Jump to content

Talk:George Zimmerman/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

RfC: Should the police record section be reduced

Consensus is fairly clearly against this change. Number 57 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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 "Other encounters with police" sub-section be changed from this to this ie. everything but convictions removed.

Please sign Support or Oppose below.

Note: previous discussion in section above. Notifying participants: @Kmhkmh:,@VQuakr:,@Bpabbott:,@The Four Deuces:,@Gaijin42:,@RAN1:,@Deadbeef: -- GreenC 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose Zimmerman is WP:WELLKNOWN and his run-ins with police is a central part of his life history and biography as evidence but substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. He is known for his many run ins with police it is a central aspect of his notability. -- GreenC 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Poll is irrelevant per WP:NOTAVOTE. Produce a BLP-compliant reasoning instead; none has been presented so far. Please also note that compliance with WP:BLP is not subject to local consensus. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you are the one who decides when something is BLP-compliant or not. -- GreenC 19:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. But it does not matter if four editors or forty disagree with me; decisions are made by consensus not majority vote. There are numerous dispute resolution methods available; this RfC is one of them. Due to WP:BLP's requirement for exceptional caution, our default is, of course, to exclude the material from article space while the issue is being discussed. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please explain how any legitimate concern has not been addressed. I think all concerns express and been addressed either by modifying the content, or by explaining why the concern is not in violation with Wikipedia's policies.Bpabbott (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
RFCs aren't polls, but they are a place where the merits of arguments are considered. The arguments here for restoring the material seem to be that the Zimmerman is a well-known public figure, sources reporting his law enforcement encounters are reliable and verifiable (both in compliance with BLP), and excluding said run-ins would violate NPOV per the principle of due weight. Your argument is based on the assertion that none of these arguments are based in BLP policy, which does not seem to be the case. If you want to reduce the profile of those incidents as they are presented in the article, you might gain more support, but as it stands general consensus is to restore the material, which is in line with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which states consensus is needed to restore material without significant change. --RAN1 (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The section was reduced from about 10k to 7k in a recent edit by Deadbeef. The 7k version is what is linked in the RfC proposal. -- GreenC 02:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Zimmerman's various brushes with the law are an important of understanding his personality and biography. They are widly reported in the media and it is inconceivable to me that any proper biographic article would not consider them. Hence not mentioning them at all and creating the impression the trayvor Martin case was his only brush with the law is aside from being a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV simply bad encyclopedic writing. However while this imho dictates that they need to be mentioned it does not settle the amount of detail and how much of the overall article should be devoted to it, this is open to editorial judgement and an potential option for a compromise. It is imho arguable to shorten that section by providing a summarizing account and a more tense style. This also assure that there is no WP:UNDUE issue of a separate kind and to address AVOIDVICTIM concerns. But let reiterate a wholesale removal is no-go from my perspective.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I would not characterize my removal as wholesale, since I did leave the one incident that resulted in an effective guilty verdict (the 2005 pre-trial diversion program). I absolutely disagree with your claim that we should include the other incidents as "important of understanding his personality" - this is precisely the wrong reason to keep the content, and precisely why I think cases in which the subject was not proven guilty should be excluded. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually it is absolutely the right reason for inclusion (provided it does not violate policies, which imho it does not here). The "legal" threshold is to protect privacy and to avoid victimization in cases of less known people, which however doesn't really apply to Zimmerman. You cannot restrict of a person to legal convictions in particular not if external sources do otherwise.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Accepting pre-trial diversion is pretty much pleading guilty, whether a conviction is recorded or not. One would not accept diversion if one was innocent. It is relevant to what the subject is most notable for. AlanStalk 16:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reliable sources determine what is signficant about a subject and we report that. TFD (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Objections have been discussed and, in my opinion, resolved. If other objections remain, they should be documented in sufficient detail that the objections may be verified and resolved.Bpabbott (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per comment above and note that VQuakr is currently eligible for a block per WP:3RR, which I would support. Deadbeef 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Zimmerman isn't a victim, and even if he were, per Green Cardamom he is well-known for his interactions with law enforcement. Furthermore, the contentious material is well-sourced and verifiable, making this a non-BLP issue. --RAN1 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As long as there are reliable sources on the subject. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The other encounters with police have verified, reliable, secondary sources to back them up, not simply just arrest records. Those arrests contribute significantly to the public's understanding of George Zimmerman and the Trayvon Martin case. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither: Just follow the cites - report what is is and in proportion to the external coverage, and otherwise try to just follow the WP policies such as WP:BLP. Stating a desire or policy or seeking a poll over what should be included seems seeking which of two flavors of WP:OR to do. Markbassett (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per pretty much every other comment here. Summoned by RfC bot. Coretheapple (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Zimmerman is WP:WELLKNOWN through his own volition, so WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not apply. He agreed to do interviews with Fox News, CNN, and Univision. He accepted an invitation to appear at a gun show in Florida and sign autographs/pose for pictures. He also agreed to participate in a celebrity boxing match, which was his idea (match never happened). He voluntarily listed an autographed painting on ebay, capitalizing on his name/notoriety. These are not the actions of someone who wishes to retain a "low profile". Isaidnoway (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Summoned here by bot. I agree with most of the opposing statements made above by other users. Zimmerman is quite notable for his encounters with law enforcement and it is important to include them in his biography. The material being discussed has proper and reliable sources, therefore it shouldn't really be an issue. The encounters discussed are verified and sourced. I think at this point the discussion is a non-BLP issue. Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 01:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Zimmerman is a well known person and the source of his being well known can mostly be attributed to his dealings with law enforcement. To minimise topics relating directly to his notability would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. AlanStalk 16:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

