Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hand In Pocket -- Not

Current content: "Chauvin is seen on video applying pressure with his knee to Floyd's neck while his hand is in his pocket"

Chauvin's left hand is wearing a black glove, and his pants are also black. It may appear to many that his hand is in a pocket. But, on close watching of the entire raw video from bystander smartphone (in the first few seconds, for example)[Video], it is clear to me that Chauvin's left hand is in a fist and resting on his upper thigh. I have heard several commentaries that cite the hand in pocket while lamenting an apparent casual demeanor of this officer.

This inaccuracy should be corrected. Clutterslave (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have added this fact to the article, with a citation to the video. WWGB (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How is the new autopsy independent when the pathologists were hired by the deceased relatives?

First it says "On May 30, Floyd's family's legal team confirmed that they had hired Baden and also Dr. Allecia Wilson to conduct an autopsy.", and then "On May 31, the independent autopsy was conducted.". How is the autopsy independent? By that logic, the first autopsy was also independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anetherion (talk • contribs) 10:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Wlilson is the director of autopsy and forensic services at the University of Michigan Medical School. That's independent. The county medical examiner is not independent as they work with the police. O3000 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"they had hired" as in they were paid to do that. How can you say that is independent? For it to be truly independent, it would have to be performed and paid for by a third party, unrelated to the whole ordeal. Anetherion (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, neither are independent.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Independent is used in the sources and has been used in such cases as long as I can remember. The Michigan Medical School is independent, unless it can be shown that they are paid to lie. O3000 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"they had hired Baden and also Dr. Allecia Wilson", they had hired them personally, how is their workplace relevant? 1.) "sources" are not always correct, 2.) it being that way "for as long as you can remember" still does not mean it is the right way. Like I wrote above, unless it is conducted and paid for by a third party, it is NOT independent. Anetherion (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We go by sourcing, not by personal opinion of editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Its all rather academic as the second "official" autopsy has called homicide as well.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that "independent" is probably the wrong word for it. By definition, the autopsy comes from an interested party. A "private autopsy" was used by the BBC makes more sense, imho. Perennial Student (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what the majority of sources call it. Try to understand that when the media speaks of an independent autopsy, they just mean a private autopsy independent of the official autopsy conducted by the jurisdiction's coroner, and not independent of an interested party who is paying for it. If there's a concern that this Wikipedia article is misleading the reader, we can ameliorate that by using expanded language like "an independent autopsy paid for by Floyd's family," or even "an independent private autopsy" with cites to both descriptions from the media. The only other thing I would note here is that under state law, the county medical examiner is a "neutral and independent office and is separate and distinct from any prosecutorial authority or law enforcement agency," so we wouldn't say that they aren't independent because they "work with the police," but calling the official autopsy "independent" in the article would probably just cause confusion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If the sourcing says "independent", then that's what the article should say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The law may state that medical examiners must be “neutral and independent”; but there have been scandals related to medical examiner results when police are involved. That’s one reason some people pay for independent autopsies. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, there have been scandals in the past, this is why legislatures have added those laws to put ethics restrictions in place. My only point there was that we can't imply here that the county medical examiner "works with the police." AzureCitizen (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that someone swapped out the word "independent" with "private" 30 minutes ago, so I've added "independent" back to the lead, such that it reads "An independent private autopsy." At this point, I think it would be preferable to just include both words rather than editors pushing to have their preferred word used while trying to exclude the other. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Private is an odd word since the results are public and the autopsy was performed by a public school. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL, which in the UK mean a private school. But it is off as whilst it was privately funded it was not "private".Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What we've got going on here is a conflation of terms. Whether or not a school is public or private is a different concept (in use of terms) in relation to whether an autopsy was an official autopsy (conducted by the authorities) versus a private autopsy (conducted by anyone else). AzureCitizen (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Private has many different senses; we shouldn't conflate them. To clarify the claim "the autopsy was performed by a public school". Are we sure the autopsy was performed by the University of Michigan? The media reports seem to suggest that Dr Baden and Dr Wilson were hired by Floyd's family's attorneys. Do we know it was done in the official capacity as faculty members of University of Michigan? Or that it was done pro bono (see: "hire" in numerous news outlets). For example, I might hire a moonlighting police officer to bodyguard me; it would make little sense to claim that my bodyguarding needs are met by a "public body". Perennial Student (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, as others have said, lets go with what RS say, and not our own suppositions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd History

Why is there nothing in the GEORGE FLOYD bio section of this article about his past criminal history? He was convicted of multiple things, most notably ARMED ROBBERY which is pretty significant. Why is he presented in an incomplete manner. All across Wikipedia in the personal section OF ANYONE i HAVE EVEN LOOKED UP THERE IS FULL DISCLOSURE, ESPECIALLY ABOUT ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH BREAKING THE LAW. I think that there is deliberate omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiaSmi64 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reason that it's omitted is because this is about the death of George Floyd, not about George Floyd. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 18:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then why is there information about his athletic accomplishments? Elvis2500 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500

There is an RfC about it above [1]. And of course good RS specifically about his death, such as this article in Guardian and many others, do mention this episode. We should significantly expand his biography section and include this info. As you noted, there is no logic to selectively hide any important biographic information. We just say what RS say on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that BBC has also acknowledged this aspect of Floyd's past (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52871936). Elvis2500 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500

Someone will probably remove it. I would wait until the closing of the RfC. But just to clarify, according to your BBC source,

His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison. He became involved in his local ministry, Resurrection Houston, after his release and was intent on making changes in himself and his neighbourhood, says Mr Lillard. "While he was embracing his own life change, he was looking around at his community" ...

This is an important info to include if anyone wants to understand what kind of person he was. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, is what kind of person he was important to understanding this incident? —valereee (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is all in the BBC source. One should just read it further: "A video of Floyd decrying gun violence, believed to be filmed in 2017, has circulated on social media, in which he implored young people to "come home". His family told the Houston Chronicle he moved to Minnesota in 2018 after being encouraged by friends through a Christian work programme. Christopher Harris, a friend and former classmate, told US media Mr Floyd "was looking to start over fresh, a new beginning". "He was happy with the change he was making," he added.

So, basically, this is someone who was capable to understand his mistakes and make life better for himself and others. This is highly commendable. But without telling that he made mistakes, there is no real person, there is no character. That's why journalists from Guardian, BBC, and other sources described it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, commendable, but the question I think was "how is that relevant with regards to his death?" Did any of that contribute to his death? Regards SoWhy 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Chauvin put his full body weight on Floyd's neck"

@Shadybabs: You've added "Chauvin put his full body weight onto Floyd's neck" directly into the lead, based on a comment in a local City Pages article, not stated in any mainstream reliable sources. That's materially misleading and would have only been possible if Chauvin had knelt with both of his knees on Floyd's neck (to put his full body weight on it). As seen in the video he has one knee on the pavement and one knee on Floyd; you have to sort out sources for NPOV, verfiability, and in this case, WP:WEIGHT (no pun intended; this is not funny stuff). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I've tagged it. If someone can't produce better sources, it will be removed. - MrX 🖋 15:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

While I strongly believe that the article should address all aspects of the police misconduct, it should do so accurately, and should not use other wiki pages as sources. Either cite an external source and reword or remove. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It would also have been possible if he had managed to balance himself on only one knee and having his other leg off the ground, but that obviously didn't happen either. A physical impossibility definitely needs good sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging. Circling back just now, I see another editor has conformed the text to a better source as seen here, so the problem is resolved. I was initially drawn to this issue because the original editor added the unsourced content "Chauvin would continue to forcefully grind his bodyweight directly onto Floyd's neck as he struggled" here and here two days ago. Editors should not be making stuff up like that, especially with people's perceptions inflamed right now. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk)

The second autopsy is saying asphyxiation.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

In general, that's not exactly true. You could put 90 percent of your weight on one knee, with the other knee positioned just for balance. But sourcing is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

90% is not "full body weight", but the thrust here is that an editor was seeking to characterize the event from their POV, then looking for a source to fit that POV. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But if you're only using the second knee for balance, it could be well above 50 percent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Add Chauvin maces witness (on video)

Since links to FB video are now added in article, can we add the macing incident to Arrest and Death/Timeline ? At 4:32 in video, "Chauvin grabs a canister from his belt and sprays towards a witness approaching Floyd, and another witness says 'He just got maced'. Chauvin later returns canister to belt.(at 4:55) Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The link in question is to the primary source without commentary and accompanies the text talking about the primary source being created. What you want is original research, i.e. using the same primary source to add a fact ("witness got maced by Chauvin") which the source does not support (you cannot actually see that). As such, we need a reliable secondary source that actually says so. Regards SoWhy 14:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Test Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

But the source supports these facts. The actions are audible and visible: Chauvin unclips canister from belt, moves hand towards sidewalk, audio sound of spraying noise commences, Chauvin continues to hold canister while kneeing Floyd's neck, then puts canister back on belt. Why would a secondary source be necessary? Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If so then why have no RS noticed and commented on it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Very good question. I wonder about it as well. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that ends this, as that is virtually an admission this is just your interpretation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe... the macing incident can be interpreted by legal professionals as evidence of an intent to kill, and creates a possible liability issue for a published secondary source... Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not an admission to an interpretation. Sorry. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

See "At one point Chauvin reached for his mace to threaten the bystanders while continuing to kneel on the man."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that is an RS, certainly not for a wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unicorn Riot is definitely not an RS —valereee (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

See "Chauvin keeps his knee pressed into Floyd’s neck and Floyd stops talking. About four minutes into the video, Floyd becomes unresponsive. Bystanders approach Chauvin and the officer draws something, causing one of the people off-camera to say, “He’s got mace.”"[4] QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be barley enough to say "and one person said he had drawn a mace can", in no way does it support "Chauvin maces witness" or even" Chauvin drew a maces can".Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I made this change. There could be more sources that discuss it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I will not revert it, even thought I said it is barely enough to pass muster (see wp:unue). I would suggest finding a few more sources before someone else does.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What was Chauvin's endgame?

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.

---

Perhaps editors familiar with law enforcement can answer this question. Had Floyd not expired, when would Chauvin have released his knee from Floyd? Was he waiting for backup, or Floyd to tap out, or when he had established his "superiority"? What typically happens in such a situation when death is not the outcome? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not a general forum to discuss this topic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What is meant by "tap out"? Bus stop (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Submission. WWGB (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but "submission" was present. Submission was expressed verbally by George Floyd. And submission prevails when handcuffed behind one's back, prone, face down, surrounded by police officers. Bus stop (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd called out to the police, addressing Chauvin with “Sir” and “Please officer, I can’t breathe.” He called out to the crowd of people watching: “They gon’ kill me.” But there was one call that will not stop echoing in my head, and that’s the call to his mother. “I can’t move … mama … mama … I can’t.” This constitutes verbal "submission". Bus stop (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we know all that. My question is, had the ambulance not been called and had he not died, how might the situation have been resolved? WWGB (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"how might the situation have been resolved?" I don't know. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will weigh in. Bus stop (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's not speculate. O3000 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought the question would depend on the consequences of suspicion of attempted use of counterfeit currency, or something like that. That would be a legal question. I happen to be ignorant of the topic. Would arrest ensue? Would a court appearance be required? Etc. Bus stop (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2020 (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.

$20 bill

The article should state whether or not the bill in question was counterfeit. Jim Michael (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a good source yay or nay? Kire1975 (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There was no investigation confirming anything about it, so no RS. --nafSadh ^{did say} 19:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit "misinformation targeting Chauvin" section

The article is so much better than before. But, there's an odd defense of Chauvin for 27May which is also inconsistent with the section entitled, Aftermath. Consistency would dictate mention of Chauvin's arrest, "On May 29, Chauvin was arrested." Then fold into same paragraph the fleeing of Chauvin's accomplices using the same date. In the next section, County Charges, details of Chauvin's arrest can still be provided. Additionally, mention of misinformation about Chauvin should be balanced by misinformation about Floyd. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - Pasdecomplot, please use this template as directed, i.e. change X to Y. However, in your case I suggest you contribute to other parts of Wikipedia and wait until you meet the criteria to be autoconfirmed. Then, you can make these changes yourself (within Wikipedia's policies ofc). Ed6767 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What "misinformation" do we have (or is there) about Floyd?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, there's a number (I think the BBC did a good article), but nothing that I can tell as false is in the article currently. Ed6767 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Care to link?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767 There's an "add z to x" in the suggestion: "...the section entitled, Aftermath. Consistency would dictate mention of Chauvin's arrest, "On May 29, Chauvin was arrested." Then fold into same paragraph the fleeing of Chauvin's accomplices using the same date." I appreciate your response. The details in the article are very important. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you are misinterpreting the directions. "Change X to Y" means you quote the sentence or paragraph here, then you rewrite it with the change made exactly the way you want it made. It means YOU do the work. What you're doing is asking people to read your mind. —valereee (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent death template more appropriate

Hey, Would the recent death template be more appropriate than current related template?

Smithr32 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Smithr32, I don't think so. The effects of this death have gone beyond Floyd's death, as clearly shown in the George Floyd Protests. Ed6767 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

3 sources on Chauvin macing bystander

Hatting this as incorrect and inflammatory. No evidence or reference has been produced to say that he maced anyone. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In Arrest and Death, please add sentence describing Chauvin macing bystander, "Chauvin grabbed his mace when a bystander approached after Floyd became unresponsive." 1 2 3. Still looking for a more complete account of mace incident. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Not one of those says he maced anyone. Stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Grabbing mace does not mean bystanders were maced. Just as grabbing my gun does not mean I shot anyone, nor that I even produced it. Perennial Student (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC) The suggested "text" does not say he maced a bystander. Because the 3 RS don't include the info. Please read the suggested text, which should be added to Sequence of Events, after the words "...the officers about Floyd's condition, urging them to check his pulse.[9]:5:22[60]:6:53[61] OK? As mentioned, looking for a better RS. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC) They also don't say Chauvin grabbed mace. The first says he threatened to mace the bystanders, the second that a bystander says "He's got mace" and a third that "the cops can be seen grabbing their mace" without specifically mentioning Chauvin. But if other editors are going to add it anyway, no worries. Perennial Student (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Note that the LeftVoice cite is an opinion article and unsuitable as an RS. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC) I would suggest the confusion was caused by your subject header. Now lets look at those sources one "and threatened to mace bystanders." (In a picture caption), does not support grabbed. Two "officer draws something, causing one of the people off-camera to say, “He’s got mace.” " Supports current text. Three "the cops can be seen grabbing their mace", which clearly is in contradiction with the first two sources, and even your suggested text (which make me wonder if this also is not an RS).Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Slatersteven, pretty sure anything called leftvoice.org is not a reliable source for politics. :) —valereee (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Political leaning (or even bias) re not criteria for not being an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Slatersteven, I'd argue it is exactly that for their reporting on politics. —valereee (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC) This isn't a political story, it's about law and order, just naturally prevalent in outlets that politicize every story as a matter of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Title to "Death of George Floyd"

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.

---

Out of all the cases listed in the "Death Protested" column in the Wikipedia Black Life Matters thread, never was one case referred to as "Killing". They were either "Shooting", "Death", or "Murder", with all murder title due to the murderer convicted of a murder charge. All other Wikipedia language referred to this page as Death of George Floyd (Muerte, Todsfall, 之死, etc.). Due to overwhelming precedence, the title should be "Death of George Floyd" as this case does not involve shooting, and once the ex-officer is potentially convicted, the title can be changed into Murder. WeifengYang (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Killing of George Floyd#Requested move 27 May 2020 above. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Just saw the Thread. Sorry for the redundancy. Thank you. WeifengYang (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The lesson here is it's arbitrary. Which variant will be used depends upon how emotionally charged editors are about the incident. I morally have little opposition, though it continues to strike me an odd title every time I click on it.Perennial Student (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The syllables are all wrong, should be George Floyd killing per the Rule of Three, but nobody said this article was supposed to sound nice or flow easily. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WeifengYang, the title of the article is fixed for now, per consensus, and there is a moratorium on proposing changes to it. Perennial Student, I disagree that this is based on editors' feelings; it is based on the record. Give us Wikipedians a little credit for basing decisions on the sources and not our feelings. You've only been here a week or two so I understand that you haven't yet realized how things work here, but if you stick around (which I hope you will) you will come to respect and share our dedication to WP:Neutrality and WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a blog or a forum, it is an encyclopedia. At this point, two official reports have concurred that this was a killing, not a natural death, so the current title is appropriate. Many of us opposed saying "killing" until there was an official conclusion saying so, but now there is. But there has been no official determination that it was murder, and the word "murder" will not be in the title here unless and until a court of law determines that's what it was. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

I took part in the discussions. It seemed to me that a consensus was formed ad hoc to decide that "killing" related to "homicides". That is why this "rule" is not applied consistently across the site and this article title is more of an exception. The vast majority of articles talking about police-related homicides, that I've seen in my 3 minutes on this site, are not titled "Killing of ...". Precisely because an ad hoc discussion never deemed it so (or more likely never took place). To be 100% clear, the ME press release absolutely did not say this was a "killing"; that ad hoc discussion decided this was a killing because of the homicide ruling. Perennial Student (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually most articles about police-related homicides are titled "Shooting of." See, for example, Shooting of Breonna Taylor, Shooting of Philando Castile, Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Walter Scott, etc. It just happens that this killing by a law enforcement officer was not a shooting so it could not follow the usual pattern. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a level of inconsistency between Shooting and Death, as cases referred to Death did involve shooting, see Death of Aiyana Jones. The pattern is not to deny that the act is a killing; see Death of Aiyana Jones referring to the act as killing in the article. The reason why I raised this issue is because of expectation of cross-language consistency (which I understand is not a required policy for Wikipeida). As a wikipedia user in both Chinese and English, I wish if there can be consistency. Though I see that there was a moratorium reached as referred by AzureCitizen, I understand that for now the issue is settled. I see that you are an administrator, I wish to inquire where can I be referred to regarding information with moratorium (how long is the "waiting period" for a renewed discussion e.g.)? Thank you. WeifengYang (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Per the closure above, the moratorium on move discussions is for one month. As for "consistency", that is not an important consideration here. Not all cases are alike, so not all titles will be alike. Article titles are decided on a case-by-case basis, per consensus at the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

How did he die? Kire1975 (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree his death is a result of killing. Though again my purpose is to maintain cross-language consistency. WeifengYang (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "cross-language consistency"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As there is a moratorium this can sever no purpose and should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The moratorium, as written, is on move requests. While it might seem reasonable or obvious to many that that should extend to any discussions of article title, many others might disagree, and I wouldn't close this on that basis. If User:El_C meant his moratorium should include any discussion of article title, he should clarify that in his closure. I don't think it's for us to seek a consensus on the meaning of his words. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That is what renaming a page is, moving it H:MOVE.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But this thread is not a WP:RM, which is what I interpret "move request" to mean. As I said, El C will need to clarify his intent before this thread should be closed on the basis of his moratorium. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven—the question is whether we should discuss this prior to the expiration of the moratorium. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So...let me get this right... this is not a discussion about moving the page, but whether we should have...a discussion on ...having a discussion on moving the page...is that correct?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion on possibly "moving" the page, but it is taking place during a time of a moratorium on "moving" the page. We can "discuss", but we can't effectuate a WP:MOVE. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So...sorry I am bowing out now before I start getting sarky.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

In the Autopsies section it states "he had tested positive for with COVID-19 on April 2" I would suggest omitting "with" so that it reads: "he had tested positive for COVID-19 on April 2" Bahern70 (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done - removed "with" from the sentence. Thank you Bahern70. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

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

---

It's an image worthy of being in the wiki article, but it should not be the first image on the page, especially considering it could be considered graphic as it depicts death and (arguably) murder. I know that wiki is not censored but to my knowledge, no other 'Killing Of' wiki page has the dead/dying body in the infobox (nor is this the case with mass killing pages), so there is no prior precedent for having a graphic image in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byconcept (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see the talk section near the front and put your comment there. (I made the same mistake as well, it's because this page is so long.) The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2020 (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.

Image change?

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.

---

Can someone catch me up on why the leading image was changed to a Derek Chauvin mug shot? The image of him kneeling on George Floyd's neck is much more recognizable and representative of the topic in my opinion. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit: it just got changed back. Still though, anyone in favor of the mug shot image please state your reasons below. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted as no one looks good in a mug shot and no guilt has been adjudged. OTOH, the kneeling image is iconic, is in every reliable source, and likely will last for ages. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The kneeling image is disturbing and might reflect the anger and personal judgement of the person who put it there. Wikipedia does not need such images right in the face. Yes it is symbolic but also disturbing. It can be moved somewhere down the article replaced by Chauvin's mugshot.Tabletop123 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit again: This talk page is so long... I didn't realize there was already a section on this. Sorry everyone. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2020 (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.

explanation

I added a wikilink for Thomas K. Lane, after amending the entry for him at the disambiguation page Thomas_Lane. He has a common name. I think the standard practice is for Thomas K. Lane to be left as a redlink, until an actual article about him is written. It currently redirects here - which I consider a mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

New charges against Chauvin and others expected - 2nd degree murder

See https://www.startribune.com/ellison-to-charge-chauvin-with-second-degree-murder/570984872/

It might be a bit early to include this as the charging document is likely to be out in the next day. We cannot yet say Chauvin is charged, but that the attorney general of MN plans to. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

See this has been added, as the charges have materialised. Perennial Student (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I updated language and refs throughout. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin's spouse

I don't mind if we bring in a small amount of content regarding Chauvin's wife, including some of the kind things she said of him. We also have "character assessment" content for George Floyd. That material should not be overblown.

However, I strongly disagree with 1) writing her name in the article, and 2) calling her a "Hmong woman" since she is an an American. We might mention that she's of Hmong ancestry or was born in Laos.

I don't have time now but am happy to propose 2 sentences later, if people want this content. -Darouet (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, Hmong is Laotian for "people" isn't it? Guy (help!) 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm not sure; they're also an ethnic and linguistic group in southeast Asia. -Darouet (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd also leave her out, and also I don't think her ethnicity is relevant at all. In fact, mentioning it smacks of tokenization.--Calthinus (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say leave her out, unless she becomes personally involved in some way. Leave out her name, leave out her ancestry. I think WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy applies here. In a way she is a victim here too. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: My inclination would be to leave out her earlier positive comments about Chauvin as well. Would you agree, or what do you think? -Darouet (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I agree. I have removed what I think was the one remaining (unnamed) mention of her. She has filed for divorce; she reportedly wants to change her name; she is obviously trying to stay out of the spotlight, and who can blame her? Anybody who gets named in connection with this is going to get harassed or worse. She is not a part of this story and there is no need to drag her into it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I read earlier that she was already facing significant harassment as a result of this. -Darouet (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

One person said he got mace

The previous content was deleted.

Source says, "Bystanders approach Chauvin and the officer draws something, causing one of the people off-camera to say, “He’s got mace.”"[5]

Slight tweak to previous content: "Bystanders moved towards Chauvin and the officer pulls something out, resulting in one person saying off-camera, "He's got mace."[6]"

The text does verify the officer had something in his hand and someone did say off-camera, someone had mace. I carefully worded it to not go beyond the source. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the above message is unclear. If you are proposing to revert that deletion, you should address the rationale for the deletion made in the edit summary. -- Beland (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Black Lives Matter

I've created WikiProject Black Lives Matter for interested editors. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, thank you. I'm flabbergasted that this didn't already exist before now. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, Agreed. Of course there's WikiProject African diaspora and other initiatives like Black Lunch Table, Black History Month, and AfroCrowd, but this is most definitely a long time coming. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks! I have been looking for this! —Evertent (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review of separate article about Derek Chauvin

This deletion review discussion might be of interest to some of you. Kebabpizza (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The title should be renamed to "Murder of George Floyd" to be more respectful.

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.

---

He was killed in cold blood. Sarsath3 (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 4#Requested move 27 May 2020 from the archives. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2020 (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.

Criminal record

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.

