Talk:Trayvon Martin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

shooting/game/timeline

I believe we are stating things inaccurately, not sure what the best version is.

• Currently we say
  • On the night of the shooting, Tracy Martin was out to dinner with his fiancée, Brandy Green, while Trayvon and Green's son stayed at home, watching basketball on TV. During a break in the game, Martin left and walked to a local 7-11 and bought Skittles for Green's son, and an Arizona-brand watermelon fruit juice
• and a different version that was recently reverted says
  • On the night of the shooting, Tracy Martin was out to dinner with his fiancée, Brandy Green, while Trayvon and Green's son stayed at home, and played video games before watching the 7pm scheduled basketball playoffs on TV. During a break from video games, Martin left and walked to a local 7-11 and bought Skittles for Green's son, and an Arizona-brand watermelon fruit juice.

I believe the current version is factually incorrect, as the playoff game started at 7, so the trip to 7-11 would have been prior, not during a break. Also, breaks don't typically last an hour. Certainly it could be during the pregame that he just decided to skip or something, or the video game version could be correct. But I think both are WP:OR as we do not have reliable sources saying definitively what he was doing prior to leaving for 7-11. (I think as close as we get is Chad Joseph's Testimony, but IIRC it does not address this directly.)

On re-review of Joseph's testimony, I see that they were playing video games earlier that afternoon "watching tv and playing games" later clarified to be PS3 games. but "later he left" so I think we need to be a bit more ambiguous/close to the source to remain in policy Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it should be more close to the sources. I think saying that they were playing video games and watching TV before Martin left to go to the store takes out the "specific time reference" and also takes out saying "during a break". Most accounts place him at the 7-11 around 6:20 pm. Complete oversight on my part.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

infobox

Weve been trying to decide the best place for height weight, and my guess is there is other similar biographical data that may be difficult to place cleanly in the text. Since this is a standalone article now, there should be no objection to an infobox where we can just shove all that info so it isn't cluttering up the flow of text? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Height and weight are of no concern in his bio. He was not an athlete or such where it would be of interest and would carry some due weight.TMCk (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

His height and weight are due as a result of the shooting, where their relative sizes were the subject of much discussion in the media, and the court case. While certainly that information is covered in the other two articles, his physical charactaristics is a well documented fact about him, and surely belong somewhere in his bio. (To continue your analogy, if it is not relevant to his particular bio, but only the shooting - then that would hold true for the athlete too - it would be relevant to their team/season articles but not their own bio) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just b/c a fact is well documented doesn't mean it belongs in a bio. And your reasoning that such fact wouldn't belong in some athletes bios where those facts can indeed be of interest (I.E. a boxer's weight since there are weight classes in that sport) doesn't make sense at all.TMCk (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

After looking at some other BDP WP articles, I decided not to use an infobox for Martin. The BDP articles that did use infoboxes didn't list stats like height and weight at all, but listed info like - born, died, etc. I kind of wish now I had left his height and weight out altogether, but moving it to the shooting section seems to make sense.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unarmed in the lede

I removed the term "unarmed" from the lede. I don't think we should make the lede sound like the shooting article, this is a bio about a person. I realize that Martin will forever be linked to that term, and sources still use that word to this day, but it's more relevant to the shooting. If there is consensus to include it, I think it would fit better in the shooting section. Thoughts?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason there is a bio about Martin is that he was fatally shot while unarmed and many questioned the way local law-enforcement officials handled the investigation of the shooting, as well as the practical implications of Stand Your Ground laws, which the police said affected their actions in the case. The fact that Martin was unarmed at the time of the shooting is just as relevant to his bio, if not more so, than that he was visiting a townhouse at The Retreat at Twin Lakes, or that he had bought candy and a juice drink, or that there is a memorial dedicated to him at a local museum. Dezastru (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it is relevant to his bio. As with the word's usage in the shooting article, we must be careful not to imply unarmed means innocent or "unjustly killed" as that would introduce a pov issue. (We should also not imply the opposite) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, should it be in the lede or the shooting section then? I would also respectfully disagree that "he was fatally shot while unarmed", most of the evidence presented at trial seems to indicate he was fatally shot while beating the shit out of Zimmerman. I personally thought O'Mara effectively dispelled that myth (circulated early on by a publicist) by throwing that chunk of concrete down in front of the jury.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That was part of my caveat above - unarmed does not mean un-dangerous. But he was not carrying a weapon. (I think that wording is workable too, but I think others may object) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The article already says an altercation occurred; the proposed language does not say that Zimmerman, completely unprovoked, beat a helpless Martin to death, as some seem to be worried it does. "Unarmed" simply means not having any weapon extrinsic to one's own body – no gun, knife, bat, etc. – which was the case with Martin. It is important to explain in the lede why there was such an uproar about the case: it involved a fatal altercation between an armed individual and an unarmed individual. Take out that information and the reader wonders why people were protesting. Had Martin been killed in a shootout between the two of them, the case would have drawn far less attention. (And note that although evidence was presented at the trial that was consistent with Zimmerman having been wounded, there was disagreement among the experts as to the severity of the injuries indicated by the wounds.) Dezastru (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