@Green Cardamom: you have claimed several times that Zimmerman is "well known". This may be true, but it does not make him a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. By linking WP:WELLKNOWN without complying with the text of the policy, you give the impression that you are familiar with the linkbox text but not the policy itself. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Yes, policies need to be followed and yes arguments cannot simply be settled by a poll. Having said that however, you should not confuse your interpretation of the a policy with the policy itself. The same goes for weighing all the (potentially conflicting) policies involved here. A poll not being an ultimate decision tool on its own can nevertheless be used to get better overview of the positions and assessments of a larger group of editors and their interpretation of the policies. Moreover your last edits were close to edit warring, so I suggest that you refrain from editing the article for now and wait for the results of the RFC.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Given that Zimmerman was satirized in the South Park episode "World War Zimmerman", I think Zimmerman easily qualifies as a public figure.Bpabbott (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Per Deadbeef and the definite oppose consensus above, this does not constitute a BLP issue. Bear in mind that any further reverts are likely not to be considered protected from 3RR under BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI all, this page is on my watchlist so it is not necessary to ping on every reply. I noted WP:NOTAVOTE above, but I do concede that it is rare on Wiki to get a 6-1 vote on just about anything. I still am unable to reconcile, though, how this content can possibly be in compliance with "guilty until proven innocent". The subject has been (effectively if not technically) found guilty of exactly one offense - shoving a cop in 2005. The incident for which he is notable, shooting Martin, has received broad coverage and should be in the article. The other incidents, though, should not convey any guilt onto the subject: a 2005 reciprocal restraining order, two 2013 domestic disturbance calls (one of which briefly resulted in charges which were dropped, the other of which resulted in no charges), a 2014 traffic incident allegedly involving threats but no arrests or charges, and a recent arrest with charges. Can anyone name another BLP in which we report on domestic disturbance calls and traffic stops? Reliable media have reported these incidents, probably because it fits a narrative that sells well, but our policies require us to be more conservative. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure in the question is facetious, but the OJ Simpson page does appear to me report on incidents with similar merit, or lack thereof. However, I don't think the OJ page justifies doing the wrong thing elsewhere and am sympathetic to your reasonable words. Perhaps some words should be added to avoid promoting the view of guilt? Bpabbott (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No, the question was not meant to be facetious. VQuakr (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Look at it this way: Bill Cosby is a comedian. His page reflects that (and is larger than Zimmerman's because Zimmerman's notability is spun out over multiple articles.) All of the allegations against Cosby over sexual assault have been, as of yet, unsubstantiated by anything. But those allegations are widely reported and noteworthy in discussing his life, so a not-so-small portion of his page is dedicated to discussing them. It doesn't matter that he has not been convicted of sexual assault; the allegations were reported by multiple, reliable sources, and that is why they are in the article. It would be whitewashing his page not to include them, and that is the problem here. Deadbeef 02:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There are a few differences. Cosby has settled out of court - civil actions not legal but still something. More importantly, Bill Cosby's career choice makes him a public figure, a term with precise legal meaning that has been conflated with notability by some editors in this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Even though Wikipedia is not a court of law, I will mention that under the U.S. definition of public figure, Zimmerman is probably an involuntary public figure due to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. At this stage, there have been several sources documenting his incidents, so under Wikipedia's definition of public figure he is not exempt from sources that report allegations against him. We do not apply the standard of innocent until proven guilty to describing allegations, that is reserved for saying the suspect committed a crime. Btw, if you want to come up with a more tempered version of the allegations, you should use your userspace to create a draft due to the edit warring. --RAN1 (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
George Zimmerman is a public figure. He hired a PR firm to represent him, and he played his fame to sell unremarkable artwork for high prices that normally wouldn't sell at all. -- GreenC 14:05, 12 January 2015 (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.

