Talk:Trial of George Zimmerman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Judge's rulings

The judge has ruled that the prosecution may say that Zimmerman profiled Martin in their opening statements, but they may not say he was racially profiled. She also ruled that prosecutors can use the terms, vigilante, wannabe cop and that Zimmerman confronted Martin. [1] and [2] She will also rule on the admissibility of state witnesses on who was screaming. I don't see any of this mentioned, should we include O'Mara's initial objection to prosecutor's using inflammatory terms: The terms included “vigilante,” any variation of “profiled,” “wannabe cop,” and “self-appointed Neighborhood Watch Captain.” O'Mara also didn't want prosecutors to say Zimmerman “got out of the car after police or dispatcher told him not to,” or that he “confronted” Martin. The hearing on the states witnesses concerning the screams on the tape and the judges ruling should be included as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of some reorg by topic rather than chronologically/process. For example a section on "Admissibility of Evidence" that could cover both the rulings about Martin's history, and whatever the result of the Frye hearing is on the 911 voice analysis.

I am not sure adding information at the level of "motion->overruled->actually used" is needed, when the "actually used" part is probably going to come on monday (in this instance). If the use of that information/rhretoric is notable, we can put it in the "opening arguments" section or whatnot, and we can put the objections/ruling inline - particularly as there are likely to be additional motions and rulings during the actual statements and we would end up scattering information about one topic in several different areas. If those items do not come up during the actual opening statements, then we could put the motions/rulings in the admissibility sections/misc motions sections after the fact? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A reorganization by topic is a good idea. The section titled "May 28th" could possibly have the date removed from the title and that section could possibly be expanded. These all were pre-trial motions and now we are seeing the decisions issued by the judge. I think the ruling for the prosecution to be able to use "profiled" is significant. Their claim that Zimmerman profiled Martin as a criminal is paramount to proving Zimmerman's "state of mind", a requisite for proving one of the elements of second-degree murder.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it wont be "racially profiled", however, they can claim whatever they want - they still have to prove it. I don't think asserting so is the same as proving. The defense is going to assert that Martin assaulted Z (although they are not required to prove anything as the defense) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, they have to prove it, that's the whole idea behind "beyond a reasonable doubt". At the risk of WP:FORUM, the reason I think it is significant is because the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman acted with a depraved mind, an element of the crime for which he has been charged. I believe their theory is that Zimmerman profiled Martin as a criminal that night. If you look at the APC, it is loaded with terms like; "assumed he was a criminal", "Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had gotten away with break-ins in the neighborhood", "while talking about Martin, stated these assholes, they always get away and also said these fucking punks", "he falsely assumed (Martin) was going to commit a crime". I believe their theory is that Zimmerman profiled Martin as a criminal, and he had such a dislike for criminals, that he followed and confronted him because "he didn't want to let this one get away". Having said that, I also believe that theory is flawed because you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone that will admit they like criminals. I certainly don't. I think the prosecution will have a hard time proving that just because Zimmerman didn't like criminals (his state of mind), that he acted with depravity when he shot Martin because he assumed he was a criminal.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis anywhere I think. But I'm really not surprised by the ruling. The state gets to state their case, and then has to prove it. The only way something would be not allowed is if it was obviously prejudicial - but those words are the core of the story they are trying to tell. Disallowing that would be tantamount to dismissing the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that Zimmerman has already admitted he shot Martin, one of the elements, the only thing the prosecution has to prove is that he acted with a depraved mind when shooting Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Query possible violation of NPOV

"Don West made a lengthy and rambling opening statement for the defense, that began with a knock-knock joke, and was interrupted by a lunch recess."

To me, that does not sound like WP:NPOV - I refer the editor who inserted that text to the Wikipedia:NPOV policy guideline. I would also invite editors to review the Wikipedia:LABEL guideline (concerning contentious labels, and apply that guideline to teh "lengthy and rambling" part of the above quote.

Further, the fact that it was "interrupted by a lunch recess" and that he "made a knock-knock joke" is irrelevant. Those two statements are turning the article into a blog or newspaper report. This is not the aim of Wikipedia.