edit dispute

Opinions please. [1] My edit summary states "Zimmerman didn't see him leaving the store. And what's this "moments later" thing? It had minutes later, not moments)" and Dezastru's edit summary when reverting me is "(ambiguous pronoun (on whose way back home?); time between 1st call and gunshot is about 7 minutes, or "moments later")". Obviously "On his way back home" refers to Martin who was named in the previous sentence, this connected to that clearly. And doesn't "moments later" sound like "second later"? Please click the link and post your opinion on which version is better. Also, since they have video footage of Martin leaving the store, they know what time he left, and what time Zimmerman first called the police. Mentioning exact times is more encyclopedic. Dream Focus 09:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon Martin

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.

---

It is factually accurate, verifiable in notable/reliable sources, that George Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator that he didn't need to follow Trayvon Martin. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-04-12-trayvon-cover-timeline_ST_U.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Chronology_of_events — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.113.171 (talk • contribs)

The police department in that area has a website that has a question and answer section about the case, they saying the 911 operator was not a police officer and had no legal authority, they could only make recommendations. Saying we don't need you to do something, is different than saying you shouldn't. And did he continue to follow him, or just walk down the street to look at a sign to see where he was at, as he claimed he had done? Dream Focus 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is covered in the shooting article, it is not needed on Martin's Biography.
• It is an attempt to WP:COATRACK a WP:BLP attack on Zimmerman
• You have now attempted to insert the information 4 times, and been reverted by 3 different editors. Clearly there is not WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. You are WP:EDITWARRING
• You are also WP:SOCKing in your use of logged in and logged out accounts to make bad edits, as is specifically covered by the SP policy "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address"
• In any case "defied" is certainly not WP:NPOV
• Please stop, or you will be reported to the appropriate noticeboards.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that a 911 operator isn't a police officer -- just as George Zimmerman is not a police officer (and so shouldn't have taken the law into his own hands) -- that's not the point. A 911 operator need not be a police officer. The point is that George Zimmerman was told by a 911 operator that they didn't need him to follow Trayvon. And the the following statement by the National Sheriff's Association should probably be placed in the article as well:

The purpose of the Neighborhood Watch Program is to enable citizens to act as the “eyes and ears” within their community and alert law enforcement immediately when they notice suspicious activity. However, the Neighborhood Watch Program does not in any way, shape, or form advocate citizens to take the law in their own hands. The success of the program has established Neighborhood Watch as the nation’s premier crime prevention and community mobilization program. Visible signs of the program are seen throughout America on street signs, window decals, community block parties and service projects.

"The alleged action of a “self-appointed neighborhood watchman” last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program,” stated NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.). “NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”

“The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands,” continued Executive Director Kennard. “The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Trayvon Martin during this terrible time.”

http://www.sheriffs.org/content/nsa-statement-nw-tragedy-fl

And your silly argument (the suggestion that it is okay that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's comments because the 911 operator is not a policeman) is a moot point, because what Zimmerman proceeded to do (follow and kill Trayvon) was not endorsed by the police. In other words, don't try to bury the issue.

I repeat: the 911 operator told George Zimmerman that they didn't need him to follow Trayvon.