---

As I'm sure it will come up, we should WP:BRD here about this edit. The Houston Star also reported on the aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. WP:AVOIDVICTIM says we should avoid victimizing someone who is already the victim of the actions of another person, but it does explicitly say this applies to a "living individual". Since the prior sentence only refers to person I am not sure whether or not the general provision that BLP applies to the recently deceased applies in this case. 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... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. At some point in the future of this article BLP will definitely no longer apply. Clearly this information is associated with a certain narrative that attempts to discredit the victim in this sort of case. I have no opinion on whether this should be included or not. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we went through this on the Arbery page, and some of the other BLM-protested deaths. Did the officers involved know about Floyd's record? If not, I don't see how it is relevant here. It can be weaponized as an attack against the recently deceased, and BLP does still apply as he is "recently deceased". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Curious how this is any more or less relevant than the other life details reported in the article - birthplace, association with a musical group, or employment status. None of those are likely to have been known by the officers involved either I'm guessing? DrCruse (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course that's correct. The current one-sided version of his bio sanitizes his life history, and unfairly deprives readers of the opportunity to draw their own conclusions - not only about his character, but about the likelihood that he was resisting at the time he was taken to the ground.John2510 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose this content being added per WP:BDP and relevancy, how is this content connected to his death on May 25, how does it help the reader to understand the subject of this article - the death and arrest of Floyd and the actions of the officers, particularly the officer who knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was pleading he couldn't breathe. I don't see any connection, and none has been provided in the article on how it is connected or relevant to this event. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How is the content about him playing basketball and football related to his death? Or that he worked at a restaurant? Or that he enjoyed hip hop music? Its background info about the person and him being charged with armed robbery and spent time in prison is also important info about his background. Imho, any attempt to remove this from the article is clear censorship.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

We have at least tow threads on this the other is Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Also noting that at WP:BLPN, there is currently a consensus to exclude the criminal history of Floyd, that discussion can be found here Isaidnoway (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Then it needs to be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I did remove it, again, but it keeps on getting added back. Those who want to include it need to participate in discussion, and make their case for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is against the rules, and those users should do the right thing and remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is writing "His life later took a different turn and in 2007 Floyd was charged with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents." Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please have all of these threads about this merged, it will make figuring out consensus impossible otherwise?Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems very, how shall we say... strange, for us to mention that he "liked basketball" (how is that relevant to his death?) but then completely neglect to mention news reports that he was sentenced to five years in prison in 2007 for his part in an armed home invasion where he put a gun to a woman's stomach. In total he was involved in nine criminal incidents in Texas as a defendant and spent five different spells in prison. This would appear to be significant biographical detail about the life and times of this individual. CrimeChecker (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We have an RFC, comment there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If his High School sports history is relevant to this event then so is his criminal history. The argument that the page is about "Killing of George Floyd" is irrelevant when the "George Floyd" redirects to it. Hiding his criminal history and removing it when anybody posts it is censorship. Is that Wikipedia stands for? The truth is that George Floyd has an extensive criminal history and it's very possible that the officers in this incident knew who he was. And that can absolutely affect how they approached him. Of course that doesn't excuse them of the murder, though it is still important information. Maxtro (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Maxtro—it is "important information" because the best quality sources convey this information to their readers. The BBC writes "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Well Maybe if we included his criminal history, it would explain why he was accused to use a fake 20$ bill to begin with and could explain at least partially the attitude of police officers against him. 51.154.221.239 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Or you could stop trying to excuse racist violence. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not excusing anything. George Floyd being the victim in this case do not make him an angel. And this is an encyclopedia and I think it's very relevant to mention that Floyd was in prison for 5 years if we are mentionning the complaints about Derek Chauvin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.154.221.239 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

There should not be a photo of the murderer in George Floyd’s wiki . The man and his family already suffered enough and this is even more shameful of the media . Remove the photo of the cop and leave a photo of George Floyd only 137.25.101.239 (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That photo is part of the story. It helps in judging the murderer's state of mind. Only if the family requests it should it be removed. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, for more info, please look through the info-boxes at the top of this page. — IVORK _Talk 04:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record, WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply where BLP mandates removal (which is why NOTCENSORED explicitly says Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) [...]. (emphasis added)) In this case however, the image has been circulated so widely that no further harm can possibly come from having it on this page. Regards SoWhy 13:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of the article is that it's no longer BLP though right? — IVORK _Talk 22:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

IVORK, it's still covered by BLP, see WP:BDP. However, I agree with you that the image should stay. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd's Date of Birth

His criminal record from Harris County state his DOB as October 14th 1973, whereas the wiki article says the 16th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.111.58 (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

OK we need an RS for his date of birth, and one that muszt be him as if he was born on the 16th he cannot be the same person as on the Harris County criminal record.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot of his record from Harris County District Clerk's website https://imgur.com/eSg9ri5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.111.58 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That is just proof someone called George Floyd born on that date has a criminal record (Including George Perry Floyd, George Lee Floyd as well as George Perry Floyd).Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you read the few news stories that dare mention Floyd's criminal history, you will see it does match https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/29/george-floyd-who-was-he-his-friends-words — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.111.58 (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No mention of DOB.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if, WP:SYNTH forbids taking the criminal record and the Guardian article and using them to establish the DOB from that. Regards SoWhy 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd's date of birth is irrelevant to the subject event and his age is sufficient. This is not a biography of Floyd, and he is highly unlikely to be confused with a different black man named George Perry Floyd who was 46 years old on May 25, 2020. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Add Chavin drags Floyd's body (on video)

Since the FB video is sourced, can we add the incident where police drag Floyd's body? "Chauvin and another officer drag Floyd's unresponsive body (at 7:56) across the pavement and put him on a board near EMT personnel." Then the EMT lifts the board onto the stretcher. A witness says, "They just dragged him" (at 8:00) while another witness says later to Chavin, "You could have at least lifted him off the ground" (at 9:02). BTW, these time stamps are from the YouTube posted video, since our archived video requires a sign-in on FB (is FB a conflict for archived sources?) Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. All I can see in the video is them trying to lift Floyd on the stretcher but needing two attempts to do so. Dragging imho implies deliberately pulling someone over the ground. In the end, it's not really relevant, none of the secondary sources cover this as "dragging", so we would be left again with choosing our own narrative based on the primary source, which is not allowed per WP:OR (see section above as well). Regards SoWhy 14:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The source does support it : you can see Chauvin grab a canister from his belt, move his arm, and the audio track has a definitive spraying sound. Then you see Chauvin continuing to hold the canister in his gloved hand while not moving his knee from Floyd's neck. Then you can see the canister in Chauvin's hand being returned to his belt. All visible and audible. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, that is your interpretation of the source, please read wp:v and wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(The last reply was to another talk topic that mysteriously was sent here, please disregard. Tech problems) So, I examined the video closely, stopped and re-reviewed the information several times. The dragging of Floyd is on the video, confirmed by audio comments. Look again more closely. The issue is the text saying EMT lifts Floyd's body onto a stretcher is not completely accurate, since it omits the dragging and the board before the stretcher. They are clearly included in the video. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Also read wp:rs, you are not one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You do and I don't and that is precisely the reason why WP:PRIMARY says Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you've been directed to the guideline/policy explanations at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Original research multiple times by multiple experienced editors; have you read those pages? —valereee (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously not completely. Sorry. Just trying to get all the incidents included in the article. I'll look for RS on the dragging, then stop to read. Apologies to all for the persistence. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How is Chauvin's record relevant but not George Floyd's criminal record?

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.

---

There's nothing neutral about the narrative of this article. George Floyd served 5 years in prison for armed robbery, but the narrative of this article is about peaceful "Big Floyd" with no criminal record. How is his college basketball or hip-hop career more relevant than his criminal record? This is straight-up propaganda.Atlas0001 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— Comment by blocked sock struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.

We have an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You have an RFC so you can delay this information to be mentionned in this article. Where is the RFC about his hip-hop career?Atlas0001 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— Comment by blocked sock struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.

That's correct. This is an encyclopedia project. Also, this is not a biography. - MrX 🖋 21:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

His hip-hop career is encyclopedic but not his criminal record, in an article concerning a criminal case?Atlas0001 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— Comment by blocked sock struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.

The "criminal case" this article is about the alleged murder/manslaughter of Chauvin in the death of Floyd, not anything Floyd had done previously. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If so, his basketball and hip-hop career shouldn't be mentionned.Atlas0001 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— Comment by blocked sock struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.

Perhaps not. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. If the officer is found guilty and is consequently hurt in prison, the Wiki editors describing the event will include the officer's musical taste and love for his children in the article. Perennial Student (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You're mighty cavalier about a man's recent death. Please keep your snarks to yourself. O3000 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies: my snark was directed at the decisions of editors to include irrelevant tidbits, rather than the man's recent death. If it came off otherwise, that wasn't my intention. Perennial Student (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Atlas0001: What does Floyd's prior record have to do with him being murdered? It needs to be said that you're the one trying to shift the article to propaganda in support of racist police brutality. If that wasn't your intention, then you need to reevaluate your media choices and how they bias you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is relevant because of the context of the alleged murder involving resistance to the arrest or not, it is relevant because if the cop knew the criminal record of Floyd then the alleged murder may not be racially motivated, and so on.
Also, the tone of YOUR message suggests that you are ideologically motivated not me. Is it an encyclopedic article or a support page for George Floyd? Atlas0001 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— Comment by blocked sock struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.

Occam's razor. It's proven there are racist and violent cops in America. The question there that needs anything like an assumption is "could Chauvin be a racist or at least violent?" A prior history of violent incidents on his part would be sufficient evidence. It's not proven that Chauvin had any idea who Floyd was, and then there's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that the American legal system is founded on (but oh, you seemed to forget that it would also apply to a black man). I'm not motivated, I'm tired of black people being murdered by cops. If you're not, that's a problem. Did you come from the Chauvin support rally or something? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson—I agree with Atlas0001. We should be reflecting the coverage provided by multiple good quality sources. For instance: "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if you both want similar content added, I wouldn't see you two as agreeing. He wants it in for reasons of original research that exonerate Chauvin and dehumanize Floyd, while your stated reason is to summarize sources. Big difference. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Big difference", same end result. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clearer, the difference is WP:NOTHERE vs WP:HERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, you label yourself Black Lives Matter member, that's fine, but the article is not a BLM article, it's not here to fight against police brutality neither to defend cops. It's supposed to be an encyclopedic article and to present facts. And yes i don't usually contribute (did years ago) and i created an account because i don't like propaganda even by omission and wanted to express my opinion, stop vandalizing my signatures and labelling me and i don't label you. Atlas0001 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— Comment by blocked sock struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.

What was your previous account? One doesn't have to be a member of any movement to say that black lives matter, one just has to not be a racist. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to derail the discussion with cheap shots and dishonesty, exactly why i don't like to contribute. Atlas0001 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— Comment by blocked sock struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.

I also see ex-convict as an important aspect of a person's life. America has a large proportion of its population incarcerated. Multiple good quality sources see this as a significant aspect of who George Floyd was. That is evidenced by its inclusion in their articles. If George Floyd spent 5 years in prison, that probably affects the person he was until his death. I am not at all saying that this caused his death. I am saying nothing remotely like that. But it is normal to give background information on an individual. We are not saying this contributed to the incident that led to his death. But we are explaining who this individual was that was apprehended by the police and died in police custody. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson—you write "One doesn't have to be a member of any movement to say that black lives matter". It could even be argued that if you want to stand in solidarity with "Black Lives Matter", you would want to include the mention that George Floyd was an ex-convict. Why? Because a disproportionate number of black people are incarcerated. And furthermore—both black and white incarcerated people and ex-convicts are marginalized, disadvantaged people. Do you think ex-convicts have an easy time finding a job? The way we write this matters. But I don't think omitting this information makes that much sense. We want to write a good, informative article, but we want to be compassionate to somewhat disenfranchised people—such as ex-convicts. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

One more thing. According to this (at 5:45) there were 2.3 million people in prison in the United States in 2012. My point? Incarceration is not all that unusual. Nearly invisible, yes. But unusual, no. I would like to suggest that the article should explain more, not less, about George Floyd's life. Sources say he held many jobs, relocated to a different city hoping to find a good job. This should be in the article. Obviously an ex-convict struggles to leave the past behind. They lost 5 years of their life, figuratively speaking, and employers are reluctant to hire ex-convicts. Bus stop (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This article should also be explaining "But he lost his job as a bouncer at a restaurant when Minnesota’s governor issued a stay-at-home order." The background information on George Floyd is important and should be included. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd has no record of counterfeiting, which is what they arrested him for. OTOH, the arresting officer had a history of excessive use of force and the department had to pay $3 million for a similar police abuse case; I consider those two a lot more relevant to the story. And, no, from what I read he wasn't a nice man, but that doesn't justify committing murder, or even battery. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not supposed to justify third-degree murder, it's meant to contextualize a detention on suspicion of a fraudulent transaction. Not as illicit as robbing someone with a gun, but related. There aren't "two sides" to this, just backstory. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the Guardian and (other reputable outlets) have mentioned the criminal past. They have also been vehement in their criticism of this homicide. Clearly, their intention was not to reduce the awfulness of police brutality by appealing to a criminal past and I don't know why it need be the case here. However, the argument has been had and the consensus seems clear. Perennial Student (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Because he was an officer of the law, with certain obligations and protections, as well as being armed. His prior actions specific to the position that he held are rather obviously relevant. The deceased was a citizen. If one wishes to bring up past problems; they must be shown to be relevant in an encyclopedia. One of the problems with the fact that some people think WP is a newspaper instead of an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is "shown to be relevant in an encyclopedia" possible, by some definite means, or can someone who doesn't want to show it just say they don't see it as "rather obviously relevant", forever? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on one who wishes to include. O3000 (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What bar did the stuff you want included pass, and how? I'll match it. Will that work, though? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, can you show me where I pressed for any inclusion? But, I thought I did just explain the difference as requested by the section header. O3000 (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're not sorry, but you're right, I should have asked what burden the stuff you said was "rather obviously relevant" met to seem that way to you. So what bar? Need to aim for somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I answered that question in the edit you clearly just reread. I am not interested in circular arguments. Going to bed. O3000 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Anybody want to answer while he's asleep? Unless the answer is "material must be about an officer of the law, with certain obligations, protections and a gun, to be included", I honestly don't see it. Like, for-real honestly. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The burden is on those who wish to omit this information to explain why we should not follow the example set by many good quality sources including The Guardian, the BBC, the New York Times. Editors have already explained why they wish to omit this information. They have explained that the inclusion of this information "blames the victim". That is nonsense. How is George Floyd to "blame" for his death when he was face-down, in a prone position, for 9 minutes, with his hands cuffed behind his back, with multiple police officers standing around idly, with one officer with his knee on George Floyd's neck? There is no way to "blame" George Floyd for his own death because there is no way to see George Floyd as a threat or resisting arrest under those circumstances. That "explanation" for why we should not follow sources and include this information in the article is not a satisfactory "explanation". It makes no sense. I am entirely receptive to a sensible explanation if anyone can present one. Bus stop (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I hate this game, everybody's putting the onus wherever the hell they want. But fine. We'll ask it your way! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, the wp:onus is on those who with to include information.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see both sides have a point. Consistency says we should treat people the same, and does this information say anything about the incident...and that is were the difference lies. Many RS have explicitly drawn a link between the killing and the culture of excessive violence towards blacks by the US police. They have also drawn a link to a culture that protects police officers from complaints, and allows them to get away with said violence. Thus whilst not directly affecting the killing it can be said to be very much part of the issue surrounding it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You raise the question: "does this information say anything about the incident"? I would like to address that question. No, it doesn't. There is no real connection between George Floyd's getting out of prison 6 years ago and George Floyd's death on May 25. All evidence points to excessive force used by police, as the cause of death, and perhaps underlying health conditions. (But as medical experts have said, underlying health conditions would have very much been exacerbated by maltreatment by those particular police officers who thankfully are fired from the job.) Bus stop (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not about George Floyd's getting out of prison.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven—why is it so important that we not include information pertaining to George Floyd's incarceration from 2009 to 2014, and the crimes allegedly committed by George Floyd leading to that incarceration? I have no idea what your opposition is because you are not stating a reason for your opposition to the inclusion of this information. The burden is on you to present a reason such peripheral information should be excluded when excellent quality sources covering this topic include that information. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2020 (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.

8'46" or 7'46"?

Based on the times given in the official complaint, Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck 7 mins 46 secs, not 8 mins 46 secs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pairunoyd (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the complaint says "The defendant had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in total." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:George Floyd

Draft:George Floyd MDM88 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

George Perry Floyd was a 46-year-old black man who was born in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and raised in the Third Ward[25] of Houston, Texas.[23][26] He played on the basketball and football teams at Yates High School,[26] and attended South Florida Community College for two years, playing on its basketball team.[27][28] Floyd returned to Houston where he became an automotive customizer[29] and joined the hip hop group Screwed Up Click.[30][31] From 2009 to 2014[failed verification] he was imprisoned for armed robbery.[32] In 2014 he moved to Minnesota,[33] where he took two jobs – truck driving and providing security at a restaurant[25] – but in 2020 lost the security job because of the COVID-19 pandemic.[34] He had two daughters in Houston, ages 6 and 22, and an adult son in Bryan, Texas.[35][36] MDM88 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've moved this to article space. Let's see what happens. :D —valereee (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox person for Floyd

If the Floyd infobox already has talk page consensus, my apologies and I'd appreciate a pointer to that discussion.

I removed the infobox on 28 May, with the edit summary "Removing infobox. This is not a biography of Floyd and the infobox contains little or no information relevant to this event..If anything here is deemed relevant, it can be added to the prose, but the screen space required for the infobox is undue." Shortly thereafter I added his photo in place of the infobox, since I feel the photo is not undue.

I now see the infobox has been re-added, and, rather than engage in a slow-burn edit war, let's try for a consensus one way or the other.

The purpose of an infobox is not to memorialize the victim but to provide a quick-reference for relevant factoids that are not in the prose or would be more difficult to locate in the prose. I submit that the current infobox provides two kinds of facts:

• Facts that are relevant to this event but are easily located in the adjacent prose or elsewhere (e.g. full name, date of death, place of death)
• Facts that are not relevant to this event (e.g. date of birth)

If more infobox fields were added, as in the infobox that I removed, those facts would fall into one of the above categories. Even if there were one or two factoids that did not, that would hardly justify the space required for the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, per WP:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY. All person infoboxes should be omitted from this article. - MrX 🖋 22:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: I would have preferred more participation for a more durable consensus, and this discussion was open for only three hours, but we'll see how it goes. I suspect we may be continuing this at some point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Feel free to revert the edit if you want, but this infobox is a recent addition. It seems to me that editors should be getting consensus for inclusion rather than the other way around, and the other "Shooting of..." articles don't include person infoboxes like this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing the charges against Chauvin

This article still states that Chauvin is charged with second degree murder. He's actually been charged with third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. Here's a copy of the criminal complaint: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6975-derek-chauvin-complaint/cd9e96e708a9b0c8ba58/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 As far as I can determine, that has not changed, so an editor may want to make the alteration. 70.75.197.210 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The criminal complaint was updated. It includes 2nd degree murder (felony murder), 3rd degree murder (depraved mind); and 2nd degree manslaughter.[7] It was updated on 3 June.[8] The original was filed on 29 May. Perennial Student (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. This is a bit much. I just closed the move request and had moved the title earlier today. Like with the protests request, I am enacting a one month moratorium on further move requests for this article, as consensus for the latest move has already been established. El_C 19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC) ~~~~

---

Killing of George Floyd → Murder of George Floyd – With the autopsy report and murder charges, the article should now move. The move aligns with other articles, even articles where there isn't a conviction yet but the facts and coverage from WP:RS are clear. For example, see Murder of Seth Rich, Murder of Tupac Shakur and Murder of XXXTentacion. Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. 17:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Casprings (talk)

• Oppose for now - While I do agree with the reasoning behind this, it feels too early to be opening another move request after the last one was just closed with consensus to move to the current title. --letcreate123 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• That really isn't a policy rationale to oppose. If it is logical to do this move, it is logical.Casprings (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME, there is no conviction of murder yet. I agree that there are articles that violate this policy. Murder of Tessa Majors, is one of them. I have always said that the article title shouldn't contain "murder" until there is conviction. I have requested move there by the way.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - This page has literally just been moved. There's no point in moving it again. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 18:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Clear WP:BLPCRIME violation. — Goszei (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. While one can reasonably disagree whether "Killing" is acceptable under WP:BLPCRIME, "Murder" definitely is not. The comparison to Murder of Seth Rich fails because Seth Rich's killers are unknown and thus cannot potentially be harmed by an article calling it a murder (that said, the article probably should be renamed as well). Regards SoWhy 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and enough with this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - Oppose for now per letcreate123. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, let's call a spade a spade, it's murder. You only need to watch the full 10 minute cell phone footage. it's a better title, but not "encyclopedic". Rename to George Floyd homicide? It was certainly a death caused or greatly contributed to by another human being, so medically/scientifically a homicide in any fair and complete coronor's report (any day, any where). Technophant (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  it's a better title, but not "encyclopedic" is an argument one can make when working on a newspaper but not on an encyclopedia. A move to his name alone would run afoul of WP:BLP1E which says we should not have articles about people but the event in such cases. Regards SoWhy 18:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - not until we hear a verdict from a court. Then, maybe. Ed6767 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Suggest WP:SNOW? Ed6767 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Provided there will be a trial, then it's not the job of wikipedia to prejudge the verdict. Assuming any trial will even be half-way "fair", the court will have access to far more information and far deeper and more considered arguments than any online convention of wiki-contributors. Based on what I know, I know what I think of the matter. So, I infer, do many of the folks contributing to this discussion. But "what I think" doesn't really pass muster as a wiki-source. If ... somehow ... there will not be a trial. Well, then it's most likely time to return to the discussion: the balance of the wiki-entry would, in those circumstances, need to be much changed. Be well. Charles01 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the official post-mortem declared it a homicide, this has been widely reported, so the article title should reflect that clearly. With such live and sensitive issues we of course have to be careful in how things are worded, but equally we have a responsibility to reflect the facts accurately to anyone who comes across the article. Of course anyone can read the article and make up their own mind, and changing the title would not alter that, but I don't think we need to wait for years and years of inevitably drawn out legal proceedings (which may or may not ever even occur) to accurately reflect widely reported facts. Robrob42 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose — at a minimum this would require a conviction in a court of law. -Darouet (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- the change to "murder" is a foregone conclusion. Waiting for the final verdict on Chauvin and the other three cops is just a way of postponing the inevitable: the least Chauvin will get is Third-degree murder. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Or manslaughter or acquittal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose If not solely on the grounds that we have a named suspect here, so there is no comparison with "unsolved murder cases" like Seth Rich. Without conviction, it is also sketchy for unsolved deaths. Consider Rich's example: a man found with gunshot wounds. We do not know if this was done in self-defence or with the requisite mens rea element for murder. Calling it "murder" makes little sense. People should be aware that murder is a legal term and there are associated legal requirements which are best determined by a court of law. Perennial Student (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2020
• Oppose important to let due process take its course. We cannot call it murder until and unless there is a conviction. "Killing" is the most suitable term at the moment. Yekshemesh (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose with Extras the 8'46" article is about the emotional and philosophical effects of the length of time, while the Killing of George Floyd article is strictly about the hard evidence regarding the incident, not the emotional interpretations of pieces of the event. I do, however, purpose a portion of the article dedicated to the emotional appropriations of portions of the event, such as the lines "I Can't Breathe" and 8'46", but I think the articles that are dedicated to these should stay, for example, the term "I Can't Breathe" is used by both Eric Garner as well as George Floyd, so I think if a portion were to be dedicated to the emotion appropriations of portions of the event, if an article already exists about it, it should stay, and a link with a small paragraph discussing things specific to the article at hand. So in my purposed emotion connections category, a small paragraph would be dedicated to the "I can't breathe" slogan, and give some background information on the slogan specific to George Floyd. However, the 8'46" article is specific to george floyd, but since it is an emotional association, I think a small paragraph should be dedicated with a link to the full article for further reading. JazzClam (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2020 (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.

George Floyd challenge

The challenge is being covered by reliable sources. Should be added in article? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide examples. That does not really sound like something worth mentioning, just some racist idiots fooling around... The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Once a few morons manage to suffocate their mouth-breathing pals that way, then it'll will be worth including. EEng 20:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Check the facts

Check the facts, Before Publishing Suspicious material, whitch Affecto to people's behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.69.164 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there any things in particular that you think are wrong? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

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.

---

Change "black man" to "man." Change "white police officer" to "police officer." Lyanna2348 (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No need to distinguish race. It is clearly seen in the photo. Also promotes division between humanity. Love and peace. Lyanna2348 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Its a bit late for that, and this is pretty much major part of what happened, hence why BLM got involved.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

N No... This was already discussed at length and it was decided to include race. Also, how does mentioning race promote division? The division is already there, this is just stating facts. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, Lyanna2348, that we should Change "black man" to "man." Change "white police officer" to "police officer" except that Wikipedia merely reflects sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "That ship has already sailed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

We are hopeful that something will turn the tide. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully in 100 years we will be just writing about "humans" and "human police officers" (getting along really well). Or even just "sentient" if we are mingling with true AI or ETs by then. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2020 (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.

Easy link to George Floyd protests?

Hi everyone! So, considering that this article and George Floyd protests both have info that would be of interest to someone reading either article, do you all think we should have a link at the top to George Floyd protests? Something like, For information on the protests surrounding the killing, see George Floyd protests? I think this makes sense, especially considering that this page as about 5 times as many daily views (1 million vs. 200k). Any thoughts? The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with an {{about}} hatnote pointing to George Floyd protests and also to George Floyd. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

At this moment, hathote sounds appropriate. --nafSadh ^{did say} 20:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• The purpose of hatnotes is for aiding readers who might be trying to navigate to a different article than where they've ended up, not to act as an extra-prominent "see also" section. I'll need to be persuaded that a reader searching for this page or a redirect to this page might actually be trying to go to the protests article (a higher standard than just "might find the protests article interesting, too") before I'll support a hatnote. If a hatnote doesn't get added, a link in the first sentence will suffice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd background, giant size, criminal sentence and was the COVID the main issue?

These points should be included into article, I think.

• (six feet, seven inches tall and weighed 250 pound)
  • size matters when arresting

• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Floyd was charged with armed robbery in 2007, and in 2009 took a plea deal to be sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and after that moved to Minnesota in 2014."
  • armed robbery with drug use is heavy level criminal.
• Further reports also reveals that Floyd was infected with COVID-19 and shortness of breath is one of its symptoms.
  • Was COVID that very reason (due to breathing issue) not to go into police car? Reason for not to able breath while arrested? In any case COVID was reason for her lost the job and perhaps the running casoline of all this related happenings?

Sources

Jack007 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

He was 6ft4 [9] and his Covid was asymptomatic (same link). Perennial Student (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

And 223lbs. Perennial Student (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggest we divert the COVID-19 part of this multi-issue discussion (generally a bad idea) to the already existing discussion at #Floyd had Covid-19. Please check the page for existing discussion before starting a new one. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd background: #RFC on Floyd's criminal past. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack007, Oh, so it's OK to kill someone if they're big and sick? Guy (help!) 16:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Especially when the hands-on cops are not wearing PPE gear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack, read the Press release] from the medical examiner:

• Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression

• Manner of death: Homicide

• How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)

And read the actual autopsy report:

• 6 feet 4 inch long, 223 pound male p. 4.

• The decedent was known to be positive for 2019-nCoV RNA on 4/3/2020. Since PCR positivity for 2019-nCoV RNA can persist for weeks after the onset and resolution of clinical disease, the autopsy result most likely reflects asymptomatic but persistent PCR positivity from previous infection. p. 3.

