Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

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; [1] 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[2] 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)

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)

A quote has been added of Robert Zimmerman saying that he and all his relatives think that George is the one yelling help on the 911 calls. I don't see this as being "George Zimmerman's account of events" and the only way it could possibly belong is if it was put in the same sentence or the one after where it says Zimmerman yelled for help. Wickorama (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The father says that Zimmerman saw Martin walking "behind the townhomes". Zimmerman never said that on the 311 call and I challenge anyone to look at a map and come up with townhomes Martin was walking behind while Zimmerman was driving where he could see Martin while driving down the street, let alone see Martin and get suspicious. Behind the townhomes on both sides is a sidewalk and behind the townhomes to the north is a street. Which would make walking behind them nothing unusual. "Walking behind the townhomes" seems like a piece of fiction the father made up to protect the son from the charges that Trayvon was "just walking down the street minding his own business". Same with the part where the father says Martin saw the gun, BUT DIDN"T GO FOR IT. Wickorama (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New section — Prosecution's account of events

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)

Please see new section "Prosecution's account of events," below. I would agree with your assessment re: editorializing if the information did not originate in statements made, under oath, by the prosecution. If there is any "undermining," it originates with the prosecution itself. Therefore I believe the recent additions are appropriate. Apostle12 (talk) 18:23, 10 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?"[3] — 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.[4]

"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)

There's no Wikipedia policy that supports that notion. If you think otherwise, please give the excerpt and link. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia policy that supports your notion. If you think otherwise, please give the excerpt and link. However, do not visit WP:BLP, WP:BRD or [[5]] or you might not like the implications of what is painfully obvious to everyone else.LedRush (talk) 03:17, 11 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)

Let's talk about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. From WP:BLP: When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. The details in question (and many others) have been published in reliable sources, but that doesn't mean they automatically belong in our encyclopedia article. We can have a serious discussion about whether these details are relevant, but that will involve acknowledging what policy actually says on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP states that information be added carefully, not that it be withheld altogether. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So show me you're interested in handling it "carefully". Your comments so far in this thread haven't really given that impression. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should do whatWP:BLP advises. Adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research (NOR). Make sure every statement has citations from reliable, high quality, published sources. Basically the topic should be covered in a way that presents all of the various viewpoints on it fairly.

For example, one perspective on the suspensions are that they are not relevant. Ok, no problem. That perspective can be represented by including the quotation from Crump where he basically says that the suspensions are just that, irrelevant. Keep it well-sourced, neutral, and present a fair and balanced view of the topic.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM, that you quoted from, presupposes that Martin (or Zimmerman) was a victim. This has not been established and is, in fact, a matter of debate. Either way, the WP guideline offered focuses again on making sure the information is well-sourced and presented in a way that is neutral, fair, and balanced. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's be serious for a moment. If someone runs out to the store to get snacks and, on the way back, is accosted, pursued, and ultimately shot to death by an angry, armed man muttering about how "these assholes always get away", then he's a victim. That's the case regardless of what happened during the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, which is likely unknowable except for its end result.

In any case, the WP:BLP concerns I quoted clearly apply here. If that remains controversial, I'll consider asking for feedback from editors at the BLP noticeboard, since I think the meaning of the policy is getting lost in tunnel vision here. MastCell ^Talk 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, Would you care to give an alternate reasonable description of the incident where Zimmerman was a victim? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Did Martin run out to the store or was he looking for some more women's jewelry to steal under guise ? Was martin accosted, a word you don't even know the definition of, or was zimmerman accosted given that BOTH the girlfriend AND zimmerman's statement of events described Martin first accosting zimmerman, asking him why he was following him? Was zimmerman so angry he decided to smash the back of his own head on the pavement, delivering at least two visbily significant gashes? Whatzinaname (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll wait for MastCell. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I wasn't actually commenting at you, though.10:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)

I've never argued one way or the other about whether Zimmerman is a "victim", but if you want to apply WP:AVOIDVICTIM to Zimmerman, I'm totally fine with that. I'm just tired of the constant efforts to find ways around applying fundamental Wikipedia policies to this article. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, you have presupposed that Martin was a victim. You've characterized events in a way (far from a NPOV) to conclude (speciously) that Martin must have been a victim.

You should consider that other editors and readers of Wikipedia might not agree with how you've personally characterized the events- may not accept the truth of some of your premises- and may challenge the validity of the conclusion you have personally drawn from them. I certainly do.