140.211.67.139 (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that states that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's suggestion? VQuakr (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

First, this article is not about George Zimmerman, it's about Trayvon Martin. So, all this information you want to add about the 911 operator and a statement from the National Sheriff's Association would be better suited in the shooting article or maybe the George Zimmerman article. Second, we have reliable sources that say after the 911 operator suggested to Zimmerman not to follow Martin, Zimmerman said OK, which you conveniently leave out. Now, there are many who share your opinion that Zimmerman did continue to follow Martin after the 911 operator suggested that he shouldn't, and Detective Serino testified at Zimmerman's trial that "there was evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was still following Martin after the non-emergency dispatcher suggested that he not do so". But again, I refer you to my first point - this article is not about what George Zimmerman did or did not do and what the NSA had to say about what he did or did not do. This business about whether Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or not is covered in the shooting article and in the trial article, so maybe you can get consensus to expand and improve those articles where this information would be more relevant, because it would appear that there is no consensus to add it to this article at this time.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that George Zimmerman ignored the suggestion of someone in a position of actual, legal authority -- a 911 operator -- and followed Trayvon Martin is absolutely integral to this story. This biography page -- which any idiot would know is about Trayvon Martin -- gives the impression that an "altercation" between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin just "happened." Why did it happen? Because Zimmerman followed him -- against the suggestion of 911 operators. People who are removing this fact from this article are simply supporters of George Zimmerman who support the "Not Guilty" verdict. It's that simple. But this reference will make it into this page eventually, because it's historical fact as DOCUMENTED IN NOTABLE SOURCES. 140.211.66.207 (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't prove he ignored them. He could've just been walking to the end of the street to see a sign like he said. Dream Focus 21:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeating that something is a "fact", even in capital letters, does not make it more verifiable. Neither does attempting to discredit editors who disagree with you. Incidentally, you imply that recognizing a verdict by a jury is a bad thing. What alternative do you suggest, particularly in the context of WP:BLP? VQuakr (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• There are multiple versions of events, all reliable sourced.
• The versions are discussed in detail in the shooting and trial articles, where the multiple points of view can be adequately covered
• To put that same level of detail in to the Martin or Zimmerman biography would be WP:UNDUE
• declaring any one of them to be "the truth" in wikipedias voice, and discussing that single one, is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV
• Particularly when this issue was specifically covered in the trial, where zimmerman was found not guilty, and therefore implying he committed a crime is a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME
• Nice try telling people not to contact you. You don't get to repeatedly break wiki policy and then say "dont talk to me about it".

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You are harassing me by posting on my page that I am inserting "inflammatory" information into an article, when all I am inserting is information that is verifiable and commonly known and has a reputable source. Stop using my talk page for harassment and intimidation purposes. That's all! Copy Editor (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Your talk page is for others to communicate with you on issues referring to your edits on Wikipedia. It is common to receive warnings about behavior and content. I see nothing where you have asked them to stop posting on your page.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Did you just write that I can't prove that he didn't ignore the comments of the 911 operator? If so, you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, and your ignorance of what happened in this situation, or perhaps just more blatantly than ever before demonstrating your pro-Zimmerman bias. First of all, it's not my job to "prove" anything, because doing so would constitute "Original Research." It's my job to insert factually accurate information with a verifiable citation from a notable/reliable source. Second of all, the fact that Trayvon Martin is dead is the proof that George Zimmerman ignored the advice of the 911 operator. Wow! Just wow. I'm almost speechless on that one.... Copy Editor (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well...I'm not speechless to your comments. Yes, you do need to "Demonstrate" that the facts you are providing are accurate. Even if they are, you require a consensus of editors for inclusion of any content and our BLP policy is pretty clear about the mentions of others outside the subject of the biography itself. You may wish to review the BLP policy in these reqards to help guide you to a better understanding of how BLP articles are written.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:23, 17 October 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.

Arithmetic

• Trayvon Benjamin Martin (February 5, 1995 – February 26, 2012) was a 17-year-old

• Tracy Martin divorced in 1999. (Trayvon was 1999-1995= 4 years old)

Martin's father married Alicia Stanley when Martin was about three years old.

• After his divorce Martin's father and Alicia Stanley were married for about 14 years. (Trayvon's age at end of marriage 14 + 4 = 18 years old)

Some of the numbers above don't make sense. Just pointing it out, no suggestions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the dates as listed don't make sense, but there is that "about three" which could fix things. Dont think its a big deal though, and we are unlikely to find sources that resolve this until biographies are published (which Im sure are coming, if not out already) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't the 3 or 4 years old that I was mainly concerned with but the 14 years for Tracy Martin's previous marriage. I came across these inconsistencies when I was trying to find out how long it had been after Trayvon stopped living with his father and Alicia Stanley when Trayvon had been shot. As it is, it appears that Trayvon was still living with Alicia Stanley when he was 17 or 18, which doesn't make sense. It may be that the error is in the value of 14 years for the time that Tracy Martin was married to Alicia Stanley. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

