Talk:George Zimmerman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Selling art on eBay

Appears Zimmerman is selling his own original artwork on eBay. Yours to have for 50 bucks. [1] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey something positive. This is notable for his biography to sell artwork for the much. The auction closes Dec. 21 and see what it sells for and more press coverage. Knowing George it will become a controversy but keeping an open mind what the sources say. Wish him luck parlaying his fame into something positive. -- GreenC 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Bidding has reached 100K, probably worth a mention in this article after the painting is sold.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I would wait until a secondary source picks up on it. TFD (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the link above would suffice. It is a secondary news source and mentions that the bidding is over $100k. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

While certainly this passes WP:V, I think it is trivia. Are we seriously going to put every media mention of the man into the article? If he becomes a notable artist sustained over time, then this type of content will be appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it true "we put every media mention of the man into the article"? User:Isaidnoway has been good enough to post stories here as a sounding board to discuss, that is what talk pages are for. Most of the sources Isaidnoway has posted have not been added to the article. This is different though, it's extremely unusual for an untrained unknown artist to sell their first painting for $100k+, that is not trivial, the dollar amount and national press coverage have instantly made him a known artist. This will get exposure not only in the popular press but the art press as well. Anyway I trust the press coverage objectively shows us this is notable, it will become much clearer in days ahead. -- GreenC 19:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"If he becomes a notable artist sustained over time, then this type of content will be appropriate." Agree. Dezastru (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's very unusual for an unknown artist to sell their first painting for over 100K - that fact is what makes this story notable, and when you combine the fact that it was Zimmerman, I think it's more than just trivia. After the painting sells, I think it's worth a mention in his bio article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Painting sold for $100,099.99 and Zimmerman has promised to hand deliver it to the winning bidder.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Mmh. No lawsuit filed yet for copyright infringement or any trouble for passing it on as "original work"? He seems to be lucky so far. Still wondering what will be next. Guess by tomorrow sources will be catching up - for us to decide what if anything to include.TMCk (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

You may consider adding Zimmerman's new painting selling for $100,099.99 on eBay. Thanks! http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-painting-ebay-20131221,0,1080701.story Krcd573 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Besides not providing wording and placement as explained in the template, there is an ongoing discussion about this issue above which you should consider to join. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sherrifs association, self appointed

This content is WP:UNDUE and a WP:BLP violation, in addition to being factually incorrect. The sherrif's association does not have a monopoly on neighborhood watches. The neighborhood watch program was administered by the local police department, and zimmerman was not self appointed, he was selected by the community. We have numerous reliable sources saying so, including the testimony of the police department during the trial. Per tutko (the NSA person quoted) "Chris Tutko, the national director for the program at the association, said there were 25,000 registered neighborhood watch groups in the United States today, and far more unregistered groups like the one in Sanford."[2] "The Neighborhood Watch at Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Zimmerman lived and was chosen as coordinator by his neighbors, was formed in September, Dorival said. It is not registered with the national group, but there is no registration requirement. The Sanford Police Department provides training and community signs, and informs residents about crime trends and prevention." [3] Finally, as the NSA website is a WP:SPS it is specifically a violation of BLP to use that to make claims about others. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN0QoiSzCJQ
• http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/6/25/zimmerman_opening_statements.html "asked by the HOA to be the coordinator" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You can disagree with these statements and dislike them all you want. But they are verifiable statements made by notable people and they are entirely on-topic. And we also have it verified that Zimmerman disobeyed 911 orders by following Trayvon. And the claim was never made that the Sheriff's Association had a "monopoly" on neighborhood watch. The statement was made that they never had a program in that neighborhood; they referred to Zimmerman as "self-appointed"; and they say he went against everything they stand for. Verifiable facts.

He can make whatever statement he wants, but as he was not involved at all, his determination of facts is weak. We have repeated testimony and documentation that Zimmerman was not self appointed. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes he can make whatever statement he wants in his capacity as the chief of police. This isnt a trivial statement by trivial man in a trivial situation. this is a man in a very important position in this situation and these are verifiable statements by notable man in verifiable reputable publications. that's all that matters for the sake of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.41 (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The quotation attributed to the Nat'l Sheriff's Assoc is factually incorrect, and using that quote rather than the one I posted, which was sworn testimony from his NW trainer, demonstrates a clear bias which should not be tolerated at Wiki. The statement above that "we also have it verified that Zimmerman disobeyed 911 orders" is also demonstrably false on at least two levels: Zimmerman was speaking to the non-emergency police dispatcher (not via 911) and dispatchers are not police officers and they are forbidden by policy to give orders. It is true, however, that when given advice ("we don't need you to do that"), Zimmerman immediately replied "OK", indicating compliance. The person here who defends the "objectivity" or validity of the Sheriff's Assoc. statement and makes such a patently false statement is exhibiting both a profound ignorance of this case and a rather pronounced bias. Riversong (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "911" is quite routinely and not altogether incorrectly used to refer to personnel who answer/respond to calls to emergency agencies, regardless of the phone number used to contact them (literally 9-1-1 or some other number). In many agencies, they are exactly the same personnel. "911" is generally understood as a synonym for emergency responders, regardless of how they are contacted. To use a reference to "911" versus a police dispatcher at a non-emergency phone number to declare a statement "demonstrably false" is disingenuous and absurd. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