--The Historian (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Both the knockknock joke, and the length and frankly incoherence of his statement have been widely reported on. Both are relevant to the outcome of the case if he got off on the wrong foot with the jury with a tasteless joke, or confusing them. the lunch recess may be a level of detail not needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The knock-knock joke is in fact in the title of multiple news articles.[3][4][5] [6] [7] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I took out the word "rambling" as that is clearly an opinion on his opening statement. The knock-knock joke received coverage so that should stay in. Breaking for lunch recess does seem kind of trivial.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I took out lunch, the intent was to show how long it was that it required a 1 hour break. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have too much unnecessary detail, the trail is expected to take 2-4 weeks, and this level of detail will make the article cumbersome. Also it does not need the current event tag, this is only needed when there are many people editing.Martin451 (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

when its fresh, the level of detail is useful, but lots can be trimmed and summaraized over time. (The first two witnesses for example don't add much, but I think the bulk of the testimony of the 3rd is directly relevant and on point to the crux of the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

discovery evidence

I think the bulk of the discovery section should now be gutted. Individual interesting items (Omara discussing grainy photos etc) can be moved to pre-trial. If some discovery is ruled inadmissable, it can be put in the "admissibility" section. Otherwise, we can just talk about the evidence as it is introduced in trial, and much of what was discovered may well be irrelevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

source citation

Source citation should be in the form openbracket link author, "title", publication, date closebracket. As articles get moved to archive, etc., links get broken. Raw links not good form, --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Another note the ref for "Zimmerman prosecutors release evidence list" lists as " December 15, 2011. Retrieved June 12, 2012." That is an impossible date. Do we have vandalism or something in here? I can't figure out how such a glaring date error got included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Following the link, I noticed "prosecutors" in the title not "prosecutor's" and the publication date was May 15, 2012, both of which I corrected (WP:be brazen). The one was probably a typo, the date was probably the result of an editor copying, pasting an old templated ref and editing everything but pub date. Not vandalism but sloppy editing. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Selma Mora

Article needs at least a paragraph about her one-hour testimony involving charades through an interpreter. Video: [8]. MSM sources: [9], [10] (latter paragraphs), [11]. ―cobaltcigs 08:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, but I don't have time to go back and do it. Feel free, but use reliable sources :) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Recommend current FAQ Section

I have been attempting to follow this trial while holding down a job. When I can I, listen to the live trial, otherwise, I go to other sites for brief synopsis. Wikipedia could be a qualifier for the latter without compromising its "encyclopedic" mandate with a section on brief bullets about current "highlights" from the trial. Such bullets would have to be verifiable by a time preferably (EST). Be directly from the trial, no editorializing or opinion. As an example from today’s testimony.

• O'mara questions Serino about his knowledge of a "slim jim" found in the area where Trayvon Martin might have been hiding. 9:22 AM 7/2/13
• O'mara questions Rao about her appointment by Angela Corey 1:24 PM 7/2/13
• De la Rionda redirects Rao emphasizing that her testimony is in no way influenced by her appointment by Corey 2:06 PM. 7/2/13

There is a demand for "current" encyclopedic information regarding this trial. IMHO such a section is doable, however, I would like a modicum on consensus before starting such a thing.

MarkSonntag (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is deciding which question are relevant for inclusion is subject to POV and OR. I was trying to keep up on doing fairly comprehensive coverage of each person's testimony based on sources, but it became too overwhelming. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as the bar for inclusion of material is Trial Testimony/Questions POV becomes irrelevant. It becomes the same process as "Adam Smith's Invisible Hand": The more people try and include details they consider relevant, the better and more detailed the page gets. Organization is provided by the timeline. The devil in this case would be keeping out "made up" facts. MarkSonntag (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFAQ, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENTISM. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFAQ - Not relevant, (yes, I did say FAQ in my title my mistake, I should have said LIST OF TESTIMONY)
• WP:NOTNEWS - Nothing relevant in this section either. The only thing that makes my proposal news is its timeliness.
• WP:RECENTISM - Not really relevant either, as this discusses controversy, transience and editorialism.
  • Controvery, my mechanism uses this as an engine to produce accuracy.
  • transience – Only because this is currently happening, as the footprints are made, they are fossilized forever.
  • editorialism- the mechanism excludes such.