Although clearly not established to me, I will concede that Martin *may* have been a victim. But even *if* he were a victim, WP:AVOIDVICTIM only stresses that the information be presented in a way that is "completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Emeraldflames (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's anything, I think that they were both victims of circumstance. Zimmerman was trying to protect his community and overextended himself. Martin was part of a teenage culture where physical force settled disputes but may not have gotten involved in a fight if he knew Zimmerman was armed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

At this juncture, it's impossible to tell who is or isn't a victim. And the policy is referring to real victims, not the poetic variety.Whatzinaname (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerning how extensively they have been covered, the quality of the sources that have covered them, and their importance to many editors/readers, it is embarrassing that this article has not a single mention of any of the prior incidents of either Zimmerman or Martin. If you want access to all of the information you'll have to go elsewhere. Emeraldflames (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of stuff that- if I had the same philosophy as other editors- I would remove/censor from the article as well:

The City of Sanford posted a "George Zimmerman 911 Call History" listing 46 calls by him between 2004 and the 2012 shooting. Irrelevant, prejudicial.

On the recording of the call, Zimmerman is heard commenting "these assholes, they always get away." Irrelevant, prejudicial.

"According to Crump's statement, Martin's girlfriend said that he expressed concern about a strange man following him, and she advised him to run. She says she heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing and that Martin's headset suddenly went silent, leading her to believe that he had been pushed. She attempted to call him back immediately, but was unable to reach him." Irrelevant, prejudicial.

"Zimmerman was not administered a drug or alcohol test." Irrelevant, prejudicial.

"Two experts on forensic voice analysis, contacted by the Orlando Sentinel, concluded independently that the screams in the background of the 9-1-1 recordings were not from Zimmerman..." Irrelevant, prejudicial.

I could argue that all of the above (and more) is irrelevant and/or prejudicial, but I don't. I realize that it is relevant to other people- and, most importantly, I think most of the information is reliably sourced and presented in a balanced way (point, counterpoint.) Emeraldflames (talk) 11:49, 12 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)

I am going to ask what everyone is most likely thinking..... WHY? and what use is this to the article? You want Wikipedia to be a litterbox (full of urine and feces) like (most of) the media has been? --Mt6617 (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Title change of article

I am moving these comments left by editor Richgreene2 in the lead section of the article (reverted edit) to the talk page for further discussion here (appropriate place I think, instead of the lead section of article).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"This article could be titled: "The Attack of George Zimmerman", but that would be just as biased as "The Shooting of Trayvon Martin". I highly recommend no discussion of this case until it is settled in a court of law. However, if Wikipedia NUST risk influencing future jury members, the least that should be done to delete the obvious bias in the title of the article is to change the title to: "The George Zimmermman - Trayvon Martin Case"."

@ Richgreene2: Please click on "Talk" (located next to "Article") to leave comments on how to improve this article. I think the current title accurately reflects the indcident that took place on February 26. Trayvon Martin was shot, and George Zimmerman admitted to shooting him. I don't think "The Attack of George Zimmerman" would reach a consensus among the editor's here. I also believe that through a collobrative effort of editor's the information presented in this article has been presented in a neutral point of view. If you feel there is something in the article that needs to be addressed, then please point it out on the talk page, so it can be discussed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Stonewalling and other blocks put up on the last several times of reflecting a proper title has been useless. We've been through this several times already. Yes, it is a terrible title, but I rather not start this again if there is no formal or binding decision which will change the title. Least the media firestorm is over with, so perspective can be obtained. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem with the title again? Martin was shot. He may have been shot in self-defense, as Zimmerman claims. Even if so, "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" would still be an appropriate title. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree.... I think the title is appropriate. Martin was shot, The article is titled the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin". I do not see what the problem is. If someone wants to start an article titled "The Beating of George Zimmerman" then go for it! We all know that for there to be an article on Wikipedia, someone has to start it, groom it, and contribute to it with RELIABLE information. BTW... I am most likely one of the most conservative members here, and I have some real doubts about the State's case. Personally I believe the Governor caved into political pressure. So with that said, If someone like me thinks the article title is appropriate... well...--Mt6617 (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I still believe that the title is incomplete and should say "Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin". I cannot understand why one of the key reasons that we have an article at all is omitted. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You are saying if Martin had not died, then no one would have cared what lead up to the shooting?Whatzinaname (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but it certainly wouldn't have been in the news for so long and in so many places. This event has had considerable international coverage (I'm not in America). A non-fatal shooting would have been seen by a lot of non-Americans as almost par for the course in a country seen by most of the rest of the advanced world as being obsessed with guns. (Not a criticism. Just an observation on different attitudes around the world.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been in media at all if both people were black or both were white/hispanic. Through I suppose the bigoted international media did enjoy the depiction of the supposed american gun nut.Whatzinaname (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the speculation in your first sentence. You may be right. As for the second, just as much attention was being paid to the stand-your-ground law as the firearms issue in this particular case. It always amuses me that Americans like their land to be seen as the greatest country on earth (and it is pretty good!), but sometimes don't want people to look. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I would hope they would be more concerned about a racist black man gunning down tourists from abroad, like Shawn Tyson, then worrying about the statutes designed to allow people to defend themselves from that very same savagery. But I think we've wandered bit far here for a talk pageWhatzinaname (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, as an occasional visitor to the US, I'd be worried (a little) about anybody gunning down tourists, but you're right, it's way off topic. International interest in the incident isn't though. This IS a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't really see this as a right/left, conservative/liberal issue. Just a tragic intersection of lives that someone (probably the jury) will have to figure out with inadequate information. The title seems fine to me, although I could accept "Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin." Apostle12 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think "Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin" is an improvement. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Based on the discussion above, I propose a change of title to "Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin." Please indicate "Approve" or "Disapprove" below:

• Approve. Apostle12 (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Approve. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disapprove. It has been proposed and discussed multiple times and the current title is fine. Time to give it a rest for a while. -- Avanu (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disapprove. Of this and any other proposal for name change. Because I'm tired of people wasting time on name change discussions. It was discussed a lot, there were claims of consensus when there wasn't. We put it to a vote and it was clear there was no consensus and still people continued to discuss it and now your discussing it again. Read WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and particarly WP:TITLECHANGES and spend a few hours reading all the previous discussions Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin/Archive 1#Requested move, Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin/Archive 3#Title of Article and Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin/Archive 6#Requested move. Leave as it is and move on, because what will happen is years down the road when this article is no longer controversial somebody will change it to "Death of Trayvon Martin" with no fuss. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disapprove. Concur with Richard-of-Earth, for the same reasons.--DeknMike (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• disapprove, speedy close of discussion we have discussed this to death, and it is way too soon for a reopening of this discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the current name is good enough, too and I don't personally care if the name changes or not, but "tired of talking about it" seems kind of a silly reason to disapprove. You all could have just as easily said "Approve" and we'd add the word Fatal and be done with it. But, again, I don't care ;-p Emeraldflames (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Approve of this discussion and any other discussion on improving this article a new editor wants to open on the talk page. Read WP:DONTBITE The reason the discussion was started in the first place was because an editor "Richgreene2" left a comment in the lead section of the article instead of on the talk page. Read WP:AGF I reverted the edit in the lead section and moved the comments here to the talk page for futher discussion. Read WP:ETIQ -- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree and do not think editors should have to apologize for not being fully aware of every (archived) discussion from the past. Apparently the accuracy of the title is still a current concern, and if editor Richard-of-the-Earth is tired of "wasting time" on such discussions, perhaps he should just sit them out instead of engaging in snarky attacks. That said, the consensus seems to be that the present title is good enough, so I will withdraw my (tepid) approval of the proposed change. It's just not a very big deal. Apostle12 (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not trying to WP:BITE the proposal, indeed it would be virtually impossible to keep track of the archives. That said, sf something has been discussed at length many times (which this has been) it is disruptive (unintentionally?) to keep bringing it up and rehashing it over and over. Bringing things to a swift close is not a bite, but just allows us to focus on areas where we can actually achieve some consensus. I believe there are some policies or guidelines to this effect (although I was unable to find them in a quick search). Otherwise you can win any discussion war by attrition, continually bringing up an issue until others give up in frustration. BTW, As I have stated in a previous discussion, I would actually support "fatal shooting", but I believe that bringing the discussion up again so soon is procedurally out of order. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Could this latest discussion be maintained on Talk even though other items are archived? That way new editors will be aware that the title has been recently discussed. I notice that archiving happens rather speedily. Apostle12 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As the discussion has slowed down somewhat, we probably can increase the archive duration. I know mizabot has a "protect" template that can be added to save certain sections from being archived. I do not know about the bot we are using, I will investigate. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my !vote was biting. I should have joined the conversation sooner with the links to the older discussions. We could create a FAQ with links to relevant discussions. There are several things that keep coming up. I don't know how successful FAQs are on other pages. Or we could just encourage people to use the archive search at the top of the page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I started a FAQ, but most of the FAQ-able issues have been resolved/dropped so its not so much of a big deal anymore. If old stuff starts cropping up more again though, I would definately behind a more concentrated effort. The Obama page has a FAQ which has been used to good purpose, succesfully I think, but it mainly serves as a shortcut for the regular editors to not have to answer questions, and just point to the FAQ. For the most part, new editors don't seek out the FAQ to learn things pro-actively. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The two "old" issues I see being brought up on a semi-regular basis are this one (title change) and Zimmerman's/Martin's past. In the future, I will suggest that new editor's search the archives and review past discussions on these topics. In this particular case, "Richgreene2" seems to have left his comments in the wrong section and then didn't return to discuss it further on the talk page.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with both of these issues regarding a FAQ - there is no consensus on the actual content. There is no consensus on how to interpret the relevant policies, There also does not seem to be consensus on how lack of consensus resolves (default to include, or default to exclude) - so all we could do in a FAQ is try and summarize arguments and try to cover all POV neutrally. I suppose that could placate some new editors, who would at least know they weren't the first person to come up with argument X and that we weren't just all idiots for not including/excluding the obvious "right version" Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disapprove. We just had this discussion and vote, so we should give it more time before bringing it up again. ArishiaNishi (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Whenever some ill-informed editor mentions voting, I'll bite. We don't vote here! Consensus and voting are almost opposite concepts. Consensus is gained by presenting and considering logical arguments. Voting isn't. I will continue to present logical argument whenever an opportunity arises. Claims of "we already voted on that" will NEVER convince me to cease that approach. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

