decide on an agenda to go with (IMO). Geraldo is well known and I agree with Andyvphil that he is qualified to reach that opinion and it is appropriately placed in the article as well. As far as O'Reilly commenting on Geraldo, I don't really think that adds anything substantive.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In particular, in the passage you quote O'Reilly isn't responding to Rivera's opinion of NBC. We didn't quote Rivera on the appropriateness of Murder-2, so O'Reilly's response is off-topic here. Andyvphil (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's probable that I have a strong negative POV of cable and broadcast tv in general that I'm unable to overcome. I'll leave this entire Media section to those of you who can. ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

mary cutcher's rambling

She has repeatedly given two different accounts to the media -- one where she claims the first time she sees zimmerman he is straddling the body of trayvon, and then other times she says the first time sge sees him he is pacing near the body stadning up obviously. They can't both be correct. This article here claims BOTH in the very same article, almost trying to explain her own schizophrenic version of events. either we remove the straddling claim or add "at other times she stated that he was pacing blah blah, whatever". She's also said she was coming out of the house, and others where she was not. She seems to change her story constatnly. She also says "after she heard the shot blah, blah" but other times claimed she heard two shots. It doesn't suprise me the police have said her current claims are inconsistent with her sworn testimony to the police: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/04/witnesses_mary_cutcher_and_selma_mora_offer_their_account_of_what_happened_the_night_trayvon_martin_died_.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How about the fact she never saw what happened? I mean seriously, its on the 911 tape. Last time I tried to deal with the matter wasn't pretty, but yes, it is an obvious contradiction and obviously contradicts the 911 call. Thus far she has given three different accounts on record, and probably a fourth on the undisclosed police report. Deal with it if you can, but I don't want to quibble over details, her accounts, as self contradictory as they are, probably will end up staying. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman's account of events

Yesterday's and today's edits have improved this section, however I still see a couple of problems:

He said he was driving to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking through the neighborhood. Zimmerman's father told Fox 35 in Orlando, that his son thought that it was suspicious that someone was walking between the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk and he called a non-emergency police line to report Martin's behavior. According to the Orlando Sentinel, a source familar with the investigation indicated to them that while Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher, Martin approached and began circling Zimmerman's vehicle, which prompted him to roll up his window to avoid a confrontation. However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher. The Sentinel's source also stated that while Zimmerman was still on the phone, he parked his vehicle and got out and began trying to locate Martin on foot. Zimmerman claimed he could not find Martin and as he was returning to his vehicle, Martin approached him from the left rear and confronted him. According to Zimmerman, Martin asked him, "Do you have a problem?" He says he replied "No", and Martin then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar, while Zimmerman reached for his cell phone. Zimmerman says Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the ground. Zimmerman claimed he called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams. However, the Sentinel's source said that law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming for help and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled. According to Zimmerman's father, Martin saw the gun his son was carrying and reached for it saying "tonight you die;" they struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range in self-defense.

"However he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher." While it is true that Zimmerman never mentioned rolling up his window to avoid a confrontation, he did make reference to the fact that Martin was "staring at me," then saying "He's coming to check me out." So it is not quite accurate to say Zimmerman "never mentioned any of that." Just deleted this sentence, as this one is pretty clear.

"Zimmerman claimed he could not find Martin and as he was returning to his vehicle, Martin approached him from the left rear and confronted him." We know from the tapes that Zimmerman was having difficulty locating Martin, and when the dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, then suggesting "We don't need you to do that," Zimmerman's response was "OK." The call soon ends and we don't know what happened next. I think it is necessary to make reference to Zimmerman's exchange with the dispatcher and his seeming acquiesence to the dispatcher's suggestion. To delete it is prejedicial against Zimmerman's claim that he had given up trying to locate Martin and was returning to his vehicle.

"Zimmerman claimed he called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams. However, the Sentinel's source said that law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming for help and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled." This is supposed to be "Zimmerman's account of events," not a place where every point and counterpoint is mentioned. Other commentary re: muffling or non-muffling mentions that one's mouth can be covered at one point, yet uncovered at another, which would result in only the unmuffled screams being heard. I think it is awkward to bring in all the points and counterpoints, so I think the sentence ("However, the Sentinel's source said that law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming for help and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled.") should be deleted. This one is bound to be more controversial, so I'll wait for comments.