I am proposing a resource for those who wish to find the non editorialized and non filtered facts (a term which I should have used instead of FAQ) on an item of extreme current interest. I am sure that most Wikipedians believe that the access to accessible unbiased information is one of the guiding lights of the Wikipedia project. I am proposing a means of providing that in an area, that I for one am extremely desirous of having. It may be that various technological, organizational, sociological and interpersonal problems may prevent the realization of such. However, philosophically speaking, my vision is in perfect accord with the principles upon which Wikipedia was founded. MarkSonntag (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete witness & expert lists

Should Main Article also include Medical Examiners Valerie Rao and Shiping Bao as experts? Valerie Rao is mentioned in this Talk page under proposed FAQ section.--108.74.155.39 (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This article should mention them, if thats what you mean by "main". The last day or two of state testimony, and pretty much the entire defense case is missing and needs to be added. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Defense's case

I've started adding defense witness testimony, summarizing as I go along. If there is significant, notable or otherwise relevant testimony that I have left out, please, please feel free. I wasn't sure about the level of detail to add, so any thoughts?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Great start so far. Detail good as we have that level of detail in states level. Once everything is done, we can start trimming stuff out to just the guts I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Name Change of Article

Nice try but complete fail. Trial of George Zimmerman can mean his ordeal. No one refers to a trial such as this by "Trial of..." Trial of is reserved for such things as "Trial of the Century". This is the internet age. How many people will google "Trial of George Zimmerman"? Google will automatically revert to George Zimmerman Trial. Also, when you say "Trial of George Zimmerman", it implies that the matter is completed. There are numerous tentacles yet to appear. This article is "The Zimmerman Trial" or "The George Zimmerman Trial". It might even be labeled "The George Zimmerman Case".True Observer (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point. We know the ACTUAL name of the trial. many other names, none used exclusively, and none without issues.reverting move that did not have consensus. To TO : This case is over. Other suits or trials will have different names. Another reason why we should not use a generic name, as there may be in fact more than one "Trial of Zimmerman" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This case is not over. The defense is asking for sanctions and attorney's fees. The fee request may even be a million dollars. The public will follow the developments because they are invested in the personalities that they have gotten to know. As to "more than one trial", for as long as anyone is alive, the Zimmerman Trial will be referred to and known as the one that just took place. A federal case or a civil case will always have a qualifier.True Observer (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The use of the proper legal name of the case seems the obvious and only choice. We have a system for distinguishing legal cases and we should use it. There may well be a "Trial of George Zimmerman" that relates to the federal claims being bandied about by Sharpton et al. There may well be a civil state court trial on damages claims by Martins' parents. Each case will have a distinct legal name and it should be used.

Trial of George Zimmerman → State of Florida vs. Zimmerman – Official title of trial, moved to current title without consensus. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The page move earlier today from longstanding article title "State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman" to the new "Trial of George Zimmerman" was neither "a minor edit" nor by consensus. The surprise move could have been reverted immediately by anyone at the time, but now this "Requested Move" has been initiated and must run its course.--→gab 24dot grab← 22:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to, but the move wouldn't go over top of the redirect. Said an admin had to do it. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest that any title change include his first name. Florida could charge someone else with the last name of Zimmerman. Like for instance, his wife Shellie, who is still facing charges for perjury.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That can be dealt with if or when it occurs. Luckily, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —  AjaxSmack  06:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Or...it can be dealt with right now, since that's the topic under discussion here.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Ok. My crystal ball says there will never be another notable case called State of Florida v. Zimmerman. —  AjaxSmack  06:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of cases involving a Zimmerman that are archived in the various courts. True Observer (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, none of them have articles at Wikipedia so it's irrelevant. —  AjaxSmack  06:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Red Slash 06:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Revert to the prior name: This should've been submitted as a technical request to revert an undiscussed move, not as an ordinary move request. The suggested title for this RM is different than the prior article name, for no apparent strongly-justified reason. Just revert it. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Revert to the prior name I agree with BarrelProof. Besides, the prior name is the correct one, rather than the proposed title which leaves out his first name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Dictionaries define the language in current use. Current usage by far is Zimmerman Trial. Google: Zimmerman Trial(1,160,000,000); The Zimmerman Trial (350,000,000); Zimmerman Case (154,000,000); State of Florida v. George Zimmerman (113,000,000; State of Florida v Zimmerman (108,000,000).