New artwork possible lawsuit

Zimmerman's latest artistic creation of Angela Corey has drawn the attention of an AP photographer who claims that Zimmerman's latest painting is from a copyrighted image he published. The AP has sent a cease and desist letter to Zimmerman with the threat of a lawsuit.[4][5][6][7] According to the AP lawyer, “If Mr. Zimmerman decides he is not accountable, he will be reckoned with.”-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comparisons to be made with how this is commented on (in a legal/fair use sense) in the public as compared to say the Barack_Obama_"Hope"_poster. Id say wait a bit to see if the suit goes anywhere or if it gets more sustained media attention. We didn't keep anything about the prior painting, so at this point I see no reason to keep this one either. (however if this trend continues with more paintings in the future, I could see a new painting section being added) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The first sentence of the lead sounds rather unnatural to me ('known for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin'). The lead never says that it was he who shot Martin. The following sentence ('... ended in acquittal') confuses things further. If someone were to read the article who knows nothing about the case, he might believe that Zimmerman was wrongly accused of shooting Martin, not wrongly accused of murdering Martin. Might it be better to word the introduction along the lines of, 'George Zimmerman (born ?) is an American known for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin on ? in Sanford, Florida, and was subsequently acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter.' 131.111.185.66 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD currently is poor. The lead is normally a summary of the entire article a couple paragraphs long, sort of a min article. Currently it focuses only on one aspect and not very well as you point out. -- GreenC 17:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity boxing match

Zimmerman has agreed to take part in a celebrity boxing match on March 1. No opponent has been selected yet.[8][9]-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's apparent Zimmerman is trying to find ways to capitalize his fame (or infamy). We learned during his most recent arrest he is millions of dollars in debt and broke without a job. He tried selling artwork but it's been tainted with copyright violations and classified murderabilia by art critics. So the boxing is not surprising, and whatever else he may try. We'll integrate this larger story once sources pick up on the narrative. -- GreenC 18:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If the match actually takes place it is likely suitable for coverage. However, I think STATicVapor's contributions are not currently policy compliant. The announcement of a future press conference is not encyclopedic. We are not a newspaper. Nobody is going to care about the press conference as soon as it happens, let alone in 10 years. We are not tvguide or a boxing PR site. The fact that a press conference will happen in the future adds nothing to the encyclopedic value of this article. I am removing it. WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Zimmerman will be matched up against rapper DMX and DMX was quoted as saying that he wants to do it for “every black person who has been done wrong in the system" and he is going to beat the living fuck out of him and he's going to break every rule in boxing to make sure he fucks him right up. DMX stated that “Once I am done with him, I am going to whip my dick out and piss on him … right in his muthafuckin face...Zimmerman is a piece of shit and that’s what he needs to drink." Wow, some really tough talk, let's see if he can back it up in the ring.[10][11]-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It could be interesting. Z is 30 and claims to have some training (although I think the results of the physical altercation with TM indicate he certainly isn't a master of the sport), DMX is 45, but my (perhaps stereotyped) guess is that DMX probably has significantly more practical fighting experience, and obviously does not intend this to be an exhibition match. I wonder what the contrats would look like, and what the penalties (financial or criminal) would be for intentionally breaking the rules. Z getting the crap beat out of him could possibly provide closure for everyone who felt that the verdict was an injustice, but as this opinion piece says, that isn't necessarily the best way forward http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/03/lining-up-to-knock-out-george-zimmerman/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop edit warring and violating WP:OWN with the article Gaijin42, it is very disruptive. The opponent will be announced (or confirmed as DMX) at the press conference, that is why it is notable. Neither of those guidelines apply to the situation is the slightest. It adds to the section instead of us having a one sentence section, which are strongly discouraged. I cited a reliable source for the addition, so the content should be there. STATic message me! 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You had 3 different editors revert your change yesterday. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG when accusing people of edit warring. Recentism "When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time. Yes, unneeded content can be eliminated later, but a cluttered "first draft" of an article may degrade its eventual quality and a coherent orientation may not always be attained." WP:10YTGaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please learn to count, it was only one and that was you. Others made changes to the text, but were not reverts at all. You on the other hand reverted three times, enough to earn a WP:3rr warning. Edit warring aside, you still have a major ownership problem. Anyone is allowed to edit the article and all changes do not go through you first. The information would only be there until the event, then it would be replaced by what was announced on the event. Our articles must be presented in real time, it is not set in stone and [[WP:PAPER|Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. STATic message me! 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fight cancelled