All this chatter and re-hashing of old arguments is because an obviously new editor (who didnt even know where to "plug in') asked to rename the article. And then he didnt even bother to participate in the discussion that his lack of awareness created. Rather than an FAQ, let's send them to the archives to do their own re-search so we don't have to re-hash.```Buster Seven Talk 01:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, my bad. Strike the 'vote'. ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate References

This article contains duplicate references at the bottom of the page. Maybe that is how it is supposed to work but it appears that in some parts of the article the same reference gets reused in multiple places and yet only creates one entry at the bottom of the page which I would think is preferred, rather than an additional reference being created at the bottom of the page for multiple citings of that reference. At that time I am writing this, 132, 140, and 141 all point to the same page (Robert Zimmerman interview with Fox Orlando). 138 and 139 point to the same Mother Jones page that gives a transcript of the Zimmerman 311 call. Wickorama (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Kinda normal if sourcing a particular sentence seems appropriate. No harm in citing the same reference to support different sentences. Apostle12 (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not referring to multiple citings of the same source in the text, but rather multiple entries of the same source down in the references section. When I cite the same source in three paragraphs in the text, should I end up with 3 separate references down in the references section? It would appear that that behavior would give the reader the impression that there were three sources for the text when there actually was only one. Wickorama (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It is preferable, but not mandatory to use named references to avoid this problem. You may merge them if you feel the need, but make sure you keep the footnote cite at the relevant location. Gaijin42 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not clear why the reluctance to fix. Here's my contribution.[6] There's more to do. Anybody? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I see now what you are referring to, and, yes, these should be fixed. No reluctance, just no sense of urgency. Some editors specialize in cleaning up references; good work and always grateful for same.Apostle12 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit that I think completed the request at the beginning of this section.[7] (Thanks to Tex for correcting an error I made in the edit before this one.) If there are any other places in the article that need similar work, anyone can feel free to mention them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Medical Report Information

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532 Shouldn't that be included? "A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury" There is more of course. It seems pretty relevant to the article. 76.123.170.56 (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

FBI Mulls hate crimes charges (among other tidbits)

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/fbi-seeks-charge-george-zimmerman-hate-crime/nN5pR/

• FBI considering hate crime charge
• Photo of Zimmerman with black grandmother mentioned (not shown)
• continued sealing of evidence and witnesses
• witnesses redacted even from Zimmerman attourney
• prosecutors mention inconsistent statements from zimmerman as part of decision to charge with 2nd degree murder.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The article states: "He's facing a second-degree murder charge, which carries a maximum possible sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty."

That is highly notable, because usually, people on the political left are against the death penalty, not for it. This information should be added to the article.

P2d4b8z2 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What a bizarre statement. The FBI is looking into charging Zimmerman with a hate crime; I don't see where the "political left" enters into it. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article about the FBI investigating this as a hate crime. I wonder why WFTV is just now reporting on it. ABC obtained a copy of Zimmerman's medical records. [8] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The political left does enter into it, primarily because Attorney General Holder is a child of left-wing group think. How else to explain his unwillingness to charge African Americans who commit crimes agains whites, for plainly racist reasons, with hate crimes? How else to explain his unwillingness to charge African Americans who violate laws forbidding voter intimidation "because there is no proof any whites were prevented from voting"? How else to explain his unwillingness to discipline Department of Justice heads who make blatantly racist statements like, "I didn't join the Justice Department to protect white people from black people."