The public has decided what this case will be called. The question is not even close. The article should be renamed Zimmerman Trial. True Observer (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In regards to User:Isaidnoway comment about Shellie Zimmerman's case, I think her case is unlikely to be notable/big enough for a standalone article, but if it were Her case is officially entitled "State of Florida vs Shellie Zimmerman", so perhaps there is a name uniquness policy in floria court cases? On an interesting note, John Guy is the state's attorney for that case as well according to the complaint : http://www.docstoc.com/docs/122649914/Florida-v-Shellie-Zimmerman---Criminal-Information-and-Affidavit-of-Probable-Cause Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Normally the way to handle this would be to revert the undiscussed move, then (if desired) hold an RM discussion about whether to move from the current title to a new one. Gaijin42 said he tried to move it back but wasn't able to because the target article had to be deleted. I'm willing to move it back if Gaijin42, or anyone else, still wants that, so let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin yes please. Then we can continue to build consensus on what the name should be. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. So now, if you still want to hold an RM, the target will need to be changed. That is, the discussion would be whether to move State of Florida v. George Zimmerman to Trial of George Zimmerman, or whichever title is being considered. Or you can wait to see whether LiquidWater wants to arrange an RM discussion, as s/he was the one who initiated the move. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support long-standing and current article name "State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman".--→gab 24dot grab← 01:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The use of the proper legal name of the case seems the obvious and only choice. We have a system for distinguishing legal cases and we should use it. There may well be a "Trial of George Zimmerman" that relates to the federal claims being bandied about by Sharpton et al. There may well be a civil state court trial on damages claims by Martins' parents. Each case will have a distinct legal name and it should be used.

75.73.50.232 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Discovery Evidence

Ben Kruidbos, who testified for the defense before the trial began and identified himself as a "whistleblower," alleged that his former employer concealed or was slow to deliver discovery information obtained from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone – including pictures of a hand holding a gun and a gun on a bed. Zimmerman’s defense team has filed a motion of judicial sanctions against state prosecutors, alleging discovery violations. The state has denied these violations.

Since it was part of the trial, it should be included. WeldNeck (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We can comment on the situation/event in the admissibility of evidence section, but this was not actually admitted into evidence, and was not presented to the jury, so the detail of what that evidence was should not be added into the article Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thats what I was getting at, the non disclosure of the evidence from Martins's phone. WeldNeck (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

External links tag

I just noticed this tag inserted by user:Malerooster in the external links section and left a message on his/her talk page asking for input, so we can address this issue and improve this section accordingly. From what I gather by reading the tag, we need to remove excessive or inappropriate external links, or in the alternative, convert some where appropriate, into footnote references.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Isaidnoway, yeah, it seemed like the EL section was getting a bit "bloated" as it were. There is a dead link and not sure if all of them are appropriate or needed. Like the democracy now link I would probably get rid of to start since there are 100s of similar links that could be included. I would consult WP:EL and maybe cut the section in half, not that size is a dertermining factor, but I was concerned about the number and quality. Ultimately, like everything here, it comes down to editorial judgement, but I like to err on the side of less than more, but that's just one chicken's opinion. Is there an external links "specialist" that could chime in or even maybe the EL board if its still around? Thank you and regards, --Malerooster (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, it's always nice to have a fresh pair of eyes on a "current event" article. Information not only changes rapidly in this type of article, but so does the editing. I can see some changes that can definetely be made, as in removing the dead link and converting some EL's to footnotes.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks better, but I am not sure about the "title" since not all those links fit into that category. --Malerooster (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of stand your ground law

The line from the New York Times needs to be updated since they just updated the article saying the judges instructions to the jury included provisions from the law. The defense had not used the law, but it did effect the case. Darktangent (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Beyond the jury instructions, I believe the law also affected the case during the initial investigation. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Serino's testimony