That's about it. I think the section is getting better. Apostle12 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to use a source from the police who says he has inside knowledge of Zimmerman's account of what happened and the police believe there is inconsistencies in his story, we should include it. We shouldn't be just picking out what we want to include. The quote "However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher", is an exact quote from the Orlando Sentinel article. Anybody who has listened to the tapes knows he didn't say it either, so the police source must have thought it was significant to the case because he did mention it. Again, if we are going to quote a source from the police who said that " One of those inconsistencies: Zimmerman told police Trayvon had his hand over Zimmerman's mouth during their fight on the night he shot Trayvon. The Sentinel's source confirmed that Zimmerman's statements include that allegation. But authorities do not believe that happened..." why we would leave such an important detail out of his "account of events", the source said his statement included the allegation and that the police didn't believe him. We have a source giving the POV from the police about his account and it should stay. Whether his mouth was muffled or un-muffled when he yelled is just speculation on your part and the police source doesn't mention it. The reason I deleted that Zimmerman "went along with the dispatcher's suggestion" is because it is not referenced in any of the RS we have included, in fact, in one of the Orlando Sentinel article's it says: "Even though a dispatcher told George Zimmerman not to follow Martin, his father said his son continued his pursuit to locate an address to give to police." There is no mention of Zimmerman following the dispatcher's suggestion in this reference or any of the other references. This is actually covered in more detail in another section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to show me where the "dispatch" even told him NOT to follow Trayvon. That in and of itself is purely biased interpretation of the event. They said "we do't need you" -- not "don't do it".Whatzinaname (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I can be so kind to direct you to the reference where that quote came from; [7] I don't see how it is biased, being that the implied meaning of "We don't need you to do that" is pretty much "don't do it". Either way, it is not included in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If your English comprehension is so poor to not understand the difference in the statements "you don't have to do something" and "don't do something". you shouldn't be editing the English wikipedia. At least, I'd advise you check your dictionary on imperative and declarative sentencesWhatzinaname (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Gimme a break. It has to do with plain old common sense, if you are talking to a police dispatcher and they advise you "we don't need you to do that", especially when they just asked you a specific question, "Are you following him", I think anybody exercising a little common sense would understand that to mean "don't do it". You don't call the police and then question them about what is grammatically correct, that is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Give you a break? I think I gave you a break by a good faith assumption you simply lack English comprehension-- apparently in error. You think the dispatch is too stupid to know the difference between a direct command and a simple statement? Do police say "freeze gun holding criminal! You don't have to hold on to that weapon. You don't have keep your arms at your side! you don't have to stay standing!" Saying something like "you don't need to do that" is nothing more than dispatcher saying "we aren't going to be liable/responsible for what happens if you continue to do what you are doing." It does not mean "don't do it". "Don't do that" is a very simple sentence. Common sense says if they intended to convey that, they would have said itWhatzinaname (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, we will have to agree to disagree. I think it is clear what the dispatcher meant when he said "we don't need you to do that". You can parse the English comprehension of what the dispatcher said, meant or implied all you want, it's time for me to move on from this silly and unproductive discussion. Like I stated earlier, it's not even included in the article as to what Zimmerman's dad said.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher" is merely the opinion of the author of the article and should remain deleted. In my opinion, he made several statements to the dispatcher that were consistent with this account.

I think the "However, the Sentinel's source said that law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming for help and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled." is problematic to me as well. It sounds like an exaggeration either on the part of the source or on the author of the article. It doesn't seem likely to me that "law-enforcement authorities" would "not believe" this aspect of Zimmerman's account purely because he can be heard yelling for help on the tape. Without further explanation as to why they don't think it's possible that *part* of the time Trayvon had his hand over his mouth and *part* of the time he didn't, it just doesn't make sense to me. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph where it is referenced about him not "mentioning that to the dispatcher" starts out "The source said", and is mentioned again in the Sentinel article in another paragraph that starts out "Here, according to that source, is the sequence that Zimmerman provided:" I believe the police think this is significant for some reason (who knows why, maybe their theory is that he's lying) and it should stay in. As there is conflicting statements about who was really yelling and it specifically says in the article that he alleged Martin put his hand over his mouth, it is relevant that the police don't believe him. You know we could just revert it back to the original version of what he says happened where no police source was quoted as disputing his account, which seems like what some editor's are trying to do with this new information (leave out the police's POV about his account). Some would say that Zimmerman's account of what happened is problematic as well. We simply don't know at this point what evidence the police have, but we do have a source saying his account is questionable, we should include it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the section is giving too much space to what the Sentinel says, an unnamed source said, about what the police said, that Zimmerman said. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed down some of the "according to's" and "what the Sentinel says" and "sources say".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That looks better, although my comment was intended to be about multilevel hearsay, especially when an unnamed source is involved.