It is not for us—and it is not for you—to speculate. We stick with the reliable sources, not amateur or journalistic speculation. Kablammo (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is why his COVID-19 diagnosis from April shouldn't be in this article. You think it's the infection that he no longer had that kept him from breathing, as opposed to the knee on his neck? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu I agree with the point in your 2nd sentence. But, conspiracy theorists will believe whatever they want to believe. The risk of people deliberately misinterpreting information is inherent in publishing any kind of information that could give rise to misinterpretation, and media organisations still publish, aiming to spread the facts, with some faith in their readers. In the same way, imo it's not Wikipedia's place to suppress that information when it has been reported on by sources like Reuters. The mention of COVID in the article is already given with a note that the report did not mark COVID as a contributing factor, which should prevent misinterpretation. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Size does not matter when arresting, a small man trying to fight back can still harm, A Cyclops if it is coming peacefully will not. The rest we have multiple threads on already, and my view has not changed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you were a cop, would you be scared of an unarmed, 5'1" guy that looked like he weighed a hundred pounds? If you were a cop and arresting a 6'4" monster that looked like he was a football linebacker, you'd be a bit more aggressive in trying to subdue him. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd was handcuffed face down on the ground. Seriously, what's wrong with you? EEng 16:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Given Bruce Lee I never judge on size alone. Moreover even if that is valid (which as I said I do not agree with), there is no evidence the victim here needed Subduing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I reckon Bruce Lee could have kicked the living shit out of Steven Segal despite the size disparity. Guy (help!) 16:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

KInd of my point, I recall (OR alert) stories about its not size, its aggression that counts. One was by a former...for... who said that at then end of the day if someone wants to hurt you they will, size is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, "monster"? Srsly, dude, knock that shit off. Guy (help!) 16:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I'm not saying that because he's black. I'm saying that because, I don't care if you're white or black, I'd be scared of someone that's 6'4". I'm dark brown, and I grew up in North Carolina. You've heard of the civil rights movement? I'm not trying to be racist here, and I'm not saying what the cop did is right. I'm saying, I'd be intimidated by anyone who's over 6'3". Also, please watch your profanity. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 16:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The point already clearly made is that he was not over over 6'3" while the cop had his knee on his neck. He was about 10 inches tall, and handcuffed behind his back. Please try to hear what's said to you, and if you find the word "shit" offensive you're at the wrong encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, I am choosing my words with great care here. Any time you have to say "I am not trying to be racist here", it's because you come across as fucking racist. Maybe don't do that, eh? Guy (help!) 23:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

They don't come across as racist to me, just really wrong. The whole point here is excessive escalation of force. No matter how big you are, no matter how hard it was to take you to the ground, things change immediately when you're down. Face down and handcuffed behind your back, unable to use your arms to push up, you probably don't need a knee on your neck to stay down. Even if you do, less life-threatening things should be tried first, like two cops holding your legs down and straight. Even a Taser would have been better than that knee. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content not users please, nothing is helped by ramping up the tension.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems we should not include the build/size because it would be speculating that build/size had something to do with the subdual, rather than an RS saying such. That should be the rationale, rather than this talk about who'd beat Bruce Lee in a fight. Perennial Student (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

True, but then no one has produced even a non RS saying size was a factor. So I was just making the point, that we can all speculate.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21 you may not think you called him that because he's black, but in reality most of us who've been raised in US culture are liable to slot darker-skinned people into different places than we do lighter-skinned people. Let's just not call anyone a monster who hasn't behaved monstrously. Ted Bundy was a monster. George Floyd, from accounts of friends and family, was a "gentle giant." —valereee (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

By all accounts, going into someone's home and threatening them with a gun is pretty monstrous. The commentary is simply unnecessary, however. Perennial Student (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatever. Let's just not call people monsters, k? It's not actually useful here. —valereee (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Slatersteven, JzG, Perennial Student, EEng: There's been a misunderstanding. I meant "monster" as in size. To me, Trump is a monster—because he's 6'3". Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to learn to choose your words more carefully. EEng 21:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, and as I said, I do not agree. Most of the most vicious people I have known were not gigantic, or even large.Slatersteven (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Reprimands for Derek Chauvin

I have just been on the source cited by https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/derek-chauvin-what-we-know-trnd/index.html . You can find the source here: http://complaints.cuapb.org/police_archive/officer/2377/ . Though it says on our page "hauvin had 18 complaints on his official record, two of which ended in discipline from the department, including official letters of reprimand." that does not seem to be reflected in the source cited by the CNN, which only lists 10 (in which 3 resulted in a verbal warning). Should we change to reflect this? Alssa1 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We should use what CNN wrote, not what you found in a WP:PRIMARY source. - MrX 🖋 22:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

CNN says they had an internal affairs spokesperson say 18. Can you quote the part linking that database? Perennial Student (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Anything new on this before it goes to archive? EEng 20:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Late" mother

Floyd can be heard repeatedly saying "I can't breathe", "please, please, please", and "please, man", and calling for his late mother.

"Late" was recently added, and I agree with the addition, but I can't seem to find it in the sources cited. Do we have a source? Do we need one inline? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think late should simply be dropped. They say men (and women, I suppose) call for their mothers on the battlefield, and if they do it's a regression to childhood not connected to whether mom is actually within earshot or even still alive. He wasn't calling for his "late mother", just calling for his mother. EEng 04:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Just quote it, like the other two? After removing "please, man", there's two, I mean. Three "pleases" are enough for Wikipedia, if not for the late "man" (referring to Chauvin, not Floyd). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Great idea. I'm on my phone now so please someone else do it. EEng 04:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done at least for now. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

When quoting him, I don't think "mama" should be capitalized, as it's not a proper name. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is being used a proper noun in this context. Note the lack of articles or determiners. Perennial Student (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Article or News?

This isn't the news, this is an Encyclopedia, this article should go to Wikinews. And described how he was killed in the George Floyd article on Wikipedia. --Red-back spider (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Notable events are part of Wikipedia and this is a long standing principle. --nafSadh ^{did say} 00:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Is because. White. People. Hate blacks that why he killed. He — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwaobodo (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't YouTube, brother, do you want this story on Wikipedia or not? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"all 50 US states"

That, in long form, is "all 50 United States states". Shouldn't it be simply "all 50 United States"? --82.37.129.75 (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah, there is only one US, and 50 states. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree "all 50 United States" just reads weird.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

America, legally and politically, stopped using "These United States" in favour of "The United States" since the Civil War. Hence, "all 50 US states" is grammatically correct. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the info. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Add "and the District of Columbia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

All 50 states of the United States is how I'd describe it. Banak (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"All 50 US states and DC" is best, and is the common form used for writing about mainland US territory, since DC is not a state and the manifestations at Lafayette Park/White House were in DC. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I can't find the passage you're discussing. EEng 15:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was at the bottom of the main section, possibly edited to 'worldwide'? Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was at the bottom of the main section, possibly edited to 'worldwide'? Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me guess: you think it was at the bottom of the main section, possibly edited to 'worldwide'? EEng 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Derek Chauvin

Making editors aware of the draft Draft:Derek Chauvin recently created via the AfC process. I have declined it as it view it currently as WP:BLP1E. I have advised the user to come here and first build consensus for a standalone article. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Which they will almost certainly not get. Currently the officer's name is a redirect to here and that's where it should be. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be an article on Derek Michael Chauvin asap and there will be one..I`m surprised there isn`t one already..he murdered someone on a city street in broad daylight and was filmed doing it..that`s reason enough 2600:1702:2340:9470:4408:1A12:9A12:309E (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not all murderers get Wiki articles. Perennial Student (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Would this still be considered a WP:BLP1E if he has 17[10] prior complaints? --Joshua (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because none of the prior complaints were notable. I would be surprised if any of them even rated a mention in the papers. This is his BLP:1E, and a redirect is where it belongs. Unless some day his presumed trial becomes so notable that it becomes worthy of an article in itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"What do you want?" or "What are you on?"

At 1:06 in Darnella Frazier's video, Tou Thao says either "What do you want?" or "What are you on?" Vice, the source cited says "What do you want?" but I thought I heard "What are you on?" Anyone else make out what he's saying?The lorax (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What we think we hear is irrelevant per WP:NOR. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, can people please stop trying to insert their interpretations of videos.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, what he said is either self-evident or not, can you hear what he's saying? If we're citing the video as a source, we're not doing "original research." The audio is slightly muffled so its possible news organizations got it wrong in transcribing what Thao said. The lorax (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't do our own analysis of such videos, no matter how obvious we think it is. Never have, never will. If we wanted to report that someone wore a yellow shirt, we couldn't do it unless reliable secondary sources reported that they wore a yellow shirt. And in this case even you admit that this isn't that obvious. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If two editors in good faith cannot agree what a primary source says, then per WP:PRIMARY you need a secondary source to tell you. After all, if one person says the dress is black and blue and another says it's white and gold, you also can't just say "it's black and blue, just look at it". Regards SoWhy 12:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Are you sure video even counts as a primary source? Got a link for that? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is, as it is a video of the event, not an analysis of the event. The fact that RS say X and you heard Y should tell you all you need to know.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Per our article Primary source (which is linked from WP:PRIMARY), a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study (emphasis added). So why wouldn't a video fall under this definition? Regards SoWhy 12:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Ok, thanks for the link and excerpt. Let's be clear on this point, since I don't want to go around spreading false information. We can include anything we see in video that we consider relevant, even if it isn't reported in secondary sources, provided editors don't disagree about what we see? Noting that this point is irrelevant to this thread since something was reported by secondary sources. A momentary off-topic diversion for my edification. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No policy is clear, no wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well that would appear to contradict this from SoWhy. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No it does not, as he said nothing about "if two users agree". As I said, an RS does not agree with you and you do not trump RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, do we have to drag Trump into everything? EEng 21:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Me? Are you confusing me with the OP here, whose argument I oppose? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

OK I shall rephrase it, policy (OR) does not say if two users agree, all potential users must agree. If everyone see's the same thing (beyond any question) yes we can use a primary source, but only if it is sky blue obvious.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: WP:PRIMARY also says Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. [...] A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, if subject A says "I was born in X", we can use this to verify "A was born in X" (see also WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB). As soon as the information cannot be verified "by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" or one has to interpret the source, you need a secondary source to back it up. Regards SoWhy 13:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see you responded in the mean time basically saying the same thing, so my comment is moot. Sorry for the unnecessary ping. Regards SoWhy 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"yes we can use a primary source, but only if it is sky blue obvious".Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Please accommodate my simple mind and give me a simple yes or no to this question, if that's possible. Any elaboration could follow that as appropriate. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say: Yes, we can use primary sources to verify but only if no reasonable editor could possibly challenge any statement sourced to such a source (not necessarily "the sky is blue" obvious but still pretty obvious). But no, we cannot just include anything "that we consider relevant, even if it isn't reported in secondary sources" because it's not our job to decide relevancy. If no secondary sources report something, highlighting it anyway is imho a WP:WEIGHT problem. That's why the only time the primary source is used in the article is in conjunction with the text about it being created on Facebook Live but not to verify anything else. Regards SoWhy 13:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

outdenting for readability Ed6767 (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Newly amended charging document says "on anything". https://www.startribune.com/read-the-amended-charges-against-ex-minneapolis-officer-derek-chauvin/570991071/ EvergreenFir (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

And it was a different officer, saying not quite the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Timing

Switch from using 24 hours timing to use 12 hours timing OofPoof (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? EEng 17:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I assume the 24hr time in the infobox. I agree it should be 12hr (That means a.m./p.m., EEng .) It was recently changed to 24hr. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. EEng 01:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we change the archive period to 1 or 2 days?

This talk page is over 300 kB, can we please change the archive period to 1 or 2 days? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Jax 0677, I agree with you about having a shorter and easier-to-use talk page, but I don't think reducing the auto-archive time will have any effect on the size. Looks to me like every single thread on this page has been edited in the last 48 hours, most in the last 24 hrs, and many in the last 12hrs. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reply -@Levivich:, if that is the case, then it could not hurt anything to do so. I say let's do it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's true. I'm certainly not opposed to shortening it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Quiet, Levivich. EEng 22:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And it won't help anything either. But later, when things have died down a bit and careful discussions of complicated issues stretch out for a week -- with possibly lapses of a few days here and there -- it will hurt because things will get archived when they shouldn't.

Autoarchiving is for clearly stale stuff, and 1 or 2 days is not clearly stale. Tidy, compact talk pages are great for articles on dusty uncontroversial subjects, but this is a highly controversial subject with a helluva lot going on, and the page is going to be long and complicated if it's to have the discussions that need to be had. There are plenty of experienced editors active here who know how to judge what's ripe for archiving and are doing it manually, and there's stuff that ought to stay awhile to avoid confusion and rehashing, such as the discussion of article title. People shouldn't have to compulsively check in every 23 or 47 hours to be sure they don't miss a discussion completely. The talk page needs to be what it needs to be. It should be made as simple as is appropriate, but no simpler than that, which is what you want to make it. There's no benefit to this at all. Leave it alone. EEng 22:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with EEng (choke!). Archiving things too early is a problem, and plenty of editors don't have hours every day to devote to Wikipedia. Twenty-four level-2 headings is not a problem of any kind. As I've said to you elsewhere, if 300 kB is too much for your device and/or internet connection, upgrade your device and/or internet connection. But thanks for asking first. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Good, Mandruss, goooood! Your journey to the Dark Side is beginning! EEng 02:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

He'll form another resistance, just you watch, dude's all light and no smoke. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a good idea per above. A lot is going on and a lot of long discussions are needed. --00:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Change the main photo to a photo of Mr Floyd alive. There is an image of a selfie of his that is easy to find. Violence against Black bodies must not be shown carelessly. 79.70.195.77 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. Not a bad idea. I think the current photo is emblematic of the subject of the article, but sensibilities about the identities of people should also be taken into consideration. So I accept the suggestion that a living example of George Floyd should be in the uppermost position in this article. I previously argued otherwise, and I am going to alter or strike through that earlier post. Bus stop (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In this edit I have changed my vote to move the current image to lower in the article and to place a living image of George Floyd in the uppermost position. That is a very valid suggestion made by 79.70.195.77. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever I put here ended up being an edit conflict. Trillfendi (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see existing thread on the same matter. WWGB (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Level of detail in State Charges section?

I made this edit to reduce verbose descriptions of the alleged crime Chauvin is charged with. I rather feel the sentencing guidelines part below it is unnecessary, yet I want to add what attendant circumstances make the alleged assault 3rd degree (significant bodily harm).

How much is too much? the article is already long and I expect this section will be part of the trial articles should a trial occur. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, we could explain what the charges mean in footnotes? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: That's a decent idea. If no one is bothered by the current length, I won't push it. I just noticed an area that could be reduced. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Something to keep in our pocket then. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Chang to "The Murder of George Floyd"

And that what people would call it. 104.4.245.179 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Murder is determined by a court, not Wikipedia editors. WWGB (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Black versus African American

User:Trillfendi changed the term African American [11] to Black and then reverted my change to African American[12]. I generally support calling groups of people what the plurality want to be called. In this case, African Americans prefer the term African American to Black by ~ a 2 to 1 margin. See: https://news.gallup.com/poll/28816/black-african-american.aspx . I suggest we use the term African American.Casprings (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

African-American and white American are standard. Language can be counter-intuitive at times. I don't see the fuss. Perennial Student (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I already said... listen to the actual black person here on this. I'm doing you all a favor. Trillfendi (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to, but I don't think you represent all black people. The best data we have is that African Americans, generally, prefer the term African American (if they care at all). See the gallup poll. Does that mean some people prefer the term black? No. But why would we not go with the term that is generally preferred by the group we are attempting to describe?Casprings (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I "represent" my community more so than random people on the Internet. There are literally millions of black people who wholly denounce this term and even get offended by being called "African-American" (but I guess it's more PC than what the government used to call us: "negro"). It's just lazy. The "group" doesn't even accept this term. Black Americans and Africans barely get along as it is. Trillfendi (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Since Floyd can no longer speak for himself, which term does Floyd’s family use to describe him? WWGB (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I oppose any reasoning not based on usage in reliable sources related to this case. I have the energy to say that, but not to do that research. As unreliable as Google Search is for these things, even that is useless here because it includes "black" in search results for "African-American" and vice versa. I suggest that someone with more energy look at every one of the sources currently referenced in this article and compile the results for reporting here. That would be good enough for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"Black" is preferable because it is shorter. Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

NB African Americans and White Americans are titled such; it is clear that the inconsistency (African but not European) is perfectly acceptable. Perennial Student (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think or what some of us might prefer. We have to follow the Reliable Sources. Per Google News (which is our main source here, this is not yet a matter for books or academic articles): African-American plus "George Floyd": 10 million hits [13]; Black plus "George Floyd": 62 million hits [14] -- MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. As for this article, by my search we say “African-American” 10 times and “black” 30 times. I think we can leave it as a mix and not try to become consistent. In some cases we may be using the term that the referenced source used. But in the first sentence of the lead I think "black", as it currently says, is appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You searched for African-American (hyphenated). African American has 71 million hits on Google News. Perennial Student (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not if you use quotes around "African American", as you should if you are looking for that actual term. That produces about 10 million hits.[15] -- MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So more used in news articles, consistent with the consensus of the articles on African Americans, and African Americans seem to prefer it. Why wouldn't we be consistent all the way through the article and use African American?Casprings (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read my comments above. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Mel. Searching Google News for "African American" "George Floyd", "African-American" "George Floyd", and "black" "George Floyd", "black" has 7x the hits as the other two. I agree we should use "black" in the lead, but using AA in the body is fine too. Contra the 2007 Gallup survey results, a 2013 report by Gallup says respondents generally have no preference. [16] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think MelanieN has provided a good comprise for this debate. Compromise is give and take. As several sages once sang, "You can't always get what you want..." (Rolling Stones).

Let's leave the article as it is. Of course they might not really be sages, only musicians :o) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I want them to turn "black". Also, Google's numbers represent nothing. Go to the last page, probably a hundred or so results each. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is true: I get a little over 200 results each. Still, "black". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• White dude here. I say we go with what people of colour prefer. Is African-American now seen as a reminder of slavery? And an implication that they are not American-American? I can see why that would be offensive. If so, I need to change my usage. Capitalised Black is preferred now? Help me out please. Guy (help!) 07:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, America prefers "people of color", screw U, buddy! No offense, though. As a white dude captured non-savagely by Ojibwe as a child, I believe in a "colour wheel" where everybody is either generic red, white, black or yellow, no exceptions. But I'm not preaching it, just saying. Most Americans go lowercase "black", from what I've read, and discourage "yellow" for many good reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Mmmmm! I am rather tempted to soapbox... if RS mainly use black so should we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I'm glad Floyd's adjective got changed to "black" rather than "African-American." However, shouldn't we change Chauvin's adjective to "white" instead of "white American"? Unless you want to have "black American" and then "white American." Seems a bit clunky though, we say later in the article that they're both from the US. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Black lives matter, not African American lives matter. Most say black because its got less syllables, and because white people are called white. A google news search has shown the majority of news sources used "black", therefore we should use it also. Dream Focus 14:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I am 100% with you on that. I was just talking about changing Chauvin's adjective to just plain "white," this has been done since I made the comment though. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment this is not so simple as "black" vs. "African American" as there is also "Black", and on top of that all three terms have slightly different meanings (black: a "race", African Americans: Americans with descent from Africa, Black Americans: the specific ethnic group hailing from the Lower South that is known for inventing jazz music and so forth, which does not include recent immigrants from African or Caribbean countries though they often over time assimilate into the Black American community). Might be best to just go with what each RS says for the sentence it is cited for... but I don't know.--Calthinus (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hit the nail exactly on the head. There’s an SNL joke about Charlize Theron on this. Also look at someone like Rami Malek...people have spirited debates about whether he is African-American (semantically, yes, he is... but you see the problem here?) Trillfendi (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an issue that has been going around and around for decades, well before Wikipedia. At one time we were told that the polite term was "Negor", then "Black" and "African American, with flip-flops between the last two and with segments of the community rejecting each as derogatory. I don't much care what term we (TINW) use, but I would like for Wikipedia to pick one term after discussion, put it in the MOS and then stick to it regardless of any subsequent changes in political correctness.

Just to illustrate the absurdity of our language usage, *ALL* of us originated in Africa. People with skins lighter than mine are routinely called "black" and people with skins darker than mine are routinely called "white". Race in most of the world is a social construct that has no rational connection to genetics and no relevance to anything except prejudice. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep a mixture RS use a mixture of terms that may or may not have various shades of connotation, reflecting the wide diversity of passionate beliefs and discourses about race that exist in the US. WP should reflect that rather than trying to impose our own consensus about which term is better.

Also, a methodological note: the overwhelming majority of Web pages that discuss George Floyd will also include the phrase "Black lives matter", so it's not exactly appropriate to interpret the number of "george floyd" + black hits as instances of some form of George Floyd, a black man.... FourViolas (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

Seven commas and a semicolon? Quick! The smelling salts!

The first sentence of this article has been way, way too long. I've tried to shorten it for the second time [17]. Before my change [18] the first sentence included seven commas and a semicolon. That's just not necessary. This is the introductory sentence of an article, not EEng's talk page. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree that the following is way too long (refs removed, since this is not about refs):

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man suspected of passing a counterfeit $20 bill, died in Minneapolis, Minnesota after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, pressed his knee to Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was handcuffed face down in the street; two other officers further restrained Floyd while a fourth prevented onlookers from intervening.

Simply poor writing. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Count your blessings. EEng 17:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Seven commas and a semicolon? Does EEng think punctuation grows on trees?! Darouet and Mandruss, perhaps you could comment on the first sentence without insulting your colleagues' user talk pages or writing? You thought it was too long, you shortened it; what is the point of this thread? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I hesitate to speak for the OP, but I believe the point of this thread was expressed by I've tried to shorten it for the second time. If I were in the OP's place, I would want to avoid a third time, and a fourth time, and a fifth time. Hence the point of this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Got it: seven is too many commas, one is too many semicolons, and twice is too many times to edit the same sentence. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, needlessly long. If an idea is complex then break it down, don't make complex sentences. Not the first time EEng and I have disagreed about long lead sentences... ;) Popcornfud (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

But then you haven't published in the Mark Twain Journal, I'm guessing. EEng 17:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think if we were to compare our various publishing histories, it might explain a few of our respective biases. ;) Popcornfud (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have little doubt it would. EEng 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep it simple; this isn't a philosophy paper from 1932. Perennial Student (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Simple. Simple sentences. Simple bite-sized tiny disconnected ideas strung out in row. Yes. EEng 17:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unhelpful exaggeration. Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Now, now. Temper. EEng 18:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I really have to laugh at a concoction like

  George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died after white Minneapolis, Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee to Floyd's neck

being inflicted in the name of reducing the dreaded comma count. Why didn't you write ...

Black 46-year-old man George Floyd died after white Minneapolis, Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee to Floyd's neck

... ? That would save even more commas! EEng 18:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In my view this is far more about sentence length than comma count. In another of my views, our target reading level should be no higher than about 10th grade – and sentence length is a big part of reading level. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

... according to simplistic theories from old PhD theses, anyway. EEng 18:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Educate yourself. Plenty more where that came from, if you're interested. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the ol' Gunning index from 1952, Coleman-Liau from 1975, ARI from 1967. Like I said. EEng 20:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

And the Earth has been spherical for over 2,000 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

And the Mark Twain Journal should be right out.

@Levivich: not meant as an insult to anything EEng has written or done here — I posted because my prior effort to fix was reverted (I don't know by whom). As to my reference to EEng's talk page, I was merely searching for a length reference editors would intuitively grasp, e.g. a meter, a parsec, a farce, etc. -Darouet (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Everyone knows EEng UTPs are common units of measurement used by astronomers to describe distances between galaxies. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We're all friends here, of course. Except maybe Mandruss. EEng 19:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Just kidding, Mandruss.