All of these dates seem ultimately sourced from Stanley's AC360 interview. So we should take with a grain of salt both due to human fallability of memory, and whatever motivations Stanley may (or may not) have had to emphasize her role. Either she is significantly inflating her role, or the move to the Mother was relatively recent (and Mr Martin apparently likes to get engaged quickly). Although this would be WP:OR some other information we know does reinforce the latter interpretation : "Martin attended Carol City High School in Miami Gardens for his freshman year and most of his sophomore year, before he transferred to Krop High School in north Miami-Dade in 2011." Switching parents seems a likely reason for switching highschool mid-year. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider that the statements give approximate numbers ("about 3 years old", "about 14 years"), consistent with how people typically recall events in casual conversation (casual conversation as opposed to, for example, in legal testimony). Consider also that divorces can take a long time to be finalized and people may remain technically married although they have begun living separate lives. Are you sure the divorce was not finalized after Martin's death? I don't see any discrepancies here that are worth pursuing. Dezastru (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In any case, from what we know so far it's not clear how long Trayvon lived with his mother Sybrina Fulton before he was shot, except that it probably wasn't very long.

While looking at the source for the above info about 14 years of marriage, etc., I happened upon the following info which might be useful,[2]

"At least one source says that it was when Trayvon left Stanley’s home that he started to get in trouble and perhaps even experiment with drugs (his school found trace amounts of marijuana in his backpack). Stanley claims that, before she and Tracy separated, Trayvon was with her 90% of the time."

The comment that Trayvon started to get into trouble after leaving Stanley's home seems to make sense. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

When I was researching sources for this article, I noticed those discrepancies as well. Most sources agreed that Martin's parents shared custody of Martin after their divorce, but it appears that Martin was living with his father most of the time after their divorce. Stanley actually said in the interview that she met Tracy Martin when Trayvon was about 3, but I wrote that they married when he was about 3, I'm going to change "married" to "met" in the article and then leave the other statement that they were married for about 14 years, because that is what she said. This 14 years also conflicts with the sourcing we have about Tracy Martin and Brandi Green. I know this is all WP:OR, but I deduced that when Martin was transferred from Carol City High School to Krop Senior High School was when Tracy Martin and Stanley's relationship was over and this is when Trayvon moved back into his mother's house, and this is also probably around the time Tracy Martin met Green. I just assumed that Tracy Martin and Stanley hadn't formally gotten a divorce yet. One of the sources said that he left Carol High School in the second half of his sophomore year, which would make him 16. After moving back in with his mother and attending Krop High School seems to be the time period when he was getting in trouble, all 3 suspensions were at Krop and most of the texts, tweets and Facebook postings which exposed his behavior (marijuana use, fighting, guns, his use of lean) were from this timeframe as well. According to his texts, when he was suspended for the marijuana, his mother kicked him out of her house. Anyway, I thought it was important to mention in the article that he had a step-mother, who was apparently never mentioned by Tracy Martin or Sybrina Fulton in any of their interviews. I also noted that when Stanley came forward, Martin's parents never disputed her account of helping to raise Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Re "Stanley actually said in the interview that she met Tracy Martin when Trayvon was about 3" — Here's the part in the interview.[3]

"STANLEY: Hands on. I mean, I've been with his father for 14 years. Trayvon was about three when I met his father..."

According to this quote, Trayvon was three when Alicia Stanley met Tracy Martin, but it didn't say that was after the divorce from Sybrina Fulton. Also, it didn't say that they were married for 14 years, but only that they (Tracy and Alicia) were together for 14 years. The source of the quote,[4] which apparently is the source for this material in the other article used as a source,[5] doesn't say whether or not they were married at the beginning part of the 14 years that they were together. I made some edits to take these considerations into account and the following is the result.

