Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

any possible reason to include him visiting a gun factory?

A month later, Zimmerman was seen in Cocoa, Florida touring a factory of the company that manufactured the gun he had used in the shooting.[395] A photograph was published showing Zimmerman reportedly shaking hands with a company employee and grinning.[395][396] Zimmerman was said to have asked about the legality of buying a 12-gauge shotgun.[395][396] According to the company's website, tours are not ordinarily offered, but can sometimes be specially arranged for military, law enforcement, or educational purposes.[396]

Opinions please. [1] Is there any possible reason to include this? It has nothing to do with the case of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, which is what this article is about. Any reason to mention he went to the factory where the gun he used was made at and grinning? Would it serve any purpose other than to try to provoke a negative emotional response towards him? Dream Focus 02:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is fairly standard in articles about trials to explain what happened to the individuals afterward. Whether or not it is significant is a call for reliable sources to make, we only explain what they say. It was reported by Reuters. TFD (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No famous person has every single thing they do in any article, even if it gets reported by the media simply because they are famous. Dream Focus 03:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the second version of that passage, which was also deleted, in context:

George Zimmerman remained in hiding after the verdict, although it was reported that on July 17, four days after the verdict, Zimmerman helped rescue several people from an overturned vehicle in Sanford, Florida.[393] The family rescued by Zimmerman had planned a press conference but later dropped the plan because they were worried about adverse public reaction to saying anything positive about Zimmerman.[394] A month later, Zimmerman was seen in Cocoa, Florida touring a factory of the company that manufactured the gun he had used in the shooting.[395] A photograph was published showing Zimmerman reportedly shaking hands with a company employee and grinning.[395][396] Zimmerman was said to have asked about the legality of buying a 12-gauge shotgun.[395][396] According to the company's website, tours are not ordinarily offered, but can sometimes be specially arranged for military, law enforcement, or educational purposes.[396] Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, had said just days earlier that Zimmerman remained concerned for his safety.[397]

Zimmerman's parents said that they too had received a large number of death threats and were still too afraid to return to their home after the verdict.[398] A Winter Park, Florida woman whose phone number was posted online by a website that mistakenly identified the number as George Zimmerman's said she also was receiving a barrage of death threats.[399] The woman said that when she reported the calls to the Seminole County Sheriff's Department, she was told that the sheriff's office was receiving 400 death threats per minute on social media websites.

This whole section describes how Zimmerman and his family have felt their lives were at risk since reports of the shooting became widespread and how they have taken extraordinary measures to try to avoid being harmed. The only part of this section that doesn't deal with that is the part that says Zimmerman helped rescue some people in an overturned vehicle (but even that was in the context of his otherwise staying out of public view from fearing for his safety). His lawyer has stressed the point about Zimmerman being 'a marked man' several times, including just a couple of days before Zimmerman went to the gun factory. Guns and self-defense are key issues in this story. If Zimmerman has been looking into the possibility of acquiring more firearms, especially a higher-power weapon than he had before, that's relevant. The fact that he also went specifically to the company that made the weapon he used in the shooting, and that they took him on a tour when they don't usually give any tours, is also noteworthy. Dezastru (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What was the point of including the sentence, "A photograph was published showing Zimmerman reportedly shaking hands with a company employee and grinning." --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably best to stay focused on the subject of the article. As Dezastru said, the party affiliation of Zimmerman is not really significant to the shooting (unless Martin was a Republican and they were fighting about politics). Likewise, I don't think that Zimmerman's future visits to gun shops are really relevant to the shooting either, except to the very limited extent that news reports say he is buying extra ammo because he's worried about lynch mobs, or something like that. I remember GW Bush got a shoe thrown at him in Baghdad, and we wouldn't describe that incident (or even the shoe thrower) by detailing Muntadhar al-Zaidi's later visits to shoe stores. I hope this comment brings the voice of reason, peace, and harmony to all.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including this content, maybe not so much detail is needed though. Trim it down a little bit and put it back in. If we are going to include Zimmerman helping those folks in the SUV accident, then there is plenty of room for this content as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point, let's get rid of the material about the SUV accident. Much too tangential.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

How is it tangential? The family rescued by Zimmerman feared for their own safety if they thanked their rescuer which is directly relevant to the implications section. Touring the factory on the other hand is irrelevant and it's inclusion is no different to having Wikipedia mention that Martin may have had an ulterior motive for buying the watermelon drink and skittles (I found a newspaper article that did discuss this). Both are accurate statements sourced to reliable sources, but both serve no purpose other than to cast unfair aspersions and as such are possible BLP violations. Wayne (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article doesn't say they feared for their own safety. It says "they were worried about adverse public reaction". Maybe Zimmerman's insurance agent will decide not to go on The View for fear of losing other clients. I just think this Wikipedia article is about the shooting rather than other things like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In your comparison, there is only one accurate statement - Zimmerman touring the gun factory, the other statement is an allegation (with no sourcing) against Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents, I think including information about after-the-fact sightings of the people of the trial are good practice. So, I am not opposed to leaving in a sentence or two about Zimmerman being spotted at the factory. However, details such as him grinning and shaking hands should not have a place in the paragraph... Wisdomthatiswoe (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the incident is notable (the gun used in the incident was a keltec. this the keltec factory). But also agree that the grin/handshake etc are not appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

zimmerman's injuries

The family doctor medical report (broken nose, lacerations etc etc) was completely discredited to the point that it wasn't allowed to be used in the case.

It's not fact. And a bit biased to include

80.254.147.156 (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You may hold whatever opinion you want, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The doctor's testimony was presented to the jury, including the medical report. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What source are you using for your assertion that the report or testimony wasn't admitted into evidence? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For example, here are multiple sources describing her testimony [2] [3] [4] [5] Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Biased contributors.

I have my opinions, but I still believe in posting fair equal-sided information. This page is semi-protected but it doesn't seem like enough. Many people here side with the killer and therefore post biased information supporting him, but exclude fair information about the victim. For example, George Zimmerman allegedly acted in self defense, but contributors will leave out that Trayvon Martin was unarmed. That was a major focus in this case. Juror B37 said George was innocent, but the other 5 spoke out against her and there's no mention of that. There's only information about B29's interview being skewed in the media. She did say that they struggled with Florida's law and if it were written differently, George Zimmerman would have been sentenced. So skewing or not, many of them believed Zimmerman was guilty. Why mention B29's interview controversy and not B37 (whose opinion left the other jurors furious)...by the way, blacked out vs showing face, one seemed more credible to me. I'm out of here, but if I remember, I'll list better examples next week. Chic3z (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Complaining about bias does absolutely NOTHING to improve an article. If the majority of editors who take an interest in an article feel a particular way about the subject—including if the majority are biased—then the resulting article will reflect their views. If you want to change what information is included in an article and how that information is presented, you need to contribute regularly to the article, including to the discusssions on the Talk page, not complain about it. Otherwise, your complaint just ends up in the Talk pages Archives where nobody will ever see it. Dezastru (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but the talk page can also be used to bring awareness to something and leave others free to provide correct information. I don't have that much time/know-how often, so I bring things up so some generous people can help. Chic3z (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Chic, there has been real efforts to make this article as fair and balanced as possible. If you noticed, the section that talks about the misleading media coverage and the alleged misleading edit by ABC of juror B29's interview is under the "Media Coverage" section. Under this section, the aspects of the coverage are discussed and not the jurors specific views. The fact that there were allegations of misleading coverage of her interview warrants admission under this section. Second, the juror never said that if the law was written different, then he would of been found guilty. In fact, she said it shouldn't have gone to trial and that it was a" publicity stunt." She also said that she stood by her decision and felt it was the right way to go because if you couldn't prove that Zimmerman killed Martin intentionally, then he wasn't guilty. She repeatedly said that in her heart, Zimmerman was guilty of killing Trayvon, but because there was no evidence that he actually murdered him, the decision to acquit him was the right one. She did say that her and a couple more jurors wanted to find him guilty of "something," but as she said, " But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence." Also, 4, not 5, of the jurors sent out a joint letter saying that the juror that gave the interview with Anderson Cooper were the views of her own, I would guess because of her seemingly personal affection of Zimmerman. Obviously, they agreed with the verdict as you can see. Actually, during the initial vote, 3 said not guilty, 2 said manslaughter, and only 1 said murder. As for the "unarmed" argument, this I already discussed above. Rob3gd (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but I think if B29's media interview is included, so should B37's which I think was even more controversial. Some of you guys do this as a hobby, some have degrees in English etc...but I just normally edit what's been written. It's much easier for me to bring a situation to light and have people who know more about this than I do create the information. I'm not lazy, I just work differently than some, so I thought if one is relevant, the other should be or neither. Chic3z (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think biased is a little too strong of a word to use, you are going to run into a few pov warriors now and again on any article on WP, and this article has had it's share of them, but overall I think it's been maintained at a fairly reasonable NPOV. I do agree with your salient points though (being fair to Martin and "unarmed"), and these two have been debated before, and as Dezastru rightly points out, when you have a majority of editors arguing a particular view, you inevitably will end up with the consensus of their argument being reflected in the article. That's how it works on WP.

• UNARMED: It was recently edited to read; did not have any weapons, as opposed to what the sourcing says, which is unarmed. That term has proven to be both notable and controversial, it's reliably sourced, it's been widely used by sources throughout the entirety of this article, and it's still used today - here and here. I support changing it back to unarmed.
• BEING FAIR TO MARTIN: The only section in this article I believe treats Martin unfairly is his bio section. I have always argued that position, and as it is currently written, I still maintain that position. There has never been a consensus (that I've ever seen) to mention any other additional biographical info about Martin other than his suspensions. There have been attempts made, but none successful. Meanwhile, there has always been support for additional details for Zimmerman's bio: (1) [George] raised as a Catholic (2) father's comment describing how family was raised (3) father's former occupation (4) info from voter registration (5) when Zimmerman moved (6) Zimmerman's participation in a citizen forum (7) Zimmerman's protesting beating of homeless man (8) Zimmerman calling out behavior of SPD officers (9) Zimmerman's goal of becoming a judge. I once outlined some of these additional details in a discussion pertaining to this issue, and the consensus was that it was fair to include them because of the initial negative reporting about Zimmerman, and it presented a 'human' side of Zimmerman. That's certainly a reasonable argument and it ultimately prevailed. But when the tide turned, and we started to see negative details emerge about Martin - I've always wondered why this same argument of fairness never applied to Martin. Never. Does Martin not have a 'human' side that could be fairly and neutrally presented in his bio section?
• Rob3gd correctly points out that ABC is the one responsible for the misleading edit, but the article says that, Saletan accused several major news organizations of editing interviews..., Saletan only accused ABC of the misleading edit, not several major news organizations. He clearly says that their reports were based on the ABC interview. Rob3gd also presents a reasonable argument for inclusion as well, but I think the section could be expanded a little to include the details of the accusation, like we did in the video surveillance and NBC editing sections above it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