Fight has been cancelled by the promoter [12] and [13]. This should probably be removed from the article altogether, and it probably should have never been mentioned until the fight actually happened.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I will remove now. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Was this edit reviewed by a moderator? --Faizi1997 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What moderators? Wikipedia doesn't have such a thing. the article is semi-protected but all that does is prevent IPs and brand new accounts from editing. In any case, there is a new fight rumor started http://www.thesuperficial.com/george-zimmerman-celebrity-boxing-over-fight-club-trayvon-martin-foundation-02-2014 I continue my position from above that this should not be included until the fight actually happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait on including this until the fight happens. There is way too many rumors and speculation surrounding this for it to merit inclusion at this time.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox criminal

Why don't we put an Infobox criminal under the "Trayvon Martin shooting and trial" section for all the stuff you don't want to put in the main infobox.--76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Since to date Zimmerman has not been convicted of a crime, it would not be appropriate (in fact it would be inappropriate) to include Infobox criminal here. Also, it was unclear to me why you have reproduced the contents of the current Infobox person for this article (expanded, it appears, to include the criminal charge in the Martin case, and a verdict of "not guilty") in this section, so I have hidden it. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't want to include an image or his criminal charge/status in the main infobox, so that's why I think you should put it as a secondary infobox under the "Trayvon Martin shooting and trial" section.--76.105.96.92 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps something should go there, but not Infobox criminal. It is intended only for convicted criminals, and (perhaps) those accused but not yet adjudicated. Its doc does say it can be used as a secondary box for individuals "whose notability is not due mainly to their being convicted criminals", but it says nothing about using it for anyone who has been found by a jury not to be a criminal (whatever we may think about him). Dwpaul ^Talk 01:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And I have removed the Infobox criminal you added (replacing the box mentioned above), since its use, even here on the Talk page, to describe someone legally determined to not be a criminal is a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

CNN Interview

GZ wants to "go back to school and pursue a career as a lawyer 'to stop the miscarriage of justice.'"

"George Zimmerman: God is 'the only judge that I have to answer to'". CNN. February 17, 2014. Retrieved February 17, 2014.

- Dwpaul ^Talk 21:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Should this article have an infobox? It seems to give very little to the article and it seems entirely unnecessary to be discussing Zimmerman's height and weight so prominently. One does not see such boxes on similar articles. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. See discussion above. I also just explained to someone why we should not add an Infobox on the article for Trayvon Martin, and it seems to be less than NPOV to maintain one here when the same criteria apply. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The infobox should be removed from the article in my opinion. If anyone wants to do that it's fine with me, it doesn't do much for the article in my opinion. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't contest removal but if someone wants to add it in the future this discussion shouldn't be seen as "consensus" since there hasn't been formal consensus and a number of people seem to have wanted it in the past. -- GreenC 15:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I have removed the infobox, replacing it for now with a hidden comment directing to this discussion (but not mentioning "consensus"). Dwpaul ^Talk 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

They both have infoboxes on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin page.--71.59.58.63 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