I hope this latest development turns out to be baseless, because there is NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that would indicate Zimmerman acted out of racial animus, and frankly it makes me angry that this is even being raised as an issue! There is evidence that Zimmerman was fed up with criminals who had been victimizing the neighborhood that, as Neighborhood Watch Captain, he had been charged with monitoring. That most of those criminals were black is well-known, yet hardly relevant to the behavior Zimmerman noted as suspicious--the 9-1-1 calls make it plain that Zimmerman noticed Martin because of his behavior, not because of his race. The left seems perpetually confused on these issues. Apostle12 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed the big notice at the top of the page explaining that this isn't a blog, nor an outlet for your various personal opinions about Eric Holder and race relations in the U.S. Please at least pretend to make an effort to comply with this site's talk page guidelines and policy on biographical material. MastCell ^Talk 06:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course...momentary lapse.Apostle12 (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The FBI investigating the incident for a hate crime is old news. There is no indication he is going to be charged with anything. What is new is: "A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.." http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.T7MHOOtYsT8 Emeraldflames (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just added the new information about the medical report to "Ongoing Investigation," along with the source. The WFTV "hate crime" story does add a new twist that the article previously has not referenced--the "enhancement" from life in prison to the death penalty. Also the story indicates that the "hate crime" investigation is current and ongoing. Apostle12 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the FBI investigation is old news as well. The investigation has been ongoing since March 20, and it is already mentioned in the article. I don't think this WFTV report is any more relevant than what is already in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, the report's focus on Zimmerman's greater legal exposure is significant and relevant. Apostle12 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The legal exposure is only significant and relevant if he is charged. The article only states that he "may" be charged, which is just speculation on the part of the TV station reporting it. We shouldn't be suggesting that he "may" have commited a crime that hasn't been charged. See WP:BLPCRIME.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A rather important aside to the new knuckle information is that the funeral director claimed that trayvon had no injuries on his hands. The rabbit hole is getting pretty deep for the race hustlersWhatzinaname (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That is why you don't simply include such things in Wikipedia. A funeral director isn't an expert in medical autopsies. Actually the progress of the Martin/Zimmerman story in the media, and Wikipedia's coverage of it would be a terrific example of why we have WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP policies on Wikipedia. This case is rife with gossip, lies, innuendo, misrepresentation, and more, from well-intentioned people, as well as people with a political or personal agenda. It really shows why we need to lean strongly toward careful and prudent coverage of media-intensive stories. -- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't need an MD to see bruising or open wounds on someone's knuckles. The funeral director was part of the problem, which is why it is relevant. He gave numerous interviews saying there were no injuries on trayvons hands all the while critcizing the case for being handled unprofessionally by the police.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon autopsy info starting to become available

Shows bloody knuckles, not much more info available yet. http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-h/nN6gs/ Gaijin42 (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"The medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles."-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So many problems

1. He shot an unarmed teenager
   • The word "unarmed" implies "harmless, inoffensive, unaggressive" and (coupled with old pictures of the baby-faced kid when he was much younger and smaller) makes it sound like he was out strolling or "on an errand" when some crazy white mofo shot him to death for no reason
2. without arresting him
   • What do you call it when the cops take away your gun and bring you to the police station - rather than the hospital emergency room and question you for hours before releasing you?
   • Don't we mean that after the arrest, they decided not to charge him and they released him? (Depends on the exact meaning of "arrest")
3. Parents of dead teen wanted shooter "arrested, tried and convicted" - where is this quote?
   • Many people (presumably of the same race as the deceased or in sympathy with members of that race) presumed / assumed that:
     1. Any death of an unarmed black, caused by a non-black (with a gun), must inevitably be unjustified (e.g., motivated by racism)
     2. (This is not such a far-fetched idea, if you study the history of KKK and lynching, but it still has to be covered in an unbiased way.)
4. Lack of coverage of the inquest option
   • Did anyone in the pro-Martin camp, the pro-guard camp, or neutral parties (if such exist) ever suggest that before arresting the shooter (again?), i.e., charging him a crime, that there must be a reason such as evidence, suspicion, etc.?