George was charged with assaulting an officer; he's been accused by his cousin of molestation; his ex-girlfriend had a domestic violence restraining order against him; he was racist against Mexicans as written on his old MySpace page etc...it would've been hearsay evidence so it really doesn't count, just like Martin's suspensions. I believe fair is fair to both sides, but so far there is an extreme disproportion to "facts" against the victim in this article. George is played out to be a peachy character when in reality, if we closed our eyes and someone read these facts to you, you'd think he was a thug, just as people assume Trayvon was a thug. I don't care as much about this case as many of you, but I don't like the biased nature of this page. In cases like this, I wish Wikipedia would take over. That's the downside of trusting the public--you'd hope people would be fair, but often times personal opinions and biased-filled paragraphs end up in these articles. Chic3z (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no "wikipedia" to take over except for us. At a high level, Zimmerman is much older, with more documented history, therefore it is much easier to flesh him out. The suspensions are directly relevant to the case, as that is why he was in Sanford. Further, the suspensions were RECENT FACTS, vs things that (allegedly) happened decades ago. The restraining order is in fact already in the article along with the officer assault, so perhaps the bias is in YOUR OWN READING OF THE ARTICLE. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I can read and I was simply adding all of the information I knew of George. There is no need to be snarky with me. You are the very reason why articles of such serious nature should be taken over by Wikipedia. You can make a point without being rude or classless. Chic3z (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of wikipedia. There is no "wikipedia" in existence to take over. We are it. This is all there is. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You have a misunderstanding of my comments. I know the "public" is Wikipedia as I previously mentioned. I simply made an opinion of what I "think" should happen with serious topics/articles. You are now borderline bullying me by coming to my page and making threats and you should now take it upon yourself to leave me alone. If you do not have any helpful information relating to my topic, you should not make a comment. Only people who have pertinent information should leave comments.Chic3z (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

you think, that an imaginary entity that does not exist, should come in and take control of articles you think are sensitive. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, you misinterpreted my comment. I am allowed to make my opinion. For all you know, in the future Wikipedia will change its rules on "touchy" subjects. I do not think it is "sensitive". I simply think people have too many opinions and as a result many articles can be biased and unprofessional. Again, you are not comprehending my comments and assuming what I "think". I do not want to go back and forth on such a stupid misunderstanding. You are turning my topic into a clown show. Please stop. Don't fault me for your reading. Chic3z (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I remember wikipedia back in 2005/2006, and it was not nearly this biased. When I first saw this article it was completely in favor of Zimmerman, editors refused to mention the skittles or iced tea, and some even accused Rachel Jeantel of lying about when she was on the phone with Martin. Even now it doesn't mention some relevant info(B29's mistaken belief the prosecutors had to prove intent to kill, B37's "that's how "they" talk" comments, fake videos put up by Zimmerman's supporters to make the protests look more violent than they were, etc). Also comments are constantly being deleted. Turtire (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, but since this is a public contributor site, it's hard to monitor. Chic3z (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, complaining that an article is biased does not magically make it become unbiased. All that happens is that the article stays biased and your complaint disappears into the Talk page archives where nobody will ever see it. If you think the article is biased, you need to try to change the information that is in the article, by editing the article and contributing to the discussions on the Talk page that address specific decisions on what content will be included. Other than that, the only other thing you can do is place a warning tag on a section of the article that you feel is especially problematic (such as here), or a page tag at the top of the page, which will alert readers to a potential problem. But even if you do that, another (biased) editor will just come along and remove the tag, leaving the article back where it had previously been, unless you follow up and make a case for improving the article on the Talk page.

Have you contributed to any of the current discussions here on the Talk page for this article? Dezastru (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would edit except it's semi-protected and I don't use my account much. I can find sources to add. Turtire (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I like to make comments hoping someone with better know-how can add the information. But Dezastru is right because we can't just complain and not contribute. Adding sources always helps here. Chic3z (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have tried numerous times to balance out Martin's bio section, but there is simply no consensus for it. The majority of editor's who have worked on this article simply won't recognize that Martin was a human being, they only wish to characterize him as a thug. If they had their way, there would be even more negative info in his bio section, it's gotten so bad that even his height and weight has been stripped from his bio section and delegated to his info box (it's easier to hide it in the infobox, so you can get straight to the all so important suspensions). I will agree that his last suspension, the reason he was in Sanford, is marginally relevant, but his other two suspensions are not even remotely relevant. How is being suspended for tardiness relevant - was Martin tardy in arriving to the shooting? Or being suspended for spray painting graffiti on a door - did Zimmerman report Martin for graffiti? Or how about this one, my all time favorite - George was raised as a Catholic -wow, that's so relevant to the shooting, and why bother with formality, when we can just refer to him as our good buddy George. Sarcasm intended. Cheers.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Chic, I think that you are the one who is biased and only interested in casting Mr. Zimmerman in the worst light possible; this is not the place for that. We have mentioned Zimmerman's past run ins with the law. We cannot mention his alleged melostation claims because its simply an allegation. Allegedly, they were just 2 yrs apart in age when there events took place so it was child on child sexual acts, if true. Anyway, until his cousin decides to file a police report or a lawsuit of some sort, its merely an undocumented accusation. Why do you think that the editor decided not to mention the allegation that Trayvon carried the ingredients to make the urban drug "lean?" Because its simply an allegation and his parents refuse to confirm or deny his social media accounts. It would be unfair to say that he bought those items to create a drug when he isn't here to defend himself. We have to prevent slander against both Trayvon and Zimmerman. Second, his MySpace account is not important. His comments had nothing to do with the trial or the overall situation. Again, we cannot slander Zimmerman or Trayvon in this article. The reason why Rachel's comment about White cracker is in the article is because it was part of the trial and she felt the term was not racialRob3gd (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Turtire, Martins purchase of skittles and his Arizona flavored fruit drink is indeed mentioned in the article. Also, the juror that said that "that's the way they talk" was simply reiterating what Rachel said when she said that she didn't believe that "white cracker" was a racial term and it was how they talked where she came from. This is not the place to slander that juror for simply repeating what Rachel said. If you believe that juror B29's mention of "intent" is important, then you should ad it but it is also important to note that 4 jurors put out statements saying that their opinions are solely theirs only and you also have to put the entire interview into context because she ultimately decided that the case shouldn't of gone to trial and it was a "publicity stunt." Also, u mention the alleged videos of Zimmerman supporters pretending to be Trayvon supporters rioting, but u didn't mention the Trayvon supporters pretending to be Zimmerman supporters that has been well document. For example, the liberal activist who pretended to be a Zimmerman supporter and help up a sign saying "Racist & Proud" so you see, two can play that game and it doesn't have a place in this article. Rob3gd (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

O.J. Simpson

"Nearly 90% of African Americans called the shooting unjustified, compared to 33% of whites; and some 62% of Democrats disapproved of the verdict, compared to 20% of Republicans. This compares to 89% of African Americans who agreed with the jury decision in the O. J. Simpson murder case, compared to 36% of whites." The second sentence is sourced to a Gallup article."Gulf Grows in Black-White Views of U.S. Justice System Bias" O.J. Simpson was a former American football star and African American whose trial attracted attention almost 20 years ago, and is generally considered by informed sources to have been guilty. The comparison of the two trials implies that African Americans were wrong in both cases. That is a matter of opinion and opinions need to be sourced in line, not presented as facts. Unless someone can explain in text why the Simpson case is relevant, it should not be included. I will therefore remove it. TFD (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that it implies they were wrong in both cases, but ti does show that opinions of high profile cases with racial aspects fall along racial lines. However, I am not going to fight for it to stay either. The "informed sources to have been guilty" would need to be sourced and attributed, as he was formally found not guilty. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't belong. And to the person who posted it, I'd say, two different cases yield two different outcomes. The riots and Rodney King mean nothing to you? I was only about 8-10 when this was going on, but being a person of color, you got it! My entire family thinks OJ was guilty, but in the frustrations of the times, no one wanted to see one of their own put away. People like you amaze me when you list all the statistical information without real life experience. I don't know one person of color, though I'm sure there are some, who believe OJ was innocent. It was about the injustices occurring and people of color had enough. Not just people of color, but descent white people were tired too. Had that jury convicted OJ, it would have been a full blown War. Seriously, do you not know anything? I was a child then and I GOT IT! We have got to stop sugarcoating everything and Teach the Truth. Clearly some of you just don't get it and only rely on stats. One stat says trans fat kills while another says it heals. I mean, c'mon, use your brain! Chic3z (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:NPA. Also, all your "personal experience" is WP:OR. The content may be inappropriate for the article, but it isn't because you disagree with the statistics, which are significantly more reliable than your opinions. The real problem with the stats that causes them to be excluded is that they appear to be WP:SYNTH , since no reliable source is actually making that comparison. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You might want to review the cited source (Gallup), which does exactly that:

An overwhelming 85% of blacks say the verdict in this case was wrong. A majority of whites (54%), on the other hand, say the verdict was right. Americans overall are divided in their views of the verdict: 43% say it was right and 40% wrong.

These results are almost exactly the opposite of blacks' and whites' reactions to the innocent verdict handed down by a Los Angeles jury in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson in 1995. In a survey conducted in October of that year, about two weeks after the verdict, 89% of blacks said the jury had made the right decision, while by a 53% to 36% margin, whites said the jury's decision was wrong.