George M. Zimmerman → George Zimmerman – I understand wanting to disambiguate, but he is rarely referred to with his middle initial, while the others (George O. and George J.) are. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. George Zimmerman should be moved to George Zimmerman (disambiguation), the name without the MI should direct here, and an other hatnote should be placed here to George Zimmerman (disambiguation). Dwpaul ^Talk 22:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support· George M. Zimmerman → George Zimmerman, as proposed by Taylor Trescott – George Michael Zimmerman is commonly known as "George Zimmerman" and the article should bear that title per the policy on using the common name. Almost no sources (and very few of the sources cited in his Wikipedia biography) refer to him as George M. Zimmerman or George Michael Zimmerman, whereas the physicist and the mayor of Buffalo are referred to fairly commonly in sources as George O. Zimmerman and George J. Zimmermann, respectively. Of the three, the most widely discussed in sources by far appears to be George Zimmerman of Seminole County, Florida (ie, George M. Zimmerman), as shown by Google searches for "George Zimmerman", which return information primarily about that George Zimmerman. Also note that the Wikipedia article on George J. Zimmermann, who died more than 70 years ago, essentially remains a stub, with just one source cited, although it was created 5 years ago. The page has been viewed 1269 in the last 90 days. The article on George O. Zimmerman, the 79-year-old emeritus professor of physics, was not even created until a little more than a month ago; only 6 sources are cited; only two editors have contributed to the article; and the page has been viewed only 55 times since its creation. By contrast, the article on the George Zimmerman known for the shooting of Trayvon Martin, created two years ago, cites approximately 55 sources, has had scores of contributors, and has been viewed almost 300,000 times in the past 90 days. In short, the primary topic readers are after when they come to Wikipedia for information on George Zimmerman is the George Zimmerman known for the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Entering "George Zimmerman" in the Wikipedia search box should take readers directly to the biography on the Zimmerman of Florida. A hatnote should be available in the article directing those who are seeking information on one of the other George Zimmerman(n)s to a disambiguation page, similar to how Wikipedia handles the names "Muhammad Ali", "Steve McQueen", "Bill Clinton", "John Howard", and "Joe Clark". Dezastru (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Sure that's an ok idea. I did the move to solve technically the dab problem with no agenda about the article name. You never know if I did it the other way someone might have complained because the other GZ's sometimes go by "George Zimmerman" (or Zimmermann) without middle initial and given his notorious reputation it might be a problem. Ultimately it comes down to a question of primary topic, which this probably has. -- GreenC 01:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The individual that is the subject of this biography has the full identifying name of George M. Zimmerman. We are not a tabloid and we should not be following trends in popular culture in choosing a title for an article on this subject. Therefore it should matter minimally to us that he may be "commonly known" as "George Zimmerman". WP:COMMONNAME is in fact not applicable here. The subject of this biography is not (note the examples at WP:COMMONNAME) a well-known politician or entertainer. The subject of this biography had renown thrust upon him through one incident. (A tragic incident.) He should simply be referred to (in our title) by whatever his correct name is, with consideration given to disambiguation from other people with similar names. This person is essentially a private individual who did not choose fame or notoriety. Again—this is a person who was involved in a tragic incident. This person did not run for political office or perfect a scheme for entertaining people. This article's present title is adequate because it is in keeping with the generally serious purpose of an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason for the subject's notability (or notoriety), or their own contribution to it, has no bearing on this question. As Green Cardamom correctly states, the relevant policy here is primary topic. There is no question that the vast majority of those users searching for a George Zimmerman will be looking for George M. Zimmerman, not George J. or George O., hence this (the primary topic) is where they should arrive first, then have the opportunity to disambiguate if it turns out he's not the one they seek. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"WP:COMMONNAME is in fact not applicable here" because why exactly? That policy on using the common name rather than the "official" name applies to all kinds of article titles, not just to names of people who are politicians or entertainers. It applies to names of foods, animal species, laws of physics, obscure cities in ancient Greece, etc. Dezastru (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The examples at WP:COMMONNAME were selected from popular entertainers and politicians only to provide familiar examples; there is absolutely nothing there that says it only applies to people (or things) that became notable by choice. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I Agree, if WP:COMMONNAME was meant to only apply to people who were famous by choice I am sure the guideline in question would have mentioned that.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support The most notable by a long shot. They should have the main link, with a disambiguation hattip. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support He is best known as "George Zimmerman" and is the best known person of that name. So DISAMBIG says this article should be the main page with a link at the top to the disambiguation page. TFD (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the above. DBaK (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, I was a bout to ask the same. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – Just because the killer is currently better known is no reason to send all inquiries right there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE it is. VQuakr (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Rename to George Zimmerman (something to be determined) with the disambiguation page remaining at George Zimmerman. I don't think he's well-known enough to really be a primary topic. The case is well-known, but I suspect most people would be hard-pressed to recall his name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment The problem is an inexplicable editorial need to explore every nook and cranny of an incident—a tragic incident—that has modern day racial overtones. We have the following articles: State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Trayvon Martin, George M. Zimmerman, Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago, World War Zimmerman. Wikipedia doesn't merely cover the tragedy of the death of Trayvon Martin, but rather it duplicates some information in several articles. The name of the individual covered in this article is "George M. Zimmerman". That is not his stage name. That is his actual name. He has not sought to be in the spotlight. He was involved in a tragic interaction on February 26, 2012 which thrust him involuntarily into a spotlight of public scrutiny. My argument is that we should not consider ourselves at liberty to shorten his name. It should not matter to us that the media commonly refer to him as "George Zimmerman". Our primary concern should be with identifying him. That is best accomplished by using his full name (including middle initial). Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In actual fact, his full name is George Michael Zimmerman, not George M. Zimmerman. Do you have any evidence he shortens it by using the middle initial as opposed to shortening it by omitting his middle name entirely or not shortening it at all? But that's not the point at issue. We use WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia. If he's not commonly referred to as George M. Zimmerman in reliable sources then that isn't what we call him. If you want to change the policy then try it on the policy's talkpage, not on individual article talkpages. I very much doubt whether you'll succeed, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the present title is an embodiment of commonsense, more so than the suggested move. Sure—"George Michael Zimmerman" would also suffice. But it is unnecessary for disambiguation purposes. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So, why exactly are you suggesting we should go against our own policy and style guide, agreed after much discussion and in place for many years, for this one individual? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic."[14] This is not the departure from policy that you are suggesting. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and initials. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You said above: "Rename to George Zimmerman (something to be determined)". Can you give me an example of any word or words that could possibly be placed within those parentheses? Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per common name, notability, reliable sourcing and common sense. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose due to their being other people named "George Zimmerman" as shown in the disambiguation page. To avoid ambiguity, his title should be more specific like keeping his middle initial "M" in the title or perhaps adding something in parentheses like "George Zimmerman (murderer)" or "George Zimmerman (criminal)". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is a pretty blatant WP:BLP violation. I suggest you remove it. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