"Encounters with Matthew Apperson" section header

I percieve that revert somehow strange since until recent development it was part of the police encounters section (for 8 month?). I don't have strong feelings tho and let others blow the chime to decide.--TMCk (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Might as well file the rest under "encounter with his estranged wife/girlfriend/etc.--TMCk (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hispanic American

Does Zimmerman describe himself as Hispanic American? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015

Last paragraph says: "In August 2016, Zimmerman began selling..."

It should say: "In August 2015, Zimmerman began selling..." Ipalladino (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Already done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Virginia TV shooting worthy of inclusion?

A while back, a user protested the potential deleting of his offenses, reasoning that it was insightful of his personality. That's the only argument I could make for including his comments on the Alison Parker and Adam Ward deaths, critiquing the president as well, but I don't know where it could be placed. What does everyone else think? -Informant16 28 August 2015

What source(s) do you propose using? In what context did he make the comments? VQuakr (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
ETA - alleged offenses, and per the overwhelming majority above it was a lot more than one user. VQuakr (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation

This should be removed: "Hallinan is known for announcing that Muslims were not welcome at his store which was "Muslim free"." It is not relevant to Zimmerman's article, and lends WP:UNDUE for negative views of Zimmerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.40.75 (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that. Nearly every source reports on Zimmerman's connection to Hallinan and his Muslim-free store which is what Hallinan is best known for. As the other quote says, his association with Hallinan brings together multiple issues. There is no negative view of Zimmerman. -- GreenC 13:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree with GreenC. This bit is worthy of mention largely because of Hallinan's notoriety, which has been reported by independent secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Picture

We have a couple of images of him, but we're not using any. How come? Informant16 25 September 2015

Archive 2 includes an RfC about the infobox image. We do use a photo of him a little later down in the article. VQuakr (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Zimmerman posts a picture of Martin's corpse on Twitter

[1]. Do we want to include this? Zimmerman is getting attention for it. -- GreenC 17:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-retweets-picture-trayvon-martin-corpse-article-1.2376777
Given the secondary coverage, I think it probably rates an additional sentence in the "Media perceptions" section. VQuakr (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok.. I don't like spreading this crap but it's part of his bio. He must have a death wish, he's already been attacked at least once. -- GreenC 20:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
What is known of the motive or intent of the person who tweeted the photo, or Zimmerman's motive or intent in re-tweeting? (Is it possible to auto-re-tweet a tweet w/o opening attachments?) I see a lot of swatting because people don't like the guy. Then in the follow up, incidents are not quite how they were spun -- such as Shellie and her dad removing stuff not on the divorce agreement from her and George's home, then her mom accusing George of stealing it when she recliamed the house Shellie and George had rented. The news covers the incriminatory accusation, but not the exculpatory explanation. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything. We are not speculating in the article (and there is little point to speculating here); we keep it terse and non-judgmental. VQuakr (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why open the article with a remark about citizenship?