Fat&Happy (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Damn, not sure how I missed that. I swear I searched for simpson and came up empty. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

But how is it relevant to this case? Apples and Oranges. OJ was famous, George was not. OJ was black, George was not. OJ allegedly killed people he knew. George did not. OJ's case was in the heart of racial divide/rioting era. George's was not (people made it that way, but the country was not rioting etc). I don't see how the two cases compare at all. Fill me in or it will have to be erased. There is no other way aroung it. Chic3z (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing for inclusion, so Im not sure what you are looking for 18:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

ABC interview with Shellie Zimmerman

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-wife-felt-court/story?id=20103462

Not sure that any of this is suitable for the article at this time, but thought it should be on the editor's radar to watch for incoming edits. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the first media interview Zimmerman's wife has done since the night of the shooting. [6], [7], [8] She talks about a wide range of issues, she admits that she lied during the bail hearing. She talks about being in hiding and living in a 20 foot trailer for part of the time. She also says she wasn't home the night of the shooting, staying at her father's house, due to a fight with Zimmerman. When asked if Zimmerman has a temper and how volatile did it get during their fight, she said she wasn't going to answer that. When asked if her and Zimmerman are still together, she said "I'm not going to answer that". She also said a part of her feels "slightly" like she was hung out to dry when Zimmerman didn't stand up for her when she lied to the judge. She said she believes her husband's story that he shot Martin in self defense. Some interesting insight and comments from Shellie. I think her first media interview should be mentioned in their Zimmerman and family section. She offers a unique perspective.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the issues of their personal relationship should be kept out as tabloid stuff. The admission of willful lying could be added to the guilty plea we added recently. The trailer thing could also be interesting addition. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Filed for divorce

• Shellie Zimmerman files for divorce, once their divorce is final, we should update the article to reflect his marital status.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Another interview with ABC after she filed for divorce. She sure isn't holding back anything, I wouldn't be surprised to see a book deal in her future.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman in custody after altercation (released)

Early reporting seems to indicate that Zimmerman is in custody after a domestic altercation. Not alot of details yet, it's still early reporting. "As of right now, he has been placed in investigative detention," Lake Mary police spokesman Zach Hudson said.[9] and [10] and [11] and [12] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really appropriate to discuss that in this article. One more reason he needs his own article. Non-stop train wreck of run-ins with the law outside the immediate Trayvon Martin court case, which is the focus of this article. His notability originated from that, but has moved beyond it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The focus of this article is the shooting, the court case is another article altogether - State of Florida vs. Zimmerman. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree there should be a separate article. TFD (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And he's been released, with no charges. htom (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fox News is reporting that Shellie and her father declined to press charges. "Police say Shellie told them that Zimmerman had his hand on his gun and became aggressive, then punched her father." O'Mara said they were in the process of splitting up their personal property. ABC News is reporting that Police are reviewing surveillance video from the home and reserve the right to file charges later based on the video. I think there should be separate articles for both Zimmerman and Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree to do an article on Zimmerman, but disagree we need an article on Martin. Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman

..redirects here. It seems a week doesn't go he is not back in the headlines. This time for speeding in FL.[13] I looked and was unable find any previous AfD. Has he always been a redirect, or once a standalone? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

He has always been a redirect. (Except for like 1 day I think). This is still all WP:BLP1E, the speeding etc is only getting coverage because of the 1E, but he may qualify under WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It probably should be a separate bio. His notability footprint is large not limited to the court case (though originated from it). Thanks for the info. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree 100% that he warrants his own article. Zimmerman's subsequent actions following his acquittal show that his notability extends beyond the shooting. However, when it is split, the Zimmerman page shouldn't be overwhelmed with info about the Martin shooting. Zimmerman's page should be a biography, and info about the shooting should be limited to his specific role in the shooting, along with a "See Shooting of Trayvon Martin" link at the top of the section. — Hunter Kahn 20:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I also agree with the need for a standalone article. Thus far, he certainly hasn't remained a "low-profile individual." If no one remembers his name in ten years, maybe we merge it back here. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman article created

Based on emerging consensus above I went ahead and started a George Zimmerman article over the redirect. I just cut and pasted the content from this article, and added section headers. The content from this article is good but was not designed as a complete biog. It needs a lot of work. But it's a start and hope others will help. It may quickly end up in AfD, if so I will post the case link here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have trimmed the GZ section in this article due to the creation of a stand alone article. I kept the info about his ethnicity and body size, since those have had controversy or notability in relation to this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Mentioning that all of the Zimmerman's recent suspicious persons calls to police involved blacks

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

---

}} Should the article mention that all of the people George Zimmerman had reported to the police as suspicious in the months leading to the shooting were black?
A discussion of that question has been occurring here. Dezastru 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please respond briefly in the Survey section below in the format of

• Oppose inclusion -

or

• Support inclusion -

and remember to sign your response. Further elaboration on points of discussion should be reserved for the Threaded Discussion that follows the Survey section. 20:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezastru (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Survey

• Weak oppose inclusion - Basically two reasons here. 1) Some of the sources discussing Zimmerman's 911 discuss other aspects of his calls beyond race. For instance, the Orlando Sentinel ref discusses the fact that he called 911 to report that his neighbor's garage door was open (which seems a little odd to me. My neighbors leave the garage door open all the time. I don't call the po-po. Perhaps in my neighborhood it's not as big a risk). They also discuss the fact that he called the police a dozen times in the months prior to the shooting (which also strikes me as a little weird. Who calls 911 that often?). I think that discussing only the race aspect of the 911 calls might potentially be placing undue emphasis on that aspect of the story. 2) Additionally, the proposed material strikes me as being fairly inferential, meaning that it seems to strongly infer Zimmerman was targeting folks based on their race. This may have been exactly what he was doing, but in general it's probably best to avoid inferences and speculation just stick with clearly relevant and clearly established facts. To conclude, I might support the inclusion of the proposed material if we added more information about Zimmerman's 911 calls beyond the race component; otherwise, I oppose. NickCT (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• The answer depends on whether independent, reliable sources have noted a racial component to Zimmerman's 911 calls (not whether random pseudonymous Wikipedians believe that there was or wasn't a racial component). I don't know how independent, reliable sources have handled the question, but that's the correct discussion to undertake here. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion – Race had nothing to do with the shooting of Trayvon Martin, therefore, the race of folks who were or were not breaking into apartments homes in the neighborhood and whether or not GZ called them in is irrelevant. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion the article is about the shooting of Treyvon Martin, not previous behavior, no matter how reprehensible, of George Zimmerman. Wickedlizzie (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion – Much of the reason why Martin’s shooting garnered such widespread, intense attention—and, consequently, why discussion of the shooting merits inclusion in Wikipedia—is that the case involved sharply contrasting interpretations of the role race had played in Zimmerman’s having initially decided Martin was suspicious (as well as in how the police and justice system decided to handle the case following the shooting). If Zimmerman had a pattern of identifying predominantly or only blacks as being suspicious, in a community in which blacks made up only 20% of the population, such a pattern of behavior would be relevant to the background of the case. It happens that reliable sources did in fact note in their reporting on the case that all of the people Zimmerman had called police to report his suspicions about in the months leading up to the shooting were black, a fact that the Sanford police also made note of. The article should present the facts as reported by reliable sources, so that readers can decide for themselves whether Zimmerman’s actions may have been influenced by Martin’s race. We should not prejudge the conclusion for readers and exclude this information based on our own perceptions. Dezastru (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• support inclusion Per Talk's comment above, the issue is if the 911 call/race nexus issue has been raised by reliable sources. It has been, many times. We should not state that he made the calls because they were black, nor should we state that the race was irrelevant. Both opinions are WP:OR, but the fact that they WERE black is notable and been discussed to infinity. The reader should make their own determination of if it was an important factor or not, but chosing to censor the information and therefore prevent them from making that determination for themselves is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Indeed, DreamFocus's assertions that race was proved to not be a factor in the calls would be an argument that the information SHOULD BE INCLUDED, since in order to prove so, someone would have had to do significant analysis into the situation. For example, this blog or this one essentially making DreamFocus's point, while not reliable, is significant inquiry into this question. It is beyond ludicrous to pretend that there isn't a question at all, regardless of what we as editors think the answer to the question is. RS discussing the race/911 nexus [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion for reasons previously mentioned. In case that section gets archived before this one, I'll repeat some of them. He had black friends in the neighborhood, it 20% black, and didn't call the police every time he saw them around. You can't word things in a way that make it sound like he might be racist, trying to lead people to that assumption, since that violates BLP. He had a black friend he went into business with when younger, he had black friends and family members. A black woman said Zimmerman was the only one who came to welcome her into the neighborhood. When a black neighbor next door to them had her house broken into, he gae her a key to his home to come over if she ever needed a place to go to feel safe, if another home invasion happened or whatnot. He even mentored black youths in the past. The evidence is overwhelming that he was not a racist. Giving undue weight to any sources that say otherwise, is ridiculous. Dream Focus 17:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral Support. I agree with MastCell. It doesn't matter how individual Wikipedia editors feel about the issue; this is completely irrelevant (plus, it violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV). As NickCT says, context is also important. I remain unconvinced that the information itself is relevant, but it must be presented in context if it is included. Otherwise, it implies a certain conclusion which might not be supported by the sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the proposed text, I now support its inclusion, as it seems in context and neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion: I think that the recent calls to 9/11 may be misleading because he also made calls to a variety of things and some of those people were of different races. Also, it implies that Zimmerman's has some sort of racial bias, which no one can prove for a fact and based on his personal life and previous actions he took in regards to African Americans,, its obviously wouldnt represent his character Al.s if the number of crimes were disproportionately being committed by Blacks who fit the profile of who were committing these crimes, then it would be unfair to Zimmerman to paint him as a racial profiler. 107.207.24.155 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose inclusion as worded. According to the Orlando Sentinel article linked by NickCT above there were dozens of calls in the months before the shooting, of those only 6 were made public, 4 of those were for suspicious persons, all of which were black. Saying that "all of the people George Zimmerman had reported to the police as suspicious in the months leading to the shooting were black" is simply inaccurate according to the source. Whether or not the article should say something along the lines of "among the dozens of 911 calls made by Zimmerman in the months before the shooting, 6 were publicly released and in the four related to suspicious persons all the persons were black" would at least be accurate, but that is not what is proposed here, so it will have to wait for another discussion.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support There are endless reasons why the details of this clearly point to skin hue being the motivations driving Zimmerman. The killer's motivations are well-described in the legitimate references and citations, after all. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Dezastru. The racial aspects of this case were very well discussed in reliable sources, so it's appropriate to mention this. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - somewhat off-topic, and we don't want to be cherry-picking factoids. StAnselm (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• Without a specific edit to evaluate as to whether or not it is misleading, I don't see how one can support this proposal. For example, in the previous discussion in a different section of this talk page, Dezastru proposed a specific edit along the lines of this RfC, and it did not attain consensus. If Dezastru is dissatisfied with that result, then Dezastru should have proposed here that edit or another along the same lines, instead of making a generic proposal that may allow a similarly misleading edit to be included in Wikipedia, without knowing in advance what the edit would be. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bob K31416 - Yeah. I partially agree. This RfC could have more clearly enunciated the proposal. My interpretation was that we're question whether the material that was proposed in the "previous discussion" should be included at all. NickCT (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a copy of one of my comments (message of 14:11 31 July 31 2013) in the previous discussion which seems to summarize the main points.

"Re 'All of individuals he called to report were black males' — This is misleading because it implies that Zimmerman’s motivation for the calls was racial profiling. Examination of at least 3 of the 4 calls clearly indicates otherwise. The calls of Aug 3 and Aug 6, 2011 were for suspicious people who fit the description of subjects from the same recent burglary of Aug 3. The call of Feb 2, 2012 was about a person peering into windows who was caught days later with stolen property from a recent burglary, and was later found to have a history of burglaries in 2008 and 2009."

I also made a suggestion in my subsequent message of 18:56, 31 July 2013.

"As an afterthought to my message to Desastru, please note that there is a section "Allegations of racism" where it was noted that Zimmerman was accused of racially profiling Martin. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly alleges that Zimmerman was racially profiling others, as you seem to think he was doing in the above 4 calls, then we can consider adding that source and info to the allegations of racism there.