"After his divorce from Sybrina Fulton, Martin's father married Alicia Stanley, who had two daughters from a previous marriage. They met when Martin was about three years old. Stanley and Martin's father were together for about 14 years."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I also added to the end of the paragraph,

"According to at least one source, Martin began to get into trouble after moving out of Stanley's home."

per source and my previous comment here of 16:01, 18 October 2013. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Chicago Now article does not appear to be reliable enough for this statement. The blogger who wrote the article says "At least one source says that it was when Trayvon left Stanley’s home that he started to get in trouble and perhaps even experiment with drugs (his school found trace amounts of marijuana in his backpack)" without indicating what the source for that information is. She opens the article with, "Please also remember that the alleged facts you see here are all culled from numerous online sources. I cannot confirm their veracity." So I am removing the statement from the article. Dezastru (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Although the statement seems to be true, I think the point you're making about source reliability is reasonable. So it's OK by me to wait for a better source before including the statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, that looks a lot better. She actually said in the interview that she helped raise Martin for about 14 years, then corrects herself and says 14 ½ years, but that is impossible since Martin had only just turned 17 a few weeks before he was killed. Regardless, it still looks better and is consistent with the sourcing we have. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Memorial removing

I have an idea. Since the article has been the subject of some dislike for being seen as written as a memorial, I propose taking a few steps to make the page change. Instead of the lone picture, how about adding the infobox template? Also, I believe that we should use some type of picture of Trayvon as a child, as opposed to the one of his parents since it has been done with a number of our featured and finest articles, specifically the ones of the presidents. I feel the digital footprint section need be placed somewhere else on the page, as it seems to hold the article into some different territory. I would recommend putting it in the same format as the Martin Luther King, Jr. article's personal life section, since many of the things discussed in the digital footprint section because they often are about things regarding his own views of events and people before he died. --Real American Hero 14:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If the goal is to avoid memorializing, I feel like your proposal moves in the opposite direction. Add photos of Martin as a child, and model his site after MLKjr? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

We have no pictures of Martin as a child to use, and the one picture that shows his approximate age at the time of the shooting has been nominated for deletion, because it is a non-free image. I also felt that the digital footprint section was extremely relevant, because it showed a side of Martin that the MSM was not initially reporting on.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not compete with the "mainstream media". It is an encyclopedia. RGloucester — ☎ 17:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

He didn't say he was competing, and all of that information is now covered by main stream media and cited in that section. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, I am just making sure that the difference is known. RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"His email and Facebook accounts were hacked by professed White supremacists, and selected tweets from his Twitter account were published on the conservative website The Daily Caller."

Any citation for this? "Hacked by white supremacists" is rather...vague. 97.94.138.201 (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there are 4 sources - The New York Times and The Miami Herald and EBONY and New York Magazine. They all say the same thing "hacked by white supremacists", nothing vague about that, surely you weren't expecting them to identify themselves by name, were you?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Isaidnoway's main point, but 3 of the 4 articles say white supremacist in the singular. Also, I didn't notice that any said the hacker was a self-professed white supremacist, as this Wikipedia article says. But if someone did notice the use of "self-professed" as a characterization in the articles, feel free to point that out. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Singular vs. plural, change it if you wish. I'm not sure who or why someone added "self-professed", but my gut tells me that in order for one to be identified as a white supremacist, they would have to "profess" to be one, wouldn't they?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why. Feel free to elaborate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if a source identified someone as a white supremacist, it's because that person has professed to be one - either by specifically saying that they are or by their actions. I don't think we need a source explicitly stating they "profess" to be a white supremacist if the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. In this case, it would appear that this person's username, the language he uses and the sites and boards he posts on are indicative of an attitude geared towards white supremacy. I guess one could argue that the sources are using that label unfairly, but if it walks and talks like a duck, it's usually a pretty safe bet that it is a duck. Maybe the editor who inserted that phrase "self-professed" would like to offer their opinion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are using the word self-professed (avowed or acknowledged by oneself) incorrectly. I notice that the hacker uses the name KlanKlannon, which seems to be a reference to the KKK, and which one might characterize as self-professing. However, I think that "self-professed" means more than that, for example a statement that the hacker makes about being a member of the KKK. In any case, the term self-professed or similar hasn't been shown to appear in the sources so far, nor has a statement by the hacker that acknowledges being a white supremacist. So "self-professed" isn't verifiable, although "white supremacist" is because it is in the reliable sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the word used in the article wasn't "self-professed" as you mentioned, but rather "professed". Since the definition of professed is similar, the same remarks in my message apply. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A minor point, but you were the first one to use the term "self-professed" in your comment above, not me, I just assumed you were correct when you said this article used that term, my fault for not checking myself. It's pretty obvious that he has specifically and explicitly acknowledged through his written words, opinions and actions that he is a white supremacist. When a person writes about their ideologies and beliefs in a specific manner, in this case white supremacy, then by their own written words, opinions and actions they have professed to be a white supremacist who believes and supports that ideology/philosophy. Your argument is based more on a rigid interpretation of the definition of self-professed/professed, in that you think it's necessary for him to issue a formal statement in that regard. If you're uncomfortable that the sourcing doesn't say he is a "professed" white supremacist, then remove it, but there is no doubt whatsoever that he has acknowledged/professed to be a white supremacist through the expression of his written words, opinions and actions which clearly show what his ideological beliefs to be. Why do you think the sources chose to describe him as a white supremacist, they surely didn't just pick that term out of the air to describe him, no, it's because of his own self-profession to that white supremacy ideology.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I was the culprit re using in our discussion "self-professed" first, instead of "professed". My mistake. Regarding discussion on professed and self-professed, I think we both expressed our views. I'll leave it at that and note your offer, "If you're uncomfortable that the sourcing doesn't say he is a "professed" white supremacist, then remove it". I removed the word "professed". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues?