My guess is you're suggesting that having "murderer" or "criminal" in the title goes against WP:NPOV, in which case I apologize. Perhaps it could be "convict" instead. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you working under the assumption that he was found guilty of something in the shooting of Trayvon Martin? Or something else in his past? Whatever that is (if anything), are you saying that conviction is the source of his notability? If a parenthetical is needed, the appropriate NPOV one would be something like George Zimmerman (found not guilty in the shooting of Trayvon Martin) or something like that, which runs afoul of the "Conciseness" criteria for titles imo. Either that, or you are making a WP:POINT that you think he SHOULD HAVE been found guilty, in which case WP:NOTFORUM and the aformentioned WP:POINT and WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It was based off of him being charged with the murder, though it looks like "murderer" or "assassin" go against WP:NPOV. He is unquestionably best known for the controversy. I wasn't trying to make WP:POINT or anything, though, or insert my personal opinion of the case. If no parentheticals, then it is best to just leave as "George M. Zimmerman". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:CONCISE, primary topic, common name... Red Slash 22:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - while this is probably the result of recentism, this George Zimmerman is currently the primary topic by a wide margin based on page views. In a few years, when the public will have forgotten about him, perhaps the issue should be revisited, but we're not there yet. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Statistics

• George M. Zimmerman: 2000-3000 views each day w/ peaks as high as 30,000.[15][16]
• George O. Zimmerman: about 50 views a day w/ peaks as high as 80.[17]
• George J. Zimmermann: about 20-40 views a day w/ peaks as high as 80.[18]

The purpose of Primary Topic is to establish if an article is more likely for readers to search on. George M. Zimmerman is roughly 100 to 1,000 times more likely to be clicked on than the others. A strong statistical signal that George M. Zimmerman is a primary topic. -- GreenC 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural objection

This request would need to be a multiple RM, with notices on the other affected pages. Given that it is malformed (the target page name being occupied already), it should be closed procedurally and restarted correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I object to your objection. Wikipedia is (allegedly) not a bureaucracy. This page was quite recently boldly moved with a disambig page started at the old location - holding a discussion before undoing it is a great idea but not necessary per WP:BRD. Everyone would care would be watching this page. In any case, I do not see anything particularly malformed about this request. VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'll notify the other two articles about this discussion. -- GreenC 06:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok I added talk page notices at George O. and George J., and added {{Disputed title}} to the top of George Zimmerman directing here. -- GreenC 06:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• This move would only be malformed if done incorrectly. The only other directly affected page is the newly created disambiguation page, which can easily move to George Zimmerman (disambiguation). Dwpaul ^Talk 12:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• also object to objection It is proper to notify the other pages, but the move does not directly affect those pages. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• The disambiguation page George Zimmerman has been viewed 82,000 times in the last 30 days.[19], George J. Zimmermann has been viewed 500 times,[20] George O. Zimmerman has been viewed 200 times,[21] and George M. Zimmerman has been viewed 6000 times. Do we want 80,000 readers each month who are looking for George M. Zimmerman to go to a disambiguation page and then pick him out of the list? And George J.'s surname isn't even spelled the same. TFD (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There wasn't even a disambiguation page until 3 days ago when this article was moved from George Zimmerman to George M. Zimmerman. and then the redirect left behind was converted to the current disambiguation page. The stats page for George Zimmerman is reading the views to this article until the time it was moved and then on 9 March it starts looking at the views of the dab page. George M Zimmerman has already been viewed 6000 times in the last 3 days. GB fan 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're right that it's malformed, but the only other page that should've been listed here was George Zimmerman moving to George Zimmerman (disambiguation). Red Slash 01:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