On another subject, an inline citation should be placed close to the material it is supporting, rather than grouped with others at the end of a large paragraph. Otherwise, it's difficult for the reader to know where to look among the sources if the reader wants to verify a particular part of the text. See for example WP:INTEGRITY. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of hearsay either, but in this particular case, this reporter, Rene Stutzman from the Orlando Sentinel, I think has done a pretty decent job of covering this and has been on the case from almost the beginning. I'm sure she has developed a relationship with a source close to the police.

Good point about the inline citations, I went ahead and did it, and added some wikilinks at the same time.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The unnamed source in the article[8] might be connected with the prosecution. The source is only described as "a source familiar with the investigation". People connected with the prosecution would be familiar with the investigation.

In the Sentinel article there is, "But authorities do not believe that happened, the source told the Sentinel, because on one 911 call, someone can be heard screaming for help. If it were Zimmerman, as he claims, his cries were not muffled, the source said." In the Wikipedia article there is, "Law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled." If the law-enforcement authorities are the prosecution, then this sentence is misleading. Read the same sentence with "The prosecution" substituted for "Law-enforcement authorities" and you will see what I mean. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, maybe we should just direct quote it, or do you want to use prosecution. The case was turned over to Corey and she used her own investigators. To me, law-enforcement authorities includes everyone from the police to prosecutor's to the judge, but I can see where a reader may misinterpret it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we shouldn't use the material from the unnamed source because we don't know whether or not it is the prosecution's version of what happened. In fact, it may not even be the prosecution's version but a rogue version from a person connected with the prosecution. After all, the information about the case was sealed by court order, so the dissemination of true info is a violation of that court order, but false info would not be a violation of that court order. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of what this unnamed source says has already been corroborated by other RS. Really the only thing new added is that Martin was circling his SUV and that authorities didn't believe his story about the yelling. Even though the info was court ordered to be sealed, that doesn't mean that a source still wouldn't have access to it and speak anonymously to a reporter. If it's a clear violation of WP policies, then by all means, let's remove it, if it's not, I say leave it in there. I think the source's new info has a ring of truth to it, IMO.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "I think the source's new info has a ring of truth to it, IMO." — Currently in the Wikipedia article is "Law-enforcement authorities did not believe that happened, because on one 9-1-1 call, someone can be heard screaming and if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled." This assumes that the only time that Zimmerman was calling for help was when his mouth was covered. Does that ring true with you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at it from the POV from the source (investigators), their theory according to the affidavit, is that it was Martin screaming on the tape, not Zimmerman, this would explain the phrases "authorities don't believe that happened" and "someone can be heard screaming". The affidavit says that Martin's mother reviewed the 911 calls and identified the screaming as Martin's. The phrase, "if it were Zimmerman, his cries were not muffled" indicates that the source (investigators) think Zimmerman was lying about being the one screaming for help when supposedly Martin was covering his mouth (how could Zimmerman being screaming if his mouth was covered). That is why I think the source's new info has a ring of truth to it (meaning the source is close to the investigation), because the info matches with their theory of Martin being the one screaming for help, not Zimmeman, because his story is not plausible from their POV.

Now, if we look at that statement from the POV that it was Zimmerman screaming for help, then I would agree with you, but the affidavit states that the investigators think it was Martin yelling, not Zimmerman. And since this source is close to the investigation, I think we need to look at the sources POV to better understand that sentence.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment, "how could Zimmerman being screaming if his mouth was covered" — His mouth wasn't covered during the whole fight. He was screaming for help when his mouth wasn't covered. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming that it was Zimmerman screaming for help, that's my point, the investigators stated in the affidavit it was Martin screaming for help, not Zimmerman. If you think we should remove the source's POV about Zimmerman's claims, I'm fine with that. We can leave Zimmerman's section for his account of what happened and then make a new section for the prosecution's account of what happened. Their are two sides to this story, Zimmerman's and the prosecution's. We shouldn't leave out the prosecution's account of what happened because we don't like it or can poke holes in it. After all, they did charge him with 2nd degree murder, which indicates to me that they don't believe his account of what happened.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re "If you think we should remove the source's POV about Zimmerman's claims, I'm fine with that." — Agree. We should remove the info that comes from the unnamed source and use other sources for the corroborated info.