I don't see why this page is tagged with four issues, unless there is too much info and too much weight. Not to mention too unilateral or tributary. Are there any info that need to be removed? --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that anything on his personal life should be removed as unencyclopedic. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What you would really like is to delete the whole article. The whole point of a BLP is to give readers details of their personal life. If you have specific suggestions on how to improve the article, please free to discuss, otherwise your comment can just be dismissed as unconstructive.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the tags. If editors have specific edits that they feel should be made to help improve the article, then those can be discussed. Tagging the article solely out of protest, or as a "badge of shame", is in violation of the guidelines for use of dispute tags. The guidelines for Template:POV, for example, state the following:

• Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

After the article was proposed for deletion, there was no consensus to delete the article, so it was kept. The closing administator's judgment was posted 01:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC). An editor who had argued for deletion during the AfD discussion, tagged the article as being disputed on multiple counts just a few hours later, yet does not appear to have made any edits to the article or attempted to discuss specific proposals for how to improve the article on the Talk page since then. Dezastru (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur as well and would also add that since the article's creation, 60 days ago, it has been viewed over 36,000 times and many of those reading the article were WP editor's. As you can see by the above discussion's, all issues have been resolved that were raised. Any other issues with the article can be discussed here on the talk page and resolved accordingly.— Isaidnoway (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The issues have not been resolved. I've refrained from editing this article because I don't want an edit war to result, and figured it was best to leave it to others. However, this article still tries to memorialise and idolise a child in a way that cannot be neutral. The only thing relevant to this article is a basic biography, at best, and not endless pointless anecdotes of questionable provenance intended to embellish his character. RGloucester — ☎ 14:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

One section states "A picture of Martin making an obscene gesture from his account was widely circulated, while pictures from the account of Martin with a birthday cake, fishing with his father and dressed in a prom suit were not." I think the second part is written in favour of the article, namely the part about how other pictures on his account were not circulated, and should be edited or deleted. Doopliss von grapple 2.0 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What does "in favor of the article" mean? Do you mean in favor of the subject? If so, we have positive and negative information about Martin, as reported in reliable sources. The selection of photographs (both by the mainstream media in selecting the "youth" photos initially, and by the people who allegedly hacked and released social media photographs) were both subject to media coverage, and we should present that coverage neutrally here. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would comment that the pictures chosen are exceptionally benign and utterly worthy of a hagiography. As a result fail the "balance" test. Something that made him look a little less boyish -- and there are plenty of those -- might be added. At least one picture to show he was CAPABLE of being a wannabe thug, which one can certainly argue was what he was on the night he was killed. Not prove, but argue in favor of. --OBloodyHell (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's purpose to "argue in favor of" – or against – anything. But if you have a picture of Martin which is either public domain or properly licensed for use here and is unarguably the Trayvon Martin this article is about, not someone else with a similar name or appearance, then feel free to upload it and propose its addition to the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Why is there no infobox for Trayvon?--76.105.96.92 (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Because infoboxes are generally not used for deceased individuals.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