The article states under Serino's testimony Serino said there was evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was still following Martin after the non-emergency dispatcher told him not to. But the non-emergency dispatcher, Sean Noffke, said he never gave such an order. He only suggested Zimmerman not follow. I think that line needs to be edited to reflect the suggestion rather than implying it was an order. (I'm new, so please forgive me if this is not the correct way to request edits) Rokiloki31 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote it as follows: Serino said there was evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was still following Martin after the non-emergency dispatcher suggested that he not do so. How is that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Rachel Jeantel's Phone Conversation With Martin

In the section about Rachel Jeantel's testimony, it says Martin, she said, told her he was going to try to "lose him" and get back to the home where he was staying. Jeantel said as she remained on the phone with Martin, the man who was allegedly following him reappeared and "He said, "Why are you following me for?", This implies Martin never made it home before confronting Zimmerman. However, in her testimony, she did state at one point Martin had made it home.

I think this is a very important piece of information in the case. It shows Martin was not cut-off or outrun by Zimmerman and it also accounts for some of the missing time between the end of Zimmerman's call to the non-emergency number and when the fight started.

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR1VabQYLKQ (skip to 5 minute mark) 71.54.33.160 (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

She said he said he was almost home. Relative to 7-11 (the start of the call), the entire T section is almost home. however, beyond that, her testimony sheds no light on where he actually was. how we interpret her statements, regarding how she interprets something, and where he objectively was are very different, and we have no strong evidence whatsoever how far he actually went (except obviously at least to the T). Gaijin42 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Her exact words from testimony was: "He had told me he was in the back of his father's fiancee's house." Defense Attorney West repeated the statement back to her and she acknowledged that is what she said. This Wikipedia article is about the court case and a big part of the defense was that Martin either made it home or had plenty of time to get home.

As the article is, it implies Martin was trying to get home but never made it. It invokes sympathy for the victim when it should be an unbiased, impartial account of the court proceedings. The State's own witness says he did make it home and since that was a major part of the defense's case, it should be included. It doesn't have to be included as fact, but it should be as a part of Jeatel's testimony. 71.54.33.160 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't invoke sympathy for Martin, it invokes the question - if Martin was trying to get home and was close by and had plenty of time to get there, and he never made it - why didn't he make it? If you believe the defense theory, it's not because Zimmerman cut him off, it's because Martin made a decision not to go home and instead chose to confront Zimmerman. If you believe the prosecution's theory, it's because Zimmerman pursued him and prevented him from getting home. Even if we add that sentence, and I'm not opposed to adding it, it still doesn't change the prosecution's or defense's theory of what happened. If anything, it bolsters the defense theory, because if Martin did make it to the "back of his father's fiancees house", why didn't he go inside?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It should not invoke the question "Why didn't he make it?" when Jeantel's own testimony suggests he did make it. She is the prosecution's witness and she is supporting the defense's theory and casting doubt on the prosecutor's theory. So it does change the theories. However, as the article is now, it implies he never made it because of what transpired between Martin and Zimmerman. Also, with the next line about the man "reappearing," it implies Zimmerman had somehow managed to get between Martin and his home, thus, preventing him from reaching home. There is nothing in evidence to support that. Don't get me wrong, I think the editors have done an excellent job remaining neutral. But the article is about the court case, not about the actual events of that night. Part of the defense's case is that Martin made it home or had plenty of time to get home. If he returned to the scene after reaching satefy, it supports Zimmerman's claims of self defense, which is central to his case. If it was a defense witness who made the statement, I could understand leaving it out as possibly being biased. But Jeantel was the prosecutor's "star" ear-witness to the events as they unfolded. Since where Martin was during the few minutes before the fight is important to the case, it should be inculded. 71.54.33.160 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to adding it to the article. I just don't agree with your analysis of the testimony. Feel free to add it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I am new and unable to edit at this time. Perhaps someone can help? 71.54.33.160 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give you some help. Just submit what you want inserted into the paragraph here on the talk page, and I'll add it. Give me a general idea too, on where you think it should go in the paragraph. Do we need an additional source, or do the sources already referenced there support your addition.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Fewer sections?