Re "We shouldn't leave out the prosecution's account of what happened because we don't like it or can poke holes in it." — Agree, if it is properly sourced and fits in a proper place. A possibility is to mention the prosecution's account as part of what happened at the bond hearing in the pretrial section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. The pre-trial section would be appropriate as well for the prosecution's account of what happened, I will put something together.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Emeraldflames is correct that Zimmerman made several statements to the dispatcher that are consistent with "Martin approached and began circling his vehicle." Quoting directly from the transcript of this call, Zimmerman said "Now he's just staring at me...Yeah now he's coming towards me...Yep, he's coming to check me out...Shit he's running...He ran." It is disingenuous to quote a source saying "he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher" when we know in fact that Zimmerman DID mention most of it; the only word he didn't use was "circling." Similarly "Zimmerman went along with the dispatcher's suggestion" is fully supported by the call transcript. When Zimmerman affirms that he is following Martin, the dispatcher replies "Okay, we don't need you to do that;" Zimmerman acquiesces with a simply, but definitive, "OK." It is true that the call ends, and we do not know he turned around and began returning to his vehicle; no one, including Martin's father, knows whether he continued or not. However, once again, this is supposed to be Zimmerman's account of events, recounted to the best of our ability for our readers.

Regarding the 28 March 2012 Valerie Boey interview with Robert Zimmerman, George Zimmerman's father, the written text of the article leaves quite a bit out, understandable since the interview lasted 19 minutes 5 seconds. It is necessary to listen to the entire interview to achieve a correct rendition of what Robert Zimmerman says. Apostle12 (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The video portion of the interview is awful long, I don't know whether reader's will take the time to watch it or not, alot of people just read the text, which is quicker. If there is something in the article that is specifically referenced from the video portion, maybe we should indicate that in the article, so reader's will know where it came from. Just a suggestion.

As far as Zimmerman and his account of events, all the "counter-points" have been removed. It makes more sense to include a section for the state attorney's account of what happened, since there are two sides to this case.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: "If there is something in the article that is specifically referenced from the video portion, maybe we should indicate that in the article, so reader's will know where it came from." Good suggestion. The footnote can include this information, with timestamp. We are not limited to citing merely a url. Andyvphil (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I put the note in, but not the timestamp of the video part that was referenced, wasn't exactly sure what was referenced in the article from the video, a timestamp can be easily added though if someone knows the specific reference(s) from the video.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatz is of course correct that the very carefully phrased "We don't need you to do that" is a CYA, not an instruction, and will almost certainly be found in exactly those words in the dispatchers' script or training materials. As someone who'd had many interactions with dispatchers it would be surprising if GZ did not realize this. On the other hand, he did stop running. On the third hand, the dispatcher did not object when GZ asked that the arriving officers call him rather than he come to meet them, leaving what he intended to do in the interim unspecified and pretty much putting the lie to any assertion that the dispatcher was telling him to do anything at all. Andyvphil (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think there is conclusive proof that Zimmerman stopped following Martin at that point. Zimmerman has stated it to be so, and claims Martin attacked him. But that version of events is not proved to be true, and will likely be a major point of contention during the trial. We should not write our article assuming a particular version of the truth regarding that. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "stopped following". I said "stopped running", which you can hear on the tape. He lost sight of TM. He thought TM was heading for the back exit. My guess is that either during or after the call he proceeded to Retreat View Circle to see if TM was still to be seen heading towards the back exit, which is on that street, and failing to see anything was returning to his truck when he encountered TM at the "T". After which whatever happened happened. We'll see. Andyvphil (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Prosecution's account of events

I think the present formatting of the information, with the state's attorney account and George Zimmerman's account opposing one another, is very effective. This format allows the reader to get a very clear impression of both sides. I am please with our collaboration on this issue. I will add a note to the interview source suggesting that readers who wish full information should avail themselves of the video rather than relying solely on the text. Apostle12 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The recent additions in this section are WP:EDITORIALIZING. The statements added imply a relationship between "Zimmerman confronted Martin" and "no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's assertion Martin confronted Zimmerman" and "who threw the first punch". These statements apply to Zimmerman's account of events. This section is the prosecution's account of events. The purpose in adding these statements after "Zimmerman confronted Martin" seems to be to undermine that statement.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

More sources

Here are some additional sources:

• Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. "In Baltimore, New York and beyond, 'Trayvon-like' is new descriptor." Los Angeles Times. April 24, 2012.
• Pitts, Leonard. "Trayvon Martin: What if George Zimmerman had been black?" (opinion) The Baltimore Sun. May 6, 2012.
• Kane, Gregory. "Some killings are more equal than others." (opinion) The Washington Examiner. May 2, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Adverse information" on TM includes THREE suspensions

I'm transfering the following from my talk page, so others may chime in: Andyvphil (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer your edit summary, "The Herald recognizes that all three suspensions are adverse information. Why are we disagreeing with our RS?"[9] — We're not disagreeing with the Herald. It's just that we don't have to put in some details. The info about the recent suspension for marijuana and the previous incident involving the jewelry and burglary tool, were the most relevant and useful parts for the article. The other details seemed much less useful and were not included. Also, the article had a better balance of space between Zimmerman's and Martin's adverse info, than it does now. Could you reconsider? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When the suspensions are mentioned elsewhere, not just in this particular source, it's often stated that there are three. For there to be just two here is confusing and unnecessary... and I do think it's a disagreement with the Herald on what info is necessary. I don't think they included the third suspension because they had more space.