Friend or enemy of no one. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

First, a caveat: IMHO we should not dumb it down. However, I agree that some sentences and paragraphs are too long and should be shortened or split. Long sentences in the lede are sometimes unavoidable, but not in this case. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I, for one, upon considering the current state of this article, arrived, after much time, to the conclusion that, despite our best efforts, there is room for improved, though caution is warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Kudos in order for your ingenious seven comma sentence. --nafSadh ^{did say} 00:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Several Republican county chairs in Texas have been sharing conspiracy theories about this event (either claiming that it was “staged” by the “deep state” to bring down Trump, or that George Soros paid the cops to kill Floyd). See [19]. They have faced calls to resign over it; given their high profile it seems notable enough to include. 97.116.88.75 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

We have an article for that List of conspiracy theories‎.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not clear to me that this shouldn't be included somewhere, if only in one of the several subsidiary articles that are or will be growing around this one. EEng 16:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

MayBe, but I am not sure here, as it is just distraction.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Posting that kind of אשפה here does nothing except to dignify it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No, if presented right it helps expose it for what it is. EEng 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a big IF. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we deal with it. Ignoring it is a nonstarter IMO, it just looks like bias. BB, it's not a big if, IMO. That's why we have millions of editors: so we can figure out how to present things correctly. —valereee (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually it won't be long now before we need George Floyd conspiracy theories 20:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really notable. Thats like me saying George Floyd was born during the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Its a non-sequitur. Also according to a conspiracy. Dr. Suess was a racist. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a non sequitur, it would be a false proposition. A non sequitur is an argument. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A lie is not a conspiracy. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Put any misinformation into the relevant section. Banak (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this belongs at this time. There is always a lot of crazy stuff for any major event. If it wasn't simply "calls" but prompted actual resignations, I might be more convinced although even then I wonder if it might belong more in the protests article (as the calls for resignation are can reasonably be called part of the protests). It would also help a great deal if any of these people were notable. The red links (won't actually link due to BLP) make me think they aren't. Heck even their role doesn't seem to be notable e.g. Bexar County Republican Party Chair. If you disagree, well hint hint WP:AFC. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Other significant conditions"

I have been doing some digging into what that means. Most news sources merely repeat that X was cause of death and Y were "other significant conditions". According to an ME Dr Judy Melinek (in a blog), it means "conditions contributing to death" and "They are there on the death certificate because those findings, in the opinion of the medical examiner, would have made his death more likely."[20]. Blogs are not RS, so I won't include this. Just pointing out here it's something that needs to be clarified. Perennial Student (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It's short for "Other significant conditions not contributing to death" (or "not related to cause of death"). These are in a separate section of a death certificate, under the one about causes of death. I'd paraphrased it to "non-fatal conditions" earlier, stayed clear for a few minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The word "significant" implies some degree of relevance to the death. For example "arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease" seems obviously relevant to a cardiac arrest. The ME is not telling us how relevant these things are. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is true that the independent autopsy report totally contradicts the ME's report. We have noted that, as we should, but what we cannot do is a WP:SYNTH of the two reports to say what we think was the cause of death. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the word seems to mean to you, the entire standard phrase means what it always explicitly has: pathological findings most worthy of note, but not immediately or proximately causing death. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the CDC guidelines on autopsy reports, "Part II is for reporting all other significant diseases, conditions, or injuries that contributed to death but which did not result in the underlying cause of death given in Part I." Any wording in the article that explicitly denies that these "other significant findings" contributed to death would be misinterpreting the autopsy report. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That's about death certificates, not autopsy reports, maybe close enough. I don't see how something contributes to death without resulting in the underlying cause, but admit the CDC uses words in mysterious-but-official ways sometimes. I need a vacation and a deeper dive into Hennepin County norms, consider my objection null for the foreseeable future and keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess we will only really get the minutiae at the trial. See you in 2 years' time, lads. Perennial Student (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't vacation, mosquitoes are nuts. But I found what appears to be the bible of American fatality. It's called Physician's Handbook on Medical Certification of Death and clarifies the fine line between contribution and cause better than I can retype, Google it! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Dude died due to assault. Other significant conditions: if he hadn't died of assault he'd have had a headache. That really is where we're at here. But hey, this is Wikipedia: provide reliable independent secondary sources that say these things are significant, and we can talk about it. Guy (help!) 16:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Fentanyl can cause severe respiratory depression

I added that fentanyl causes severe respiratory depression from the footnote of the ME autopsy report.[21] The footnotes appear to be pro forma, which caused EEng to claim the comment was cherry picked. This cherry was picked and specifically noted by the Washington Post[22] and many other news sources. I believe the inclusion provides context to fentanyl intoxication's "other significant conditions" finding, which is why it was included in coverage by several reliable sources. Perennial Student (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a footnote to the autopsy report, it's boilerplate pasted into every toxicology report (by the outside lab -- not the medical examiner) about every substance detected in whatever quantity. And it doesn't say fentanyl causes respiratory depression, it says the fentanyl toxicity causes respiratory depression, and there's no indication in the report of fentanyl toxicity, just the presence of fentanyl. I understand that some sources chose to call this point out, but there's a place for editorial discretion so as not to mislead the reader, and this is such a place. EEng 17:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This really is cherry-picked. The list of possible side effects of aspirin is very lengthy and includes coma and death. O3000 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I do agree it was cherry picked. That doesn't mean it's not significant for context. But the RSs are timid and do not explore why fentanyl toxicity might be significant to the audience; hence, leaving it to the audience to infer the reason they included the footnote. That is the issue with the coverage of the autopsies. I think we'll not have decent coverage until the trial begins. Perennial Student (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence that it is significant; and including it in an encyclopedia implies it is. Leaving it to the audience to infer the reason for inclusion in the report when we know the reason is that it's just part of a boilerplate blood/urine analysis is highly misleading. Hell, I had IV fentanyl for cataract surgery last year. It's common. BTW, if you're a hypochondriac, don't read the warning labels on common, OTC drugs. They're scary. O3000 (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sure the ME who put fentanyl intoxication as a significant other condition on the autopsy report is a bit of a hypochondriac too. Perennial Student (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please indicate on what page fentanyl toxicity was listed. EEng 19:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Perennial Student, or maybe it just isn't relevant. Because, you know, if someone hadn't knelt on his neck for the thick end of nine minutes, he'd have been fine. Guy (help!) 16:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

My point here is that the side-effects of a drug linked expressly to the death are probably significant to the death. Whether that is demonstrated in the inexpressive autopsy report, or something we can publish, is another issue. Perennial Student (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And my point is that you referred to the ME who put fentanyl intoxication as a significant other condition on the autopsy when, in fact, the ME said nothing about fentanyl intoxication. Nor was fentanyl linked expressly (our even implicitly) to Floyd's death. You need to be more careful. EEng 20:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong.[23] The ME did mention fentanyl intoxication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perennial Student (talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

... which would be a devastating comeback, and embarrassing to me, had the press release you just linked been among the sources you cited in the article, which it isn't, or had you cited it anywhere in this discussion until now, which you didn't. And it's hard to know what to make of that document, being undated (among other things). Does it reflect the medical examiner's final findings?

In any event, the original objections stands: picking some point out of the boilerplate footnotes routinely pasted in by the lab is just as much WP:SYNTH as reading out side effects from the PDR. EEng 21:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Everyone who has been active in editing this article knows about the press release from the ME. So there is an express link clearly established between fentanyl and death. Hope that clarifies things. Perennial Student (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know about it, and I am far and away the most active editor on the article (by edit count anyway). And if, at this late date, you think that document supports the idea of an express link clearly established between fentanyl and death then we're beginning to veer into WP:CIR territory. EEng 22:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit count, shmedit count, real editors go by authorship %. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You know how Michelangelo said his task was to chisel away the extraneous stone so as to release the hidden beauty within? That's what I do with articles. People on the authorship roster supply the blocks of stone. EEng 15:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You work with the materials that you have using the techniques at your disposal. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't draw conclusions. And, that conclusion is very wild. There are long lists of possible side effects of every drug. The fact that one sounds relevant is meaningless. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There were no conlcusions drawn in the source, the edit, or this conversation about a conclusive link between the toxicity signs and the death. But I don't wish to belabour the point. I came here to spark a discussion about the source. If people find that it's cherry picking and we need a better source to interpret expressly the ME report, I am on board and happily agree. Perennial Student (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A conclusion need not be conclusive to nonetheless be a conclusion. Glad you're willing to go along. EEng 21:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget "seizures, hypotension, coma and death" if you don't want to seem like you're singling out respiratory depression on account of all this breathing talk in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not directly quote from the ME's press conference, cite it and then give the background on what is routinely footnoted, without drawing any conclusions, at least until the actual autopsy is available? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This wasn't in the press conference, some reporter (for AP, not WaPo, and admittedly confused by cardiac arrests and viruses) snipped it from the toxicologist's notes. And the actual autopsy is over, the public was barred. But the actual report is already released and linked at the end of the opening sentence above. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat. black, bloody, or tarry stools; coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds; severe nausea, or stomach pain; fever lasting longer than 3 days; swelling, or pain lasting longer than 10 days; or hearing problems, ringing in your ears. Heartburn; drowsiness; or headache. Bleeding in your stomach or intestines. Alcohol may increase your risk of stomach bleeding. Overdose can result in rapid breathing (hyperventilation), dehydration, double vision, feeling faint, drowsiness or confusion, bizarre behavior, unsteady walking, and coma. These are the side effects of Aspirin. O3000 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

We do have the autopsy report, which says this was a homicide, with cardiopulmonary arrest following law enforcement subdual (being subdued), restraint, and neck compression. Kablammo (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The press release clarifies there were "other significant conditions". An ME has published her analysis of the published info and provides these conditions made the death "more likely".[24] Per the thin skull rule, this doesn't change whether or not this was a homicide. You take the victim as you find them. Plus, the "more likely" contribution might be very minor. Perennial Student (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

These conditions might also seem more ikely to have caused the death in some other doctor, lawyer or Joe Q. Public's opinion, so "good to note" for posterity, per the handbook I mentioned earlier. It spells "OPINION" in all-caps, and no other word, so it wants that to be clear (I think). Did you know retired Stone Temple Pilots co-pilot/Hennepin County decedent Scott Weiland received "significant" contributions from Big Tobacco and Asthma Type Thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Please do not speculate on the impact any fentanyl may have had. That is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. If, and only if, reliable sources say anything about it would we consider including it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The second link from the top has some anonymous AP writer "quoting" severe respiratory depression, but "not" seizures, suggesting he or she is "emphasizing" something. AP is generally "reliable". But for a health story with two corrections a decent health reporter shouldn't get wrong, exceptions might be made. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The Assassination of George Floyd.

Please remember the Capital Letters. (I personally don't understand all of the journalistic semantics.) Àshe Ilaama99 (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Only famous people get assassinated. WWGB (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

wwgb But fame is relative. A person unknown to the general public can be 'famous' to an assassin. In their mind. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Chauvin thought Floyd was famous and assassinated him. WWGB (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—in what sense would George Floyd be "famous" to the police officers involved in his death? Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Suggest adding relevant background on George Floyd. This makes him look like a saint. Please add the past involvements with the law such as armed robbery where he put a gun in a pregnant woman’s belly and the multiple other arrests for lesser offenses. 107.126.121.11 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is already being discussed above at Talk:Killing of George Floyd#RFC on Floyd's criminal past and that RfC has not been closed yet so... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

criminal history

George floyds criminal record was not included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.149.118 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

See the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Photograph used in this topic

Your article shows a picture. Please give us the name of the person who took the original video. It is an essential document in this whole story46.193.2.153 (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Eric Tevoedjre erictev@gmail.com46.193.2.153 (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Click on the photo and you will get your answer. WWGB (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Press mention of Wikipedia article

• https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

YOU NEED TO CHANGE THAT TITLE.

You make it sound like George Floyd was a menace to society. Instead of saying "Killing of George Floyd", you need to title it for what it REALLY was

"The Murder of George Floyd"

Because that was it was. Murder.

They killed him.

}} 2600:1012:B04B:3B14:5D20:647B:BC2F:D3B0 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There has been no legal determination that it was murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Killing of ... is already a strong title and WP:NPOV while also accurately describing what have happened. This was a bold (and a right) editorial decision taken by the great Wikipedia community. The phrase killing of does not in any way indicate anything about how George Floyd was a person. You might be confusing the word killing with executing. Murder is a legally defined term and no court have ruled yet about whether it was a murder or not. There is a moratorium for a month on title change and we should look at it more carefully when appropriate. --nafSadh ^{did say} 23:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Both autopsy reports declared it a homicide, which means the taking of a human life, but does not necessarily equate to murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Restraining order was in fact temporary

Even the WCCO noted that Frey, who is pushing the reform agenda, signed a "temporary restraining order."Mancalledsting (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which specific form of injunction was issued--we don't need to specify "temporary". Because this was a stipulated TRO (it was agreed-to by the parties), it's extremely likely that it will be replaced with a permanent injunction of some type. I think we can just say "restraining order". For the same reason, it doesn't matter the details of the mayor approving it, or the judge approving it, or that it would take effect immediately. Because it was stipulated, all of that is rote procedure, never in doubt. The "point" is that it was agreed upon in the first place. The procedural details are minutae. In fact, the fact that it is a restraining order is itself, I think, an irrelevant detail. The WP:TENYEARTEST version of this content is that the city made police reforms a couple of weeks after the death. The specific legal procedure by which the reforms are enforced (restraining order) is minutae. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

"...while Thao stood nearby" (at the time Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck) is not completely accurate, for the following reason:

Clearly visible in this eyewitness video, Thao opens the back of the police SUV, looks for an object, finds the object, then hands this object to Lane (the officer holding down Floyd's legs), who reaches his hand out to take the object (which may be a pepper spray canister) from Thao. Thank you for devoting your attention to this detail. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Minneapolis allows police use of neck restraint.

It is notable that the neck restraint is allowed in accords with section 5-311 of the Minneapolis Police manual: [25].

According to USA Today:

The way a Minneapolis police officer restrained George Floyd before he died — placing his knee on Floyd's neck while the man lay on his stomach — is widely discredited by law enforcement experts because it can cause suffocation. But the technique is allowed in Minneapolis. ... the Minneapolis Police Department allows the use of two types of neck restraints as "non-deadly" force options for officers who have received the proper training.[26]

This should be mentioned in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems valid, but I seem to recall that the way this was done was not in accordance with even Minneapolis' procedures.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The article should mention as a qualifier Paragraph C of PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.: "Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)", and note that the victim did not appear to be resisting for the duration of the neck restraint. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And various doctors are completely discrediting the so-called prone restraining position, which will cause physiological harm. Also, doctors and nurses agree that constant pressure to the major artery at the neck by Chauvin - and possibly in the hip by Kueng and leg by Lane - can also definitely cause murder. So, there's a discrepancy between medical professionals and USAToday/MinneapolisPD. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

USA Today isn't endorsing the procedure and cites criticism of it. They are saying it is allowed according the the police code--not that it should be allowed. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think more sources are needed before this is placed in the article. One source in isolation does not seem sufficient. Are there other sources that discuss this? Steve Quinn (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc:. I removed the material from the article [27]. Even in this thread it has been mentioned that this might not be correct. Multiple independent reliable sources are needed to place this in the article, especially because it is controversial (or contentious). So, there needs to be consensus for restoring this material. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn:The knee-to-neck move is banned by several major metropolitan police departments, but Minneapolis police allow police to restrain suspects' necks if they're aggressive or resisting arrest. [28] Jason from nyc (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: But Floyd wasn't aggressive or resisting arrest according to RS and according to a video when he was first handcuffed. So saying Minneapolis Police allows this maneuver in this Wikipedia article is misleading at best. There is no reason for placing this in the article that I can see. It doesn't carry sufficient WP:WEIGHT. So, we will need a consensus for placing it in the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what reliable sources are saying. The neck restraint is allowed but the officer wasn't right to use it in this case. It's not my POV or yours but what the reliable sources are saying. They believe we need to know that this method isn't categorically ruled out but wrong in this context as you just said. Put it back and improve it if you believe more needs to be said. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the CNN source seems to indicate the policeman who had his knee on Floyd's neck did not do it correctly. In the article it says, "The method used to restrain Floyd doesn't fit neatly into either of those categories, Stoughton said. "This is not a neck restraint," he said of the position Floyd was held in during his arrest. "It's not just putting pressure on someone's neck. It's really dangerous.". So this is another reason for not uncritically putting this information in this article. This makes that information even more WP:UNDUE and misleading. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine, explain that reliable sources say the next restraint isn't categorically disallowed but this isn't how and when it is done. They are explaining that it can be used. Your surprise seems to indicate that it is important and RS are right to report it. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a significant fact. How is it I am indicating this seems important? I am indicating the opposite. That it does not belong in the article. It is UNDUE based on the nuances presented: Floyd was not aggressive or resisting arrest. Where does it say he was aggressive and resisting arrest?

"Surveillance video from outside a Minneapolis restaurant appears to contradict police claims that George Floyd resisted arrest before an officer knelt on his neck." [29]. Evidence points to the contrary.

And it doesn't matter that it can be used because there is a lot of other stuff that goes with it. Only those who are properly trained are allowed to use it. It only supposed to be applied for a very short amount of time. Also, when placing a detained person in the prone position it is only supposed to be for a minute or two, otherwise there is a danger of asphyxiation.

Please read the article that you posted. All this is right in there. It is not supposed be prone position for nine minutes and not with a knee to the neck. How is it that we are supposed to place the information you are proposing in the article, without all the nuances surrounding this? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, it has been widely condemned according to the source you posted [30]. So, really, we need to have a consensus on including it or not including it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Video doesn’t appear to show George Floyd resisting arrest as cops claimed" [31] along with 5 and 1/2 minutes of video showing that he did not resist arrest and according to the article:

Surveillance video does not appear to show George Floyd, who died after being pinned down by Minneapolis cops, resisting arrest — which police had claimed — in the moments before the deadly encounter. Floyd, who was black, can be seen on footage from a nearby restaurant Monday complying with cops as he’s led from a vehicle, CBS News reported. With his hands cuffed behind his back, he appears to be ordered to sit on the ground, which he does, video shows. The footage contradicts police accounts that Floyd “physically resisted officers” after he exited his vehicle. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then that should be in our article. I gave two reliable sources that devote whole articles explaining that a neck restraint can be proper and why the Floyd case is not one of them. You repeat the discussion. That this is an improper use of a neck restraint should be explained in the article. Why are you arguing with me that it is improper? I never once asserted it was proper? You are attacking a straw man to leave out info from reliable sources just because you don't like it. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that none of the sources depict Floyd resisting arrest, making a restraint hold another form of excessive force. In this case, excessive force lethally applied. If the exact restraining technique used by Chauvin, Kueng, and Lane is not allowed, then it is misleading to include the language unless the language is very specific in explaining the technique's improper and lethal use. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not categorically disallowed so it has to be explained why it is not allowed in this case as you just explained. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really a strawman. I fail to see the need to have this in the article at all, which I probably said already. Just because some RS covers it, doesn't mean it needs to be included. The topic is about the death of Floyd not about "neck restraint". What difference does it make that "neck restraint" is permitted for Minneapolis PD, when "neck restraint" was not was implemented? This was the cop's own version of restraining a detainee. This was not a by the book "neck restraint".

This should probably not be called a "neck restraint" because that is not what it was, according to procedures and training prescribed by Minneapolis PD - and according to input from experts in the RS that has been presented. My only question is, why is it so important to have this in the article? Just answer me that.

If we are willing to show this was not by the book and show all the flaws and deficiencies that have been noted above in this particular scenario, in a section of the article, then finally I say OK. Would you mind presenting a version here so we can go over it? I'm sure you'll cover all the bases. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources are explaining to the general American audience that a neck restraint is allowed in Minneapolis, something that is surprising to the reader as I was surprised. Thus, it is the details of context (he wasn't resisting) and manner that makes this an improper use. We might need a whole section or paragraph to explain the opinions of experts in the sources of what was wrong with its use here. The wider question, of why a progressive city like Minneapolis allows any usage of this restraint that has been abolished and discredited, is a question that has not yet been discussed in the sources. I wish we knew. It is important that while such a barbaric restraining method is on the books, our sources still support the charge that it was improper to use or improperly used. We should reflect the sources for a complete picture as they currently possible. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I agree that a section, or a paragraph, or a couple of paragraphs are needed for a complete or concise explanation to cover all the basis. I agree with how you summed up the situation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll be away for the rest of the day. Would you mind proposing a paragraph? I tend to be very terse, which is why I think that I am sometimes misunderstood.Jason from nyc (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Another reference with stats on Minneapolis usage of neck restraints: [32] Jason from nyc (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is shocking as well! I'm thinking we could go ahead and create a separate article on Minneapolis PD use of neck restraints and the surrounding commentary about it. Of course we will include the actions that led to Floyd's death. We can have a summation of sorts in the article linked to that new article. Heopefully, I will be able to get to it today. Besides regular stuff to take care of, I pulled a muscle in my arm so I have to be circumspect about typing on keyboard. I will see what I can do. Too bad it happened now. Actually I started feeling it yesterday. Too much keyboard typing seems to ultimately cause more pain. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• OK. I have started a new article in my user space here. Of course the title can be changed, I just wrote one that seemed relevant to get it started. Feel free to present sources or add content. We have flexibility because it is in the user space right now. However, I am thinking of simply creating a stub to begin with for the main space. And add more there. I don't know we will see. I can feel it my arm right now. But maybe it's worth it!. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Well, I'm going to back up a little bit. There may not be enough for an article, at the moment. However, I will go ahead and write blurb for this article. In the sub-sub-subsection below will be my proposed text. Here goes. Ouch! (no pain, no gain) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Neck restraint

• Note: "Neck restraint" could be the section title.

• Note I'm not finished yet. The source I am citing for the below paragraph is this: [33]. I'm guessing you will recognize it from above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note There are plenty of sources via Google search [34]. Here are three more sources at the moment USA Today, CNN, PolitiFact. I am guessing the proposed text will be at least two paragraphs, maybe three. Two of the sources are from the above section.

Proposed Text:

• This first paragraph (below) needs to be paraphrased - however, not WP:close paraphrasing. This is the source [35]:

Minneapolis police officers have a record of administering neck restraints at least 237 times since the beginning of 2015. This includes 44 people who were rendered unconscious. Several law enforcement professionals said the number of unconscious individuals as a result of this maneuver seems remarkably large. Neck restraints are defined by police "as when an officer uses an arm or leg to compress someone’s neck without directly pressuring the airway." As depicted on video, a policeman named Derek Chauvin applied his knee to George Floyd's neck while Floyd was handcuffed and lying prone on the ground. Such force was applied "for eight minutes — including nearly three minutes after he had stopped breathing."

The use of the choke hold maneuver known as a "neck restraint" has been derided by more than a dozen law enforcement officials, who were interviewed by NBC News. The news organization provided a summation of their views: "the particular tactic Chauvin used — kneeling on a suspect’s neck — is neither taught nor sanctioned by any police agency." A Minneapolis city official said, "Chauvin’s tactic is not permitted by the Minneapolis police department." In general, police departments' application of assorted types of neck restraints, described as choke holds, are decidedly circumscribed - if not plainly illegal. However, the online version of the Minneapolis Police Department’s policy manual authorizes the application of neck restraints "that can render suspects unconscious." Also it seems this protocol was last updated eight years ago.

Applying a knee to the neck of a man lying on his stomach is widely rejected by law enforcement professionals because it can cause suffocation. At the same time, keeping a man in a prone position, with hands cuffed behind his back is meant to be of very short duration and is seen as dangerous because breathing is immediately restricted in that position. "Someone in that position can draw enough breath to gasp or speak in spurts, but they can't breathe fully, so they gradually lose oxygen and fall unconscious." The individual has to be quickly rolled on his side, sat up, or stood up. Pressure on a detainees neck can "cause fatal damage" so the maneuver must be monitored closely for the well-being of the detainee. According to the Minneapolis department's manual, specialized training is required to use this maneuver. According to Minneapolis police policy this maneuver can only be used when as a last resort when there is no other way to subdue a suspect who is belligerently resisting arrest. Chauvin's actions exceeded his purview. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's excellent, quite impressive. This gives excellent background and context, as well as describing the details of Floyd's death. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: Thanks. For your information it is now posted in the article [36]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: It's definitely valuable, but it mostly goes into policing practices by the police department. It's too lengthy and unrelated to be in here imo. Perhaps better suited at Minneapolis Police Department under existing Misconduct and internal affairs section? ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrasinatingReader: I really appreciate your interest and thank you for your input. I really like the idea of having similar information placed in "Minneapolis Police Department under the existing Misconduct and internal affairs section." Unfortunately, I don't agree that it is too lengthy and unrelated to be in this article. I have to say that I think it is highly relevant. I don't mind somehow developing a consensus about this either way, if you like.

Having said that, I don't see a problem with having similar information in the other aforementioned article. And I believe it is not uncommon for different articles that are somewhat related to have similar information allocated to the appropriate section(s). So, what do you think of this? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd still like to see mention of the prohibition against using the neck restraint against passively resisting subjects and the litigation history. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul. Your interest is much appreciated and thanks for your input. I'm reviewing your references. I think the lawsuit is really good information to know about. Especially since part of the settlement agreement was Minneapolis' pledge that it would provide "additional training for officers in how to restrain suspects more safely." At the time, the lawyer for the Smith's "assumed the police department would follow through with the training, but now he's not sure."

At the moment, I'm not sure which section that could be placed in this article. There is no one actually criticizing the use of neck restraints which is what the "neck restraints" section would need (I think). That the Smith's won the lawsuit about excessive use of force (prolonged knee to the back) tangentially implies that indifferent behavior by some police officers has not changed in over ten years. This has once again led to someone's death. Also, in the "neck restraints" section, it has been noted 44 deaths were caused by use of the "neck restraint" maneuver.

All this probably demonstrates Minneapolis didn't follow through on its pledge for additional training for officers. Pertaining to the other reference, I am looking at the blurb in the Police Manual you mentioned and trying to see how to integrate it into the "neck restraint" section. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Straw man

And, where is the strawman that you are seeing? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You are arguing that it is improper with which I wholly agree. I'm not saying it is proper. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bias in reporting the racial dynamics

I am not excluding the possibility the explicitly described as 'white' police officer, who is charged with certain degrees of murder and manslaughter, acted (partially) out of racial motives. However, I find it strange that the three other police officers, all also fired because of this tragic death - some according to the coronner sat on the back of the deceased, are not also explicitly described according to their race or skincolour? I have seen their pictures and names and they were clearly a 'diverse' bunch, one (Tou Thao) is an asian/Hmong american , the third (J. Alexander Kueng or Thomas K. Lane) seems of mixed african and european descent, the other of those last two is probably also a white american. Seems to be a bit more complex than mere anti-non-white racism, or perhaps it signals that the problem is more with the way police operate instead of the claims of pervasive and systematic racism.