The very beginning of the article starts by saying "George Michael Zimmerman (born October 5, 1983) is a United States citizen". I can't think of any other article anywhere on Wikipedia that starts with a statement about citizenship, and I don't see any reason to question or remark about Zimmerman's citizenship. He was born and raised and seems to have lived his whole life in the United States, so it seems pretty obvious that he would be a citizen, but I see no reason to make that the first thing we say about him. Lots of articles start by saying that someone is American or British or something of that sort, but I've never seen citizenship mentioned directly at the opening, and I can't think of any reason why Zimmerman's citizenship is particularly important. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not all the sentence says. If he was from Afghanistan we would say ""George Michael Zimmerman (born October 5, 1983) is an Afghani known for.." which is pretty typical phrasing. It used to say "American" but someone objected since "America" could mean "of the Americas". However I would not object to restoring it to "American" since that is usually self-evidence what is meant. -- GreenC 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
"American" is fine, and is normal encyclopedic phrasing. "United States citizen" is extremely strange, as if his citizenship is somehow in question or is a key part of what makes him notable. This uses the normal meaning of "American" in the description of a person, and if there is any doubt about what that word normally means, readers can follow that link to the article about Americans to obtain the necessary clarification. (I recall once trying to clarify this issue myself in the Rye whiskey article, and was rapidly reverted by a consensus that American whiskey did not include Canadian whisky.) —BarrelProof (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The link for Twin Lakes takes readers to the page for a suburb of Ft. Lauderdale Florida. Instead, it should direct here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Retreat_at_Twin_Lakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwclymer (talk • contribs) 23:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Zimmerman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Bias

It is disturbing that this article compared to the article about Trayvon Martin, including the shooting of Trayvon Martin is biased in such a way that it makes George Zimmerman appear to be the victim in this case. Zimmerman's life story is written to emphasize that he is "not racist", yet in the Trayvon Martin article, more words are dedicated to portray this child as racist. These three articles need to be evaluated for objectivity which all clearly lack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.212.5 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Baloney. The Wiki articles are objective, particularly when compared to a lot of the USA major media. Please list the particular sentences you feel are not objective. 100.38.79.246 (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)BG


For instance, from the George Zimmerman article:

"According to Donnelly, in 2004 Zimmerman and an African American friend opened a satellite office of Allstate Insurance, which failed a year later."

In early 2011, Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman claimed he witnessed "disgusting behavior" while participating in a ride-along program with local police; however the police department said it did not know when, if ever, Zimmerman was in that program.[12][13]"

There is no reason to include either of these, beyond suggesting that Zimmerman is not racist.

There is also that there was no Neighborhood Watch in the neighborhood.

From the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article:

"From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times.[32] Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting.[45] Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.[3]

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.[6][46]

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.[32][45][47] Following break-ins in the neighborhood in 2011, Zimmerman's calls to police increasingly focused on reporting people he suspected of criminal activity.[19][45]

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 only offered information about their race when specifically asked by the dispatcher to do so, reporting that the people were black males.[48][49][50][Note 2]"

Notice there is no indication of any calls from other Neighborhood Watch members. Wendy Dorival said there was a meeting in Fall of 2011. Nothing after that.

Besides which, how are any of the other calls or crimes relevant to Martin's shooting? It is attempt to suggest that Zimmerman had good reason to think Martin might commit a crime.

The fact however is that as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, you *watch*. You do not get out of your vehicle with a gun to chase someone.

Alienkind (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality / Argumentative

Sorry that I WILL make a mistake here, this is my first attempt at contributing to a talk page. Kindly teach me instead of getting angry if I make a mistake, I can learn.

When speaking of Zimmerman's ancestry, reference is made to each of his parents. The only remark regarding his mother is: "Gladys Zimmerman was born in Peru and has some black ancestry, through her Afro-Peruvian maternal grandfather".

This statement is defensive to an argument not made, which causes bias to the reader.

Why mention that Zimmerman has "in some small part 'black' ancestry", without mentioning the remainder of his ancestry, which is actually the bulk of his ancestry through his mother? From a neutral point of view, I feel that this statement is loaded, though I'm not sure exactly "standard" of Wikipedia has been broken. Conor (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include an "In the Media" section that outlines the public accusations and offered defenses, to provide a more neutral view? "Accusations have been made ... that ... racism ... " (cite sources, a poll, etc). "Supporters have referenced ... " (many quotes from the previous user's accusation of bias)

Perhaps we might solve some of the overall biases of this article and satisfy both "emotional" sides. Conor (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

New Photo of George Zimmerman

I cannot add this to the page because I have not made any edits in a while.

Here is the code:

File:George Zimmerman by Peter Duke.jpg
Portrait of George Zimmerman taken in Orlando Florida on October 31, 2015

Please advise.