I'm not doing this to shaft Trayvon. If you don't think there's enough bad about Z to balance put in the info about his being fired for allegedly being to aggressive in tossing out a drunk. I'll support you -- I'm an inclusionist. More info, explained without slant, and answering every reasonable question as best we can - that's my preference. Load times and storage space are not much of a constraint nowadays - we can afford to let the article grow. If you think TM needs balance, I'd start with replacing that backseat headshot (move that elsewhere). I've suggested a better one, where he looks quite pleasant, and I think there's a valid fair use claim, particularly for a small facial crop. Andyvphil (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because a detail appears in a source is not a good enough reason to put it in the article. It may be appropriate for the source article it appears in, but not for a summary that goes into Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But I gave you reasons I think this detail is part of a set, jarringly incomplete without it. Andyvphil (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re "Sure." — Good that we agree on that.

Re "But I gave you reasons I think this detail is part of a set, jarringly incomplete without it." — The only remaining reason you gave is "For there to be just two here is confusing and unnecessary", which is unclear and doesn't have any substance. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

More, I said ""The Herald recognizes that all three suspensions are adverse information", and "When the suspensions are mentioned elsewhere, not just in this particular source, it's often stated that there are three." Why do you think the RS generally mention three? Also, what is unclear or insubstantial about my other comment? Readers who want to find out about the adverse material on TM and only find two suspensions explained here will be mystified to hear elsewhere that there were three. Why do this? Andyvphil (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought we got that settled when you wrote "Sure". Read over what you were agreeing with and try again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I thought the marijuana suspension and the jewelry/burglar tool were the most relevant parts of the suspension info because Martin was able to be in Sanford because he was suspended, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he looked on drugs and the school marijuana incident supported that, and because Martin could have been considering burglary during his walk through the neighborhood, in addition to just going home. The other parts of the suspensions had far less relevance to the incident. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you wrote: "Just because a detail appears in a source is not a good enough reason to put it in the article. It may be appropriate for the source article it appears in, but not for a summary that goes into Wikipedia." And my answer remains: Sure, of course. What this has to do with my argument that the three suspensions are to be considered as parts of a whole is beyond me. (1) TM was found to be at school with a marijuana pipe and residue. (2) On a previous occasion he was found with women's jewelry a (womans?) watch and a "burglary tool." OK, this is relevant to the possibility that GZ might have been right in thinking that TM seemed to be on drugs and might have been casing townhouses. It's far from dispositive, but it's worth mentioning. That (1) resulted in a suspension ((2) did not, btw) is irrelevant. That (3) TM could be in Sanford on a Sunday night because he didn't have to be in Miami Monday morning is relatively uninteresting.

On the other hand, the fact that Crump initially drew a picture of TM as an upstanding young man who was (not quoting him necessarily, this was the picture implanted) doing well at school and with ambitious plans for the future who crocheted and baked cookies in a toy oven and liked candy and drank nothing stronger than tea and was 14 years old and... the fact that this intial Crump picture was swallowed whole by the media and contributed to the firestorm, but that this picture was "complicated" when it turned out that, among other things (4) TM had three school suspensions in the five or so months before his death. That's a separate fact, and that the number was three and not two is a simple truth relevant the trajectory of his image. And my argument to that effect is unaffected by my agreement to your anodyne observation.

Nb: It is not clear what the first suspension was for. The family says tardiness/absences, but also denies having heard of the "burglary" aspects of the second suspension incident. Andyvphil (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment, "Crump initially drew a picture of TM as an upstanding young man who was (not quoting him necessarily, this was the picture implanted) doing well at school and with ambitious plans for the future who crocheted and baked cookies in a toy oven and liked candy and drank nothing stronger than tea and was 14 years old and..." — That's not in this Wikipedia article. Early on there were some things like that in this article but they were removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If so, they of course should never have been in Wikipedia's voice. But the fact that they were in this article, and it's sources, is part of the history of the event which is its subject. And the revelation of the three suspensions is part of the history of the decay of that initial media image. It may not get a word at the trial, but that is not our sole subject. Andyvphil (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments requested regarding Adverse information section

What the two of us have been discussing in the above are the following previous and current versions of the section Adverse information from Zimmerman's and Martin's past history.