Dg21dg21 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Dg21dg21, you'd need to take that up with the sources. Virtually all news coverage describes Chauvin as white and Floyd as black or African-American. Most I have seen mnakes no reference to anyone else's colour. Given that it was Chauvin who killed Floyd, I guess that's the one that's considered significant. Guy (help!) 07:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

But this very article mentions these other three officers, see section 'Persons involved', and there the ethnicity of the victim is mentioned (again), that of the suspect is not mentioned again, but those other three folks are not described in that way. They were not fired for nothing! Dg21dg21 (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Racism is not just a white thing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

We also don't know that this incident was racially motivated. The race of the primary officer involved and the victim is still relevant based on the perception that racism was involved. The race of the other officers is also potentially relevant, as I have seen a number of Asians specifically being critical of the Asian officer who was involved. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What Guy said. Do what sources do, and Stop Thinking. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Telling someone to "stop thinking" is almost never good advice. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what you think. Perennial Student (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Given WP:OR and WP:RS, specifying the race (whatever that means) of the other police officers based on the visual evidence would be problematical. If there is a news article that you can quote then it would probably be reasonable to do so. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not used to describe the officer in any of the given sources. The CNN source given uses "white" only in relation to "White House", and describes the officer with "former Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin". In no case does it use 'white' to describe the officer. Wikipedia using 'white' is unsupported by (currently cited) sources. Additionally, most (currently not cited) sources do not prefix him with 'white'. We're all aware that the police officer was white, this much is obvious. I've checked mainstream media sources, almost all of them (eg CNN, currently referenced, CBS, The Guardian, ABC) do not use the label 'white' at all in their articles. I tried to find examples using white; Washington Post used it in the article describing the charge, and ABC used it before they had him identified by name (while he was still an unknown officer). The Guardian used it later in an article, seemingly referring to a context where he was not identified (the next sentence talks about how the next day named officers were arrested. For these reasons, I'm of the opinion that using the term 'white' to describe him, in the very first sentence of the lead, and violates WP:NPOV and also currently WP:V, due to no source given. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I did more digging and found some more articles using 'white', in their initial reports by CBS. I think one of these should be added to the citations if Wikipedia wishes to continue using 'white', as the current citations don't use the label, but it could be cherry-picking sources and show bias. As far as opinion goes, I think the white label has a place here, just perhaps not in the lead. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Quoth EvergreenFir: I feel like I've had to do this a dozen times before on other articles, but here we go again (emphases added):

1. ... the killing of an unarmed black man by a white police officer. BBC
2. "The bystander video that circulated widely on social media Monday night shows a white Minneapolis police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck during an arrest, as the man repeatedly says “I can’t breathe” and “please I can’t breathe.” - NYTimes (archived version to avoid paywall)
3. "...after a viral video showed a white police officer putting his knee on the neck of a black man, who later died." - Washington Post
4. ... Mr. Floyd, a black man, who died after a white police officer pinned him to the ground with a knee to the neck. WSJ
5. ... the white police officer seen on video kneeling against the neck of a handcuffed black man who complained that he could not breathe and died in police custody. AP News
6. ... the death of an unarmed black man seen in a video lying face down in the street, gasping for air and groaning, 'I can’t breathe,' while a white officer knelt on his neck for several minutes. Reuters
7. "Video of the incident shows that a white police officer had a black man pinned to the ground next to the back tire of his patrol car with his knee on the man's neck." - NBC News
8. ... George Floyd, a black man who was seen pinned down in a video by a white police officer and later died. ABC News
9. "The video, captured by Darnella Frazier, begins with the man, who is black, groaning and repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" to the officer who has his knee on the man's neck. The officer is white." - CBS
10. "The mayor of Memphis said Thursday that he shares the frustration of protesters angry with the death of a handcuffed black man during a confrontation with a white police officer in Minnesota." - Star Tribune
11. "In widely circulated cellphone video of the subsequent arrest, Floyd, who was black , can be seen on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back while Officer Derek Chauvin presses him to the pavement with his knee on Floyd's neck. The video shows Chauvin, who is white , holding Floyd down for minutes as Floyd complains he can't breathe. The video ends with paramedics lifting a limp Floyd onto a stretcher and placing him in an ambulance." - Boston Globe
12. Floyd, an unarmed black man, died on 25 May in Minneapolis after a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, knelt on his neck for nine minutes while Floyd repeatedly complained that he could not breathe. - The Guardian
13. "An FBI investigation is underway and four officers have been fired following a fatal encounter Monday between Minneapolis police and an unarmed 46-year-old black man named George Floyd. ... Overnight, video of the attempted arrest circulated on social media. Posted by Darnella Frazier on Facebook, the nine-minute video shows a white officer pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck behind a squad car. While lying facedown on the road, Floyd repeatedly groans and says he can’t breathe. “He’s not even resisting arrest right now, bro,” one bystander tells the white officer and his partner, in the video." - CBS Local
14. "Four Minneapolis police officers have been fired following the death of an unarmed black man in police custody Monday night." KMSP Fox 9
15. ""We are once again traumatized by the tragic scene of a black man pleading for his life at the hands of a white police officer," Smith said in an emailed statement. " - KSTP local news
16. "Police officers near the Minneapolis 3rd Police Precinct on Tuesday during protests against George Floyd's death. Floyd, a black man, died after a white officer, Derek Chauvin, knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes." - Insider
17. ... George Floyd, a black man who died after a white officer pinned his knee against the suspect's neck as he struggled to breathe ... Fox News
18. "Floyd, 46, died after a white Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeled on his neck for at least seven minutes while handcuffing him." - The Daily Beast

Nearly all RSes say "black" and "white", which is why we do. We beat this horse to death already in Archive 1. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd had Covid-19

See over here, had been tested positive post-mortem: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/06/04/George-Floyd-autopsy-shows-he-tested-positive-for-COVID-19/1001591241694/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderWaterford (talk • contribs)

It was not considered a factor in his death, so does not warrant mention in the article. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd being a member of a hip hop group wasn't a factor in his death either but we include it - it's background info. I half-wonder if the covid thing might be worth mentioning, but people might construe that it was a factor in his death - unless we cite a RS explicitly saying it wasn't. I don't feel strongly about including it. Popcornfud (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree—it could be mentioned in the article. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to his murder, and I would wholeheartedly support removing the hip hop material which is also irrelevant. - MrX 🖋 12:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why remove "the hip hop material"? Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't get the logic there either - not everything in the article needs to be directly related to Floyd's death - it's sensible to include brief biographical accounts of the people involved, their jobs, families etc. Popcornfud (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, Popcornfud, yes, it needs to be at least relevant. In this article we are discussing his death. We can put the hip hop stuff into an article about him, but here it's trivia at best. I get the argument for his arrest record being mentioned -- don't agree that it's really relevant, but I get it since the death was at the hands of the police -- but I do not understand at all the reasoning behind mentioning his music interests etc. Look at it this way: if there were an article about Floyd, an actual bio -- which is possible will be created eventually -- would we even consider pulling this stuff in from it? Or would we simply leave it in the bio and pull in only those things that were relevant? I believe we'd leave the bio stuff in the bio and only pull in that which was relevant to his death. —valereee (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - if we had a separate page for Floyd we'd definitely have the biographical info in there and we wouldn't need it in this page. But does that mean, until we have that separate page, we keep the biographical info in this article instead? (I have no opinion there, yet.) Popcornfud (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait and see whether anyone he had contact with (including the cops) come down with the virus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The reader can be understood to want to know who George Floyd was, Popcornfud. I don't know why we would deprive the reader of information found in most sources. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

i fail to see the relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"What has a trunk with no key; weighs 2,000 pounds; and lives in the circus?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The mother in law?Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line between what is relevant and what is not relevant? Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Did it have anything to do with what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I said above, we include biographical details about the people involved - basic info like birthdate etc - that is not directly related to the killing. So unless you want to exclude those entirely too, we do need to draw the line somewhere beyond "did it have anything to do with what happened". Popcornfud (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If you care to check, that is just what I have said, more than once.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd isn't a cipher. He had interests. He had experiences. And most importantly, sources are telling us about his life. I'm questioning the impetus to omit information that is prominently found in impeccable sources. As you know this general question has come up again and again on this page. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

unless you want to exclude those entirely too - I do want to exclude those entirely too. But I don't get everything I want, and excluding that cannot be a prerequisite to excluding this. The existence of bad stuff never justifies the addition of more bad stuff, and such reasoning inevitably results in a snowball-effect proliferation of bad stuff. Avoid slippery-slope whataboutism. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, I understand. But I meant the question literally, not rhetorically. I was pointing out that the issue depends on a broader question on whether any biographical information is relevant here in the first place. If you don't think it does, then the covid issue has no place in the article at all, so that's the first thing I'd check. Popcornfud (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand that you're wanting to resolve the larger question first. I can sympathize, but pending such a resolution (which will not occur on this page), it's perfectly fine to oppose irrelevant bio information on a piecemeal basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely it is and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. So my next question is "why exclude this one bit of info?" Slater has said it's irrelevant, and if one wants to exclude all' info that's not directly related to the killing, then that makes sense - but if one doesn't, then what distinguishes this from other bits of biographical info? What makes this bit of biographical data less relevant? I think these are sensible questions to ask. Popcornfud (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of reasoning I opposed in my first comment. Nothing makes this bit of biographical data less relevant, and that kind of linkage is counterproductive and detrimental, as I tried to express. If you're not getting me by now, it's time to quit. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm not getting you... time to quit! Popcornfud (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not relevant, at least not yet. Given the cause of death and the sequelae of Covid-19 it may become relevant, at least as a defense argument. But we should not speculate or repeat speculation. Kablammo (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is UPI even a reliable source? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as is the Star Tribune."George Floyd autopsy shows he tested positive for COVID-19" Kablammo (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include I disagree with some comments above: this is relevant. It's true that people might misconstrue this fact as having contributed to his death, and that would be deeply false, in my view and I think I read in the papers this morning that it wasn't considered a factor in his death. However: Floyd was killed in the middle of a historic pandemic, and his test result is a part of the autopsy results more generally, and therefore a part of the history of this incident. It's possible to write this information into the article in some brief way (e.g., "a postmortem test showed that Floyd had contracted COVID-19 some weeks before he was killed; experts stated this had no impact on his death...") that makes a conscious effort not to mislead readers. -Darouet (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The autopsy report says: "The decedent was known to be positive for 2019-nCoV RNA on 4/3/2020. Since PCR positivity for 2019-nCoV RNA can persist for weeks after the onset and resolution of clinical disease, the autopsy result most likely reflects asymptomatic but persistent PCR positivity from previous infection."[37] Which suggests it's entirely irrelevant to the death. Perennial Student (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Meh. Article's too long already, I don't think we need this trivia. Guy (help!) 16:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• We have already seen an editor juxtapose this test result with breathing difficulties. In fact, the ME stated that it was noncontributory, and that he was asymptomatic. There is no relevance to the result. Kablammo (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• The reporting I read on Floyd's Covid said testing in early April found traces of the virus, and that he was then asymptomatic. It is early enough in the study of the virus that we may still find that previously infected individuals, who licked the virus, are still infectious. However, this does not seem to be the case.

That test in early April may indicate he had already licked Covid. Covid can be very dangerous, but, apparently, some infections are so mild a person does not even realize they are/were infected.

I completely agree the Killing of George Floyd article is far too long. The less important detail that he had survived Covid does merit coverage, because it has been widely reported, and some reporting got it wrong. But, in my opinion, Killing of George Floyd should be split. There are already several other articles, related to the killing. Missing is a standalone article specifically about George Floyd. The standalone article specifically about George Floyd is the place to discuss his survival of Covid infection, and any other pre-killing medical conditions. The standalone article specifically about George Floyd should not cover his killing other than mentioning it in the lead paragraph, followed by a {{see also|Killing of George Floyd}}.

I know, for various historical reasons I never really agreed with, we usually name articles like this about the event, not the person. But, if there are meaningful reasons to do that, this is too big. Doing so has crippled us with an omnibus article of unmanageable size. Rather, its size is unmanageable given how frequently new developments need to be included. Geo Swan (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Fired "after" videos released

@WWGB: Re Special:Diff/961396560, what's the problem with saying "...after merchants' security camera footage and videos made by witnesses contradicted that claim, all four officers were fired."? Here's what the sources say: NYTimes: "...all of whom were fired after video of his death emerged the next day...All four officers were fired from the Minneapolis Police Department after video of the fatal encounter emerged." Star Tribune: "After seeing the video, city leaders quickly condemned the police actions and Arradondo fired the officers." The order of events was: May 25 Floyd killed; on the morning May 26 the police released a statement saying he was resisting and that officers noted medical duress (nothing about a knee on the neck, etc.); then "hours later" the videos started circulated that debunked this'; later that day, after city leaders saw the videos, the officers were fired. I didn't really understand your edit summary. I didn't read the sentence as saying that the firing was a consequence of the resisting, but rather a consequence of the videos being circulated widely. What's the issue with reporting that sequence of events? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Omitting the qualifying clause, the original statement asserted "Police initially claimed that Floyd had resisted arrest ..., all four officers were fired". This infers that the firing was a consequence of the (disputed) claim. It is much better to separate the claims (and counter-claims) from the firing. The police were fired for violence, not for making claims. WWGB (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

People who get infer and imply mixed up MAKE ME LOSE MY TEMPER! But anyway I can't tell... is there still an outstanding issue here? EEng 03:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, yes and no. I'm going to archive this thread. We should circle back to the second paragraph of the lead, but that can be done in a new thread. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Allegations about protestors not being Minneapolis residents should be discussed

This recent arson arrest fits in properly with what Walz and Frey have been claiming.Mancalledsting (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I moved the text over to George Floyd protests in Minnesota. This arrest for alleged arson is more about the protests than the killing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

The knee was on his neck not for almost 8 min but for 8 min and 46 seconds 68.191.157.169 (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I undid the good faith edit. There are WP:RS which estimate the time to be 7'46". See AP article cited in the edit. The video started after kneeling began, so, it was at least 7'46". However, 8'46" is most recognized duration of the assault. --nafSadh ^{did say} 03:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I note that independent reliable sources are more reliable than the criminal complaint. (If we took criminal complaints as reliable sources, there would be no presumption of innocence, a blatant WP:BLP violation.) Most of the reliable sources I've seen that say that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck for 8:46 minutes cite this to the criminal complaint (eg, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html). Many, many reliable sources republished the AP article saying the length was 7:46. It seems that the length of 7:46 comes from the timestamps cited in the document’s description of the incident, and 8:46 was originally an error. See also, 8′46″#Origin_of_the_time_span. userdude 04:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC); edited 04:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand your POV and I'm ambivalent/undecided wrt which is the correct duration. Right now 8'46" seems to be the consensus, not unanimous and can possibly change. I'd wait for the next consensus before making this change on lede. --nafSadh ^{did say} 04:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What would be needed is a valid source that says, "Oh, by the way, it's actually 7:46." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: See the AP article linked above.

But the timestamps cited in the document’s description of the incident, much of which is caught on video, indicate a different tally. Using those, Chauvin had his knee on Floyd for 7 minutes, 46 seconds, including 1 minute, 53 seconds after Floyd appeared to stop breathing.

userdude 19:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

UserDude, that quote doesn't say it's actually 7:46. That quote says "the timestamps cited in the document's description" is 7:46. It doesn't say the timestamps in the document's description are correct. And, we know they are not correct, because we can watch the video and see that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck for longer than 7:46. But our own observations aside, I don't see the AP saying that the timestamps in the charging document are correct, nor that 8:46 is incorrect. I'm not aware of any other RS saying that, either. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think I misinterpreted the AP article. An NY Times investigation seems to imply that not enough information has been released to know how long Chuavin's knee was on Floyd's neck. Anyway, the prosecutor's office will probably explain the discrepancy eventually, either by responding to the AP request for comment or releasing additional video. (I'm sure Fox will be delighted to report that Floyd was only murdered for eight minutes.) userdude 19:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Jack Frost (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The article should be renamed without the word “killing” in it

As mentioned at the top of the article, I have placed a move moratorium on this page. But to reiterate from my closing summary: the move inferred neither "murder" nor "justifiable homicide" (that would be for the courts to decide) — it only reiterated the ME report that there was a "killing." El_C 17:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC) See also my comment to the OP on their talk page here. El_C 17:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

As the case is still ongoing and the guilt of the police officers uncertain (especially after the coroner’s autopsy was revealed), the word “killing” should be eliminated from this article LordParsifal (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) We have just closed an RFC on this, and there is a moratorium on further move requests in place at this time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC) The word "killing" does not imply guilt. They did kill him. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

UK police official statement

Here's a statement from the UK police leaders[38]

It starts with a statement from a local chief constable but further down you see one starting: "This morning UK police leaders have come together and published a statement about George Floyd’s death.

Chief constables from forces across the country, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the chief executive of the College of Policing and the President of the Police Superintendents' Association have spoken following the death of George Floyd and the events that have followed in the United States.

“We stand alongside all those across the globe who are appalled and horrified by the way George Floyd lost his life. Justice and accountability should follow."

Obviously people will want to read the rest for full context. This has been covered in the media, you'll find sources easily by searching. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is this relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether it's included in the reactions subsection or not (seems a bit puffy to me)... that fact is the impact of his tragic death has reached the farthest corners of the world. When is the last time a major city's authorities / politicians / leaders have come together in solidarity for an American subject? Probably never. Trillfendi (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, [[39]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"I, like my chief constable colleagues, am shocked and deeply saddened as a career police officer by the apparent unlawful killing of George Floyd." He is "shocked and deeply saddened as a career police officer". Well, of course. There is nothing unusual about this. His profession is sullied by this. All law enforcement feels the same. No cop is proud of what Officer Chauvin has done. I'm not a big fan of including this as it merely states the obvious. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that one of the issues is that (in the US at least) this is far too common and that many people do not think "it merely states the obvious", in fact Chauvin's police union chief backed him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is "common" or not is a matter of opinion, and a matter of perspective. The US is not known for police corruption. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

True, but RS may be saying that is not the public perception [[40]], [[41]], [[42]]. I could post ore.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is hardly surprising. A policeman in Great Britain has said "What I have witnessed bears no relationship to the values I have held dear as a police officer throughout my service." Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There must be a misunderstanding here, this isn't a police officer speaking, it's "Chief constables from forces across the country, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the chief executive of the College of Policing and the President of the Police Superintendents' Association." Doug Weller talk 18:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Still not seeing what the relevance of Senior British police officers views are to a situation over which they exercise zero jurisdiction.Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"Policing is complex and challenging and sometimes we fall short. When we do, we are not afraid to shine a light on injustices or to be held to account." This is pretty bland stuff. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the opinion of a single, or even multiple, UK police forces isn't relevant here. However, it perhaps has a place amongst the Interactional Reactions section, alongside the reaction of the UK politicians, if the National Police Chiefs' Council makes a statement, which would represent UK police chiefs collectively. As the UK is known for its contributions to modern policing, and many key ideas like the Peelian principles, I think a hypothetical comment by the NPCC might be relevant here. Otherwise, I think it lacks relevance in an article that would become even more congested if every countries' local leaders could have their opinions cited here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Bustop Au contraire: The US IS known for police corruption, in a myriad of forms. But, I agree, the statement doesn't merit inclusion. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Minneapolis, Minnesota -> Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.

I know Americans think theres only one country in the entire world, but for the rest of us, actually mentioning "US" in the infobox probably isnt the worst of ideas 77.23.126.20 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:USPLACE, we write City, State, not City, State, U.S.. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a dumb rule, but ok. Better remove it here too then http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner 77.23.126.20 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Good catch, thanks. Thanks for the edit request by the way. This being Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to propose a change to MOS:USPLACE on that talk page. Technically, that policy applies to article titles. It may be that editors will agree that U.S. should be included somewhere on the article at least once, like in the infobox. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich is correct about MOS guidance, though I rush to point out that we give the same treatment to counties of the UK, provinces of Canada, and territories (or whatever it is they have) in Australia. So it's not a US thing. Having said that, I've often thought that in infoboxes, where we put all kinds of formal matter-of-record stuff (e.g. timezone of an event) anyway, it might make sense to give the full qualification e.g. Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, because an infobox is meant to be an at-a-glance reference as much as possible. But that's not the guideline we have. EEng 01:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Redux

• @EEng: Can you please understand that not everyone who encounters this article will be from the United States, and that it's normal to give the country name for mentions of a non-capital or largest city of a country. They're doing it over at George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom, with no issue, and this is the centrepiece article of the whole affair, so there's even more reason to qualify it. I don't think it's worthy of a repeated revert. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I just saw the above discussion on this same issue. @Levivich: WP:USPLACE is for the names of US city articles (it's under "Naming conventions"), not for mentions of U.S. cities in articles with global implications like this one. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

SUM1, yes, that's what I meant when I said Technically, that policy applies to article titles. :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Then it didn't need to be used as a justification for removing article content, or as a place that the user needed to prose a change to. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it didn't need to be. But it could have been, and it was. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK you two, listen and learn. MOS:PN#Place_names:

In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).

In other words, the rules for article titles do apply in article text. SUM1, if you don't like the guideline you can review the archives at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names, and if you have something new to add open a thread there. In the meantime, can you please understand that these guidelines were developed by hundreds (if not thousands) of editors, over fifteen years, to balance completing ideas about the styles appropriate for use in millions of articles, and for you to come barreling in like you're the only person who ever thought of the argument you're making, and everyone else is some kind of unaware dummy, is kinda lame. EEng 03:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, first, you're springing something slightly out of context. That guidance is intended to describe what name of a place to use. The intention of that guidance isn't whether to include or exclude the country name in events with global attention such as this. It is only intended for the place name part of the reference, as is implied by the existence of MOS:DABPLACES for disambiguation pages, which makes clear that there are contexts where adding the country name may be appropriate.

The point made by SUM1 is perfectly valid, in that this article is attracting plenty of international attention and some clarification on country might be nice. We have used the country name in regards to Eric Garner, before it was removed today in response to this edit request, and we currently use it in the infobox at 1992 Los Angeles riots, alongside many other similar incidents. Those references to country have been kept over long periods of time, indicating a consensus amongst editors. The incident has received far more international attention than those did, yet we don't include "United States" even in the infobox here.

Second, the tone of your response to these two editors, who were discussing amongst themselves politely, and addressed you politely, is incredibly condescending, insulting and unnecessary.

Third, I feel your attitude towards this article is starting to border on WP:OWN, which is becoming quite visible in edit history. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The text I quoted from MOS:PN is intended to describe exactly what it says it describes, which is the way in which articles should refer to places. Nothing could be more clear. Any you're right that the point made by SUM1 is a valid one. It's undoubtedly one that was made in the many discussions behind the current (and longstanding) formulation of MOS:PN; it also happens to be a point that didn't carry the day.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when you have more than three weeks and 1200 edits' worth of experience you'll have a better idea what constitutes ownership. EEng 17:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, glad to see you're resorting to ad hominem and doubling down on this incorrect logic, rather than making any attempt to achieve consensus.

I've given you points based on policy and prior example. You've responded with the same point again. The point of MOS:PN is to standardise the name of a place, not to outlaw the suffixing of country names in all cases. I just gave you an example, from policy, where the suffixing is supported. On that note, since you mentioned to "review the archives at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names", I'm failing to see a discussion in these archives to give rise to the interpretation you're trying to enforce. Would you mind providing a direct link to a discussion on this particular topic?

Finally, given your doubling down and your removal of United States from 1992 Los Angeles riots, which I linked, you should perhaps also go ahead and remove references to the United States at the following pages: Battle of Alcatraz, Bundy standoff, Ludlow Massacre, Norco shootout, North Hollywood shootout, Memorial Day massacre of 1937, 1986 FBI Miami shootout. Let me know when you're done and I'd be happy to send some more links your way, so we can respect the legacy of the "thousands of editors" who agree with your interpretation of WP:USPLACE and MOS:PN :) ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining that DABPLACES (which applies only to dabpages – as it says, These guidelines only apply to pages correctly tagged with a disambiguation template) has no bearing on MOS:PN#Place_names (which is about articles). So your points and examples really are inapplicable to the case at hand.

I also apologize for pointing you to the wrong archive. Turns out the MOS:PN material was merged from somewhere else some years ago (WT:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_26#Merge_in_MOS:PN) so I'm afraid you'll need to chase those pointers backwards to find the relevant discussions.

I don't go around search-and-destroying trivial stuff like this, but I usually fix them where they come to my attention. In due course I may attend to the additional articles you've listed, but right now my nephew needs help with his math homework. EEng 19:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, thanks for that, regarding the archive. I've done a search on the talk archives for MOS:CAPS, from Archive 26 onwards (which is when it was merged in). I find no results for 'suffix' in any archive, and I see no relevant discussions in a search for 'country' from Archive 26 onwards.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that this discussion never happened, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could find the discussion which supports your point of view and provide a link whenever you have the time to do so.

I'm aware that DABPLACES only applies to dabpages - I noted this in my reply. I simply stated that a policy exists that makes clear "that there are contexts where adding the country name may be appropriate". Also, if your interpretation is indeed correct, clearly the MOS needs an update to clarify the current guidance. Well over 50% of the articles I can find on such events, such as the ones linked in my previous reply, have the name of the country in the infobox (at least). So, if your statement is correct, the misunderstanding is widespread across a lot of pages, over a lot of years, and with a lot of experienced editors.

I do believe that your quotation of MOS:PN#Place names seems to be for the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME, rather than as a guideline to prohibit the suffixing of country titles, which is what you're interpreting it to be. Of course, I could be wrong. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed a widespread misunderstanding. As I noted somewhere above in this thread, I happen to think that infoboxes (not the article text) should in fact fully qualify City, State, US, because infoboxes are meant to have rote formal stuff, and I think doing that makes a nice balance against not having US in the text for those readers who are truly bewildered by that. However, that's not the current guideline.

Unfortunately, this colloquy has lead me to an awkward discovery, which is that Minneapolis is on the list of list of cities not even taking a state qualification i.e. it's Minneapolis not Minneapolis, Minnesota. (I've been to Minneapolis, and how it's in the same category as Boston [43] I can't think.) Now despite what you may think of me, I don't think we should tell readers that Floyd died simply in Minneapolis. How do you feel about Minneapolis, Minnesota for the text, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, US for the infobox (US instead of United States because space is precious in infoboxes) – all under WP:IAR – and I promise that, when things die down, I'll start a discussion over at MOS advocating that infoboxes fully qualify with US routinely (though with, perhaps, some very special exceptions like New York City and Washington, DC). Since Levivich and I never agree on anything, I'm pinging him in here; if he thinks it's a good idea we're halfway home. EEng 20:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, nobody should be putting Boston and Minneapolis in the same category unless it's Category:US cities with nothing in common. Secondly, yes I agree having "US" in the infobox, but not in the text, is best; I also agree it's not the current guideline; I also agree it should be the current guideline; and, I agree that we should employ the tyranny of local consensus WP:IAR and put US in the infobox. And also get the guideline changed. I wasn't being sarcastic when I suggested the IP should start a discussion at a policy page. MOS:PN might be better than MOS:USPLACES though. Also, MOS:USPLACES shouldn't point to a non-MOS page. There is much to attend to. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't go to Harvard? FourViolas, any chance you recognize this guy's handwriting? EEng 21:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That article is very well written, and demonstrates that a writer never writes so well as when he's writing about another writer's writing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, thanks for being reasonable. I was only advocating for a change in the infobox, not the lead, so that's fine with me. I'd prefer United States personally, but we don't all get what we want :) - I think this is an acceptable compromise. I'd also appreciate you reverting your edit at 1992 Los Angeles riots in the meantime.

I don't think it's WP:IAR - I don't think the guideline exists as you were applying it (seems like no guideline existed at all), and you're yet to link me to that archive discussion. But now I'm just being picky, and this'll be moot post RfC anyway. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• thanks for being reasonable – I'm being reasonable? Must have been a weak moment.
• I'd prefer United States personally – At least between now and the presidential inauguration I'd prefer anywhere but the United States, so if you'd like to make a seven-month house swap I'm game.

The three of us being in violent agreement, let's wait to hear what others think. EEng 21:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should only contain information that can accurately summarize the key facts of the article. No more, no less. For example, in Template:infobox person/doc, read the definition for the "|birth_place=" parameter. In the example, "New York City, U.S." is preferred over "New York City, New York, U.S." because in this case, "city, state, country" is redundant. Also, see the infoboxes for Larry Fitzgerald, Prince, Prof, and Mark Dayton. There is no consistency. So basically, there's no guideline or policy that will give a definite answer on whether or not to include US in the location. Consensus should be reached to determine this. I honest don't care what ends up in the infobox. The fact that this article is of international relevance makes me lean towards the inclusion of the country.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

All snark aside, I go out of my way to make sure any infobox mention of an American city and state has U.S. at the end of it. Simply leaving the city and state is too American-centric and for lack of a better term, informal. No matter if it’s Los Angeles, California or Doylestown, Pennsylvania. Trillfendi (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I also support including US in the infobox. Good to see a consensus reached. -Pacack (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Officers or former officers?