I don't think Dezastru ever responded to these points or the suggestion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, the question is whether the information should be mentioned anywhere in the article. One editor said in the earlier discussion said that the information should not be mentioned at all. Another argument was that the information might be appropriate for the related article on State of Florida v. George Zimmerman but is not appropriate for this article. Before deciding in which section of this article the information at the heart of the RfC should be included, we need to first agree on whether it can be included in this article at all. Dezastru (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Consensus was already clear. This is just having the same exact discussion over again. Keep the bias material out of the article for reasons discussed in detail already. Dream Focus 14:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn’t the whole purpose of requests for comment to seek the input of editors from the wider Wikipedia community who have been uninvolved in a dispute over content and are, hopefully, able to engage the questions posed more neutrally? Sometimes it can be difficult, if you have been working on a contentious topic, to step back and render decisions about content impartially; a fresh, outside perspective can help overcome that limitation in developing articles. In the case of this particular RfC for this specific article, there have been literally only a handful of editors who have so far contributed to the discussion of this question. And when statements such as “anyone in the community, regardless of race, acting suspicious like the drug using thief Martin, would be questioned” (my emphasis) have been made, indicating an extreme bias toward one of the contested versions of events, there is clearly a need for outside input, to help ensure decisions on article content are reflective of the wider community’s judgment and not just the potentially biased view of a small group who are especially interested in the topic. Dezastru (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Its forum shopping plain and simple. No one agreed with you, everyone who commented was against you, so you tried to bring in more people. He had diamond earrings and silver wedding bands and other jewelry in his backpack, along with a watch and screwdriver, so he was either a thief or holding for a thief, or had exchanged dope for it(his Facebook comments proved he did sell dope). You don't bring that sort of thing to school for any legitimate reasons. Being a drug user of lean and marijuana, as his comments on his Facebook page clearly prove he was, would make him act suspicious, the lean causing permanent behavior problems. The overwhelming evidence shows his race had absolutely nothing to do with this, as others have told you repeatedly, giving ample evidence of that. So no reason to be altering things to try to suggest Zimmerman was a racist, when clearly he was not. Dream Focus 17:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on the term 'racial profiling' - There have been several mentions of "racial profiling" in this discussion. There are several definitions of racial profiling in common use, so we need to establish that we are all on the same page with regard to precisely what we mean by that term if this discussion is to be useful. Some sources define racial profiling, essentially, as meaning the targeting for police action of individuals by law enforcement officers solely on the basis of the individuals' race. I think we can agree that that definition would be too narrow for consideration in the Zimmerman-Martin affair because Zimmerman was not a law enforcement officer, and because, even if race played a role in how Zimmerman treated Martin, there are reasons to believe that race was not necessarily the sole factor influencing his actions involving Martin. So in any discussion of Zimmerman having possibly racially profiled Martin, we need to stipulate that by 'racially profiled,' we would mean that Zimmerman made assumptions about Martin's behavior and intent (specifically, that Martin had committed a crime in the neighborhood or was about to commit a crime in the neighborhood) based, at least in part, on Martin's race. Dezastru (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  Why are you still going at this? Consensus was quite clear on this wasn't it? Race had nothing to do with Zimmerman targeting Martin at all. That has already been made perfectly clear. You are the only one who keeps trying to add in misleading information to say otherwise. Dream Focus 09:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe there was consensus established, and certainly not one that could not be discussed again. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Only a handful of editors even contributed to the discussion, and they did not all agree. That's not consensus. Dezastru (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this RfC isn't directly about racially profiling Martin but about the 4 calls in the months before the shooting. The 4 calls are trying to be used to mislead readers that Zimmerman was racial profiling others previous to Martin, which wasn't stated in any source to my knowledge, and is contrary to the facts. It's only innuendo about a living person that we shouldn't propagate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Bob, it's your opinion that Zimmerman's past calls are being included to try to "mislead" readers, and it's your opinion that it is "contrary to the facts" that Zimmerman's actions amounted to racial profiling. Saying what you believe again and again and again does not change your opinions into facts. What reliable sources say that Zimmerman did not engage in racial profiling in his activities as neighborhood watch, including on the night that Martin was shot? You keep saying making this point yet you have not shown a single reliable source to back up your claim. Whether Zimmerman's actions involved racial profiling is a matter of debate. Wikipedia policy is to include all significant viewpoints when covering controversial topics, so the argument that the article cannot say something because you think doing so would mislead readers is against policy. If reliable sources indicate that a particular viewpoint has been challenged as misleading, then it may be appropriate to include the challenge. Regardless, it is not appropriate to exclude well-sourced information from an article just because an editor is uncomfortable with an inference he or she draws from the information. Dezastru (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your message contains the misconception that the requirements for discussion on a talk page are the same as for adding material to an article. Also, I've repeated points that you haven't addressed yet. For example, here's a message of mine from above,

Here's a copy of one of my comments (message of 14:11 31 July 31 2013) in the previous discussion which seems to summarize the main points.

"Re 'All of individuals he called to report were black males' — This is misleading because it implies that Zimmerman’s motivation for the calls was racial profiling. Examination of at least 3 of the 4 calls clearly indicates otherwise. The calls of Aug 3 and Aug 6, 2011 were for suspicious people who fit the description of subjects from the same recent burglary of Aug 3. The call of Feb 2, 2012 was about a person peering into windows who was caught days later with stolen property from a recent burglary, and was later found to have a history of burglaries in 2008 and 2009."

I also made a suggestion in my subsequent message of 18:56, 31 July 2013.

"As an afterthought to my message to Desastru, please note that there is a section "Allegations of racism" where it was noted that Zimmerman was accused of racially profiling Martin. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly alleges that Zimmerman was racially profiling others, as you seem to think he was doing in the above 4 calls, then we can consider adding that source and info to the allegations of racism there.

I don't think Dezastru ever responded to these points or the suggestion."

BTW there was a request below by other editors for the same thing I mentioned at the beginning of this RfC, i.e. to see a draft of what you want to put in the article, which so far you have preferred not to comply. Perhaps you could reconsider? After all, your RfC doesn't seem to be going anywhere as is. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Dezastru's comment. The rationale being used to withhold this information is the editors' opinion and WP:OR and a violation of WP:NPOV these details have been widely discussed in reliable sources. Nobody is saying we should allege that there was profiling or racism. We are saying that an 100% verified, and uncontested, objective fact (all 5 calls were for black males) should be objectively reported in the article. That peoples opinions on the importance of those facts differ is not a reason to exclude the information - in fact it is MORE reason to include it, so that our readers can make that opinion for themselves. Per my reply to Isaidnoway below, I do not object to the ADDITIONAL objective fact of the total number of calls he made also being included to give these 5 calls some context (being wary of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in their inclusion of course. The proposed text is the text that was in the article until it was inappropriately removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding policy, and with regard to OR I think I mentioned this before to you. Again, see the end of the first paragraph of WP:NOR.

Re "The proposed text is the text that was in the article until it was inappropriately removed." — So far, Dezastru hasn't proposed any text in this RfC. There was considerable discussion about that text previously and it didn't get consensus. So perhaps we should focus on yours and Isaidnoway's ideas below, which so far seem more productive. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

OR doesn't apply to talk pages as a policy violation, but as an argument for what text is ultimately included or not included in the article it certainly does. Your reason for not including the information is OR. It carries no weight. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Material can be evaluated by any means for inclusion in an article, as long as OR is not put into an article. In the end it's consensus that determines what should or should not go into an article. I think that the points I made in the quote box above should carry a fair amount of weight because they are fact based and because they aren't just some new points; they haven't been refuted for longer than this RfC has existed. Anyhow, if you would like to add something along the lines of this RfC to the article, simply propose it and get consensus. I think that would be more productive than these peripheral debates. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the question being asked by the editor of this RfC, I don't ouright oppose it, but I would like to see a rough draft of how it will be presented in the article. While it is true that the RS mention that the suspicious people were all black males, I think if we could see how it was going to be presented in the article, it would be very helpful and move this discussion along in the right direction. The question being presented for this RfC seems to only focus on calls in the months leading up to the shooting. Is the proposed content only going to cover this specific timeframe of his calls? Are we just focusing on his calls in the preceding months prior to the shooting or the totality of all his calls over the years?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good point. Just as I think we should include that te 5 calls were all to report black suspects, I think it is more than fair to also include the total number of calls he has made ever, which would put those 5 calls in context. Wording to avoid WP:SYNTH may be difficult, but we could certainly just juxtapose the two statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Response to Bob K31416's remark on 3 of the 4 calls

"Re 'All of individuals he called to report were black males' — This is misleading because it implies that Zimmerman’s motivation for the calls was racial profiling. Examination of at least 3 of the 4 calls clearly indicates otherwise. The calls of Aug 3 and Aug 6, 2011 were for suspicious people who fit the description of subjects from the same recent burglary of Aug 3. The call of Feb 2, 2012 was about a person peering into windows who was caught days later with stolen property from a recent burglary, and was later found to have a history of burglaries in 2008 and 2009."

Assuming the case of the man caught with stolen property did in fact involve the same person Zimmerman had seen before, as Zimmerman claimed, then that call is reasonably explained by Zimmerman’s account. The other calls mentioned, however, are a different matter. ‘Suspicious people who fit the description’ - according to Zimmerman. What was the description again? Oh, that’s right: young black males. Isn’t calling them ‘suspicious people who fit the description’ the same as saying ‘suspicious people who fit the profile’? Were the people who had reportedly been seen in the vicinity actually proven to have been guilty of the crime(s) they were accused of? Or were they merely deemed suspicious by dint of being in the area and appearing a certain way? Isn’t that exactly how racial profiling works? It’s entirely possible that these others were up to no good. It’s also entirely possible that they were not involved in any crime and were only singled out because they fit a particular profile that Zimmerman and certain others in the community had decided should be regarded as a threat.