I initially closed this discussion, on the basis that there have been no further comments for four days and the !votes so far are 910 (including the nom) in support of the move with 4 opposed or recommending alternative action. I then thought the better of my closure, since I have participated in the discussion. Request that an uninvolved admin (or non-admin per WP:RMNAC) close this discussion and complete the move. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Links

All the links to Zimmerman's page still link to "George M. Zimmerman" instead of "George Zimmerman." --12.177.80.66 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --GreenC 15:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Jewish descent on his father's side

In the Real Time with Bill Maher interview Robert Zimmerman says that his father descends from jews who changed their surname to Zimmerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.172.60 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Can someone add that he is of jewish descent or german-jewish descent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.172.60 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He says in the interview "not Jewish". -- GreenC 18:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He says in the interview that his father's ancestors were jewish and that they took the name zimmerman to hide from the nazis. Alot of jewish people do not practice judaism but are still called jewish on wikipedia. At least put in that his father's side of the family comes from jewish stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.138.250 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

He actually said that he "believes" that his grandfather is decent from one of those Jewish people that changed their name to the non-Jewish German name Zimmermann to escape prosecution by the Nazis. So a belief is not a fact and not suitable for a BLP.TMCk (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

His father is a Southern Baptist. In that Bill Maher interview, Robert Zimmerman says that their family isn't of Jewish heritage, but that some Zimmermans are. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Its completely irrelevant to his BLP since it has nothing to do with why he is notable, and he does not identify in any way as Jewish. His genealogy may be of interest to him and his family. It is not relevant to this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandyhook comment included now?

Earlier, there was much debate about whether it was appropriate to include the statement from a police chief who said he agreed with the perspective that Zimmerman was a "Sandy Hook waiting to happen." [22] Now that he has been charged with threatening his girlfriend with a gun, the police chief's comment seems quite appropriate. Granted, he hasn't killed several children, but the statement seems rather in-context now. Can the Sandy Hook reference be included in the article now? 140.211.66.119 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Have the two been linked by a secondary source? We are not going to connect them here. Regardless, the reasons for not including it before still apply, to exactly the same degree. VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a community consensus, not a dictatorial website where one person proclaims themselves "we" as in "we are not going to connect them here." The obvious point here being that the police chief's comments can no longer be singled-out as the isolated, out-of-context comments of one person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.67.105 (talk • contribs)

"Dictatorial" melodrama aside, community consensus is that our BLP policies cannot be overridden by local consensus on a single article talk page (ie here). "We" refers to the editing community. The Sandy Hook reference is no less isolated or out of context than it was before. VQuakr (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not "melodrama," but rather reading two entries above this one, to point out that you unilaterally spoke for the entire Wikipedia community when you referred to your opinion using "we." Thanks. 140.211.66.106 (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you practice in front of the mirror at night to see how dismissive of others' opinions you can be? -Waidawut (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Archives

This talk page has grown large, making it slow and unwieldy to load. General talk page guidelines suggest setting up archiving when a page “exceeds 75 kb or has more than 10 main topics”; this page is now about 205 kb and has almost 40 main topics. Would there be any objection to setting up automatic archiving here, so that some of the older and inactive discussion topics can migrate to the archives?  Unician ∇  06:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Archiving is fine but automated has pros and cons. Most of the discussion on this page happened within the first few months of article creation and it's pretty much resolved at this point, there has been very little discussion lately. I would be OK with a 1-time archive of the current page. -- GreenC 13:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How about these automated-archive settings to start:

• Always keep the most recent five topics here
• Archive only when there are two or more topics eligible

The discussions are old enough that any typical age/date setting would have the same effect: all but the five most recent topics will be archived in the first run, then nothing further will be archived until at least two new topics are started. This would have the same immediate effect as a one-time manual process. We can then leave the automated process in place, since it won't do anything more until more activity prompts it to.