Sorry, this is a technicism, but: someone who is a graduate from a police academy but is not employed by any police department, is an officer? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you objecting to?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I object to nothing. I just changed "officers" to "former officers" and would like to know if I was right. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are talking about the reference to Thomas Lane as "former officer" being released on bail, that seems right and supported by the cite to CBSNews (using "ex-officer"). Msherby (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• You're a doctor or accountant by virtue of your training and skills, regardless of your employment or active practice, but you're a sheriff or police officer by virtue of the position you hold. Lose the position ==> lose the title. EEng 20:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, EEng. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

level 5 vital article

Something's wrong with the header template for this page declaring this a level 5 vital article in "an unknown topic". It seems to be a malformed parameter that wants to be topic=History, but I'm not sure History's correct. It looks like it was inserted by Cewbot so I didn't want to screw with it. —valereee (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I screwed with it. I'm not sure I agree with it being categorized as history either, but that's where it is currently. I added the parameter here and at Talk:George Floyd protests. (I'm also not sure I agree with two articles for one topic being listed as vital, but either way the templates should match the listing.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

These designations and categories and vital articles and project designations do nothing and go nowhere anyway. EEng 19:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but the same could be said about me. BTW, valereee, I don't think this is a bug, I just think Cewbot is not programmed to add |topic=. It doesn't appear to add that to any template. Cewbot has only been doing this for a few months, so it may just not be a developed feature yet. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How many events that happened three weeks ago can really be designated a vital article in History? —valereee (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, the most applicable category is probably "Everyday life". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

More prejudicial trivia

Once again, we have a slew of irrelevant trivia on one of the principal actors added to this article. I deleted it, and was reverted.[44] Does WP:BLP (and its cognate, WP:BDP) mean anything at all? The edit asserts "criminal charges" based on a source which mentions overdue parking, traffic tickets, a loud party in 2007, and property damage another offense when he was 18. What do any of these have to do with this death?

These actors — the victim and the police — are notable only because of their role in this tragedy. We must start adhering to our policies. Kablammo (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI this matter is already being discussed up above at #RFC on Floyd's criminal past. Just so you know before another edit war breaks out. --letcreate123 (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is Lane, not Floyd, Floyd wore mismatched socks in 2020. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

He had another pair at home just like them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

He also kept an eagle holding a rifle on his person night and day, even in the shower, and a couple of tombstones, too, what has Lane's body art ever said about him? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If (IF) we have one set of backgrounds lets also have parity.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep - OP omitted the criminal convictions of obstruction of justice and damagiong property (both felonies) and a misdemeanor noise infraction conviction in the reliably cited material OP deleted. OP also omitted that the sections of Lane's job application that mentions 12 charges, 3 convictions and the number of times he has been fired was redacted by the Minneapolis Police department and also that Lane was on his fourth day on the job. Per WP:SUSPECT, remove the part about the 12 charges (not 1 charge, not 2 charges, not 4, not 8, not 10, but 12 criminal charges before being hired as a police officer) if it's that desperately important to you, but the convictions and the redactions need to stay. It's not prejudicial trivia. Kire1975 (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Kire1975—it seems "desperately important" to you to omit background information on George Floyd while including background information on the police officers. I don't object to the inclusion of reliably sourced information on the police officers. But it is my opinion that the reader should also be apprised of background information on George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Twelve charges doesn't mean twelve incidents, so we're clear. He got five the first time and two six years later. Then things get foggy, but he wasn't a career criminal for his whole adult life, he also had about a dozen jobs, wouldn't find the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Five plus two doesn't equal twelve. You are still omitting the convictions and redactions. 11:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I ain't omitting shit, I admitted things get foggy after 2007. All three convictions you see were among those seven charges, so the other five deserve to stay shady. As to redaction, redacted in the public copy, not the actual cadet application form. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You have omitted quite a bit. Reliable sources report that Mr. Lane has been convicted of two felonies and a misdemeanor. Twelve criminal charges were redacted from the public coppy of his academy application before he was hired to be a police officer, after which he managed to be charged with killing somebody on his fourth day. These facts are newsworthy, notable and encyclopaedic. Please reread WP:CIVIL and have a nice day. Kire1975 (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't revert you, remove anything or say the convictions and redaction don't belong, if that's what you're thinking. Only saying it wasn't twelve incidents and the original application form is still legible. Just not by the public. And he's not charged with killing anybody. Allegedly aided the killer. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Kire1975, still a living individual though. We mustn't let outrage get the better of us. Tempting though it definitely is in this case. Guy (help!) 22:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"Facedown" or "prone"?

In a case heavily revolving around a purported inability to breathe, we should not suggest the eyes, nose and mouth were perpendicular to and touching the ground, even if we're "obviously" meaning his cheek by "face". Babies and drunks suffocate through actually facing down commonly enough. "Prone", "belly-down" or "cheek-down" would not be so confusing, in order of prevalence in sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng disagrees and writes well, so cordially invited. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

My blushes, Hulk. EEng 03:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Decent point. But, babies and drunks die face down, unconscious in a pillow -- not concrete and speaking. On his stomach may work better in simple wikipedia. But, let's pretend our readers know what face-down means. Besides, we always have the excuse that that's what RS say. O3000 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Pillows, puddles, pavement...if you're held facedown on anything, you don't speak and go unconscious in around two minutes. Since Floyd's case is different, it should be described differently. In my opinion, enough sources say "prone". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "face down" in common speech is far more common than people planting their noses into the ground. Why? Because common speech isn't so literal. Native English speakers know what "face down" probably means, and others can look at the photo, a picture being worth a thousand words. Blind people aren't unimportant to us, but we can do only so much to accommodate them. Use the |image_alt= parameter to convey to them that Floyd's nose is not planted. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The trusty (real) OED says "with the face in the direction indicated". Indicating it's the face, rather than the rest of the body, that determines whether someone is facedown. Perennial Student (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the image is key to clarifying the position in which Floyd died. I added a detailed image_alt as suggested, including noting the surface and position of Floyd's face. I agree with EEng that "face-down" is not confusing, once it has been shown (or described) to the reader that Floyd was not lying on some yielding surface that could have blocked his airways. "Prone" is a little technical, and "belly-down" and "cheek-down" are not common constructions and strike me as unclear. FourViolas (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Positioned flat on the ground, works for me. Perennial Student (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That could be flat on his back. EEng 03:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That's five words a five-letter word does better, by indicating the flat-on-the-ground position was not supine. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

True enough, but I think people won't know what prone means. As an aside, the criminal complaint specifically uses the adverb face down: "Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed." And prone: "Police are trained that this type of restraint with a subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous."[45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perennial Student (talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Link prone position, then. We're here to teach people. It's not patronizing when an encyclopedia does it. (Going facedown and being held like that for a while are different things, by the way.) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The given source says “face down” so face down it is. We don’t need to create our own alternatives. WWGB (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

We could replace the source with a more accurate one. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

WaPo uses “ put face down into the prone position”, having it both ways. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Prone vs. Supine vs. Prostrate" I think "prone" is the most appropriate term for us to be using. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not having it both ways. "Face down" is how he went/was put into the position. The position he remained in after going facedown is "prone". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Face-down" is appropriate, in my opinion. But "belly down" would even be appropriate. I wouldn't recommend either. "Prone" is close enough. We aren't trying explain with exactitude. We want a ballpark explanation. Bus stop (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I want the truth, so I'm taking my ball and going home. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I elaborated the description in the article proper [46] but for the lead I believe face down is more than adequate. As I mentioned in my edit summary, to be face down doesn't require that the cranial median plane be perpendicular to the ground. EEng 03:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm on team "face down". I'm also on team "drunk", but I think everyone knows what "face down" means and it conjures an image in the head, which is the right image. I don't think "face down" means "nose down" specifically; I think "cheek down" is what people think of as "face down", and that makes sense, because the cheek, or at least some cheeks, are part of the face. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Right. Any part of the face is down, the nose being anywhere from -90° to +90° off vertical. EEng 04:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That is acceptable—using "face down" in the lede and "prone" in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this compromise. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Face down is supported by reliable sources - face down and handcuffed, in the criminal complaint against Chauvin - Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed. And is seen in protests as well - lying face-down on the streets in Tacoma, Lansing, Minneapolis, Green Bay, Denver, Philadelphia, Washington, Oklahoma, Iowa, Sydney, New York's Times Square, Protesters lie facedown on Burnside Bridge. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

For the third and perhaps charming time, going to the ground and being held there are two distinct verbs, whose adverbs don't apply to anything else but them. He also went down "quickly" despite staying down for "way too long". The takedown happened just once, before the pin continued till the end. [User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, he went to the ground face down and remained there face down for "way too long". Isaidnoway (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Face-down", "face down" or "facedown"?

OK, I dropped the ball. But now that Levivich is in the blue corner with his unorthodox stance, this is a whole other game, a more stylish debate. Everyone choose a character, Hyphen, Space or Nothing! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC) And that 4:20 remark was unintentional, but still, you're damn right it was! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing, second choice Hyphen. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Webster is using two separate words—face down. Bus stop (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not Webster, it's a "Words at Play" columnist. Such sport aside, "Facedown (adverb); with the face down". I can't paste, use your link's search bar for the full scoop. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• face down. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I changed face down for chest down a couple of times and was reverted by my friend Isaidnoway here. You can clearly see that his face was to his right, not down. Even if everyday English is not so literal or specific, and encyclopedia should be. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

My reverts were based on reliable sources saying he was face down and handcuffed, facedown, face-down, face-down and the criminal complaint face down. You wanted to change it based on what you see, if we use that logic, I see his face down on the street with Chauvin's knee pressed on his neck for almost nine minutes. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I know, that's why I didn't engage in an edit war. It's debatable. It's down in the sense that is not a few feet from the ground, it's not down in the sense that it's not pressing his nose against the asphalt. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Space - As far as my knowledge of English language is concerned, the correct form has always been "face down", unless there's some hyperspecific exception for American English. --letcreate123 (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Hyphen Call me crazy, but I say with a space it seems like it means specifically face pointing downward. And to me a hyphen looks better than it does with nothing at all... Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You might be right, PersistantCorvid, because here it is hyphenated. And I think this is a good quality source, with much useful information. "Seth Stoughton, an associate professor of law at the University of South Carolina, told the news network that keeping suspects in the prone position, meaning face-down with their hands cuffed behind their backs, for an extended period of time is dangerous in and of itself, because it's known to cause positional asphyxia...Someone in that position can draw enough breath to gasp or speak in spurts, but they can't breathe fully, so they gradually lose oxygen and fall unconscious." Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oddly, I had seen that quote later after I posted initially but didn't bother adding it. Thank you, Bus stop, for that source. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I find here that "Perhaps one of the most remarkable and successful families of Pleistocene survivors are the corvids–a bird family that includes crows, ravens, jays, magpies, and nutcrackers." Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

cause of death

The cause of death was murder by cop. Autopsy says death was a homicide. He was not killed by a bus . He was murdered by cop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎50.104.186.122 (talk • contribs)

Murder will be determined by the courts, not by you. WWGB (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Cop knew Floyd before

Source no. 1.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggested source. This content was already in the article, in the "People involved" section, and it looks like someone added this source in, and it's now been expanded. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see it, but maybe it wasn't there when I checked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I should have actually checked the source. What I heard on CBS radio was that Chauvin was upset about a check Floyd gave him, though Floyd was just the messenger and not the person who didn't pay him enough.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at these sources, there is no doubt they knew each other, which is obviously an important info. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Turns out the coworker now says he was mixed up [47]. We look pretty fucking dumb for having said that a relationship was "revealed" or "confirmed" in the goddam lead [48]. EEng 03:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Goddamit. How can someone eff up so bigly? Well, I will just also point out that that nightclub was burnt in riotes. 2A00:1370:812C:D131:2DBE:3EB:E942:5E8D (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So someone retracted their accusation about a cop. Wikipedia is not a place where I should express my POV, so, I won't say whether I am suspicious or not.

That being said, since we've RS, it might be okay to briefly mention someone said Derek knew George but later retracted their statement. --nafSadh ^{did say} 17:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Their shifts at club overlapped, according to full comments in RS from owner. If trusted RS, I'd say go for it concisely. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's already there. EEng 11:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Alleged events

It is common practice for newspapers to say according to prosecutors, or something similar. This article states facts as if they are facts, which they probably are. But we are all innocent until proven guilty. Is there a way around this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Who do we say is guilty of what crime?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works. I'm fine with leaving it the way it is if you can show me no one is guilty of anything and we're not stating facts that may not be facts. Another way to look at it is "According to the video the following events occurred" or "The video shows".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The charge means the authorities accept George Floyd was killed, the only question is was it murder. As we do not say it was guilt or innocence does not enter into it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

So all the specific details we accept as facts, then.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A Man died, is that not a fact? Both autopsy reports say he died as a direct result of asphyxiation, is that not a fact?Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

See. that's what I mean. When you say how he died, you say "autopsy reports say".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Baker's report does not blame asphyxiation, and his office explicitly denied it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct it says he dies of "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.", or he died at least in part of his restraint, thus he was killed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact that Floyd was killed by Chauvn, the question is whether he is criminally responsible. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition of citations in "Memorials & Protests" section

The length of time that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck, eight minutes forty-six seconds, was often seen on protest signs and messages[citation needed], as were the words "I can't breathe".[citation needed] citation to add: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/george-floyd-protest-signs-photos-1012560/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.177.117 (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Do we consider Rolling Stone a RS? I relate it to a music magazine, so... --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've always been partial to Pit & Quarry myself. EEng 13:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC) EEng 13:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Rolling Stone is green at WP:RSP, albeit with caveats listed there. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks IP, but that doesnt seem a good enough source to get rid of the unsightly tags. For me Rolling Stone is reliable enough for a claim that's obviously true to anyone who's been closely following the reactions. But while it's all about signs, it doesnt seem to say that phrases like "I can't breathe" were often used. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How about changing "often used" to "commonly used" in the article? Or, a different descriptor that can be supported by the RS. Msherby (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added mainstream references. I also added the "moment of silence" observations for 8'46". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Readability in Memorials and protests section

Following paragraph is hard to read:

Protests demanding justice for George Floyd, in some cases also to demonstrate against issues with police brutality in their own countries, took place in more than 100 cities in the US and around the world,[131] including New York City;[132] Los Angeles;[133] Chicago;[134] Toronto;[135] Mashhad;[136] Milan;[137] Columbus, Ohio;[138][139][140] Denver;[141][142] Des Moines;[143] Houston;[144] Louisville;[145] Memphis;[146][147] Charlotte, North Carolina;[148] Oakland;[149] Portland, Oregon;[150] San Jose;[151] Seattle;[152] outside the White House in Washington;[153] outside Chauvin's summer home in Windermere, Florida;[154] and in many other locations. On May 30, 12 states called up the National Guard,[155] and at least 12 major cities imposed curfews on Saturday night.[156]

Two reasons contribute to this: (1) too much citation links, (2) it is a long list of cities.

Am I suggesting it needs to be copy edited and improved? -- Yes.

Do I know how to? -- Not at the moment. If I can come up with something I'll update. Meanwhile if someone else can improve this, please do. --nafSadh ^{did say} 18:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC) {{Campaignbox George Floyd protests}}

I agree that list of cities should be removed from the prose, and probably replaced with something like {{campaignbox George Floyd protests}}, which is the box to the right here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This is actually a good solution. Kudos! Go for it! --nafSadh ^{did say} 20:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Nafsadh, thanks, but I can't take credit for it. This box used to be in that section and it was taken out. I'm curious to see if there's broader agreement to replace the list of cities with the box. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich Kudos for proposing the solution. I support addition of this infobox. However the box got bloated after adding notable events. I'm also thinking, we should split this section into two: #Memorials and #Protests. --nafSadh ^{did say} 23:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What kind of name is Levivich Kudos? Sort of Greek-Russian? EEng 14:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A Balkan granola bar? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

White police officers washing the feat of black BLM activists, apologising and asking for forgivness

I'm seeing much talk about this on all the major SM platforms. It seems a key reaction that nicely reflects the historical uniqueness of the George Floyd movement. It's been covered by leading newspapers like the Daily Mail, but sadly wikipedians have decided that paper is not WP:RS. Just putting a note here in case anyone finds a good RS, as it seems quite an unencyclopedic omission not to cover this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this really related though? There might be a reason that reliable sources haven't covered it, because it's a video people want to watch but doesn't actually have anything to do with Black Lives Matter or George Floyd protests. If I'm wrong, please provide sources. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And anyone, what has this to do with the killing?Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail & at least hundreds (probably tens of thousands) of social media posts do seem to link it to the killing of George Floyd. But thanks for this perspective - perhaps it's actually an unrelated spontaneous expression of the strange persistence of guilt. I guess some might see it as OR to assume otherwise, until we have a proper RS linking the two. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

−

Even if they do, this is not about, and tells us nothing about, the killing. This is about the killing, not responses to it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Until we reach concensus to create a seperate article for Reactions, this seems the best place to cover key responses (other than protests). FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We have this List of George Floyd protests in the United States and this [[49]]. And just because we have "no where to put it" does not mean we should put it here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If Chauvin washed Mrs Floyd’s feet we MIGHT have relevance. Otherwise it is just Christian imagery. WWGB (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Or even the same police department.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we are opposed to "Christian imagery", WWGB. And I certainly think this is "about the killing", Slatersteven. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

So this has happened every time an unarmed black man has been killed by a police officer? No, this is a reaction, to the reaction, not to the killing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven—intelligent readers can walk and chew gum at the same time. They can read about a central event and also read peripheral information. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

They can also follow links. But there is no more to say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't believe there's this much discussion about something sourced to The Daily Mail. O3000 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There's actually an RS: US News & World Report via the AP, but it doesn't belong here -- maybe at protests in NC as it happened at the conclusion of a 'prayer walk.' —valereee (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree it should be included in a protest article, not this article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources comparing George Floyd to Eric Garner (and others)

AP (1), AP (2), ABC (1), ABC (2), ABC (Australia), BBC, CBC, CBS, CNN, NBC, NPR, NYT, Fox, Reuters, WaPo... there are more. The comparison to Garner and others should be in the article somewhere. The article could probably benefit from a "Background" and/or "Analysis" section. I see the RSes speaking about three broader themes, of which the Killing of George Floyd is a part: (1) police killing of unarmed black people, (2) police use of choke hold/neck restraints, and (3) video contradicting police statements. These themes, along with Eric Garner and the other victims, would be what I'd include in a background or analysis section. Thoughts? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I'm also seeing lots of good sources putting the reactions in wider context with things like Covid, poverty, long term systemic racism etc. I agree it would be great to have a back ground section. However it's perhaps more relevant to the reactions & protests than the killing itself, perhaps it better belongs in one of those articles, and could wait till we have consensus to split out Reactions ? Medium term it would be great to have a dedicated article on this,where we'd have room for analyses both on the wider context, and the more specific comparisons you mention. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say one line and a link to Police brutality in the United States.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There is no end to related commentary. We have to be selective. We don't want commentary that is too general. In general, I don't even think we want commentary. We want facts pertinent to this incident. We don't want to wax eloquent about the philosophical significance of this moment in the nation's history—or anything remotely like that. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

While the article's so large, there's certainly something to be said for the minimalist approach. But medium term I remain of the opinion that "Background" and/or "Analysis" type coverage is an excellent idea. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with waiting for the various merger/spinoff proposals to close before worrying too much about background/analysis sections (which maybe should be one section called "Context"?). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

SlaterSteven Livivich Bus stop A reference to Garner comparison is already included in top section under lynching postcard image. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Levivich Bus stop Slatersteven the comparison to Garner was included but since been removed from its previous location. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the comparison to Killing of Eric Garner is more than warranted. It should be mentioned in this article. Thank you for pinging me, Pasdecomplot. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Covering up information about the city charter is very inappropriate

The Minneapolis City Council pledges to dismantle and defund the Minneapolis Police Department are powerless if the city charter is not amended. It is inappropriate to cover up that the authority of Minneapolis mayor, who in fact opposes dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department, overrides city council pledges to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department via the charter and how the charter also requires a minimum amount of police. I will get a anti-vandalism administrator if blocking these edits continues.Mancalledsting (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It is even accepted in the Minneapolis Police Department article. Why no responses so far?Mancalledsting (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

City charter restriction acknowledged as reason for year long discussion too.[[50] Won't anybody respond please? This is not vandalism talking.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• You need to give this time. Editors are not standing by waiting to participate. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• And you need to cool it with the "covering up" allegations and so on. You've been spoken to repeatedly by multiple editors about your habit of adding over detail and highly tangential material, particularly with regard to the procedural minutiae of ongoing reform efforts e.g. Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_5#Restraining_order_was_in_fact_temporary (and see also Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_5#Allegations_about_protestors_not_being_Minneapolis_residents_should_be_discussed and [51]). The Reactions section presents the broad strokes of various persons' and institutions' efforts to address the conditions dramatized by Floyd's death; such efforts are going on nationwide, and that someone says that the proposal in one jurisdiction may require this or that procedural move, or a charter amendment, or whatever, will be of no importance ten years from now. Even now you're trying to force in more material on this [52] [53]. Stop it. EEng 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunatly, this is a current event, which hurts the ten years argument.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  No it doesn't, and I think this is why you're having so much trouble getting into the groove here. We write for the reader ten years hence at all times. It's exactly why we don't rush to include every momentary twist and turn and suspenseful procedural uncertainty (in the mind of one source, anyway) that will be resolved the next day. Newspapers and blogs are available for that. EEng 19:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Relax. This page isn't as monitored as it was a week ago. Give people time to reach a consensus. As for me, I Oppose mentioning. It is only a single dissenting opinion, and is WP:UNDUE imo Anon0098 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not mentioning what the Minneapolis mayor authority is while mentioning what the Minneapolis city council pledged contradicts the fact. As the provision regards what the Minneapolis mayor's power is over the Minneapolis Police Department was erased,[54] I indeed was very suspicious. I am anticipating a comment from John from Idegon too.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious of what? O3000 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Group conspiracy to cover up what was documented on local news stations about the authority of the Minneapolis mayor and how the city council can't block him without an amendment to the city charter.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is being "covered up" and there is no "conspiracy". O3000 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what they always say. EEng 20:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mancalledsting, I know this feels urgent, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We will likely take months or even years to get this article right, and we're good with that. Our process incorporates each new piece of information by building consensus, each tiny step of which can, if controversial, take a week to a month or more. We don't actually purport to provide accurate updated information on current events. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's focus on the content, please; that's what talk pages are for. It looks to me as if the current content of the article covers the situation adequately. In the lead we have removed the claim that the city council voted to “disband” the police department, and replaced it with their modified “intent to replace”. In the article text, under “Political: Minneapolis and Minnesota”, I have just now modified it to make it clear (as it wasn’t before) that the “disband” call was not a vote; it was public comments by individual members of the council. So we now have this:

Speaking at a June 7 rally, nine members of the 13-member Minneapolis city council pledged to disband the city's police department,[170] though significant reductions in police staffing may require amending the city's charter[171][172] and Frey has expressed opposition to it.[173][174] On June 12 the council unanimously adopted a resolution to begin a year-long project to develop "strategies for building [a] new model for cultivating community safety".[175

Sources

It seems to me that this is all we need to say. It already mentions Frey's opposition, and it mentions the need to modify the city charter. That sentence could be tweaked, perhaps made a little more definite, and we could discuss that here. But there is no need to go into great detail about the charter or the relative powers of the council vs. the mayor. That's TMI. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If by TMI you mean Three Mile Island, I agree, in that if we have to discuss everything ad nauseam like this I'm going to have a meltdown. EEng 20:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The text says it is their "intent". Everyone knows that government moves slowly and there are always obstacles. Been waiting 97 years for the ERA to be enacted. O3000 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath —valereee (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me Anon0098 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Change “75 cities” to “250 cities” Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/13/us/george-floyd-protests-cities-photos.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage 2401:E180:8861:A229:A464:B199:9876:8CC4 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

75 > many. —valereee (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Killed by Derek Chauvin

Is it wrong to state that George Floyd was killed by the police or Derek Chauvin specifically?

Given that the death has been declared a homicide and a thorough discussion has resulted in moving the article from Death of George Floyd to Killing of George Floyd, I wonder if there is a good reason to bend over backwards trying to avoid stating who killed whom. This especially concerns dozens of articles where a concise wording might be best, e.g. George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom. It has been made clear that homicide is not a crime unless it is ruled to be a murder so the tiptoeing seems unwarranted. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say who did it, even if was not criminal he still did it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should focus on Chauvin alone to the exclusion of the other three, especially since it's clear two of the three actively participated in the killing by sitting on Floyd etc. It's for that reason I've left the lead saying that Floyd died "after" Chauvin did X, rather than that Floyd was killed by Chauvin (period). EEng 12:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that position. WWGB (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In Dr. Baden's opinion, the back-kneeling and neck-kneeling both asphyxiated Floyd, and I didn't see any four-legged officer on YouTube. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Baden's opinion seems to contradict the opinion of the medical examiner's office, as well as the opinion of the prosecutors who choose to charge only Chauvin with murder. I hesitate to take the opinion of a TV physician hired by the victim's family over the opinions of the medical examiner's and prosecutor's offices. userdude 20:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And others don't trust Baker, but as long as our body includes both, our lead should reflect that content. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What is it that you are suggesting changing, Surtsicna? The first sentence of the lede reads "On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, after white police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street." Can you tell me what specific change to the article you are suggesting? I don't understand what question you are asking. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The change being suggested would be to replace the word "died" with "was killed," and replace the word "after" with "by," so that we specifically state that Chauvin killed Floyd in the first sentence of the lead, e.g., change it from "Floyd died after Chauvin..." to read "Floyd was killed by Chauvin...." etc. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that the wording of this article be changed. I asked whether it was problematic to state in other articles, where more concise wording is expected, that Floyd was killed by Chauvin or by the police. InedibleHulk and EEng#s have explained why Chauvin should not be named alone. I assume it would not be problematic to state that he was killed by the police. Surtsicna (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I am so sorry that I didn't grasp your question until just now, and I hate to think you might have figured I was blowing you off. In case it's not apparent by now, I think no one can possibly have a problem with killed by police (or by the police, or by police officers – whatever fits best stylistically)). EEng 22:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither Baden nor Baker sees a problem with linking this homicide to "police", readers can figure out who's who extremely easily in so many other ways in every Floyd article already. Might change "after" to "while" here, though. Both doctors agree he died when he appeared to die. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

While is a great idea, and I went to implement it when I found a problem: the sentence ends up died while white police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes, which sounds a bit odd. Or maybe no. OK, I've tried it on for size; let's see how it feels.