Peter Duke (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Peter, my first impression was you copied the image off the web. See the profile picture at George Zimmerman's Twitter site.[1] However the photo at Twitter is a lower quality then this one, and this one includes the camera metadata, so it's not a web copy. Also you are a professional photographer as Google search shows.[2] I think you, and the photo, are probably legit. I will go ahead and add it, but don't be surprised if someone tries to delete it from Commons, who didn't do the research I have and simply assumed it was a web copy. Also you have little history of uploading to Commons. To protect the image from possible deletion the procedure is to submit a OTRS ticket so that you can be verified as the real Peter Duke, and not a fake Peter Duke. Professional quality pictures like this of famous people usually come under tighter scrutiny as copyright violations in particular when versions are visible elsewhere on the web. -- GreenC 17:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that Twitter feed is down as of today, but Google provides an apparently intact archive at [3]. I'm not too clear though if there was previously a way to get a higher-res version out of Twitter than is displayed on the page normally. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I looked with Google reverse image search and was unable to find a higher res version anywhere. -- GreenC 15:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Also it appears George's Twitter account was suspended yesterday or today for Tweeting nude photos of a woman he claimed to be dating. -- GreenC 15:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Green Cardamom: At least on the archived feed above, and apparently as reproduced (blurred) in news reports, neither photo shows a nipple, let alone anything south of that. If we get to updating we should be careful to note it is nothing more than that a person might guess she was nude when the photo was taken. This might be an outing/harassment/libel issue but apparently revenge porn cannot be alleged since it was basically "PG". Wnt (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

BigDuke6 are you asserting that you personally took that photograph? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As Zimmerman is known for his legal issues and arrests, the photo should be his Seminole Co. booking photo, not from Glamor Shots. There are, of course, several from which to choose -- http://www.name-list.net/img/images.php/Zimmerman_5.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.156.11 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No. This has been discussed extensively before; the relevant policy is at also available at WP:MUGSHOT. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay (I just saw this message). Yes, I own the photo, I took the photo and am making it available to Wikipedia. I included it because it is a recent and therefore up-to-date photo. I'm not sure what the problem is or why it is so difficult to believe that fact (confirmation bias, I assume). I willingly put the image into the public domain so that it may be used here. Peter Duke (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@BigDuke6: it looks like it was deleted due to lack of documentation of your permission. If you are interested in releasing rights to the photo under a Wikipedia-compliant license, feel free to re-upload it. VQuakr (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah Peter, this isn't about personal trust, it's about Wikipedia's legal policies to prevent copyright violations (as you can imagine is a huge problem). I hope you will follow the procedures of releasing the image under an appropriate license with documentation so we can use the image. -- GreenC 12:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegation

Regarding this edit. This is a serious criminal allegation that likely runs afoul of WP:BLP particularly WP:BLPCRIME because charges were never filed. It amounts to one person's allegation with no investigation or anything. Anyone can (and often do) make claims against a famous person. It's also an old story, from a single source. Before we add this I'd like to hear from other editors what they think. -- GreenC 14:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty stale 12 Oct 2012 USA Today article. She was his cousin. She resented the fact that her father doted on George Zimmerman as the son he wished he had had. Then she made her revelations and her family shunned Zimmerman after that. I believe Witness 9 spoke with state investigators on the homicide trial and with FBI on the hate crimes investigation. Witness 9 claimed Zimmerman's family was racist but did not put any quotes in G.Z.'s mouth. FBI interviews of G.Z.'s estranged girlfriend contradicted Witness 9 on race: his mom did not approve of her race, G.Z. defended her against his mom, he got along with whites hispanics and blacks and never said anything disparaging about any race to her. The FBI hate crimes investigation of G.Z. ended with no charges. It's a four year old newspaper article and the follow-up did not bolster her accusations. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly as written in that edit, it was inappropriate editorializing and a BLP violation. There is probably sufficient sourcing available though to support a sentence. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Can the conduct of Apperson's attorney be added to the article?