It may help to indicate who felt the guard should have been charged (on the same day, rather than released), and so on. Who expressed outrage that the cops released him?

We could balance this with reports (if any) of those who felt the police did the right thing, say, on the basis of a witness who said he saw Martin on top of the guard, trying to bash his head in.

• Did Martin not know that the guard was armed (see concealed carry), or that he conceivably might be?
• Was this the first time Martin ever got into a violent scuffle?

It goes on and on. Anyone care to take the several hours required to edit this article into shape, so it's comprehensive and balanced? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• • He was unarmed. This is a fact. It does not imply anything other than unarmed. We did not write any of the other adjectives you are worried about in the article.
  • Arrest is a specific legal term, which is often misunderstood in the public eye. Zimmerman was not arrested. He was detained/held. Confusion on this point is legitimate, but saying he was not arrested is not an inaccurate statement. "Taken in for questioning" etc is not an arrest, even though you may be handcuffed, and not free to go. See Travis Stop, etc
  • the assumptions you mention are possibly true or not true of the general public, but are not discussed in the article, so it really doesn't matter.
  • It may be the case that information regarding the inquest and notable opinions regarding that have been lacking. There were several discussions on that (now archived) including some proposed additions. Feel free to read throught eh archives, or propose some additions. Be aware that only highly notable opinions (Dershowitz etc) reported in reliable sources (not random blogs etc) will be acceptable for inclusion
  • Not sure what your point is. Discussion about if he should be charged or not was surely massively covered and thought about, as is self evident from the fact that he wasn't arrested for almost two months, while they did investigate and think about it? It could certainly be that they came to an incorrect decision to arrest, or charge or overcharge (we will see when the court case moves on) but you are risking WP:FORUM
  • MArtin had no reason to know that Zimmerman was armed. He was not a guard,he was the neighborhood watch, and Martin was not a permanent resident and would have no reason to recognize him as such.
  • There are some stories of prior possibly violent history on Martin's part, but they have not been discussed in reliable sources neccesary for inclusion in this article. Further, there has been a long and detailed debate about inclusion of negative historical information for both zimmerman and martin (suspensions, fights, assault, domestic violence etc) and thus far it has been semi0decided not to include information for either of them not directly relevant to the case. When the trial begins, some of that history may suddenly become relevant to the case if it is brought up as evidence.
  • If you think there are specific things that need to be addressed, address them, or make specific suggestions here so others can evaluate and possibly make them. Making general "this sucks" statements is not helpful to the article, or your pov. Be aware that this is a very controvercial article, and very closely watched. lack of neutrality and pushing of POV will be dealt with swiftly. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

These NPOV objections are baseless. Really don't know how much more neutral the article could be, and we have editors of all stripes on hand. I am going to remove the tag. Apostle12 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: the word "unarmed", I think he has a good point. This is how our friends at wiktionary define "unarmed": "1. defenceless and lacking weapons or armour" "2. not carrying arms". I think the OP finds that "defenceless" connotation of the word to be troubling, and I agree. It is true that Trayvon was "lacking weapons" (and armor), but given the eyewitness testimony, picture, and medical reports, I think it's hard to argue that he was "defenceless". In order to avoid this possible connotation, I would prefer that it be simply stated that "Trayvon was not carrying a weapon." Emeraldflames (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Its really splitting hairs to say that it is a problem. 1) EXTREMELY widely used to describe this situation by almost all sources - no need to bowlderize/ or talk around it. 2) Extremely common LEGAL definition (unarmed vs armed robbery, unarmed spotter plane, etc). 3) all of the definitions using "defenseless" are using it directly in the context of not having weapons (referring to the castle's defenses etc). - Not a single definition is mentioning weak or in a position to not be able to defend/attack with hands - this is explicitly acknowledged by the well known phrase "unarmed combat". Un armed - without arms. Unless you are going to try and argue that the 2nd amendement says we have the right not to be forcibly amputated, you are just being pendantic for no reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To use a non-wiki source, American Heritage Dictionary defines un·armed this way "a. Lacking weapons or armor; defenseless". If the word is ONLY used to mean that someone is not carrying a weapon, then there would be no reason for American Heritage (and wiktionary) to add "; defenseless". They added it because there is a connotation in some uses of the word that implies an "inability to defend oneself".

Yes, it has been commonly used by the media to describe this situation. And there may a number of reasons they reported it in this way (not all of them positive.) But the media does not universally report it that way. I've heard the media phrase it in other ways as well. It's a matter of which one is *best*.