 Unician ∇  07:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Sounds reasonable. -- GreenC 13:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've set the parameters, it should run within 24 hours.  Unician ∇  08:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Franke Taffe thinks he's guilty

I just put in a link to Frank Taffe(one of the biggest supporters of George Zimmerman) claiming he now thinks Zimmerman is guilty and it got removed. Frank Taffe's change of heart is VERY important here because he's been a vocal supporter of Zimmerman from the beginning. He has appear on many tv shows and even helped Zimmerman out after the trial. The fact that he's changed his opinion is worth mentioning. Turtire (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning if it was worth mentioning that Taffe was a vocal supporter of Zimmernman. Neither this article nor the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article make any mention of Taffe. As far as I can see, Taffe's opinion is not notable. Also the placement was not appropriate, the section you added it to was the "Media perceptions: section. It had nothing to do with the media's perception of Zimmerman, it had to do with a private person's perception of Zimmerman. GB fan 23:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose adding this information to the article. Zimmerman was afforded due process and acquitted. It is not our role to re-try the case now, and indeed our policy on living persons is very clear that we are not permitted to engage in this sort of conjecture. VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Including the information isn't judging him on his guilt. It's just mentioning that perceptions by those who know him have changed. We include mentions of how former lawyers for OJ have changed their mind, so why not mention how others have changed opinions? Turtire (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are prepared to cite a reliable source that reports that "those who know him" were polled and a significant proportion of them have changed their perceptions of his innocence since his acquittal, it still comes down to the fact that people disagree about things and sometimes change their minds. This is not a notable observation, nor is the fact that one otherwise non-notable member of that group may have had a change of heart (or conscience). Dwpaul ^Talk 19:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation Needed for Zim's father's ethnicity

Since ethnicity/"race" is an important issue in this case, any claim about ethnicity requires a citation from a reliable secondary source. Thus I deleted the reference to Zim's father's ethnicity, as unsupported, though I suppose it probably is true. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC))

It is supported by the Orlando Sentinel reference. VQuakr (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Road rage

The road rage incident is only a reported one, since no charges were even filed and no arrest made. In order of factual validity, encounters with law enforcement go as follows: reported, alleged, convicted (or not). This was only reported, not formally alleged. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok changed to reported. What is the difference between alleged and reported; Is alleged when charges are filed? -- GreenC 12:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

new incident

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/10/george-zimmerman-arrested-aggravated-assault/21547875/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhkmh (talk • contribs)

No conviction at this time; see WP:BLPCRIME. VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Does Zimmerman qualify as "relatively unknown"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpabbott (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No. BLPCRIME isn't meant for a case like this. -- GreenC 23:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There was an extensive (10 kB section) of various allegations that never came to trial, let alone conviction. Everything about WP:BLP requires conservative information, so at a minimum this information should be kept out during discussion. And in my opinion, BLP clearly directs us not to include these unsubstantiated allegations about a living person. VQuakr (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to include the public record, but avoid drawing conclusions about the validity of the allegations toward Zimmerman. If the text is question isn't clear regarding which allegations did or didn't result in arrest and which did to didn't result in convictions, that should be corrected. But if the allegations are present in the public record, I think it appropriate that they are included.Bpabbott (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Had Zimmerman been "relatively unknown", the story would not appear on the main page of CNN and every major news outlet around the world. TFD (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Zimmerman likely qualifies for WP:WELLKNOWN at this point, so the issues would be WP:GRAPEVINE or WP:NOTNEWS. I think this type of thing has become a sustained part of Zimmerman's reputation and overcomes those objections. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr, there are now 4 editors who have expressed disagreement with your interpretation. Please establish consensus for your massive deletions (nearly 10K!) and don't edit war further. Wikipedia is not restricted to convictions only, there is no red line for that. Nor does that article have "unsubstantiated allegations", it is factual NPOV reportage of major news events with V. -- GreenC 01:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:BLP requires caution. The essay WP:LOWPROFILE summarizes my position reasonably well - the subject of this article is notable because of their involvement with the death of Martin, but they have not exhibited any particular desire to become or remain well-known, ie self-promotion. Devoting a third of the article to a string of legal run-ins, which made the news cycle but did not result in convictions, has a potential to have real-world effects on this person's life. This is exactly why WP:BLP requires caution when adding negative content to BLP's, and why it is not relevant that there is, as you have repeatedly noted in your edit summaries, "no consensus" to exclude the content. I simply do not think that inclusion of 10kb worth of this content in the article represents exercise of "the greatest care" in editing. VQuakr (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted a link at WP:BLPN to encourage some additional input to the discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The media have decided that he is a high profile person, giving front page coverage to all his encounters with the law. We merely reflect that. You could consider writing to CNN, etc., and asking them not to write about him anymore. TFD (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not what our policies say. Please review WP:AVOIDVICTIM: When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well sourced. We are specifically instructed not to parrot everything that reliable sources say about living persons. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Zimmerman is also known for his repeated run-ins with the law. He has been in and out of the national news for years one thing after the next. It's fairly irrational to censor what he is known for. Not sure how many people have to say the same thing in different ways. BLP "abundance of caution" doesn't mean removing what a person is notable for, the policy and guidelines are pretty clear on that. -- GreenC 02:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're extrapolating from AVOIDVICTIM, which is a subpolicy designed to protect victimization of people only known for one or two events. For starters, Zimmerman has been a perpetrator in all 4 instances in which he was reported by the media. Additionally, he is no longer notable for one or two events anymore (not that invalidating this would invalidate the fact that he's still the perpetrator). I don't see how excluding this would benefit the article. --RAN1 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The stated main points of Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) are Nuetral point of view (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V), and no original research (WP:NOR). Have any of these points been violated by the 10K content in question?Bpabbott (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