After Apperson's sentencing his attorney LeFay told the press “I find it to be disturbing that no matter what Mr. Zimmerman does, and no matter what violent things he does, he always seems to end up wearing the victim’s mantle.” Is this acceptable legal conduct? I think LeFay should be sanctioned.207.237.87.163 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)BG

Regardless of if it is appropriate or not, it is not WP:DUE for the article at this point. ResultingConstant (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Apperson weight

The Apperson section contains 467 words (roughly) compared to the Zimmerman background section which contains 500 words. I believe the article is over-weighted (WP:WEIGHT) on Apperson. The Apperson story has reached its conclusion presumably. I'm going to make an attempt at removing some material, re-arranging a little and summarizing. -- GreenC 14:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a clear improvement. VQuakr (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Attacked by Apperson

Zimmerman was victimized by Apperson and for this Apperson was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in jail. The title of the section on the Apperson attack should clearly state this. Instead, someone wrote "altercation" with Apperson. Look, this is wrong. This is like saying the people at the 9/11 towers "wrangled" or "disputed" or "altercated" with the terrorists. No: they were attacked by the terrorists. XavierItzm (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

An assault incident is not even remotely similar to the September 11 attacks. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here... Parsley Man (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Zimmerman was attacked by Apperson. The 9/11 victims were attacked by Al Qaeda. Zimmerman is a victim here and writing that Zimmerman had "an altercation" is like renaming the 9/11 attacks as the "9/11 Struggle". XavierItzm (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I am the editor who chose the wording "Altercation with Matthew Apperson". But I am alright with "Encounters with Matthew Apperson". Another possibility and one I like is simply "Matthew Apperson". The reader finds out right away, in the first sentence, who Matthew Apperson is. The first sentence under our disputed section heading is "On September 9, 2014, Zimmerman was named by police in a road rage incident in which another driver, later named by police as Matthew Apperson, claimed that Zimmerman followed and threatened him." Bus stop (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What about "Shooting by Matthew Apperson"? It's hard to get everything into a title, but that is the main event, and gets the idea of a "shooting" since "encounters" could mean anything including non-violent such as talking. -- GreenC 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
...Wha?... They're still two distinctly different events. It's not like Apperson was a terrorist. You need a more similar event to Zimmerman's assault than 9/11. Parsley Man (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

XavierItzm, I don't think you'll get consensus for "Attacked" it's too dramatic and non-specific. The term is often used to give a sense of unfairness and it implies a call for justice by an aggrieved party, like "unfairly attacked" or "9/11 attacks". The argument that it's a neutral description ignores this aspect, and there are other more neutral and more specific terms. Really though I agree with Bus stop that simply "Matthew Apperson" is a good solution. Section headers are just short place holders and not fully descriptive of the section contents. -- GreenC 15:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if that's really true, @Green Cardamom:. Since Bus stop originally added the section, the situation has changed - Apperson has been convicted of attempted murder. That broadens what we can write with respect to WP:BLPCRIME and the presumption of innocence, and I think that "attack" is a reasonable summary of "attempted to murder". I do agree with Mr. Parsley that the comparison to 9/11 is inapt. VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't add the section. I can't take credit for that. I think the best section heading is simply "Matthew Apperson". Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Objectivity

I believe this article should be examined for the possibility of a lack of objectivity and neutrality. Although it is not necessarily negligent, I suppose, to leave out Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground against George Zimmerman and all other opposing opinions, the fact that George Zimmerman was advised by a 9-1-1 operator against following or pursuing Trayvon Martin, this is not mentioned in this article. There also does not appear to be a neutral position (by means of including opposing opinions) on George Zimmerman's opinion of Obama. I do not see why Zimmerman's opinion on Obama on an act that objectively should be investigated as a hate crime (note: I did not say be found guilty of a hate crime)is mentioned here without opposing opinion. Otherwise, I would leave it out. It sounds to me like a blog or like Zimmerman wrote the first sections of the article. The whole article should be examined as it appears to take Zimmerman's side rather that no side, which is what is expected of Wikipedia. Daviddaniel37 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to neutrally describe the subject, not to retry him. In an article about Zimmerman is seems reasonable to quote Zimmerman's opinion about Obama if said opinion has been published in secondary sources; as long as they are attributed that doesn't equate with endorsement. Within the constraints of BLP, though, be WP:BOLD if you see something needing improvement. VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The word justice is misspelled

The word justice is misspelled, someone please fix this, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.179.108 (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. -- GreenC 05:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Impossible timeline of Zimmerman's life, please correct.