Do I think it's a huge deal to continue to use the word unarmed? Not really. I just don't see the point in describing the situation using a somewhat 'loaded' word that carries a definitive connotation, when we could just as easily describe it in a way that does *not*. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with the characterization that it's been semi-decided not to include information about their backgrounds. Sometimes, the article includes the suspensions and prior arrests of Zimmerman. Other times, it does not. Right now, it does not, but there has been no consensus to exclude them. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it being implied that only liberal leaning sources were biased in this account?

As someone who considers themselves on the radical center, I keep a close eye on both sides, and both communities. This article seems to imply it was only the liberal leaning news sources that were attempting to "take sides" here.

Anybody who has been covering this story, and keeping an eye on both sides, would know that right-wing sources were out to defend Zimmerman with near IDENTICAL fervor as left-leaning sources were to defend Trayvon.

>NBC edited their audio clip to try and make it look like Zimmerman volunteered that the suspect was black, in order to fuel racial profiling accusations. Egregious.

>NY POST ran a front page article proclaiming Zimmerman's innocence, accusing anyone refuting this as a "race huckster", and reporting each and every one of Zimmerman's accounts at face value, as if they were facts. Well before the evidence started to roll out. Just as egregious.

If anything, this case should have been a wake up call for what a lack of independent news coverage we have in this country, how difficult it is for them to resist spinning articles for their slant, and how powerful their influence is over their viewers, who rarely if ever question the validity of their sources.

Before any of the crucial details were even leaked, we had left-leaning bloggers insisting on Trayvon's innocence, and right-leaning bloggers insisting on Zimmerman's innocence. This speaks wonders about the state of today's media, political polarity, and racial relations in itself.

--69.125.144.46 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference is the left was jumping to conclusions of guilt on GZ's part, while the right was saying "whoa... there's no proof - innocent until proven guilty." The biggest different between the two? The "right" is actually right. And with recent medical reports, the "right" is looking even more right. BTW, where's the NY Post thing you reference, in the article? I'm not seeing it. - Xcal68 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's saying that the New York Post article he referenced should be in the Wikipedia article. I don't agree, because NY Post is not a mainstream news source like NBC and there hasn't been any notable accusations that NY Post tampered with or edited recordings or other evidence. I agree there is bias on both sides, but there is no question that- particularly in the beginning- the anti-Zimmerman bias was evident in many mainstream sources. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The mainstream media is fairly liberal. The liberal media was biased in this case. Wikipedia only really covers the mainstream media. Conservative media may also have been biased as well, but conservative media is largely restricted to blogs etc that wikipedia does not typically talk about, unless further covered (tertiary coverage likely) in mainstream media. Fox/Rush/Beck being a few of the counterexamples of notable conservative media - examples which for the most part have stayed out of this case, except to say that the liberal side was jumping to conclusions. Certainly there have been some very biased conservative voices, some extremely racist voices as well, but they are not notable like the other examples we are discussing in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a similar concern to the original poster. It's evident to any thinking person (but also well-described in reliable sources) that the conservative media has engaged in a great deal of cherry-picking in the effort to portray Martin as a menace. For example, a piece in the New York Times discussed the "wave of vitriol... aimed at the young victim by conservatives online", noting that it began on explicitly racist sites such as Stormfront but rapidly spread to more respectable conservative media ([9]). The effort to vilify Martin included the same vices described above - cherry-picking, the use of selective quotation and outright inaccurate claims and misrepresented photos, etc.