Again, Wikipedia policy requires us to include all significant perspectives when covering controversial material. If information has been reported by reliable sources that suggests why it might have been reasonable for Zimmerman to have been reporting only young black males in his calls about suspicious people, as Bob K31416 apparently believes, then that information should be in the article, and readers can draw their own conclusions. Dezastru (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you're essentially saying that Zimmerman may have been reporting people as suspicious just because they were black, i.e. racial profiling. In addition to my comments earlier in this RfC about how this is wrong, I'll add some more points. According to your logic, it seems that anyone making multiple reports of suspicious people who are black, should be suspected of racially profiling, even if black is part of the description of someone who committed a recent burglary or the person went on to commit a burglary. Also, if Zimmerman was racially profiling, it seems that there would be many more than just the 4 reports of suspicious black people by Zimmerman during those months because 20% of the residents of the community were black. Also, as far as I could tell, Zimmerman didn't make any calls about suspicious black people in the years prior to the 4 calls. So there's no basis in fact for implying that Zimmerman was racially profiling and it would be misleading to include material in the article that implies that he was. It's innuendo about a living person that Wikipedia shouldn't be propagating. Perhaps a source will eventually come out discussing the issue of this misleading statement. When that occurs, you can probably get what you want because it would probably be balanced. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"It seems that you're essentially saying that Zimmerman may have been reporting people as suspicious just because they were black, i.e. racial profiling" – No, I am not saying that Zimmerman may have been reporting people as suspicious just because they were black. Please see my comment on definitions of racial profiling earlier in the thread. There IS a question as to whether Zimmerman was interpreting the behavior of people he was observing as suspicious in part because they were black. According to your logic, it seems that anyone making multiple reports of suspicious people who are black, should be suspected of racially profiling, even if black is part of the description of someone who committed a recent burglary or the person went on to commit a burglary – If someone, in a community where 80-90% of the population is not black, has only been reporting blacks as being suspicious, and some of those people being reported have not been found to have committed any crimes, then the person may have been engaging in racial profiling. If Zimmerman was racially profiling, it seems that there would be many more than just the 4 reports of suspicious black people by Zimmerman during those months – So let me get this straight. You're arguing that it's not possible that Zimmerman was making assumptions about people's motivations and behavior based in part on their race (i.e., racially profiling) in the cases of the calls in question because he did not make suspicious persons calls every time he saw black people in the community (or something along those lines)? The argument is absurd. As far as I could tell, Zimmerman didn't make any calls about suspicious black people in the years prior to the 4 calls. So there's no basis in fact for implying that Zimmerman was racially profiling – Because people start racial profiling in the womb? What? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But more importantly, why have you decided that is is not possible that there came a point in his life when he began doing something he had not previously done? Dezastru (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Response to BobK31416’s suggestion of including the statement about Zimmerman's previous calls in the section on “Allegations of Racism” (sic)

As an afterthought to my message to Desastru, please note that there is a section "Allegations of racism" where it was noted that Zimmerman was accused of racially profiling Martin. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly alleges that Zimmerman was racially profiling others, as you seem to think he was doing in the above 4 calls, then we can consider adding that source and info to the allegations of racism there.

Quite plainly, the statement that all of the people Zimmerman had called about were black is not an allegation of anything. It is an uncontested statement of fact. It belongs in the part of the article discussing the "Background of the Shooting," a section which is written as a simple recitation of the uncontested facts of the events that occurred leading up to the shooting. The "Alleged Race Issues" section (which is the actual current name of the other section) is for addressing statements (allegations) which reliable sources have identified as being matters of controversy, not statements of fact that all observers can plainly verify for themselves.

Relegating the statement about Zimmerman’s previous calls to a section on "Allegations" would be a way of discounting the information, of labeling it as dubious. The very title of the section implies that any statements about race within the section should be viewed with suspicion, particularly when most of the “Allegations against Zimmerman” subsection is about the misleading audio recording edit made by NBC.

It's probably worth pointing out here again, as I think Gaijin42 noted earlier in the discussion, that the proposed addition under discussion is not intended to directly state or to indirectly imply that Zimmerman is a racist. The issue is whether there was a pattern in his behavior in identifying individuals likely to be involved in crime in the neighborhood that may help explain his reactions to Martin. Dezastru (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

From your message, you don't know of any source that alleges that Zimmerman was racially profiling anyone other than Martin, but you want to include innuendo that he did. It doesn't look like we can come to an agreement on this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on the claim that 'race had nothing to do with the shooting' -

Zimmerman's defense team and his supporters have argued that race had nothing to do with the shooting, so it would be perfectly fair, indeed obligatory, for the article to state that Zimmerman said his actions were not motivated by race. But saying that alone would be providing only one side of a highly contested story. Many observers and Martin's survivors have said they believed Zimmerman's actions may have been racially motivated. For the article to be balanced, we need to include information that fairly presents both perspectives. Moreover, nearly all media outlets reporting on the case for more than a year have framed the case in terms of race, marking race as a central element in why the case in noteworthy. Whatever we personally may think about the case as editors, it would be irresponsible for us to try to ignore the racial factor of this case as we edit the encyclopedia article. Dezastru (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on the assertion that the article is on the shooting of Trayvon Martin and not on the previous behavior of George Zimmerman - A major portion of the article is already devoted to the backgound of the shooting, which includes information on Zimmerman’s past behavior, including factors that his neighbors and supporters have said led him to become the neighborhood watch captain. If Zimmerman’s past should not be discussed in the article (a position I suspect very few editors and readers would agree with), then all of that other background information also needs to come out of the article. Dezastru (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on the discussion in general — I have the impression that the discussion has gotten so long that the only ones following it are the few editors involved in the discussion, and they aren't getting any closer to agreement. Doesn't seem worthwhile to spend much more time on it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on Wikimedes' reference to the March 19, 2012 Orlando Sentinel article - Wikimedes argues that "saying that 'all of the people George Zimmerman had reported to the police as suspicious in the months leading to the shooting were black' is simply inaccurate according to the source." Wikimedes takes as the source for this argument an article by Blanca Prieto published in the Orlando Sentinel March 19, 2012. But Prieto's reporting contains a crucial error. She writes, "Records show Zimmerman, 28, called the cops 46 times between January 2011 and Feb. 26. Many of the calls appear related to his crime-watch volunteer role. The most frequent reason for his calls — nine times — was to report a suspicious person, according to Sanford Police Department records released last week." According to that reporting, it appears that Zimmerman did call the police "dozens of times" in the months leading to the shooting as Wikimedes argues. However, Prieto erred in saying that Zimmerman had called the police 46 times between January 2011 and February 26, 2012. In fact, the 46 calls were made over an 8-year period from 2004 to 2012, not over a 13-month period from 2011 to 2012 as she wrote. (Other sources confirm that the 46 calls were made over 8 years, and anyone can verify it for themselves by reviewing the logs cited in the Note.) Wikimedes also writes that "of those only 6 were made public" and "whether or not the article should say something along the lines of 'among the dozens of 911 calls made by Zimmerman in the months before the shooting, 6 were publicly released and in the four related to suspicious persons all the persons were black' would at least be accurate." There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. The sheriff's office released audio recordings of the calls that Zimmerman had been placed during the approximately 6 months prior to the shooting (recordings more than 6 months old had already been erased). Prosecutors were able to play several of the available audio recordings during the trial, which is why some of the reporting refers to 5 or 6 or 7 calls. But information about all of the calls going back 8 years was available for public review because the sheriff's office had also released written logs documenting all of Zimmerman's calls going back to 2004. As the police noted, "According to records checks, all of Zimmerman's suspicious persons calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified Black males as the subjects." Dezastru (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal for how the section should be rewritten –

Current version:

From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times. Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.

In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.

During the six months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police telephone line seven times. On five of those calls Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men's race without first being asked by the dispatcher.

Three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. Zimmerman was told a police car was on the way and he waited for their arrival. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burgled. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest. Zimmerman identified this young man as the same person he had spotted peering into windows on February 2.

Proposed version (major changes are highlighted in blue; also, last paragraph has been trimmed slightly):

From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times. Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood. Witnesses identified the perpetrators of several incidents as young black males, including a black teenager who, according to Zimmerman’s neighbors, stole a bicycle from Zimmerman’s front porch in July 2011.
 
In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.

Zimmerman had made nearly 50 calls to police between 2004 and 2012 to report various local disturbances, such as loud parties, open garage doors, potholes, and children playing in the street. Following break-ins in the neighborhood in 2011, Zimmerman's calls to police increasingly focused on reporting people he suspected of criminal activity. During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious, all of whom were black males, although he never mentioned race during the calls until asked by the dispatcher.

According to friends and neighbors of Zimmerman, three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2 Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time a new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen from her home. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man whom Zimmerman identified as the same person he had spotted peering into windows on February 2.

The proposed version:

• includes more information about Zimmerman's other calls to police, as has been suggested in the discussion
• notes that Zimmerman had personally been affected by a theft that neighbors said had been committed by a young black male
• notes that Zimmerman's pattern of calls to police had changed following crimes in the neighborhood in 2011
• as in the current version, notes that witnesses said young black males had been seen in the area at the time other crimes were committed, and one young black male whom Zimmerman said he had previously called police to report was caught with stolen property
• states that it was Zimmerman who considered the people he was calling police about suspicious, rather than referring to the subjects of the calls as suspicious in Wikipedia's voice
• clarifies that the informants who provided the information on which the Reuters article is based (last paragraph) were friends and neighbors of Zimmerman

Some of the relevant passages from sources cited for the proposed version include:

George Zimmerman, 28, moved into the Retreat in the summer of 2009 with his wife, Shellie.... Right away, he started calling the police.... After the break-ins, Zimmerman's calls to 911 seemed to shift, zeroing in on black males. (Delane Gregory, Tampa Bay Times)

But starting in 2011, Zimmerman’s calls increasingly focused on what he considered “suspicious” characters walking around the neighborhood—almost all of whom were young black males. (Matthew Deluca, Daily Beast)

Several times in six months, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman called police to report suspicious characters in the gated townhouse community where he lived. Each time, when asked, he reported that the suspects were black males. (Kyle Hightower, Associated Press)

In a March 13 request for the issuance of a capias to authorize Zimmerman's arrest, police noted that "on August 3, August 4 and October 6, 2011, and February 2, 2012, George Zimmerman reported suspicious persons, all young Black males, in the Retreat neighborhood to the Sanford Police Department. According to records checks, all of Zimmerman's suspicious persons calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified Black males as the subjects." (Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times)

Notes

Dezastru (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest that in the third paragraph of the new proposal, we separate the last sentence into two sentences:

During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. On each of the calls, Zimmerman waited until he was asked by the dispatcher to provide a description of their race, and then reported that the people were black males.