Later: No, doesn't work because there's a worse problem: you end up with died while D.C. knelt ... while Floyd lay face down... EEng 16:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I bumped Floyd's final position up a notch, getting rid of one "while" and reintroducing "prone", look OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's an inspired stylistic fix. (I'm not thrilled with prone but face down doesn't work in your new formulation so I'll let that point go.) However, I fear Levivich (below) has pointed out a fatal flaw in our whole "while" project. EEng 16:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

One problem with that change is he didn't die in the street. He went into cardiac arrest in the ambulance. One can't go into cardiac arrest if one is already dead. Ergo, he was alive when they put him into the ambulance. The ambulance left at 8:30 and he was pronounced dead at the hospital at 9:25. I don't know when the ambulance arrived at the hospital, but it sure didn't take an hour. Ergo, he was alive in the hospital. Almost certainly, the entire time from 8:30 until 9:25, medical personnel of various sorts were attempting to save his life. (It's not like they just left him in the hallway for an hour, then came back and pronounced him dead.) It's very, very, very, likely that he died at the hospital shortly before 9:25. This is like that age-old question, if a man is shot Monday and dies on Friday, on which day was he "killed"? Was he "killed" five days before he died, or was he "killed" five days after he was shot? In this case, Floyd was "killed" in the street, but "died" in the hospital. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I fear that "went into cardiac arrest in the ambulance" is fatal to the use of while. I think it has to be died after. Do all agree on that? EEng 16:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is going to sound stupidly pedantic but bear with me. It doesn't really matter when or where Floyd died. This isn't an article about the death--that is, it's not about the particular combination of actions by police officers and underlying medical conditions that resulted in death; we don't include any information about medical attempts to save his life; it's not actually the death that's notable or significant, it's the killing. This article, at its core, is about a knee on a neck. It's not about a man's medical conditions. All the important stuff happened at the corner of E. 38th and Chicago, not at the Hennepin County Medical Center.

By that logic, I think we should keep the focus onto the street and what happened on that street on the evening of Memorial Day 2020. So, I'd prefer a construction of "was killed...when" or something like that, as opposed to "died...when" or "died...after".

About "face down" "face-down" "facedown", I don't think it matters if he was face down or face up. It's not like if he were face up with a knee on his neck, everything would have turned out fine. All the sources do say "face down", and we should include that in the body, but I'm not sure it's even necessary to say "face-down" or "prone" in the lead. He was lying in the street; it doesn't matter how exactly he was positioned. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, this is your problem now, but maybe "laying" beats "lying", too. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, well that depends. Are you going to lay in bed or are you lying? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm always laying in bed when editing, no lie, but "went unconscious" that time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a WP:RS for Kueng kneeling on Floyd's back? If so, that belongs in the lead and the text should say "killed by police". I did a quick search and found references to holding and restraining Floyd's back, but that's only enough for aiding and abetting. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made this edit. Handcuffed behind the back exacerbates breathing difficulties resulting from knee pressure on back of neck. This is something known to police. There are limitations recommended concerning the amount of time a suspect can be restrained with handcuffs behind their back, although this involves other factors as well. In this instance the one factor possibly exacerbated the other.

"Seth Stoughton, an associate professor of law at the University of South Carolina, told the news network that keeping suspects in the prone position, meaning face-down with their hands cuffed behind their backs, for an extended period of time is dangerous in and of itself, because it's known to cause positional asphyxia...Someone in that position can draw enough breath to gasp or speak in spurts, but they can't breathe fully, so they gradually lose oxygen and fall unconscious." Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

For my part, I don't agree with including that detail in the lead. Known to police, sure, but not known to the average reader. These are what I think are the key details that should be in the first sentence:

1. May 25, 2020

2. Minneapolis, MN

3. George Floyd

3a. 46-year-old black man

4. was killed

5. Derek Chauvin

5a. white police officer

6. knelt on Floyd's neck

7. for a long time (8:46 or "almost nine minutes")

IMO, "knelt on Floyd's neck" implies lying down. Clearly Floyd wasn't standing or sitting when someone knelt on his neck. I don't think it really matters if he was handcuffed behind his back, or in front, or if he was handcuffed at all. Just like it doesn't matter if they were metal handcuffs or plastic zipties. Same IMO with face down/face up/nose down/cheek down. None of that has been cited by RS as being particularly important to his killing (as opposed to the knee in the neck). Those 7 facts above, and those two descriptions of Floyd and Chauvin, are what I think like every single RS includes in their lead sentence or in their short-blurb descriptions of what happened. And I think the best word to connect #4 and #5 is "when". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"it doesn't matter how exactly he was positioned" I disagree. We don't have to explain this with exactitude. But we do have to use appropriately specific language. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"I don't think it really matters if he was handcuffed behind his back, or in front, or if he was handcuffed at all." A key factor is "compliance". It is almost axiomatic that a person handcuffed behind their back is "compliant".

“It would have to be a last resort,” Adams said. “Everything we do with use-of-force has one object in mind: compliance. The video I saw showed a man lying on the ground in handcuffs and it would be hard to argue he wasn’t complying. Once you gain compliance, you need to deescalate.” Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Adams is the chief of police of Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, population 18,000, 1,000 miles away from Minneapolis. In any case, I don't think analysis of whether the knee on the neck was proper police procedure belongs in the first sentence of the lead. Maybe I'm wrong but to me (and I kind of think to the rest of the world) it seems very obvious that kneeling on someone's neck for 9 minutes is not proper police procedure. I guess I'm not opposed to explicitly saying it was not correct police procedure in the lead somewhere. I think the criticism-of-neck-restraint content could be woven into the lead somewhere, just not in the first sentence. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"keeping suspects in the prone position, meaning face-down with their hands cuffed behind their backs, for an extended period of time is dangerous in and of itself, because it's known to cause positional asphyxia...Someone in that position can draw enough breath to gasp or speak in spurts, but they can't breathe fully, so they gradually lose oxygen and fall unconscious" This just something we need to know—aside from the knee on the neck—that was bad enough—there is the prone position, with hands behind one's back. "hands cuffed behind their backs, for an extended period of time is dangerous in and of itself, because it's known to cause positional asphyxia" Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's relevant information for the article, but not so important as to include in the first sentence. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If we change the lead to say that Floyd was killed by Chauvin before the trial, aren't we stating in Wikipedia's voice that Chauvin is responsible for Floyd's killing, even though a government authority (be it the county ME or the county's district court) has not yet made a finding of fact that Chauvin is responsible for the killing of Floyd? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that he was killed, as reflected in all sources. Hence this page was correctly renamed. Killed by whom? Obviously, by the officer Chauvin an his colleagues, as majority of the sources also tell. WP:SPADE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Do the majority of the mainstream secondary reliable sources say "Floyd was killed by Chauvin", MVBW? Or do they essentially say that Floyd was killed, Chauvin put his knee on his neck for 9 minutes, two autopsy reports found the manner of death to be homicide, and Chauvin has been charged with murder (like this Wikipedia article does)? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Only some sources say this directly and literally (for example, here), others do not say it literally, but clearly imply it. This is because the alleged perpetrator was caught and even photographed red handed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, that's an excellent summary of what we actually know, and what our article correctly says. I would not change it at all. Even somebody like DC has a legal right to be presumed innocent. If we start saying he was "killed by Derek Chauvin", in Wikipedia's voice, in an article read by literally millions of people, how can he get a fair trial? Would we have tainted the jury? Would he get a mistrial because of it? Let's stick with Neutrality and Verifiability, and not get ahead of what we know. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Were the article to have said "murdered by", that would be a WP:NPOV issue unless and until a court so ruled. However, "killed by" is a matter of fact, substantiated by WP:RS. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should say "killed by DC" until a court of law says so. For one thing, remember that two other officers besides DC were part of the assault. And I really liked the "while" formulation and think we should go back to that. I don't know who came up with the assertion that we can't say "while" because he didn't actually die, i.e. undergo cardiac arrest, until he was in the ambulance, but I don't think is an argument we should base our decision on. He was described as "pulseless" when the ambulance arrived, and had been immobile for at least three minute at that point. The paramedics undoubted tried CPR for a few minutes, and they may have zapped him with a defibrillator, and they undoubtedly did this for a while, before pronouncing him to be in cardiac arrest. But his "cardiac arrest" had already happened. You can argue that he isn't "really" dead until he is pronounced dead, which would have to be done by medical personnel, but that's a quibble given the evidence that he died while DC and the others were kneeling on him. In a murder case the "time of death" is the time when evidence suggests that the person died; it's not the time when they were pronounced dead, possibly hours later. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Star Tribune reported: By the time George Floyd was en route to the hospital Monday evening, he was unresponsive and without a pulse. But for nearly an hour, first responders and ER staff refused to give up on the 46-year-old St. Louis Park man in their care. “He still had an outside chance,” said Hennepin Healthcare EMS Chief Marty Scheerer. “Even if it’s a super long shot, you’ve got to try your best.” But 90 minutes after his initial encounter with Minneapolis police, Floyd was pronounced dead at HCMC. But Fox News reports: George Floyd died "many minutes" before he was transferred to a stretcher and taken to a Minneapolis hospital, forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden told Sean Hannity Monday. I think perhaps the most accurate formulation would say something like, Floyd was dead for all intents and purposes by the time the ambulance arrived at 8:27, but medical personnel continued to try to revive him, until he was finally pronounced dead at 9:25. (Agree we shouldn't say "by DC" and I also liked the previous opening more than the current one.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I actually agree with MelanieN and others that the current description in the lead is good, and we should not say he "was killed by DC". I am only saying that any reasonable person who reads newspapers and this WP page will come to such conclusion. However, speaking generally, when and where a person was pronounced dead (on site or in the hospital) does not really matter. This is still a murder. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a RS for Keung kneeling on Chauvin's back? If so, "killed by Minneapolis police" is more accurate than "killed by Derek Chauvin". Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Any remaining open issue here before we archive? EEng 02:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Collapse trolling

The official autopsy does not imply that he was killed, he died because of cardiac arrest. Either from coronavirus (he was infected and multiple sources prove that cardiac arrests are on spike during the pandemic) or drug overdose. Kneeling on the back of the neck cannot cause asphyxiation or death, as trachea is located on the front of the neck. This article's name is massively misleading and ruins Wikipedia's credibility. Original name "Death of George Floyd" was more suitable. You will have to change it someday, as cops will be proven innocent. 185.90.166.4 (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC) If you actually think Kneeling on the back of the neck cannot cause asphyxiation or death you're nuts. Here's an idea: have someone try it on you. If we don't hear back in a day or two we'll know that you got your confusion straightened out, though I fear at the cost of some pain to your family and friends. EEng 16:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC) No, you cannot be asphyxiated by this neck restraint. Give me one source. You are just a conspiracy nut that is thinking too emotionally, sadly at the price of losing credibility of Wikipedia. But I will enjoy it when you will have to edit the name of the page after the cops will walk as free men. 185.90.166.4 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Let us know if you survive the experiment. EEng 17:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) We wouldn't change the name of the page if the cops walk as free men. If they walk as free men, it wouldn't mean they didn't kill him. And if the credibility of Wikipedia hinges on EEng's thinking, we're doomed anyway. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC) The problem is as many people consider Wikipedia a source of information, they will visit this page and take it as a sure thing that he was killed. Nothing proves he was killed. Not a single thing. Do you think cops have super power to cause cardiac arrest? Because asphyxiation did not happen, he died in hospital, which would not be anatomically possible if he asphyxiated. "Homicide" in autopsy means that the death was not exactly natural, what medical examiner stated has no legal means. Whoever is stubborn enough to keep this named a killing is ruining credibility of Wikipedia. And if you are willingly stating this as killing without any proof you are just thinking emotionally. The cardiac arrest is defined as this "Cardiac arrest is a sudden loss of blood flow resulting from the failure of the heart to pump effectively. Signs include loss of consciousness and abnormal or absent breathing. Some individuals may experience chest pain, shortness of breath, or nausea before cardiac arrest. If not treated within minutes, it typically leads to death." Shortness of breath and lost of consciousness were caused by ongoing cardiac arrest, unrelated to neck restraint. It was just really unfortunate he got it while being arrested. 185.90.166.4 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC) It's beginning to look like you're simply a troll, because no one's that stupid. Hatting. 17:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) As I recall no page moves.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC) This thread wasn't about the page title, rather some details of the text. EEng 17:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Skin color of individuals irrelevant

There is zero evidence of racism in any aspect of this incident; mentioning skin color of individuals involved amounts to little more than racism-baiting, and could be argued is itself racist. Joey.J (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps in an ideal world (for non-separatists). In the one I'm living in, most sources are mentioning it. It's WP:DUE.—Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Imagine pretending there's nothing about race happening here. It's like those people who claim they "don't see skin color". It couldn't possibly be more due. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Imagine being required to back up your claim that this was related race. 2A02:C7F:463B:FC00:19C2:2646:9F4E:96E9 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

article rename to Death of George Floyd

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.

---

The entire premise of this article violates Wikipedia’s mission statement of objectivity and reeks of political agenda. Floyd’s death has not been proven to be a homicide in court, this cannot be described as a “killing” no matter what mob rule applies pressure to do so. That’s not how justice and fact-finding in America works. Officers have been charged with crimes here, that’s all that should be mentioned. Floyd has been CONVICTED of violent felonies, and at this point those should carry more weight as they have been validated by the courts. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Media sentiment and public response should be documented here in an impartial manner. Joey.J (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

JoeyJ, that's why it's called "killing" of George Floyd, and not (yet) "murder". There is a move moratorium on this page until July 1. Please read the talk page and its archives to familiarize yourself with the discussion that has already taken place. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

That should not be the main photo under his name. How much disrespect is this man going to receive, even after death? TAKE THE MAIN PHOTO DOWN!!! 2605:A000:1607:4EB:A804:EA67:A2F7:4593 (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done Please see the discussion above, where a consensus was reached to keep the photo as is. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Murder of George Floyd

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.

---

George Floyd was murdered by the police. Title should say the Murder of George Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.186.122 (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. However no new requests for changes to the title are permitted until the beginning of next month Zingarese talk · contribs 04:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? The truth is the truth. Autopsy says homicide that means MURDER. He was not killed by a milk truck stepping off a curb. He was on film by at least 4 different sources shown murdered by police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.186.122 (talk • contribs)

Homicide is just one person killing another. It is not synonymous with murder. Whether murder occurred will be determined by the courts. Please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Homicide is also determined by a court. Innocent until proven guilty. An autopsy is just one document, one person's opinion.

Besides, in this autopsy the coroner contradicted himself. The autopsy states Floyd suffered no life-threatening injuries, so how could it be homicide?

The autopsy gives cause of death as cardiopulmonary arrest. That is the outcome from a drug overdose, specifically from fentanyl. The Toxicological Findings in the autopsy show a fentanyl + norfentanyl level of at least 3 times the level anyone is on record as surviving in the ICU, probably 10 times the typical lethal dose.

So Floyd basically killed himself, or whoever sold him drugs laced with fentanyl killed him. There's your murderer if you can find him.

Is there any precedent where a knee on neck restraint has ever killed anybody? Please post if you know of one, I am looking for this detail. JPLeonard (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2020 (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.

Proposed merge of George Floyd into Killing of George Floyd

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.

---

WP:1E clearly applies. Also, this is going to cause duplication of effort and content divergence. nafSadh ^{did say} 20:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are probably ten articles surrounding George Floyd right now. I think the article subject has become more than just a single incident. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nafsadh: can you quote what language exactly you're referring to when you say "WP:1E clearly applies?" What part of 1E says we should merge these two articles? Because I'm reading 1E and it says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." And I agree that clearly applies, but it seems to suggest not merging. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: That article was just split out of this. It pretty much only covers the information that was in the 'George Floyd' section on this page. If that article is continued, it would effectively just be a replacement of large parts of this article. In other words, that article's existence requires this page to be split. I don't think there was an attempt at trying to obtain consensus before the split here, but it's a drastic change due to the amount of overlap, which is already evident on that page. It's premature, for now, and regardless requires more discussion if it's to be done in the future. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrasinatingReader I think you'll find there's actually been quite a bit added since it was split out. —valereee (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

valereee You're correct, there has. But outside of summary info, there's only really 960 characters of novel info (in the Biography section), plus a further two sentences about memorial. imo that can cleanly be presented here under a heading. And I'm not sure how much more can be added there without overlap here. I'd support that page, if we can agree to split this page almost entirely (like Rodney King, who doesn't have a page about the incident). In the absence of that, I think that article just splits and causes poorer access to info by readers, who only know of him in relation to the killing, and at present, for the most part, that's all the info we have. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrasinatingReader, I'm not following. Nearly the entire bio section in the 'Killing of' article is no longer in that section (because with a bio article, it's unnecessary and irrelevant there). The whole point of doing a separate article is that there was so much bio information irrelevant to his death -- his high school athletic career, etc. -- that now can be trimmed from the 'Killing of' article. —valereee (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

valereee, I think I now see your point. Though, I do think background on an involved individual can be summarised in this article, as it usually is for involved people on similar articles, and that (at least currently) there's not enough background on the subject where it would become convoluted to have it here. Nevertheless, I recognise that more background may be added, and hence that article may have its purpose alongside this. I think that article may be appropriate, as long as it doesn't elaborate any further on his death and sticks to the person only (imo this article should be preferred for developments in the killing). I do still think most people, when they search his name, are mainly looking for events surrounding the killing, and his biography is only a subset of that. Hence I still support the change and feel the information is best kept here for the time being, albeit it's more of a weak support now. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Paging nafsadh. You started this proposal, so could you please return and explain yourself more fully?

In particular, Valeree reminded you that other related articles exists, including George Floyd protests, which you explicitly endorsed. Surely you realize it would be far better for Killing of George Floyd, George Floyd protests, and a whole bunch of other articles, could link directly to a standalone George Floyd, rather than Killing_of_George_Floyd#People_involved. Note: wiki-linking to a subsection heading is a dangerous technique, and is done incorrectly 99 percent of the time. This section has gone through at least three names over the last week.

Please return and address the explicit wording of BLP1E that allows the creation of standalone BLP articles for individuals who are central to an event, when the are widely covered by RS.

Yes, duplication of content, and divergence of content, is a concern. Newsflash, even though we are all volunteers, working on the wikipedia can be hard work. When the topic is controversial I think I can guarantee you hard work will be involved. So justifying a merge based on hard work seems like a bad idea to me, particularly as there would be other sources of hard work if your merge proposal succeeds. Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:1E states, "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered." In this case it is open to interpretation. However it follows with "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." There can be many exceptions and those can be made here too. Now it says, "... individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Now, even though the event has shaken many including myself and has become a very significant one, it is about the event and not the person. <POV alert/> He symbolizes all the victims of police brutality and this event was a tipping point <end POV/>. A significant event will cause creation of many articles and we see that there is already 4-5 articles in development. That being said, people searching for George Floyd is looking for the information about the event and not about the person's biography. The person's biography doesn't alone pass WP:N. So, in my interpretation 1E suggest that the short bio be covered in this article. Clearly some editors disagree. So, looking forward to hearing from both side. --nafSadh ^{did say} 23:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the George Floyd started as a draft and someone suddenly decided to skip AFC discussion. --nafSadh ^{did say} 23:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nafsadh Any autoconfirmed user is free to move a draft to article space when they feel it's ready, which is what I did. Are you under the impression this was somehow improper? —valereee (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Not wrong but was a bit WP:Bold, which is often a good thing. --nafSadh ^{did say} 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Re. linking to subheadings, and the dangers of it: I don't believe that is required per MOS:REDIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProcrasinatingReader (talk • contribs)