None of it is violated. It was carefully constructed and worded. -- GreenC 02:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP is its own policy. VQuakr (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "BLP is its own policy" what are you implying that policy to be? The page WP:BLP states the main point of its policy to be Nuetral point of view (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V), and no original research (WP:NOR). I don't see any of these points being violated. If you think they are, please itemize the problems. If you think some other aspect of policy is being violated, please elaborate.Bpabbott (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The same sentence to which you are referring also lists the text of BLP. Straw man. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think, that any "desire of becoming well known" matters here but the decision should only be based on whether somebody is of public interest/high profile. I mean the question should ask ourselves as a test is whether we would we report this in the case of another high profile personality or not and i think the answer to that one is yes. I can't really imagine any serious biography or background report on trayvor martin not mentioning these run-ins with the law, omitting them in WP would create essentially create a description of trayvor Martin being unfaithful to that reputable sources, which in the case of high profile person is a clear no-go failing core policies. I agree with Green that blocking this content would be an overreaching/misapplication of WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We are discussing incidents that occurred after the death of Martin. What is their relevance to him? VQuakr (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does CNN write stories about Zimmerman that do not relate to the killing? Have you written to them to complain? Because we are supposed to cover the details of any subject in proportion to how they are covered in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: you have repeated this argument a few times, and you have not become less wrong with each repetition. Low profile is being conflated with notable here, but per BLP: Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. These are two difference concepts. That policy section also links WP:LOWPROFILE, making it clear that the essay is not just about BLP1E. Anyone who is a public figure is likely notable per WP:GNG, but not everyone who is notable is a public figure. Again WP:AVOIDVICTIM is explicit in telling us not to parrot the coverage of news outlets. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Came here after reading about Zimmerman's most recent run-in, was surprised to see no mention of it in the article. VQuakr, I agree that BLP is a very important policy. But when you construe the policy to omit large chunks of appropriate, cited biographical content, then your interpretation of it is getting in the way of the rest of WP policy. The point of WP:LOWPROFILE is to identify articles whose subject qualifies them as deletable under BLP1E, not to pick out subjects whose articles deserve special treatment. Your applications of AVIODVICTIM and BLPCRIME are also incorrect, as Zimmerman isn't a victim of anything and is not a "relatively unknown" person. Zimmerman is, quite obviously, notable at this point. Therefore it is our responsibility to not unduly omit relevant facts about his life post-Martin shooting. Again per UNDUE, the middle two incidents from the 10k revision should be trimmed to a couple of sentences each like the others; the 10k revision is too much. But the fact that he isn't an attention-seeking celebrity doesn't preclude him from a neutrally- and comprehensively-written article about his life. Deadbeef 13:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the section with a fairly large trim per WP:UNDUE. The section on his shooting of Martin could probably stand to be slightly longer but that is mostly a matter of taste. Deadbeef 14:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Covering these individual arrests and complaints, which never would have gotten a word in most other biographies and never, ever would have qualified as significant coverage for a personal not already notable, has the net effect of dominating the article. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM these need to be excluded until (if ever) a conviction is secured. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The WP:AVOIDVICTIM policy states the content should be "completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". If that is not the case, please provide specifics so that the content may be corrected. The WP:UNDUE policy is about neutrality of a viewpoint. Meaning that if wiki is to express a viewpoint it should be given weight consistent with its "prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I don't see how the article is taking on a viewpoint. If you think it is please clarify what that viewpoint is and how it is not prevalent in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpabbott (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)