I think separating that sentence into two separate ones, provides clarity that Zimmerman called police a number of times to report suspicious people, and the second sentence makes it clear that he waited until he was asked to provide a description.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That phrasing would introduce a new problem. If you say he waited to provide a description of their race, it sounds like all along he was planning to mention race but deliberately held off until he was asked to. We don't have any sourcing that says that is the case. Dezastru (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing that we do have says that he waited until he was asked. It's always best to go with what the RS say, and in this case, the sourcing says he waited until he was asked. You are certainly entitled to conclude what you will from reading that passage, but the sources clearly say he waited until he was asked, and after being asked, he identified the suspicious people as black males. That's what the sources say, and that is what the sentence reflects.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You imply that the previously suggested version does not follow reliable sources. The implication is incorrect. Please see the Associated Press article by Hightower: "Several times in six months, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman called police to report suspicious characters in the gated townhouse community where he lived. Each time, when asked, he reported that the suspects were black males." The previously proposed version that you object to basically says the same thing, except it condenses it to one sentence: During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious, all of whom were black males, although he never mentioned race during the calls until asked by the dispatcher. Saying that "he waited" raises the possibility that it was his intent all along bring up race. Waiting means putting off doing something until a later time. You can only wait to do something if you already intend to do it. We do not know that he intended from the very beginning to bring up race. For all we know, he may never have consciously thought about race in most of the cases until he was asked by the dispatcher to describe the race of the people he was calling to report. If your primary objection is that the statement should be split into two separate sentences, it could be rewritten:

During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. All of the individuals he called to report were black males, although he never mentioned race during the calls until asked by the dispatcher

– or –

During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. All of the individuals he called to report were black males, although he only mentioned race during the calls when asked by the dispatcher. Dezastru (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Responding to a message from Dezastru on my talk page, I've glanced over the new proposed version, and I think it looks good. If I had my way, I think I'd remove the sentence reading "Witnesses identified the perpetrators .... Zimmerman’s front porch in July 2011." It seems to infer in a speculative way that maybe Zimmerman's action were racially motivated b/c of previous crime in his neighborhood. Now that's interesting speculation, and it certainly might be true, but it's still just speculative. Probably best to cut out as much speculation and narrative as possible and just try to stick to the established facts. NickCT (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. The same editor keeps bringing up the same thing, just rewording it. There is no possible reason to mention that at all. The current misleading version makes it sound like he only considers black males to be suspicious. Consensus was clear. Many people already said not to add this in, and there is no reason to have the conversation yet again as it was discussed in two previous sections. Dream Focus 11:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please see WP:MUG

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)...see WP:MUG

George Zimmerman is not under arrest, in custody, nor is he facing any criminal charges. If the purpose of the image is to identify Zimmerman, and there's not a suitable picture, then we must rely on a text description of the subject. Using a mugshot is clearly a violation of WP:BLP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be able to tell it was a booking photo if it wasn't captioned as such. How is the image out of context, or creating a false light? Monty₈₄₅ 05:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Suspensions redux

Saw the change and revert about the suspensions. I propose that the most recent suspension be kept in the article, as it is directly relevant to the shooting (Why he was in Sanford), but the prior suspensions be removed, as they are now covered in the Trayvon Martin article. This does indeed match the coverage we have of Zimmerman, where his prior bad acts are not in the shooting article, but only in the biography article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention of jewelry at all in that article, nor is there likely to be. Its probably going to be deleted anyway since its just a memorial fanboy page. This discussion was had many times before, and the same editor was reverted multiple times for trying to remove this, trying to whitewash his character. We need to mention the previous suspensions because otherwise people might get them confused. Dream Focus 17:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Any prior discussions of what was appropriate for inclusion in this article about the February 2012 shooting occurred prior to the creation of a separate bio for Zimmerman and the move of material about Zimmerman's past encounters with police to that article. No one has established that Martin was fatally shot because he had previously been suspended. This article is about Martin's shooting; the material in the article should focus on that. It is relevant to mention that he had been suspended about a week and a half before the shooting because that suspension helps explain why he happened to be in the neighborhood on the night of the shooting. Dezastru (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The current discussion has two people wanting it in there, and one wanting it gone. Follow consensus and stop edit warring. I just had to revert you again. It does belong there for reasons explained to you in past discussions already. Dream Focus 06:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious that there are strong views on this matter in either direction. For each side to be so certain that they are 100% right is very sad. Can you not see the biases inherent in your opinions? A fair way to do this would be to describe the actual disagreement, saying that some think ALL of Martin's suspensions are relevant, while others don't, and try to give reasons. I have an opinion on the matter, but I can also see that others see it differently. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There are 13 out of the 18 archived pages of this talk page that mention "jewelry" in them. [20] I think we've all discussed this to death already, multiple times. Dream Focus 06:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That just reinforces my point. It's obvious that there is no actual agreement on these matters. One side may have "won" in the way democracies allow the victors to bully a minority and ignore their views, but that's not a collegiate, nor an encyclopaedic way to behave. Accept that there are multiple perspectives, and talk about THAT. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Its relevant to the article, and those who want it removed just want to whitewash the past of Martin, removing anything that doesn't make him look like a sweet innocent harmless little kid. We already talked about that before though. If the overwhelming majority of people wanting it in there, then it should be in there, that's how consensus works. No one is ignoring the views of this one editor who keeps edit warring to do the same thing every few weeks when he hopes no one will notice and revert him. I believe I understand his motives rather well from past discussions. Dream Focus 07:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not a good faith post. It's pretty much a personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you. Seems I was right about the bullying. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Did you read the past discussions at all? The editor in question already made his position well known, and is obviously trying to remove the information for that reason. Dream Focus 08:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You said "...those who want it removed just want to whitewash the past of Martin, removing anything that doesn't make him look like a sweet innocent harmless little kid." That's a ridiculous generalisation, and insulting to ANYONE who disagrees with you. Drop it now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What is this "Drop it now" nonsense? You don't want to have this conversation, then stop responding. Do you have any legitimate reason to remove the information? If so, go ahead and tell everyone. Dream Focus 08:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What I would like to see won't happen. You cannot see that your position is ridiculously one-sided. But you have helped me successfully make my point. HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And what point is that? That you can accuse anyone who disagrees with you of bullying, being one sided, and generalisation? Has anyone ever stated a valid reason for removing the information? If you have one then say it, don't just go accusing others of nonsense. Dream Focus 08:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep. that helps too. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DreamFocus, you have not addressed either of the points that I have raised: (1) You say that there were many discussions and a consensus was established, while the fact is that any previous discussions about how to cover Martin's suspensions occurred before all of the information about Zimmerman's encounters with police for alleged aggression were moved to a separate bio article for Zimmerman; (2) No one has shown that Martin was fatally shot (the actual subject of this article) because Martin had previously been suspended. And please explain how it is a neutral and balanced presentation of the facts of the shooting to include negative information about Martin while excluding all negative information about Zimmerman from the article. Dezastru (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not some information was moved to a separate article for Zimmerman, is not relevant in this discussion. This article should list all the details of his trouble at school since that led to him being suspended for that many days as well as the reason they sent him to stay with family elsewhere to straighten him out. Whether that information is perceived as positive or negative, is not relevant. Wikipedia does not censor information simply because of how some may perceive it. If its relevant to narrative of the article, it goes in there, and if not, then it isn't. Dream Focus 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the result of removing information about Zimmerman from this article is that it leaves the article with only neutral or favorable information about Zimmerman's background and only negative information about Martin's background, it is directly relevant to this discussion, which is about creating a balanced article on Martin's shooting. You have cited no sources to back up your claims about Martin's past disciplinary experience at school and the suspension he had been serving on the night of his shooting. What source says he was suspended for a certain number of days in February 2012 because of past suspensions? There is no reason for the article to say anything more than that he had been suspended from school and was staying with his father at the time of the shooting. Dezastru (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It is quite relevant that information of Zimmerman own "troubles" were removed from this article! Your bias in this matter is (almost) unprecedented and not helping this article to show a neutral point of view. It's so obvious that you accept anything that sheds a perceived negative light on Martin but reject anything perceived negative in regards to Zimmerman. That's simply not acceptable by wiki standards. If Martin's background is directly related to why he was shot, then by all means we have to include it. But even the court didn't saw it that way. So don't keep trying to have the cake and eat it too. BLP still applies to the dead up to a certain point but that doesn't seem to be of any concern for you as you repeatedly posted comments of your own personal view (and not that of RS's) as if they were factual which they of course aren't. You don't know what happened that night, only Zimmerman and Martin do while we only have the word of one side. That's why the jury did the right thing by law and found him not guilty. They had no other choice and maybe the verdict was right even w/o being bounded by written law. What is sure not right is to get as much dirt on a person who can't give his side of the story anymore. That's exactly what you're doing here for some time now and the reason I call you out here as the biased editor you showed to be. Observing this page for quite some time, it's time to cut the crap out (of the article and talkpage) and if an RFC is needed to do so, so be it. Old discussions held before his trial ended are of no concern and it's time to get a clear consensus in this matter. Cheers.TMCk (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the removal of information about Zimmerman. That is a different discussion from this one. Its not about any ridiculous concept of balance, its about all relevant information. Zimmerman said in the 911 call Martin looked like he was on drugs, we have ample proof he was a drug user. He also said Martin was looking around at houses, walking slowly in the rain, like looking for a target to burglarize. We know martin was caught with diamond earrings, silver wedding bands, and other jewelry at school. Reliable sources cover this information. It should be in the article. Dream Focus 03:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If the reliable sources actually said that these prior acts support Zimmerman's suppositions and conclusions, then I would support quoting or attributing such opinions. Otherwise, the whole thing seems just a bit synthy to me. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have always maintained that his last suspension was the only one relevant to the shooting, as that is the reason he was there in Sanford. The other two suspensions (and the jewelery) are not even remotely relevant to the shooting. Having said that, I also realize that consensus is paramount to this discussion about his previous suspensions, but just because a previous consensus determined that his other two suspensions should be included doesn't mean a new consensus can't be developed. His cell phone texts are what the defense wanted to use to show he had a history of fighting, marijuana use and photos of a gun. If anything should be included about prior bad conduct, it should be what was determined to be relevant to the shooting. Since the Trayvon Martin article was mentioned above, I am not opposed to the jewelery being mentioned in that article. It was sourced adequately and received widespread coverage. The reason I didn't initially include it was to see if there was still consensus to include it. Just for the record, I am not opposed to any prior bad conduct being mentioned in his other article, I just kind of took the position that "exceptional claims required exceptional sourcing", and didn't want to turn it into a WP:ATTACK article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, his last suspension can be mentioned b/c there is context, even so he most likely was there more than once w/o being suspended thus it's only worth a side note. There is no reason to add his previous suspensions as they're not related to the incident at all. Hell, he wasn't charged with any crime or else that could've led to what happened that day. There is simply no connection what-so-ever other than that in the mind of some people, including editors.TMCk (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree 100%. I have always taken this position, but withdrew from the earlier intense discussions because of the rabid behaviour of some editors here who seemed determined to prove that Martin was Satan incarnate and deserved to be killed. All based on no evidence whatsoever of course. To refer to earlier claimed consensus is invalid. The discussion was a hostile environment. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Take a guess why I stayed off this page and just kept watching the silly madness going on.TMCk (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Inapplicable Material in the "Juror B29 controversy" Section

This section's rumor-planting content cannot for the world be maintained in its current wording:

In his July 26, 2013 column, Slate journalist William Saletan accused several major news organizations of editing interviews with "Juror B29" to make it appear that she maintained Zimmerman had gotten away with murder when, according to Saletan, she had not actually done so.[385]

Conclusive and undeniable evidence to prove that the above statement is fundamentally untrue can be found in this original video of the interview with Juror B29:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

At 00:45 Minutes Juror B29 is asked and clearly und unmistakably states:

"George Zimmerman got away with Murder, but you can't get away from God."--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Several reliable sources commented on this, stating that she was repeating the question, not making a statement (for the first part) and then adding "you can't get away from god". If she thought it was murder, she had the ability to be the holdout vote. It is certainly possible she was confused about the law (I personally buy into that), but reliable sources have not gone there. She ultimately voted not guilty. That is the most authoritative version of her opinion possible. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is only one source mentioned as backing to the statement in the article. Apart from the fact that adding "you can't get away from god" is a strong fortification of her statement,

you don't have to look twice to find a multitude of other strong statements by Juror B29 (in the article I linked above) firmly reinforcing her conviction:

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty,"

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it,"--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(paraphrase, too lazy to replay for exact wording) "if you go by the law he was not guilty, but if you go by my heart he was guilty". So legally, she thought he wasn't a murderer. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that the wording in the article claims that she also thought that Zimmerman wasn't a murderer on the moral side (apart from completely concealing her statements), and this is simply untrue. The exact wording is ""But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty.", which is quite different to your paraphrasation. This states that she thinks the Stand-Your-Ground Law is basically absurd and that he indeed legally is a murder, but this law (which by the way is absolutely unique in every place in the world except Florida and despises general jurisdictional principles)has protected him from rightful punishment.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a different quote than the one I paraphrased. Something very close to what I put in is in the interview, shortly after the :45 mark you pointed out. Your analysis of the law is incorrect, it is not unique to Florida, and exists in most states. She may be confused about the law (She thinks "intentional act" means "intended to kill") which changes the result of the law significantly, but that has nothing to do with SYG, its part of the standard Manslaughter law. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

it's another proof that the article's depiction is incorrect. She says she thinks the law is wrong and that's the whole point, She had to adhere to it but thinks the law is wrongThere are indeed more states where cowboy-mentality has taken over the law...In the U.S. - but where else? In other countries this is generally totally unimaginable. But there are differences between states in the specifications and how far the cowboy mentality is overriding general juristic principles and Florida is obviously one of the worst cases, as seen in the outcome in the Zimmerman case. Concerning your input about the manslaughter law, the SYG seems to give you the right to kill another only because you "feel" threatened and Zimmerman even wasn't really able to prove that he was attacked (some tiny blood stains on the head and a bloody nose could easily be rigged at the local police station and do not justify a lethal attack, or was he somehow able to prove anything further?)--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Outside the U.S., the view on the SYG-law is actually quite different:

"The SYG is annulling the duty established in the American law to back off an attacker or intruder before taking defensive measures to kill or seriously injure another person or cause this" it is described in many encylopaedias outside the US.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning your quote, the original wording is "I stand by the decision because of the law, if I stand by the decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty" and before "The law wasn't able to prove it". I.e. she thinks the law is deficient and hindered her and the other jurors to make the right decision. It's another proof that the article's depiction is incorrect. She says she thinks the law is wrong and was forced by it to make the wrong decision, that's the whole point. And this greatly, greatly contradicts the distortive depiction of a single journalist quoted in this article who is clearly trying to twist Juror B29's words.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In the trial the prosecution failed mainly because no proof was given that Zimmerman started the tangible confrontation with Martin, which ultimately led to the fatal shot. (At least this is alleged by sources)

But several of Zimmerman's statements like

"...there's a real suspicious guy."[3] He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[68] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[69] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."

clearly sound like the talk of a man who's merely asking for trouble. Statements like "he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something" and concluding from that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes that he is suspicious is obviously speculative conjecture lacking any reference point. On the other side of the equation, there is no evidence whatsoever,no statements, no actions from Trayvon Martin that can be induced from that he started or provoked the confrontation. Consequently, it has not been proven that Zimmerman had sufficient cause to follow and pursuit Martin, in the first place. With the telephone call it is proven that he did follow Martin and did not stand his ground. He was the one actively approaching the victim and accordingly he was the origin of the whole confrontation. He did not stand his ground but threatened the ground of Trayvon Martin and provoked the whole incident.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't sound that way to me at all. He is the community watch captain, they had a lot of break ins, and he did mention Martin was walking around slowly in the rain looking at houses, instead of going straight home. And Martin was in fact a drug user. And his story was after walking to the end of the block to see a sign to see where he was at, while walking back this vehicle, Martin jumped him. Given the Facebook post where Martin bragged about beating someone in a fight and said they didn't bleed enough so he'd have to fight the guy again, and other comments, it is highly likely Martin attacked first. Dream Focus 08:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• So much for the origion of those ludicrous Facebook rumors: http://gawker.com/5897485/white-supremacist-hacks-trayvon-martins-email-account-leaks-messages-online ...--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Gawkers publishes anything, and has never been considered a reliable site. Reliable sources have mentioned the Facebook post were real. Trying to claim they weren't, is just another way to try to whitewash Martin's history. Dream Focus 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• A history of "smoking pot, skipping school, owning a screwdriver and writing on walls" is in dire need of whitewashing. Sounds logical to me. And using this fleabite criminal history trying to acquite someone of any guilt who has shot a person to death and attempting to legitimate this killing via the internet is genuinely outrageous and takes the endmost biscuit.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's even more likely that you're doing some massive original research and speculation, neither of which is acceptable here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• All of this is what was mentioned in reliable sources, and court records already. Dream Focus 08:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not in the way you have described it, apart from by Zimmerman's most rabid supporters. Being in a court record does not make something fact. I'm sure you know that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• What part of my statement do you not believe accurate? Dream Focus 08:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going there. Your rigid and extreme position on this is obvious, and unfortunate. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• So you have no case to make at all, you just keep making pointless vague accusations. Dream Focus 08:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Surely that's better than the very explicit attack you made above on all who disagree with you. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but i believe in the very same interview she stated that Zimmerman should not have even been CHARGED, let alone face trial. Shade the box in for "why context is important" Whatzinaname (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• It certainly is not in the linked interview, quite the opposite. So yes, you're very wrong and I have no clue how you could hear something that wasn't there.TMCk (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Question asked: "should {the case} have even went to trial?" Answer was "I don't think so. . . I felt like this was a publicity stunt." Maybe it's time to clean out them thar ears?Whatzinaname (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence in the article is not even accurate as it is presently written. Saletan accused ABC News of editing the interview, not several major news organizations. Additionally, Saletan also opined that he thought she meant that Zimmerman was morally responsible for Martin's death, not legally responsible, which is an opinion the author of the article holds himself. So yeah, where is that context of including what he really opined about.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Guide to the Backlash against Trayvon Martin

An interesting article mentioning several points worth discussing:

http://gawker.com/5896490/your-guide-to-the-idiotic-racist-backlash-against-trayvon-martin --Commissioner Gregor (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Gawker is most certainly not a reliable source, and in any case makes MANY flat out wrong statements (forgivable since this is a somewhat early article from 3/2012, but further argument against use of this source). In any case, you did not identify any of the "points" you thought worthy. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin - that post is not in the least bit constructive. The article makes sense to me. To negate it, you need to do a lot more than that post. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How is it not constructive? In general gawker is not a reliable source for BLPs (numerous consensus discussions available on RS/N). The article is also outdated, and makes many factually wrong statements. I then asked what particular points the OP thought would be worthy of discussion/inclusion, which would certainly be needed for any further discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, what you are doing seems like prematurely trying to choke off any discussion. When you're so sure that all the arguments in the link are factually wrong, why would you need to try discrediting the source instead of being able to disprove its arguments, in the first place?--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Gawker just publishes anyone's blog doesn't it? Their Wikipedia article says Gawker is a blog founded by Nick Denton and based in New York City that bills itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip". Its never been considered a reliable source. Their slogan on their website is "Today's gossip is tomorrow's news." So why would anyone take anything they say seriously? Its just a personal blog anyone can toss up there, saying whatever nonsense they want. What you link to has some guy complaining about the coverage of National Review, Business Insider, and the Drudge Report, all of which are reliable sources cited by news organizations around the world. Are we suppose to believe one angry blogger posting on a gossip site, got the facts right, while three major well trusted news sources were all racists and lying to us? Dream Focus 22:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Gawker doesn't "just publish anyone's blog". If you think it does, you should stop and figure out how the website works before proceeding. The Drudge Report is not a reliable source, nor are the Drudge Report and the National Review "major well trusted news sources". Again, if you hold those beliefs then you should stop editing immediately and spend some time reviewing Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. I actually agree with you that Gawker isn't appropriate for BLP material, but I can't endorse the rest of your post because it is so wrong on so many levels. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Go to those articles and click "what links here". A rather large number of Wikipedia articles use them as references. Less so for Gawker but still a lot. Anyway, I never read any of them so I wouldn't know, didn't glanced at their Wikipedia articles without looking too deep into it before. I was in error. National Review is a magazine in print since 1955 with 166,755 people buying the print edition, but I see its got a political slant to it so wouldn't be considered a reliable source. The Drudge Report does get quoted a lot by mainstream media, but same problem. Oh well. Don't trust any of them then. Dream Focus 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Commissioner Gregor—which are the "points" in that source that you feel we should be discussing? Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't see anything new in that article that hasn't already been discussed before on this talk page quite extensively. As a matter of fact, most of the stuff he writes about is already covered in one of our articles. The "extensive examination of Martin's social media presence" and his suspensions/jewelry is covered in Martin's bio article. The witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman vs. what "his girlfriend" said is covered in the trial article. And while we don't outright call Jackson and Sharpton "race hustlers", their inflammatory comments are covered in this article. We also have a whole section devoted to media coverage as well in this article. I too would like to know what "new" points this article makes that we should be discussing.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Bundled response to the users who asked about points from the article worth discussing:

"The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin, who was doing nothing wrong" (for example)

some points by me affirming this statement:

• Noone ever walked a walk without looking at some house along his way
• Anyone has had his hands in his waistband or pockets then from time to time
• Result: Zimmermann's claim of Martin acting "real suspicious" is devoid of any substantial foundation
• Having no legitimate reason to pursuit Martin, Zimmerman still did and forced the whole issue--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you read our article? We discuss the issue of following extensively. Its all over the place in the 911 dispatch call, in the prosecution's version of events etc, as well as testimony coverage in the trial article. If you want to declare as a fact that some particular version of the narrative is "the truth" then that would indeed be a WP:NPOV violation, particularly when based on "some points by me affirming this" which is a clear case of WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have, it is clearly a pretty severe whitewash-attempt of Zimmerman on several occasions and it is a wonder it has prevailed in this form without being nominated for subjectivity by Wikipedia. It is symptomatic that Zimmerman's recent outburst of violence on his wife has been swept under the carpet in the shooting article alleging it wasn't relevent, although it has major relevance by proving Zimmerman is violent-prone... So it is overly ludicrous you acccuse others of POV-view then, to be honest.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should photographs be included in the George Zimmerman article?