Any chance of sectioning this off into fewer major sections? For example, a "Parties involved" section could include those. The TOC seems overly lengthy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move, November 2013

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman → Florida v. George Zimmerman – (or Florida v. Zimmerman, State v. George Zimmerman or State v. Zimmerman) There aren't any other case articles currently beginning with "State of..." If there is such, they must have been redirects, like State of Florida v. Jardines (to Florida v. Jardines) and State of New Mexico v. State of Texas (to New Mexico v. Texas). --Relisted. Red Slash 04:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Unnecessary move. This user has suggested a number of moves after a failed move request at Sega v. Accolade (no consensus), has tried to arbitrarily change MOS:LAW, and generally appears to believe that everything must fit into a neat, orderly box. That's not the nature of the law, and is certainly not the nature of Wikipedia. There is no need to move the article, but if it should be moved, it should either be to "The trial of George Zimmerman" or to "State v. Zimmerman." GregJackP Boomer! 22:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support the official title (it is not too long), or a well recognized abbreviation from the primary sources, in the interest of technical precision, which is unusually important in law. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Look at #Name Change of Article; people opposed Trial of George Zimmerman. George Ho (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't need to be styled or titled like it was a case in federal court, which is what the proposed move looks like. GregJackP Boomer! 22:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you weren't aware of the prior move warring, and I wasn't aware of it either. Someone tried moving it to "Trial of George Zimmerman", but it was reverted by prior consensus. Currently, it's move-protected, so I won't be able to change the title. Even I tried to request scrapping "State of" in WP:RM/TR, but someone contested it. As for MOS:LAW, it didn't say either "federal" or something like that. --George Ho (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:LAW doesn't have anything to do with it looking like it is styled or titled as a federal court case. In federal court, the State of Florida is identified as "Florida." In state court (which is where this was tried), it is identified as "State". Plus, you argue that there are no "State of" cases -- but there are numerous "State v." cases, such as State v. Reid, State v. Henry, State v. Limon, State v. Kelly, and State v. Mitchell, just to name the first five. The move is not necessary. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The goal is not to "stylize", but to concise the title, especially for general readers. "State v."? Maybe I must have been familiar, as I'm familiar with "People v." Since the Zimmerman case didn't contain "People", perhaps let's talk about the title itself. The title is obviously long and more time-consuming to type. George Ho (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Style", in the legal sense means how a case is named at the court or reporter level. Look, it's obvious that you don't have a working knowledge of the legal arena, in simple areas of cases, etc. It may be helpful, if you intend to continue to work in this area, to drop by WP:LAW and see if any of the more experienced editors would be willing to mentor you and help you to understand. We certainly don't want to get into a situation like what has been going on over at Cheers and related articles. GregJackP Boomer! 04:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How often, and for what reason are you typing it out? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman page used to be a redirect, so that was easier to type and to think of. However, it became a biography of the living person. And it has a link to the case; if moved, someone will change the link name to reflect recent action. Not to mention we have AutoComplete for everybody to either type or click on. Also, we have Google for people to type any term related to the case. Just in case, here are stats of George Zimmerman and his trial case. George Ho (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly I think nobody has any objections to the "Zimmerman Trial", "Trial of GZ", or "Florida vs Zimmerman" as redirects. That should solve the search, autocomplete, and typing issues. but those issues are not justifications for changing the actual article title. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I got one book using Florida v. Zimmerman as title. Scribd uses State v. George Zimmerman. I don't know why Austin Weekly News uses the current title; must have copied-and-pasted the current title. Bloomberg uses State of Florida v. Zimmerman. American Thinker uses the first proposed title. Business Week omits "George" regarding case name. But then I can see several sources using case name, and many others... I don't see them using a case name. Probably "George Zimmerman trial" or "trial of George Zimmerman". George Ho (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe, must we move other non-federal cases beginning with "State v." or "<name of state> v." to full names or generic non-case names (e.g. "Trial of")? George Ho (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

George, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Disruption of all legal articles? I'll make it very clear to you, although I've said it elsewhere, the naming of one single article does not require that all other articles be changed to match. Ever. Not here, not at Microsoft, not at Sega. I have suggested several times for you to get a mentor from WP:LAW if you intend to continue to edit in this field, because you are not showing a comprehension of the subject matter. This has been a recurring problem for you in various areas of the project and has led to your being blocked before for lack of competence. If the disruption continues on the naming of articles, I will start an ANI thread or a RfC/U to resolve this. GregJackP Boomer! 00:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2013 (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.