[[ 07:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)tishtoshtu Zimmerman was 28 years old in March, 2012, the year of the Trayvon Martin shooting. He could not have served 22 years in the military, and afterwards served as magistrate in Florida, then retired in 2002. He would not have been born yet when he joined the military. This timeline is all screwy. Someone please find out the facts of the length of his military service, what kind it was, and preferably where he served. Then please correct the misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tishtoshtu (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Tishtoshtu that information said it was about his father, Robert Zimmerman Sr not George Zimmerman. I have removed the content as it is to much biographical info about his father. ~ GB fan 08:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I restored it. It's not an excessive amount. This sort of background context is important in biographies. That his father was a judge who worked in the legal system tells us something about Zimmerman's background. Often times biographies contain background info about parents. -- GreenC 14:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

US flag at the "Paintings" section

Hello, Iscoak. I reverted your removal of the US flag, which was done back in May 2017. May you please explain why you removed it? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a lot of value in having the second image there myself. I thikn removing it is a reasonable WP:BOLD editorial decision. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Zimmerman threatens Jay-Z

... in the news this week ... I'm not sure if this merits a mention ... https://theblast.com/george-zimmerman-threatens-jay-z-violence-trayvon-martin-documentary/ the eloquent peasant (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is there a section called "Media perception"?

Shouldn't it be "In Popular Culture" or something? Isn't everything on Wikipedia media perception (VnT)? Topkecleon (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Zimmerman Catholic

His mother is "a fierce, devoutly Catholic first-generation immigrant from Peru"[4]. Neighbors tended to define the family based on their spiritual profile. “Very Catholic . . . very religious,” their neighbor Jim Rudzenski recalled. Zimmerman "was once a Catholic altar boy". George became an altar server and evening receptionist at All Saints Catholic Church. The Zimmermans “were known and respected in the community for their dedication and service,” said Robert Cilinski, pastor of All Saints Catholic Church.[5] During the murder trial, Zimmerman quoted Catholic beliefs as part of his defense,[6] meaning he still associated himself with Catholicism during the period of his notability. This is all sufficient for inclusion of the Catholic category. Removal of those categories would need to be justified in light of this evidence (and lots more Google shows). -- GreenC 18:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that verifiability (WP:CATV) is not sufficient to categorize an article. Per WP:CATDEF A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. - Yes Zimmerman is Catholic, but it is not a defining characteristic of him. Typically religious cats are not applied unless the the person is in a religious profession, or unless it is a major part of the public persona and reputation. I think using these sources and mentioning his religion is find in the article, but I don't think categorization is appropriate. ResultingConstant (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It is splitting hairs given the wide variety of sources that discuss his Catholic background and Zimmerman brought up Catholic values during the trial, he certainly is associated with being Catholic that meets CATDEF IMO. Sources "commonly" discuss his Catholic background at least any source that discusses his background which is fairly common. -- GreenC 14:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The most important question is, has he publicly self-identified as Catholic? It is a requirement of the BLP policy, specifically WP:BLPCAT. If we have no statement from him that he is Catholic, the policy says we should not categorize him that way. ~ GB fan 15:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It says "unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question". He specifically brought up Catholic values during one of the most famous trials in America showing his 'orientation' or 'self-identified with the belief'. -- GreenC 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Bringing up Catholic values in a trial as part of his defense to stay out of jail is not self-identifying as being a Catholic. People can use whatever tactics they want to try to get a reasonable doubt in the jury. The policy has a second part also, "and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" Are there reliable sources that discuss his Catholic faith and tie that to his notability? I do not see how being a Catholic has anything to do with his notability. ~ GB fan 18:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes of course there are sources, did you not google Zimmerman and Catholic? Washington Post etc.. re: him acting in bad faith about his Catholic values, do you have a source for that? I would tend to believe the Washington Post over speculations of bad faith by a Wikipedia editor. -- GreenC 19:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Where did I say he acted in bad faith about his catholic values. I have no idea about what values he holds. I just said that he can use any defense he wants to try to stay out of jail and that using catholic values in court is not the same as self-identifying as a catholic. No I didn't google him at all ever. Not interested in googling him or his exploits. I was answering the question that was asked about should Catholic categories be included in his article. The governing policy says it has to meet the two requirements, self-identified and reliable sources show that it is part of his notability. ~ GB fan 19:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a court trying to establish Truth only verifiable evidence. Part of the notability. Self-identity (Zimmerman considered himself a Roman Catholic before the shooting and made comments about Catholic beliefs the day of the police interview after the shooting). Zimmerman was an alter-boy growing up in an unusually devote Catholic family reported in many sources. You won't Google but I will. More? -- GreenC 20:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stop the attitude. I have no stake in this. You asked a question and I tried to point to the direction of an answer by asking questions. I could care less what categories are on this article. If you can show that he self-identified and that reliable sources show that it is pertinent to his notability then the policy says it is allowed to add him to Catholic categories. If you can't show them both to be true then he doesn't belong in the categories. It is as simple as that. You don't need to convince me either way. ~ GB fan 20:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The Catholic categories should rather obviously be removed per WP:CATDEF. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@GreenC: I will personally stipulate you can find many sources mentioning that Zimmerman is catholic. I think verifiability and self identification are passed. I still do not think it meets WP:CATDEF. While there are many sources in absolute numbers, it is a very small percentage of sources which discuss zimmerman. His religion is not consistently brought up in sources, which would at least be a majority (50%). A quick set of google searches shows about 30k sources combining zimmerman and catholic, whie nearly a million talk about zimmerman without catholic. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Google is not a reliable method for this (see WP:HITS), and anyway I would disagree the Google results show anything meaningful with regards to CATDEF. The idea that is must meet 50% is not said anywhere, that is made-up high-bar for inclusion that if properly applied would eliminate most categories for most people. -- GreenC 18:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
commonly and consistently.ResultingConstant (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