  It's evident that the "Media bias" section (or whatever it's called at present) is intended solely to house complaints about the "liberal" mainstream media, not to provide a balanced overview of the actual media handling of the case. I think the reasons for that are obvious in reading this talkpage: a large number of the most active editors here are clearly partisan and indistinguishable from conservative bloggers, and the article reflects their preoccupation with using this case as a platform to denounce the "liberal media". Of course, the goal of producing an actual encyclopedia article suffers in the process, but that's Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If I had to guess it would be similar to the view expressed by Xcal68 above. In this particular case, you had a conservative media that generally ignored the story. The left-leaning media were the outlets that were most involved in hyping this up and so it would be only natural for them to be the target of a section on media bias. While ignoring a story is bias itself, its harder to call bias compared to an active press using its power for persuasion. Terms like "neighborhood vigilante", "murderer", and "stalked a boy half his size" are intended to convey an impression that Zimmerman was a foul cretin who only cared about executing black people. All of these things were stated in an evironment completely lacking in adaquate facts. Hearsay and innuendo cannot be the only thing supporting a news story. I haven't looked at the "media bias" section lately, but I almost think it deserves an article of its own (or become a merged part of another article), so that it can be shown in a more NPOV fashion. MastCell above tries to imply that anyone pointing out bias in this article must be a conservative blogger type person. However, we can easily see media bias all over without even trying that hard. Jon Stewart does it almost every night on the Daily Show. It's silly to start pointing fingers at people for recognizing bias. As long as we maintain a good article here, we can fight media bias on our own time later. Incidentally, here's another example of media bias and incompetence, my apologies to MastCell for this one not being an anti-conservative attack. -- Avanu (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That link was just to a blog, complaining about blogs. - Xcal68 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Msstcell's' bigoted wingnuttery manifests again, and where are the admins to supposedly discipline their own? Whatzinaname (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. So we're OK citing blogs like Mediaite, Newsbusters and the Daily Caller as sources in the article, but this piece from the New York Times is dismissed because it's "just a blog". Got it. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you meant "we're" in the general sense, but since you're responding to me, I'm assuming you'll next be linking to something I edited/posted in support of using blogs as main sources... - Xcal68 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I would just appreciate your help in decreasing the article's use of other blogs, if you feel strongly about the issue. MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A famous boxer was misquoted and this misquote was misquoted until the guy came off as someone willing to take gay people out and kill them. People were calling for his head on a platter and whatnot. But he just said he thinks God's law is above man's law, and that was about it. He didn't call for murders to take place. That link shows a bit of how the media took it and mangled it irresponsibly. -- Avanu (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

← To be clear, I think it is evident that mainstream media coverage has been poor and, in some cases, completely irresponsible (e.g. the NBC edits). That aspect is amply represented in our article, which I think is totally appropriate. What I don't see in the article - and what seems to be actively resisted at every turn - is any effort to discuss the role that conservative media played in the case. It's not for lack of sources.

Looking at the talk page, a disproportionate amount of discussion seems to be consist of editors complaining about and vilifying the liberal/mainstream media (which terms seem to be interchangeably used here). I think that mainstream-media malfeasance is a part of the story, and one that we can and do convey. But editors' interests seem limited to using this incident as a springboard to vent their personal dissatisfaction with the mainstream media. I don't see a lot of interest in looking at the media's role across the board, just in vilifying the lib'rul media, which is disappointing. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that is because this article is about Trayon Martin and George Zimmerman, and not "Media Bias in the 21st Century". :) -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you, but media bias has been a dominant theme on this talkpage, so there's no escaping it. And it is a relevant aspect of this topic - it's just that I'm not sensing a lot of interest in a truly balanced, source-based overview, just in using this as a platform to beat the drum about the liberal media. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The section seems to mainly be discussing problems with what are usually considered WP:RS. Was there a certain other one, that you feel deserves mention, that is missing? Write something up and add it... - Xcal68 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done that, and the material was rapidly removed from the article. Based on the overall tone of talkpage discussion, including in this thread, and the selection of editors currently most active on this page, I don't see much reason to re-insert it. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That left-leaning side of the media is generally more at fault in *this* story. Active versus passive. -- Avanu (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The media bias in the article (and largely in the talk page) is talking about sources which clearly qualify in general as WP:RS. ABCs video, CNNs audio analysis, NBCs video editing. The example above is stormfront. Anyone who is expecting neutrality or editorial control from stormfront or gun rights blogs equivalent to ABC, NBC, and CNN is going to be in for a life of disappointment. What is a conservative source who showed bias that is anywhere near the notability/general reliability of ABC, NBC, and CNN. What story did they run that got meta-covered by other reliable sources to nearly the degree that those stories did. If there are equivalent sources, with equivalent stories, then absolutely they should be included. But the fact that there are some racist wing-nut blogs out there is not the same thing. If we are going to drop to that level of media analysis, then I can find you plenty of liberal blogs saying pretty much that Zimmerman should be summarily executed - the fringe is the fringe, for both sides. NYPost meta coverage of conservative sources I think could be notable enough for inclusion as I think NYPost is far enough up the RS foodchain, even if it is their blog. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We all bring our biases to the table, which is why it is incumbent on each of us to review opposing viewpoints with an open mind. A truly balanced perspective may be beyond individual reach, however it remains a laudable goal. It seems to me that the presentation of information in this aricle represents the best available anywhere, thanks to the diverse points of view held by Wiki editors. If I want explore all sides of an issue, Wikipedia is where I begin. Further perusal of the cited articles provides ample opportunity for deepening one's understanding. That faults are noticed, and refinements continue, should be a source of Wiki pride. Apostle12 (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)