Previous version

Adverse information from Zimmerman's and Martin's past history

In 2005 Zimmerman was charged with an offense for shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent in a bar; and a month later there were mutual restraining orders granted to his fiancée and himself after an altercation between them. Martin had been recently suspended from school after there was found in his possession traces of marijuana; and in a previous incident at school a security officer found in his possession women's jewelry and a screwdriver described as a burglary tool, though no evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen.

Current version

Adverse information from Zimmerman's and Martin's past history

In 2005 Zimmerman was charged with an offense for shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent in a bar. A month later mutual restraining orders were granted after an altercation with his fiancée.

At the time of his death Martin was under a 10-day suspension from school for having a marijuana pipe and a baggie with traces of marijuana. He'd been suspended four months previously for graffiti, an incident in which his backpack been found to contain a dozen pieces of women's jewelry, a watch, and a "burglary tool" (a screwdriver), though no evidence was found that any of it was stolen. Before that, he'd also been suspended for tardiness and truancy, his family said.

Please express which version you prefer. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Prefer previous version — Compared to the previous version, the current version contains extra negative details about Martin that are not sufficiently relevant or useful to be included. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• An arrest for shoving a police officer, which led to pre-trial diversion and alcohol counseling, is in a different universe than a school suspension. It seems bizarre to equate the two, or to treat them in a tit-for-tat fashion. Zimmerman had previous contact with the criminal-justice system, whereas Martin did not. In an effort to artificially "fix" that imbalance, we're dredging up school suspensions and presenting them as if they're equivalent to actual arrests. I think if you step outside the bubble that this talk page has turned into, that will sound as ludicrous to you as it does to me. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the judge at the bond hearing decided that the shoving incident and the restraining order were not significant. Here's what the judge said.[10]

"And so we're familiar with those particular situations. I won't say it's standard, but it's a run-of-the-mill type run-in with the alcohol and beverage agents at the library, I believe it was. They're fairly common, so I'm familiar with those, even though it's in another jurisdiction.

The injunction was somewhat mild compared to the injunctions that I'm familiar with and so really what this revolves about is the facts of this particular situation as presented to the court.

What I'm going to do is I'm going to find that the motion is well taken. I'm going to grant the motion, set bond in the amount of $150,000..."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Change to neither ---> Prefer previous version -- I agree with Bob K31416 and MastCell on this. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I personally don't think either version is appropriate, since both equate Zimmerman's arrest/domestic altercation with Martin's school suspension. I think it is arguably appropriate to describe Zimmerman's previous interactions with the criminal justice system, and inappropriate to recount Martin's school disciplinary record. I suppose it's arguable that Martin's suspension should be mentioned in the context of how he ended up in Sanford, but it's completely inappropriate to juxtapose his suspensions with Zimmerman's arrest/restraining order, as both proposed texts do. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Both are WP:OR Both are WP:SYNTH, in that they advance unique synthesis of materials otherwise unrelated, per MastCell. Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Prefer removing both versions They are not presented in any kind of context as to how they are relevant to this article. Zimmerman's version is false and misleading, one sentence to describe his 2005 incident is incredulous.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Latter is better, but Isaidnoway is correct that adverse info re Zimmerman should be further developed. This aspect of the case is covered at length in many RS and it is arrogance beyond adequate description that Mastcell and his like want to censor this information. Andyvphil (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Both should be removed, but only Zimmerman's withstands any scrutiny regarding relevance.LedRush (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We could remove Martin's and move Zimmerman's to a bond hearing discussion in the Pre-trial section which would include a summary of the judge's comments that essentially say that these items from Zimmerman's past history are not significant. The only part of Martin's that we might include elsewhere is that Martin's father had recently taken Martin to Sanford to be with him, after Martin had been suspended from school for a baggie with traces of marijuana residue, according to the school's zero tolerance policy. Or more simply that Martin's father had taken Martin to Sanford to be with him, after Martin had been suspended from school. ---Bob K31416 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree to that, if we just say that Martin was suspended and don't say why (as it's completely irrelevant and prejudicial).LedRush (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If Zimmerman's past history is moved to bail hearing, then it should be mentioned that the judge's comments were related to the issue of whether he should get bail. Martin's suspension could be mentioned as to why he was in Sanford, but I don't necessarily think that the reason for Martin's suspension is prejudicial. I would like to hear some more feedback as to why they are prejudicial.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The marijuana aspect of Martin's suspension may be prejudicial because it can cause a preconceived judgment of Martin as having erratic violent behavior because of drugs. (Reefer madness.)--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Aah, I see. I don't think Reefer Madness was the best example to give though as it is a cult classic and considered more of a comedy by stoners, rather than a cautionary film or any realistic portrayal of pot smokers. Just sayin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dis-connect the two histories. Zimmermans history achieves a police/court system level whereas Martins history is only school related. There should be some explanation of why Trayvon is in Sanford (concerned father).```Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Both histories should be further developed Absent video or eye-witness testimony, the character and propensities of these two individuals are highly relevant in trying to determine what might have happened that night.