But there are lots of deceased individuals with infoboxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally, an infobox is appropriate when there is significantly more information to include than a name, a photo, a person's occupation (or the reason for their notability), and/or date and place of birth/death. Examples are actors, athletes, artists, etc., where the infobox can collect and summarize information about the subject (often statistical information or short lists of notable works or accomplishments). In the case of Trayvon Martin, there is little of this kind of information that can or should be included about the subject. The absence of an infobox does not mean the subject is not notable; it just means there is not a lot of information that makes sense to present in an infobox. See WP:DISINFOBOX. Also note that the argument "but there are lots of _____ on Wikipedia" is rarely a good one to make; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I suggest we move the infobox from the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article to this article. --71.59.58.63 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous article

What a bunch of biased buffoons. If Trayvon was white you people wouldn't care about this case in the least. Hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.3.247 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see the only thing that is ridiculous here is your comment above.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

BabbaQ, which is to say you give equal thought to and similarly scrutinise cases of black and immigrant youths getting off scott free for sex offenses? No? Didn't think so. Funny how racism is a sin but misogyny is all good to go when it means not offending the sensibilities of hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.77.252.53 (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for specific improvements to the article, please present them here. Otherwise, this is not a forum for discussion of race relations, misogyny or anything other than improvement of the article. Also, please remember to always sign your posts by simply typing four tildes after your comments. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

article is a symptom in the great disease of wikipedia

This really isn't an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but more of a propaganda instrument to manipulate opinion by those with the time to do so. there isn't a single shred of encyclopedic notability for the person known as trayvon martin, and any admin here has the intelligence to know such. I can't wait until we "can't establish consensus" that the moon is not made of cheese thus we are keeping the moon-cheese theory wiki as a factualinterpretation of reality -- that you can't prove otherwise. Whatzinaname (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the most one sided article I have ever seen on wikipedia. Simply astonishing.--Youngdrake (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

bad link

There's a bad link under reference number 4 in the story (the link is now dead). Here's a live one that leads to the same source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/09/144554/what-trayvon-martins-tweets-say.html Can someone add? I don't have the right permissions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathyboo (talk • contribs) 02:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOT Not a Forum for Jahavaris, This is about Trayvon not Jahavaris

Below is a sample from the article right after the lede. This is not a forum to promote his older brother Jahavaris. This is clearly promotional and needs to be removed as it clearly is not encyclopedic. It attempts to circumvent the glaring reality that Jahavaris is not notable on his own to have his own article. Of course some my disagree, so please go ahead and attempt a separate article to see if there is consensus to keep it. The details clearly do not belong here and are post mortem.

"Jahavaris would later serve, in July 2013, as an intern for Representative Frederica Wilson, who represents Florida's 24th district, which includes Miami Gardens, in Congress. Jahvaris was also part of the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project, which had been founded by Wilson 20 years earlier, a mentoring program that addresses needs and issues facing at-risk boys in Miami-Dade schoolsItalic text." 24.177.109.112 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA now used by russian speaker

The twitter handle once used to smear Trayvon is now used by a Russian speaker. It appears to be twitters policy to permanently deactivate an account upon request of the family of the deceased. Therefore, it appears likely that this was never Trayvon's account and the media made a terribly mistake in claiming that it was. Perhaps the sections of this article that reference those news stories should be deleted (in fact, they should be deleted anyway because the citations no longer link to active web pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.69.134 (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Has this information been reported in reliable sources, or is it your research? A link in a source being dead is no reason to remove the source. VQuakr (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Locked to prevent vandalism, eh?

"murdered in cold blood by the racist madman"?? Please have this article better monitored. I thought we were unbiased here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.23.27 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it. Good catch. If you want to request a lower level of protection, please go to WP:RPP. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

google

Googling Trayvon Martin shows me "Trayvon Benjamin Martin was a 17-year-old African American from Miami Gardens, Florida who was murdered in cold blood by the racist madman called George Zimmerman, a neighborhood Neo-Nazi, in Sanford, Florida." which is probably an old edit from wikipedia. Is this stuff under your control, or is google the only one that can fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.227.45 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

See https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1352276?hl=en. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I noticed an edit was reverted to remove an infobox citing "see talk page". I'm assuming they're referring to a discussion that has already been archived and I'm not sure how to view it. I'm still fairly new to wikipedia, can someone fill me in as to why we're not including an infobox? Bali88 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Trayvon Martin/Archive 1. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Extreme bias

This article currently reads like a commercial for Trayvon Martin rather than an unbiased look at the case and the facts surrounding the case. Much time is spent in defending Trayvon's character and downplaying any challenges to a positive assessment of that character and very little or none is spent defending Zimmerman's character or even discussing Zimmerman. Even the accompanying photo is indicative of bias. If you are going to have Trayvon's family and friends writing the article about his death, perhaps you should just be honest and state that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.89.172 (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Extreme bias against innocent Puerto Rican. The first paragraph in this "biography" is a set of proven falsehhods about his death. BTW here is a link to a photo of trayvon date 7 days before his death. [add standard url protocol in order to complete link.).snopes.com/photos/politics/graphics/tm3.jpg.