RfC open on the question if photographs should be included in the article. Talk:George_Zimmerman#RfC:_Should_photographs_be_included_in_this_article.3F

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Zimmerman case and the barrier to apply lethal force

WP:NOTFORUM —Locke Cole • t • c 09:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's gonna be interesting to find articles not focusing on race or following or anything like that but the ethical side of a killing, namely when is a human being allowed to resort to lethal violence when feeling threatened and how much of an evidence has to be given to be exculpated of any guilt and responsibility when having applied lethal force. Is it enough that someone has a criminal record, looks suspicious to use this as an argument for a killing? Will you have enough morality on your side to pull the trigger of a gun aimed at someone who's unarmed and who has not inflicted rudimentally critical wounds to you? Are you legitimated to have used a weapon when the "injuries" you have suffered are not proving that you were even remotely in danger of losing your own life ? Does the concept of self-defence allow you to kill without being in a deathtrap situation? Those are questions not only relevant to the Zimmerman case but generally apply to situations happening on a daily-basis and I think when those questions are answered in a righteous way and are to be integrated in the legal system that currently abets killings and diminuishes responsibility, this world will be a better and safer place to live in.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC) WP:FORUM Gaijin42 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC) The questions I have raised are directly connected to this article as they address central aspects of the laws that saved Zimmerman from any sentence. And the link you provided also says "Wikipedia is not vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing". What you are doing here is propaganda, pro-Zimmerman propaganda to be more precise and it can easily be proven by the the distortive and misleading character of some of your argumentations. So the link you gave mainly relates to you.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about use of two non-free images of Martin

There is a discussion currently underway here to determine if two non-free images of Trayvon Martin are warranted for use in this article and the Trayvon Martin bio article. The image of Martin on the backseat of a car was nominated for deletion and was deleted, the image has been restored pending further discussion on this matter.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Revenge rap, racial attacks

Should the revenge song be in the article? http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/crossfade/2012/03/zoeja_jeans_trayvon_martin_tri.php Could the spate of racial attacks be related? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pa-woman-attack-racially-motivated-article-1.1439406 http://pix11.com/2013/09/09/union-square-beating-victim-dies-at-bellevue-hospital/ http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/brooklyn-youths-attack-couple-racial-attack-cops-article-1.1490901 Dogru144 (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The youtube song does not seem significant enough to merit mention. The other news stories do not mention the Martin shooting, and we are not going to synthesize a connection in the article. VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing section or anchor

The following code appears twice (in small text) if you search the article:

(See [[#Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls|Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls]])

There is not any section or anchor called "background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls" or anything similar enough for me to know what to point these at. These two links need to be changed, they are not functioning as directing anyone anywhere.

If we don't have a section appropiate within this article to link to, perhaps we could link directly to the audio file that presents the yelling most predominantly? Ranze (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Blah cancel that, found a section "Background yells for help in 9-1-1 calls", looks like 'sounds of yelling' was changed to 'yells'. Guess 'whatlinkshere' can't be used to update internal section links like it can redirects. Will update. Ranze (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Lean drug

The public response section mentions the following:

Bags of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea were also used as protest symbols. Martin was reported to be returning from a 7-Eleven convenience store with these items when he was shot, although the beverage he purchased was actually a can of Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail.

This seemed like a minor factor, but I was intrigued by the long AWFJC name and looked it up and found an article discussing the juice and its relevance. July 20 2013 article on NoMoreCocktails (no idea how credible this is so any claims would need further affirmation, testing) claims something which I don't see reflected here. Initially based on this comment (now removed) from another article:

Skittles + Arizona tea + Robitussion = " Lean " the new "legal drug "

the Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail drink he carried that night are ingredients that, when mixed with dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup, create “Lean”, a concocted high which can cause psychosis and aggression over the longer term.

According to the autopsy report, Martin’s liver showed damage consistent with DXM abuse.

This May 24 2012 ConservativeTreehouse article along with this July 22 2013 NewsBusters article chime in with this allegation and cites UrbanDictionary entries. Based on posts like this, this has probably been in practise since at least ~2006, over a half decade before the shooting. There are also a series of screencaps of conversations attributed to Trayvon and another guy named Mackenzie. I am just wondering, does this article reflect these rumors and have we confirmed or debunked them? The drug mix in question supported by these alleged messages from Trayvon's facebook, is being described as some kind of agitant.

Considering that people are painting his potential drug use to just pot (something which makes people placid), the analysis of these "Lean" claims would be pretty critical. Ranze (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Lean claims have been extensively discussed on these talk pages. The story is not covered by reliable sources, and so is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (no, the blogs, urban dictionary, and newsbusters are not RS for content like this Gaijin42 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears there is a purple drank article about the subject in question. PJTV covered this on their news show, Afterburner with Bill Whittle, the clip is here, is this not reliable? A wide variety of news sources are used in this article, do you know if there is a list of sources we have established as reliable or not so I can check various things on that list? If a source like PJ Media is absent, how do we go about nominating it for assessment as to its reliability? Ranze (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that is kinda known to be true, but is politically incorrect to mention, so might be very hard to find in sources. I don't have the source about AWFJC, but it definitely is NOT "iced tea", and it definitely IS used in making purple drank, AKA "lean" and several other street names (there ARE sources; I just don't have them at my fingertips). I have a can of AWFJC in my office, which I tracked down just to remind me of the "iced tea" claim. What I haven't seen is a direct link between AWFJC, Skittles, lean/purple drank, and Trayvon. I HAVE seen, somewhere, mention of an autopsy report that puts lean-abuse-like damage onto Trayvon's liver, and I HAVE seen, somewhere, an AWFJC+Skittles+DXM=lean source and some texts that link Trayvon to DXM. This would be an important link to track down if it exists, as it would overcome the "sweet Trayvon as tea and Skittles guy" meme. But of course nobody has found a source that connects all those dots.Lou Sander (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

there are many reliable sources about lean/purple drank. However unless those sources are specifically bringing them up in the context of Martin, it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for us to put the pieces together here. There is obviously Martin's instant messaging, but that also has not been covered really in reliable sources so we run into WP:PRIMARY and since that account was hacked into by known racist elements, the risk that the messages were not actually his. The autopsy does indicate some liver damage, and while that is consistent with DXM, it is also more generally associated with alcoholism [21]. At this point there are zero reliable sources that I am aware of that puts this chain together (although many non-reliable sources have done so). It is possible one of the books written about the incident will, but as Lou said, it is not PC so is likely to be ignored in the context of the larger issue. Beyond that, if Martin was previously an angel, or previously a druggie thug, it has no impact on the event s of that night (even if he was at 7-11 to get ingredients for lean, obviously he had not made it yet as both items were closed). Either Zimmerman profiled him, or not. Either Martin beat up Zimmerman, or not. Either Zimmerman was justified, or not. the story has no relevance to the incident except to color our perception of the participants. (Certainly that is true of the young pictures of Martin too, and some of the stories we know about Zimmerman, but those have been covered much much more reliably). We cannot right the wrongs of the secondary sources, by explicit design of wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"According to the autopsy report, Martin’s liver showed damage consistent with DXM abuse."
"The autopsy does indicate some liver damage, and while that is consistent with DXM, it is also more generally associated with alcoholism [22]."
What is the evidence for statements like these that keep popping up on this page? Dezastru (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Medical Examiner's Report" by Shipping Bao [23] is the WP:PRIMARY which in the "Hepatobiliary System" section says "The liver [...]. Focal patchy yellow discoloration, due to a mild fatty metamorphosis, is present". That issue is regularly associated with alcohol and drug abuse (although other medical issues can certainly cause it as well). See [24] [25] [26] etc. However, as I stated in my previous post no WP:RS have made this linkage in the context of Martin, so for us to do it would be WP:SYNTH. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There are three pertinent sections in the medical examiner's report: the macroscopic examination of the liver (which you are citing), the histopathologic examination of the liver, and the final diagnoses. The histopathology showed "no diagnostic abnormality," and the final diagnosis section makes no mention of the liver. So the only section of the autopsy report that comments on findings in the liver is the macroscopic examination section, which describes focal patchy yellow discoloration that the medical examiner interpreted as being due to mild fatty metamorphosis. There is no statement by the medical examiner that any disease is present in the liver.

I can't tell specifically what sources you cited in your last post (the post with links to google search results - in fact, the first link sends me to information on a book about Elvis). However, the WebMD article you cited earlier in this thread discusses fatty liver disease—not fatty metamorphosis of the liver found incidentally on macroscopic examination of the liver in an otherwise-healthy teenager. The first paragraph of the WebMD article you cited, in fact, states that "Some fat in the liver is normal. But if fat makes up more than 5%-10% of the weight of your liver, you may have alcoholic or nonalcoholic liver disease." That same article goes on to mention, in the context of discussing liver disease, that "Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is now the most common cause of chronic liver disease in the U.S. Some people with excess fat in the liver simply have what's called a fatty liver. Although this is not normal, it is not serious if it doesn't lead to inflammation or damage. Others have what's called nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Although it is similar to alcoholic liver disease, people with this type of fatty liver disease drink little or no alcohol.... Both types of NAFLD are becoming more common. Up to 20% of adults may have either fatty liver or NASH. And more than 6 million children have one of these conditions...." (A different, recent source reports that there is increasing evidence that fatty changes in the liver, enough to call the condition disease, is becoming fairly normal (meaning highly prevalent) among young Americans - 1 in 10 being affected. Are we saying that 1 in 10 American children abuses drugs or alcohol?) The WebMD article also states, again in the context of discussing liver disease, that "The only way to confirm a diagnosis of fatty liver disease is with a liver biopsy.... This is then examined under a microscope for signs of fat, inflammation, and damaged liver cells. If inflammation or damage is not present, the diagnosis is simply a fatty liver."

So before leaping to the conclusion that Martin's autopsy showed he was abusing drugs (or alcohol), it would be necessary:

• (a) to establish that the medical examiner's findings in the examination of Martin's liver were outside the range of normal findings for an otherwise healthy person his age who does not abuse drugs or alcohol, and
• (b) to establish why a macroscopic finding suggestive of fatty changes trumps a histopathologic examination that showed no diagnostic abnormality.

No one has produced any source, reliable or not, addressing these issues. Dezastru (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

the book about elvis specifically discusses the mild fatty metamorphasis and attributes that to alcohol and drugs - obviously not usable as a source for us, but just to show that the condition is regularly linked to alcohol and drugs. Regarding WebMD, yes I read it, and if you note in my post I specifically said "Other medical issues". I am not arguing for inclusion of this, I agree that there is not sourcing and that it has massive amounts of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You asked where it was coming from. I provided that info. Certainly there are many UNRELIABLE sources which have made a more strong linkage, but they are not addressing your two latest questions AFAIK, and I agree those two questions are very pertinent. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. But you did say the autopsy showed damage (your word) of the liver. My point is that that is not an accurate reading of the autopsy report. Dezastru (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)