Let's take Martin. Let's pretend Martin was never suspended for anything, ever. That he was an A+B honor roll student without any history of suspicious, out-of-bounds behavior- with no significant disciplinary problems at school. If this were the case, it would be hard for many people to imagine Martin acting in some of the ways that Zimmerman claims that he did.

One of the reasons many people became convinced that Zimmerman was the "bad guy" was because this was what was initially reported by the media. Until information surfaced that directly contradicted what had been reported. That new information would be considered very relevant by a significant number of people. And, in fact, that new information has been widely reported from the Miami Herald to the New York Times.

I oppose the idea that Wikipedia withhold/censor widely reported, reliably sourced information because *some* editors have decided on their behalf that its not relevant. It would be silly for Wikipedia to not even mention what has been so widely and reliably reported, and what a very large number of people certainly *do* find relevant.

I think both versions are too short, and can't be done justice in a few sentences or even a single paragraph. Background information re: both Zimmerman and Martin ought to be further developed and fully presented to the readers of the article, who can decide all by themselves whether they think its relevant. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of judgement and I value yours, as I do others, except for one point, "...ought to be further developed and fully presented to the readers of the article, who can decide all by themselves whether they think its relevant." This is a generic argument that I've read before on talk pages in Wikipedia. It's fallacious because it would justify adding any inappropriate material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If that were the singular part of my argument I would agree. But the comment is predicated on this information having already been reported by a wide variety of reliable sources, including but not limited to the New York Times. The New York Times, along with a number of other respected publications, believed that this information was appropriate to let their readers in on. Does that mean that *every*thing that is widely reported by a wide variety of reliable, well-respected sources is automatically appropriate for inclusion? Not necessarily. But if a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors/readers happen to *agree* with those sources as to relevance and appropriateness for inclusion then I think the burden of proof is on those wanting to censor/withhold this information. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, neither side has the burden of proof. What we try to do is find a version that a consensus accepts. Initially, there was more space given to negative info about Zimmerman and Martin. The info was reduced in order to build consensus.

At present, there seems to be a consensus growing towards limiting the negative Martin info to just the last suspension without mentioning marijuana. The suspension could be put in the Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Trayvon_Martin section, in a simple and brief way, along the lines of "His father had brought him to Sanford for a visit after Trayvon had been suspended from school." If the reader wants more info, the source is available.

Also at present there seems to be a consensus growing for a brief mention of the Zimmerman negative info in the Pre-trial section because the prosecution brought it up in the bond hearing, along with a summary of the judge's comments that the info wasn't significant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There may be a consensus among a localized group of editors in this thread, but overall, I think there remains a significant number of editors/readers that would like to have access to what has been reported about Martin and Zimmerman's backgrounds unhindered by arguably overreaching Wikipedia editors. Emeraldflames (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm more or less willing to go along with this last comment by BobK - but I still believe the suspensions are irrelevant. The most we should say is BobK's sentence referring to suspensions as the reason for his being in Sanford without going into the details about them, although I do not think any of this is appropriate or necessary at all, and is a coatrack for bringing in negative material about Martin. Zimmerman's background was brought into the courtroom events and therefore should be included in Pre-trial. Neither the "previous" nor "current" versions are at all acceptable. Tvoz/talk 05:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The judged referenced it only to completely dismiss the notion it is relevant to the case. Bit of a non sequitur for inclusion. it's obvious biased POV pushing to include anything related to zimmerman's past and not trayvons. The idea his suspensions are "irrelevant" is nothing short of absurd. The truancy might not be (though it might be relevant in the media bias section, since the media claimed martin was a black doogie howser), but the possession of burglary tool/women's jewelry and drug paraphernalia are highly relevant.Whatzinaname (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Some editors want to substitute their judgement of the relevance of various adverse information to Zimmerman's (or Martin's) legal guilt as the basis for including or excluding the information. But, as I've pointed out before, the homicide and trial is not the exclusive subject of this article. The generation of a lynch mob atmosphere through the success of Crump's approach to the media, and the subsequent disintegration (in progress) is also part of the story we have to cover. Andyvphil (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re "The generation of a lynch mob atmosphere through the success of Crump's approach to the media, and the subsequent disintegration (in progress) is also part of the story we have to cover." — You can cover that using reliable sources that explicitly discuss the lynch mob atmosphere etc. I think it would be a good addition. However, without a reliable source that explicitly uses the details of the suspensions in a discussion of a lynch mob atmosphere, it would be OR. There may eventually be such a reliable source, but so far there isn't.