Stand your ground law of Florida does not apply. It's very hard to leave an area when an assailant is pounding your head into the pavement.

Perhaps Wikipedia should consider only having the barest of locked pages about such controversialities with links only to authoritive sources.

This article is a biography of an individual named Trayvon Martin. If you would like to read an article about the "facts surrounding the case", please try Shooting of Trayvon Martin, if you would like to read more about George Zimmerman, you might try reading his biography as well. In addition, you can also read State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, which is about his trial, there is also Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, which is a detailed timeline of the shooting and the aftermath, there is also the speech by President Obama - Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. If you don't know how to use the search function on Wikipedia, then perhaps you should just be honest and state that. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)The article so far looks completely honest and factual to me. Thank you for cleaning up the garbage like he was over six feet tall, etc. The article is great and unbiased. (talk)

Why aren't any of those pages linked at the bottom then? They certainly should be posted in the "see also" section. --104.34.218.148 (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Because they are already linked in the article body. We do not normally include links in the "see also" section that appeared earlier in the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

implying linking all these other articles makes the original point moot.

That an article about Martin does not burn space "defending Zimmerman's character"? Yes, Isaidnoway's response addressed the original concern. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents: in circumstances like this, I prefer to have the relevant links that any given person is likely to be searching for in the See Also section in addition to the body of the article. Personally, I have no interest in reading the full biography of either Trayvon or George, but I may be interested in reading about the court case. I suspect there are quite a few wikipedia readers like myself who would see this article, not read it and just navigate away without investigating further. I think an argument could be made that it improves navigation capabilities to include them in the see also section where they are easier to find. I realize that's not wikipedia norms, but if I've worked hard writing an article, I want people to be able to find these links, even the lazy ones like the above editor. That's how I look at it. :-) Bali88 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bali88: for brevity and style reasons, I would object to adding every related article to the see also section. If someone wanted to add just the primary article, I could support that as a reasonable exception to our normal (not inviolable) practice. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh...to me, 8 articles in a see also section really isn't that unreasonable. I've seen lots of articles with lengthier see also sections. If it was like 15-20 articles, I'd say that's a bit of overkill. Categories are useful, but your average wikipedian might not know how to use them. I had been using wikipedia regularly for several years without ever knowing categories were down there. I only found out about the categories when I started editing it myself. Bali88 (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems like some sort of happy medium could be achieved here. I don't see that it's necessary to repeat every inline link in the "See Also" section, but there are some links that probably should be in both places because they are immediately pertinent to the existence of the Wikipedia article in the first place.

For example, placing "neighborhood watch"; "Miami Gardens, Florida"; or "High School Junior" in "See Also" would be redundant, fussy, and just clutter up the page.

On the other hand, the reason that Trayvon Martin rates a Wikipedia article in the first place is directly related to his run-in with Zimmerman, Florida's "stand your ground" laws, and Zimmeran's subsequent trial. Therefore, I would put those items in "See Also", even though they are already linked in the body of the article. To that extent, I agree with Bali88. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

correction

"despite being told not to do so" should instead be: "despite being advised that he did not need to do so" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.66.95 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article for 24 hours and requested a one week protection at WP:RFPP due to edit warring. I'd rather not see people get blocked here. — Ched :  ?  17:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ched. Edit-warring is never the right way to arrive at what is best for the encyclopedia. At some point after the above discussion has reached its conclusion, I will return to ask you, as an uninvolved administrator, to summarise the debate. That should settle what is best for this particular article. --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Page name

It is unclear to me why this page is named Trayvon Martin and not Murder of Trayvon Martin in line with other pages on murder victims. It's the murder that made him notable. Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

1. "murder" is a POV and BLP issue since there was a trial and a not guilty verdict. I will remind Yoninah that BLP applies to talk pages, so be careful that you do not cause yourself to be sanctioned.
2. This is the article about the person who it was determined has become notable enough or was a significant enough aspect of the event to have a spin-off article. The main article is Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin Gaijin42 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)