George Zimmerman is Jewish

I reverted this edit as it is unsourced. Do not add again until there is clear sourcing for every statement. Also, lead sections do not mention things like this unless the person is notable for it, and the persona commonly self-identifies as such. -- GreenC 02:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Poorly written intro

"George Michael Zimmerman (born October 5, 1983) is an American known for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida on February 26, 2012. On July 13, 2013, he was acquitted of all charges in Florida v. George Zimmerman. As of 2015, he remained the subject of media interest due to ongoing controversy over the Trayvon Martin case. In addition, he has been involved in other violent incidents, with allegations of violence made against him; however, he was not convicted."

Mentions being acquitted of all charges but never mentions what the charges were. "has been involved in other violent incidents" implies that he acted violently but there is no direct evidence of this. There were accusations but they were recanted and the charges dropped. "As of 2015" is also dumb. We're in 2019 now. Whole thing should be re-written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Emeraldflames (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

George Zimmerman Suing Martin Family

This is just breaking, but the Miami Herald is reporting as well as other news outlets that he's suing for 100 mill.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article238030539.html--KimYunmi (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

The word "acquittal" is misspelled in the first paragraph of the article. GeorgiNT (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

In Roddy Richh's "The Box," He said "I done put a hunnid bands on Zimmerman shit" for the popular cultures section AyeItzRaptor (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what hunnid bands means but it sounds kind of inflammatory and might be a BLP problem unless there is some compelling reason to include it, other than there mere fact of existence. Roddy Richh is apparently a non-notable artist as well. -- GreenC 02:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. Ummm. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 Arrest

The tabloid newspaper Todays Five posted a story making the rounds on the Internet about Zimmerman being arrested for DUI. This is a fake story. Associated Press wrote a debunking article: https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9011871065 -- GreenC 03:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"After his acquittal, Zimmerman himself was the target"

This wording very strongly implies that Zimmerman was targeted by someone who was upset about his acquittal, but the more detailed description in the article body does not imply this. I am inclined to simply remove the reference to the 2014 incident from the lead, as it is not why Zimmerman is notable and would be very difficult to word in an unbiased way so as not to imply it was related to the incident for which he is notable. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Apperson confronted Zimmerman over the Martin shooting, Zimmerman left in his vehicle, Apperson pursued him and shot into his vehicle. There are reliable sources on the incident and trial that Matthew Apperson was obsessed with Zimmerman over the Martin shooting. Any details exculpatory to Zimmerman or incriminatory to his assailants or accusers gets purged from the articles. Check versions preserved in the history. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuits

In the section "Lawsuits", the hundred million dollar lawsuit against the Martin family and 265 million dollar lawsuit against Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren were mentioned, but with no mention that both lawsuits were dismissed. I looked up this information and confirmed the lawsuits were dismissed. I feel that should be mentioned in the section. 2600:1012:B06D:32A7:D49A:EC75:FBD:CE60 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks for the notice. -- GreenC 03:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Zimmerman/Archive_4&oldid=1176224004"