For now, it's a matter of editor judgement as to whether the suspension details are appropriate for the article. As I mentioned before, a source or sources that include the details will be available for the reader as an inline citation(s). Your position so far seems intransigent. That's OK but I don't think it will gain consensus. A version between the two extremes of no suspensions and most of the details of the suspensions has the best chance of gaining consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to build a consensus about how to include the information. Certain other editors have no interest in achieving a consensus on anything because, they argue, so long as there is no consensus the information should not be presented in any form whatsoever. Which is exactly what they want. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about consensus, since I'm in no hurry to add information that's debatably not relevant and/or debatably has BLP issues. You should be worried about consensus if you should wish to add such materialWhatzinaname (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it's added, and in what way, is a matter of consensus. So I don't understand your message. Would you care to clarify? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that it can only be added with consensus, but consensus is not needed not to add it.LedRush (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox News, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, BBC, etc. all found the information concerning Martin's suspensions to be relevant and appropriate to report. There's your consensus. This is a case of several overreaching Wikipedia editors who have decided that they "know better". This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 May 2012

may i please edit this i have more info on the shooting of trayvon martin

Hiphoptt (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You may edit the page, but please note that any information you have must be sourced from WP:RELIABLESOURCES and be WP:VERIFIABLE so information that you know personally from people involved etc, is not acceptable for the article. Please include sources (newspaper, magazine, tv, etc) for any information you add. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2012 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. As stated on the template, requests need to be in the form of "please change X to Y." elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently Semi protected, therefore you can only edit after you've been using your account for 4 days and you have 10 edits under your belt. In the mean time, I suggest you propose specific changes as suggested by eS. I also suggest you read this talk page and the archives, as many things have been discussed before. As Gaijin42 has mentioned, any changes you do make will need to be supported by reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"trayvon's law" proposed by house democrats (national)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

...and quickly withdrawn: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/democrats-withdraw-trayvon-amendment/ --DeknMike (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST.... Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr.

Why is this in the "see also" section? I know the answer most will give, "it is similar". So are hundreds of other deaths in history, most currently the Taco Bell Shooting in Phoenix. None of these belong in this article. Please remove.--Mt6617 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The Chamberlain article has a section about a connection with Trayvon Martin, with four sources. Would the following change in See also be OK or would it also have problems?

• The section Parallels to killing of Trayvon Martin in Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

They are not remotely connected. The new article was recently created, and the connection between the two is completely manufactured by a couple of opinion commentators. There are many other "similar" stories why is this unrelated story special when the circumstances of the death have no similarities. Arzel (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2012

(UTC)

IMHO it is totally inappropriate and basically states the killing as a racial incident among many other things. It may have, or may not have been... that has yet to be determined As for the Chamberlain article, it is also inappropriate to reference the Martin article, but that is for someone else. Again, we may as well list hundreds of killings throughout history that are similar, whether they have a Wikipedia Article or not. I have found this article to be very fair, till this. This reference should be completely removed. Thank you.--Mt6617 (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Obvously, the subject of Trayvon Martin as a meme should be included somewhere. Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Good points. You may be right. On the other hand, there is a connection as both are claimed to be wrongful deaths, allegations of racism are being made in both cases, and as both happened around the same time, media coverage is comparing them. See [11], [12], and many more. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it should not be a "see also" section, as that perhaps implies there is a certain connection, but we have sources comparing the two, so I think it's worth a mention somewhere. I don't care why the media outlets are comparing the two, just that they are. We just document facts, and it's a fact that comparisons have been drawn. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 13:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can find sources likening this to Tawana brawley rape hoax and the duke lacrosse rape hoax cases. Let's include them, too. Ya?Whatzinaname (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The argument for Chamberlain inclusion has some merit. Please don't be sarcastic. Please be polite. That's the way we do things here. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Who says I was being sarcastic? It's a NPOV actually. We would need represent the people who contend this is a case only because a bunch of racist race hustlers are playing the liberal media like the useful idiots they are. Whatzinaname (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Polling Differences, by race and ethnicity

Is there more like this?: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-poll-idUSBRE83B1BB20120412 Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)