• Weak support - Not enough unique content to justify an individual article at this time. Much of this is already repeated in the Killing of George Floyd article. Love of Corey (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support, for now. As I stated on the other page, this will cause an overlap of information with this page, as is already happening (eg the reference to the state autopsy which is repeated, for balance we're now going to have to add the independent autopsy, and as you can see, this quickly becomes repetition of material). Although some page splits and merges are needed, I think merges and splits are currently not being discussed enough and are being done hastily. I think perhaps some more waiting should've been done before creating that page. The current design might just cause confusion, poorer access to information by readers, and repetitiveness. For that page to be proper, we would have to butcher a lot of content out of this, which people seem to be unwilling to do currently. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• The eventualist in me strongly opposes per the passage Levivich quotes, and the immediatist in me strongly supports per ProcrasinatingReader. I'm left somewhere in the middle. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support As above, there is not enough info on GF to justify a separate article. All it can hope to do is repeat the story contained in Killing of GF because that's the only notable thing about GF so far. Perennial Student (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Opposite There is as much reason to merge George Floyd page with George Floyd Protests. There are multiple wiki pages surrounding the topic of George Floyd. If someone was looking for a biography of him, how would they know they should go to 'killing of george floyd' instead of 'george floyd protests'. I say don't merge.Byconcept (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Using a redirect, as it was before. And for those looking for a biography from outside Wikipedia, Google suggests Death of George Floyd for the search term "George Floyd". ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose This page is becoming too sloppy because people are falling over themselves to cram as much information into it as they can without regard to quality and policies. His biography should be separate for this reason. Trillfendi (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is sloppy in the lead and its description of technical events (done in far too much detail). The brief bio was probably the leanest part of the article prior to the GF page creation, given the robustness of debate about what could be included. Perennial Student (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - As User:Levivich notes, the referenced policy suggests the opposite of merging. In addition, while it is very unfortunate that George Floyd's notability began with one event, it's equally clear from the preponderance of interest and further activity that his notability already exceeds that one event and continues to expand.  Frank  |  talk  21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The man is important and notable enough to have his own page on wikipedia. To have only Death of George Floyd conveys a lack of regard for the man whose death started a global protest movement. There will be books written about Floyd, songs sung about him, and many deep dive articles written about him. He is notable enough for a biography page.Comm260 ncu (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merging pages. George Floyd is now important enough to have his own page, plus I think there is an added respect to those close to him that his murder is not the only page of his and they can see one that is about him directly. --Evertent (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge His life was not all that interesting, and certainly not biography material. His death is the only reason he is known and written about. WP:BLP1E Lightburst (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above; the oppose votes were convincing enough for me. Quahog (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The protests are largely centered around Floyd and have even took his name. He is the protagonist in this situation and not just some side person who was involved. Additionally, information about his life is is present. 23:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Killing of George Floyd is already too large. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose, his name will be known in the history books. Vinnylospo (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, purely because Killing of George Floyd is already getting rather large, but then there's also a risk of this page being repurposed as a memorial. Ed6767 (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure if size concerns valid at this stage. Size is 31k char, and hence per WP:SIZESPLIT "Length alone does not justify division". ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- Killing of George Floyd is getting too large and cluttered. Miss HollyJ (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per WP:BLP1E; he played a significant role in a significant event. There are plenty of sources to support a stand-alone page: BBC News, Rolling Stone, The Economist, NBC News, The Independent (UK), Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, CNN and many more biographies from which we can draw. Including a full biography in this article will make this article too long. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • After considering the arguments from other editors, I'm no longer sure that having two articles is best. I'm also not sure whether "the one article" should be titled "George Floyd" or "Killing of George Floyd". To me, I think under our policies, we have discretion to do it either way, and it's a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue about which presentation is best for the reader. On that score, I'm just not sure. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Levivich—"George Floyd" is not a "topic". "George Floyd" is the title for a "biography". WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". But "George Floyd" is not a "topic". There can be articles on "topics" relating to "George Floyd", but there cannot be a "biography" on "George Floyd". Policies such as WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL obviate the possibility of a "biography" on "George Floyd". Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support - per our policies: WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, just like we did with the Shooting of Michael Brown. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge (strongly) – and not just because the article on the "Killing of George Floyd" is getting quite long. ...The man himself is becoming more and more notable by the day. The fact that he's "only notable for one event" is negated by the fact that he played a very significant role in quite a significant event (one that had effects on a sizable percentage of the Western world). (Also, it's not as relevant, but his rap career!) Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Paintspot Infez Exactly. Although he was killed, his existence, background, and everything leading up to the moment of his death has emotionally resonated with other human beings. To call for justice for this person is to celebrate his life before the tragedy. Comm260 ncu (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Comm260 ncu: This includes the bad things he did, such as home invading the home of a pregnant wooman and holding her up with a gun while looking for money for drugs. We don't have articles to celebrate the lives of people, we have them because peoople are notable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maximum Oppose, he is known for far more than the one event that brought him to the attention of the world. And the legacy he leaves will likely endure for generations. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Do you have sources to verify your unusual views? And what did he do in life that would warrant a Wikipedia article? I can't think of a single thing. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Not to deviate from the gravity of the issue, but George Floyd as a person is not sufficiently noteworthy. The thing he is most known for is the unfortunate manner of his death. Had he not been arrested and killed, he would not have been mentioned at all in Wikipedia. It is clear that he is recognised for one (tragic) event only, per WP:1E. People who type "George Floyd" in the search box are likely seeking information on his death, not the extensive details of his life. I support incorporating/merging certain details in the George Floyd article into the Killing of George Floyd article, but certain other information such as his "Discography" (which do not link anywhere else) should be omitted or used in other existing articles e.g. Screwed Up Click. Yekshemesh (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support Following the comments and points above, George Floyd shows no signs of notability other than in the present context of his unfortunate killing. DoggieTimesTwo (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as a clear example of WP:1E. With all due respect, the details of his life are not particularly relevant to his death or the aftermath of his death. Wikipedia is not the place for obituaries. Again, I mean no disrespect, but he actually didn't play a significant role in this event, in the sense that it could have been any unarmed black person in his situation at that time and place, and the results would have been largely the same. His education, criminal history, employment history, etc. don't really have anything to do with the reaction to his death. That being said, the "Biography" section of George Floyd is only three short paragraphs, so that could be merged here without losing much content at all. If there is to be a split of Death of George Floyd due to article size, the "Reactions" section would make more sense as an independent article than "George Floyd" would. Surachit (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - George Floyd's discography would suggest that he's noteworthy for more than just his death. KohrVid (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as per all the arguments above. He is certainly notable based on all the press coverage this incident has received. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The killing of George Floyd is long enough. Also I wanna keep his Discography. -- Toby Mitches (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. Let the fact that every single cited source in the article in the George Floyd article was written after his death and discusses in the context of the killing speak for itself. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Clear WP:BIO1E, Floyd was unknown prior to his death. There's nothing here that would not fit into the "Killing of" article. Also, the discography needs a better source than the unreliable discogs. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, given recent coverage of his past life. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's clear under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators George Floyd is notable for being murdered and his life was not a significant factor in his victimhood. Relevant biographical details could be rolled into the "Killing of George Floyd" article. Sean0987 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support This dude is only notable for his killing, having a separate article is completely unnecessary and I suspect motivated by sentimentalism from certain users here. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support - Though as per policy it requires so and also the content regarding biography but since he got much media coverage due to widespread movement, separate page may also be fine. USaamo ^(t@lk) 07:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as per all the arguments above. --IndexAccount (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ambivalent On the one hand he is in fact only notable for this one incident (and frankly it should not have got this big, but that is a discussion for another site). On the other hand this has become a massive event. If anything it is not him (or even the killing) that is notable, its the protests. So if anything that should be what WE concentrate on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per tabled evidence. ItsPugle (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I support the subsuming of information on the person into the article on the incident. Bus stop (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think the merger should be done Sinon01 (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. George Floyd is clearly notable per WP:VICTIM (1), as he had "a large role within a well-documented historic event." A standalone article is justified per WP:SIZESPLIT (An article the size of this one should "almost certainly should be divided") and WP:1E ("If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."). Krakkos (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - clear example of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Merging prevents this from becoming a WP:MEMORIAL filled with trivial life details, when the notability is based solely on the event. -- Netoholic @ 12:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per the fact his career in entertainment gives him some (admittedly borderline) notability independent of the killing, per the unique and unprecedented nature of the world wide protests, and per Krakkos (especially WP:SIZESPLIT - if we're putting the reader first, keeping the separate article is essential, IMO.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge He is notable for a single event WP:SINGLEEVENT. Neither his music or basketball career nor his criminal history get anywhere close to the notability threshold. - BorisG (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Floyd is now notable for multiple subjects Killing of George Floyd, George Floyd protests, etc. Check the related articles in the George Floyd template. TJMSmith (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• (＋)Strong Support According to Wikipedia notability guidelines a criminal cannot have his own article. I had created this page "George Floyd (killed African-American)" and my page was redirected to Killing of George Floyd. Should merge George Floyd to Killing of George Floyd. --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge clear one-event notability as argued by others. The split which would make sense is the "Reactions", ie the political fallout/protests etc. No disrespect to George Floyd, but it is solely the fact and manner of his killing that has made his name known outside family and friends. It is fairly sentimental IMO to pretend otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge per WP:SINGLEEVENT. His legacy can be covered in the Killing of George Foyd article or a separate "Reactions" article if the former is getting too large. We don't have an article at Stephen Lawrence, despite the huge media attention and ramifications of that case.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge Like others mentioned, WP:SINGLEEVENT Amazingcaptain (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin (2nd nomination). If Trayvon Martin has his own article, so should George Floyd. Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Theres nothing unique in this article; Floyd is not notable past this event. Just put some of the his biographical information into the people involved section of his killing article. Everything else in this article is mentioned elsewhere. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Floyd is now notable enough as a man, not only as the victim of police brutality. The media is exploring his life and background independent of the events of 25 May. Moncrief (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge the simple reality is George Floyd would not have had a Wikipedia article if it wasn't for this one event. That defines the 1E rationale. Having them split is also more confusing to the reader, who is likely here looking for information on the killing more so than his personal background. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Oppose: I still think WP:BLP1E applies. Even though there is now more coverage of George Floyd's life, it is still "only in the context of a single event," which is one of the criteria of WP:BLP1E.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bait30 THat seems to be an argument in support of the merge; unless I'm missing something?-- P-K3 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: The way I'm interpreting it, all of the coverage about Floyd's life is still only in the context of his murder as the coverage is not independent of it. In other words, even though there are WP:RS covering Floyd's life, that coverage is solely a result of the murder. If Floyd wasn't killed, this coverage wouldn't exist.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Pawnkingthree Oops you're right. I forgot which side was oppose and which side was support. I'll edit my !vote.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Floyd is a person in his own right - even if he is better known for how he died – and why. There are times - as with JFK and the JFK assassination - that someone's death stands on its merits as a separate topic from their biography. Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Wikiuser100: It sounds like you support, rather than oppose. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thank you for calling attention to my sloppy grammar. I have revised my statement to be clearer. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wee owl maek misteaks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Seems like a decent amount of content here and merging that into the death of will only cause bloat or we will have to excise a lot. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: His biography is not notable, but his murder is.--Sakiv (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: George Floyd has already become such a notable individual after his murder and the resulting mass protests and riots. Many other African Americans have been unjustly killed, but Floyd's one has had a much larger impact. His name will be go down in African American history in the same way that Emmett Till's has. I believe there is enough information about him to justify an article about him, and as the weeks, months and years pass, information on his life and who he was can only grow. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think the difference with Emmett Till, and other similar individuals, is that they do not have an article solely covering the event of the lynch itself. There is no Lynching of Emmett Till and multiple other articles didn't spin out of the event. Note that there's very little on his background in that article; it mostly covers on the lynching, his death, the trial, and the aftermath. In this case, that cannot be done for Floyd due to the fact that this article exists.

  An article on Floyd would remain most useful if all the details of his death are in there. That may well happen, if other proposals made on this page for splitting sections to other articles go through (eg splitting Reactions). Then we'd be left with little article here and be forced to merge into a George Floyd. But, for the time being, since most interest is related to his death, I don't think it's the appropriate time. Perhaps in a month or two it should be revisited and this article split and merged. I think we should also stop discussing each split and merge separately and discuss and overall strategy for how to organise content relating to Floyd and the protests.

  I'm not opposed to Floyd having his own article. I would be happy with that, in fact. In the long term, I would not mind the breaking up of this article and the information on his death being transferred to George Floyd. But, at present, I think it would just be messy, unless we can gain consensus on breaking up and scrapping this article. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for various reasons, including:

1. support opinions are ignoring the elephant in the room. Killing of George Floyd is far too long. It is far too long because multiple related topics have been stuffed in there, which would be covered better in a constellation of smaller more focussed articles.
2. BLP1E is routinely misinterpreted as barring the establishment of any standalone BLP article for individuals mainly known for their involvement with a single event. This is wrong. BLP1E explicitly allows standalone BLP articles, for several reasons, most importantly, when their role was central. Other aspects of Floyd's life are now highly documented, so BLP1e assertions are not relevant. Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Geo Swan, Support opinions are not ignoring your first point. The article is, again, 31k characters long. Which, per WP:SIZESPLIT, means length alone does not justify division. There's already a proposal to split out reactions / merge with George Floyd protests. Other than that, this article is only 7 sections long (6 if you ignore the comment on neck restraints, which imo should be in Minneapolis Police Department#Misconduct and internal affairs). This article, currently, does not conflate unrelated topics in those 6 sections. If anything, this article is too short, and will only be shorter if reactions is moved out. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Whether 31K is too long or not - please consider how fast-moving this story is. When I tried editing this article, a couple of days ago, I kept being hit by edit conflicts.

    So, ProcrasinatingReader, how about we reserve WP:SIZESPLIT for articles that aren't about highly active current events? Geo Swan (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose It would not make sense to cram everything in one article. Their is already talk of moving and creating new articles revolving around George Floyd. See discussion abouve about splitting parts of the page into multiple articles.BigRed606 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support Quite unfortunate that this was created without consensus to split this main article. There's no "cramming" here, this content belongs in the killing article, and there's no reason to have a separate page with divergence and duplication. If your concern is length, there's already another discussion to split the Reactions section, which would make for a much better subarticle to be summarized. Even if Floyd's life has now been well documented, no part of it warrants notability separate from his murder and BLP1E absolutely applies here, consistent with other articles on such unfortunate incidents. Reywas92^Talk 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Floyd is notable only because of his killing. The same applies to Stephen Lawrence (note the redirect) and many other similar cases where there is no article specific to the individual. There are some exceptions such as John Hinckley Jr., but they are few in number. The current Wikipedia guidelines would suggest merging. Arcturus (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support You might say "other stuff exists" but precedence here is not for the victim to have a page about their life. See Shooting of Bijan Ghaisar and Murder of Botham Jean --Bangabandhu (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Also, WP:SIZE doesn't matter here that much. Little can be said about Floyd before his death, so his bio can be accommodated within the killing article (and any potentially trivial details could be trimmed down). Brandmeister^talk 22:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support unless it can be demonstrated that he was notable prior to his death. M4DU7 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Literally the name in everyones lips. There has been plenty of events after his death related to him personally that justifies inclusion. Good third party sourcing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SPINOFF more than WP:1E: there's more reliably published and plausibly encyclopedic information about Floyd's life that would fit in this already unwieldy article. A separate page allows us to keep this information for readers who really care about the details of his biography; after a while, when historians produce more serious and thoughtful discussions of Floyd's life and what it means for his extremely notable death, WP editors will then be able to sweep away the WP:INDISCRIMINATE details (e.g. his high school basketball career) that are currently accumulating. FourViolas (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• OPPOSE merge, just DELETE WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. He is only notable for one event, there nothing written about him before this, and he isn't going to be getting coverage for anything else he ever does after the event since he's dead. The One Event guideline states that someone can become notable from coverage after an event they were involved in, but the example listed was a guy who got called before congress and was notable for what they did after the one event. Dream Focus 00:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are reliable sources on the web on Mr.Floyd's life that would satisfy notability requirements. Additionally, the article is off to a good start and I feel as if people should continue to add more details about George's life as different aspects of his life are being reported by trusted sources. --- Dwayne wuz here! ♎️ 01:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose due to him on his own being notable enough post-death. You wouldn't merge Rodney King's article into his police beating article, for example. 109.76.87.125 (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  But there is no "police beating article" on Rodney King. There is only one article. Just as there should be here.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose as his bio IMO isn't small enough to contain to one article, and he's notable in his own right now. We'll look back at this and wonder why we did it. Buffaboy ^talk 02:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given huge significance of the multiple events related to him and his death (the protests, etc.), this is no longer a case of WP:1E. It makes sense to have a separate biography page to describe his life in all details. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Yes, however all those events, unfortunately, are related to his death. For the protests we already have another article. There's nothing much interesting about his life that qualifies him for a biography in my opinion. --Amazingcaptain (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In the context of these events, it is really important (and interesting for many readers) to know what kind of person he was. For example, some say: "hey, but this guy was a career criminal!". But he actually was not (well, in my opinion). This is something one can learn only by reading his biography page. This is the case when not only death, but the life of the person was important. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And why can't we include that in this article? We can mention that he used to play basketball and was a rapper here and the other details as well. There are just a few things in that article that are not already here or in the protest article. --Amazingcaptain (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is why. There is an RfC just above [55] where many people argue that certain important info about his life should not be included because the page is about his death. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There are information in this article that would make the other article even harder to navigate. Just the huge number of people that have given their opinions on this very page existence are proof that Floyds article is needed. To merge this article into the Killing of.. article would not benefit Wikipedia. Nor the covering of all aspects of this historic event.BabbaQ (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support As per one event. Not notable for his own article, merge to this leave a redirect as someone will search for his name. All those saying his notable for this that and the other after his death are missing the point. He is not notable because of all the stuff which happened afterwards, he did not start the protests. The protests are a reaction of his death. Also see Yetunde Price, sister of Venus and Serena Williams, she did have her own page but was renamed to the death of Yetunde Price as she, herself is not notable and is only notable by association. Games of the world (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Locke Cole reasons. Also per WP:SIZESPLIT. Feelthhis (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - normally I would support, but there are some special considerations here - the article on his killing is getting very large, and too much information (which I think many find interesting) would likely be lost in the merge. George Floyd's character is of particular interest right now (for better or worse), so it makes sense to have a separate page where people can more easily find information specifically on that topic. As far as notability, there's really no question he is notable now IMHO. Danski14^(talk) 15:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:1E says,

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

• So tell me, is does Floyd likely meet the standard of Rodney King or Haward Brennan? I think clearly he does. I would further argue that all the officer involved likely need an article also. Casprings (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on more or less the same basis as above – he's likely to be notable in his own right, and it's better to make a decision like this with a bit more hindsight to determine long-term significance – but also a bit less cautiously, since WP:1E explicitly recommends keeping articles on individuals who played a large role in a highly significant event, which would be an accurate description of this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I see that there is a clear split with almost equal number of editors in favor of and in opposition to merger. Some are opposing on the basis of size and some think there is clear WP:N. IMHO, WP:SIZESPLIT should not be sole determining factor in this case. WP:N of George Floyd is solely based on single event. A good number of editors who mentioned Rodney King article as a precedent failed to mention that WP:1E was applied on Rodney King and there is one single article covering mostly the event. I also like to remind you that WikiPedia is not a memorial. Given that a consensus is not reachable at this moment, let us hold a moratorium for a month and then revisit this issue. --nafSadh ^{did say} 00:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed1 Games of the world (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nafsadh consensus isn't needed to leave the articles separate. Consensus is only needed to merge. "No consensus to merge" would mean the articles would remain separate, at least for now, though you could nominate to merge again later if you still thought it was appropriate. Or you could take it to AfD. —valereee (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee By saying "let us hold a moratorium for a month" I meant since there is no consensus [to merge], let us keep this as is (i.e., separate). Someone also mentioned SNOW close. This thread is not going anywhere. --nafSadh ^{did say} 18:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the significant event and figure exemption in BIO1E. Highly significant figures of deaths like Trayvon Martin, Emmett Till, Matthew Shepard and Leo Frank get their own articles. GuzzyG (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• support no notability outside of tye context of the other article. Merge. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am surprised people are supporting merging based on WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Both make clear and explicit exceptions for those who, as WP:CRIME puts it, "had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." How is that criterion not met here? blameless 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have have commented on Talk:George_Floyd#General_Organization_of_all_Related_George_Floyd_Pages, that George Floyd is the logical head page for all relatedGeorge Floyd pages. In particular, this page is short enough to be merged into that page. On the other hand, the page George Floyd protests is probably way too long to be merged into that page and should just be linked to from that page. Finally, WRT notability,

George Floyd is far more notable in death than he Black Dahlia Elizabeth Short who was an un-notable 22 year old woman, prior to her death. Similarly, I agree with the notability comments about Emmett Till and Rodney King made by others above. Please see my further remarks at Talk:George_Floyd#General_Organization_of_all_Related_George_Floyd_Pages . I'm not sure if I should transcluyde those remarks here. Abelian (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm see some really hypercritical arguments now. Elizabeth Short (black dahlia) and Emmett Till do not have a stand alone articles, their deaths and consequences of are what the articles are about not their life. What we have here is people wanting to source lots of information about Mr Floyd from prior to his death which is not notable. Come on people at least do some research and read what the article is about first before making a point! Games of the world (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• strong oppose he's become Rodney King levels of famous Kingofthedead (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Killing of George Floyd is already unwieldy. Keep. Kire1975 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - there's enough written about Floyd now to justify a stand-alone article, and this article is too longer to merge anything more into it. Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as he has had an abundance of coverage. Andysmith248 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose He is now himself a central figure of the BLM movement and the protests that have followed. More will come as a result of his death beyond being directly related to his death. Calcium17 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Both articles are too large to merge, and notable enough to deserve separate pages. Hextor26 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support he is only notable for this event. WP:BLP1E applies.
  SSSB (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:1E. It does not matter than the target article is "too long"; if it is, that is a separate issue to be dealt with at that article. This person was not notable except for one event. The protests and movements resulting from his unfortunate death have nothing to do with him as an individual person. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Someone should not be defined by their killing. There is more to George Floyd than this incident, his killing is just what made him widely known. Smith0124 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Subject is not notable outside of event. SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Could we have a tally of the votes thus far? It's hard to keep track of such a lengthy list. Love of Corey (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:1E, George Floyd is known for one major event. Additionally, it solves the problem being discussed above of the lead image being a shock image currently. Combining the articles solves two issues at once. Pacack (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like this line of thinking that he is "only important for his killing." While I recognize that that is what he is most notable for, his death was a far larger shock than that of Ahmaud Arbery or Breonna Taylor and deserves to be recognized as such. The coverage on him was international and has lasted for a week. (and will undoutabely for many more) - Aza24 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The George Floyd article has enough material to stand on its own; moreover, if our goal is to keep this article at a manageable size, I don't see how merging the Floyd article would be helpful. Davey2116 (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support I support the merging. Michael Brown doesn't have his own page. Ahmaud Arbery don't have his own page. Breonna Taylor don't have her own page. There is also nothing notable about him other than his killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NamelessLameless (talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Davey2116, Hextor26 and others. This article is for material too detailed or inappropriate for the "Killing" article. Jusdafax (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Subject is notable only for his death. His background in this detail is unnecessary and irrelevant. There is no need to build a cult around him.--Norden1990 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Subject is not notable. The event is.Oathed (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support WP:ONEEVENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoebringer (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose good for cataloging. Easier to find. Linked from several articles. Name used in many circumstances. --Igor Yalovecky (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Per WP:ONEEVENT KidAd 01:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. wp:ONEEVENT No longer applies, there is now legislation and worldwide protests in his honor. Georhe Floyd is a reasonably good article that could easily double or triple in size if the biographical information was researched out of reliable sourcing. It’s already a good article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's inconsequential, Gleeanon409, that "there is now legislation and worldwide protests", as this is subsequent to the life of George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we would just have to have our different opinions. Very few white on black murders have been elevated to this degree.

In any case a biographical article serves the reader best as far as I can tell, rather than truncating their life to only fit a murder victim narrative. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You refer to "truncating their life" but they would not meet notability requirements based on "their life". Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

He meets GNG regardless, how we serve the needs of readers is the main question. I just don’t see a sprawling article doing that; and the separate bio helping the overall effort. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Please tell me—what is "remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual" about George Floyd? Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well there’s the rather obvious, people around the world are marching in his honor and legislation in his name is being passed. He clearly meets GNG by any metric. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Though it is a kind of WP:1E, the subject is very much notable. The worldwide historical protests calling Black Lives Matter started only after his murder. Abishe (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Abishe—wouldn't "after his murder" mean after his life? Bus stop (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Due to the length of this article, it would be difficult to cut out his biography and merge it into the article of his death. Abstrakt (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Much of it does not call for merging. Are we going to merge "Protests in response to both Floyd's death, and more broadly to police violence against other black people, quickly spread across the United States and internationally" into this article? Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support In my opinion 1E certainly does apply. If there is sufficient notable content to be produced from the protests alone that can be another article, but he has no personal notability beyond his death (which is covered here). I'd also say that just because there's been a media frenzy about these protests, doesn't mean that they can't be summarized concisely and this whole mess of articles trimmed down a lot. Zortwort (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure, 1E applies. According to WP:1E, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Hence we need two pages here per WP:1E. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support There’s just not much on GF, so it can be merged, and he is not notable outside of the context of the killing, so it should be there. Plus I think the article with the material merged in would be a better article. The prominence here is the demonstrations, which are based on the actions of the officer and that it was on video, not from or extensive in his life details or that it was him per se that this happened to. The reaction is more that it could happen to *any* black man. I think WP:1E applies. This is partly that coverage does not seem to meet the 1E requirement that coverage “devote significant attention to the individual's role” - the coverage is not mostly on what he did or what his life was. It also is partly because of similar restraints in WP:BLP1E which also says WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.

Alternatively, I note the 1E example is Matthew Shepard which went the other way - putting the killing under his name. But in this case where it has only shown historic coverage in the last few days, that same coverage has shown the coverage is on the demonstrations, the posturing and photo ops of politicians, and on potential law changes - not on this person and not about what he was doing in the killing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose To merge would be to ignore an obvious and indisputable fact. Subject has clearly become larger than his murder. He has become an international, transformational figure. Not unlike Rosa Parks, whose simple act of sitting on a bus made her a historical and transformational figure. Or Emmett Till, whose murder made him a historical figure. Or others, whom history ordained would become transformational for a single event or act. Of course subject also passes WP:GNG. But those arguing that WP:1E should apply, are also correct. But they should re-read it:

  "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

Surely, if an assassin can be notable, so can a victim. Again, think Emmett Till. Or Rodney King. This action should have been speedily withdrawn. Easiest "strongly oppose" of my decade-plus on this project. X4n6 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I am already on record in opposition to a merge above. But I want to make sure those participating in this debate, and whoever closes it, are aware of this New York Times article. The notion stated above that "There's not much on GF" is, quite frankly, nonsense. Rely on reliable sources--that's what WP does. The reliable sources are telling us this is a notable life, not just a notable death. blameless 21:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Blameless—you write "I want to make sure those participating in this debate, and whoever closes it, are aware of this New York Times article." And you link to this New York Times article. But I'm not seeing anything in that New York Times article establishing notability for George Floyd. Can you please point out for us the material in that New York Times article that you feel establishes notability for George Floyd? Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Blameless On the contrary for both points.

• First, factually there just is not much WEIGHT of the coverage given to GF. There's a lot on this march or that riot and that it's gone global. There's a lot on the photo ops of President Trump and Speaker Pelosi or candidate Biden. There's a lot on the calls to defund the police or the various reform efforts at various cities and the Democratic proposal or Republican proposal, But not much about the life of GF -- and even in his killing, the coverage is not on what he did during or before the event so much as discussing the actions of the officers and bystanders. There was some coverage of his daughter speaking about him - but even today his brother testimony in front of Congress ... it's a political show, not much about GF himself.
• Second - your precedents are of cases where there is no second article. There is no second article about 'killing of' for Matthew Shepard, or Emmett Till, or Gavrilo Princip -- and no second article fro Rosa Parks or the other figures mentioned here. So a merger is natural, and in this case I believe the killing of and protests are larger than the life story so it should go that way. Alternatively, I could see merging all that into here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I gather both of those are addressed to me, but I haven't mentioned those precedents. As for your first point, I think you're defining notability in a way contrary to Wikipedia policies. At WP:GNG, a topic is presumed to be notable if it is the subject of "Significant coverage" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" in reliable sources. That is clearly the case here. You may not think of Floyd's athletic career or his family life as notable--but if the New York Times, Texas Monthly, and similar sources treat them in detail, then they meet our definition. blameless 02:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Blameless—I shouldn't be responding for Markbassett but the New York Times only wrote about George Floyd after his death. And his death was not an obscure event. His death consisted of a videotaped encounter with law enforcement that appears to my untrained eyes to consist of an act of torture. The videotaped subduing of and subsequent death of George Floyd set off much indignation in many people and protests focussing on the need for police reform among many other things. Reliable sources write about widespread unrest and political demonstrations. But nothing in the life of George Floyd would confer notability on George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Then why do major news outlets continue to write in-depth biographies of him? The latest I've seen is by The Chicago Tribune. It is very clearly a biography, not a story about the protests. blameless 05:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this article needs to be split up as is Blindlynx (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Sometimes a figure becomes more significant than the particular events that they were physically involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.17.128 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per all the reasonings above that are oppose to the merger. George Floyd will also be remembered for not just the protests and riots but changes in years to come. Swagging (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Not notable outside the killing and the George Floyd protests (and the many other articles about those events) that already have articles. Should be merged. Amqui (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose under WP:1Q. I've seen plenty of RS articles that mention Floyd with the expectation that the audience knows who he is. If a reader knows nothing about the events surrounding George Floyd's death, and sees a mention of "George Floyd" in the news without sufficient context, they ought to be able to look up a Wikipedia article on who this "George Floyd" is. The hundreds of thousands of daily page views should demonstrate this. userdude 07:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC); edited 07:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I think a SNOW close would be more appropriate. There is already a bill named after Floyd and efforts to name streets after him [56][57]. Enough people have commented on this discussion to warrant a close without waiting the full seven days, and right now we're putting an ugly {{merge to}} tag in front of hundreds of thousands of readers' faces. userdude 07:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• UserDude—yes, there is a "bill named after Floyd and efforts to name streets after him". This is subsequent to his death. What is notable about George Floyd in his life that would warrant an article? We don't just write biographies willy-nilly. Please see WP:BIO. A person is sufficiently notable for a biographical article if they are "remarkable" enough, "significant" enough, "interesting" enough, or "unusual" enough, to "deserve attention". Nothing in reliable sources establishes this for George Floyd. We find further guidance on this in WP:MEMORIAL. It says that we do not create articles for the purpose of memorializing deceased individuals. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased individuals. Bills can be named after him and streets can be named after him but Wikipedia should not be creating articles willy-nilly to memorialize people that obviously do not meet notability requirements for biographies. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Bus stop: if we're talking about WP:BIO, Floyd absolutely meets WP:BASIC. I thought this was a question of whether or not WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E applies. I believe criterion 1 and 3 of BLP1E are not met, and the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one so per BIO1E a separate article is generally appropriate. But, even if consensus decides BLP1E/BIO1E mean there should not be an article, my position is that the article should remain per 1Q/IAR. "SNOW close" was probably the wrong wording; "Speedy close" would have been better. userdude 19:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I moved this to article space because there was major disagreement over which details of Floyd's life were appropriate for inclusion in the 'People involved' section. There were many biographical details that were irrelevant to his death -- arrests and convictions from more than a decade ago, for instance, and how many children he had, and where he was born and raised, the work he did, why he moved to Minneapolis. None of these is relevant to his death. But they are appropriate for inclusion in a biography about him. The bio article has 60 sources, many of which are purely biographical, lengthy, and only about Floyd. That would be enough to prove notability for anyone, no matter why they were notable. Scholarships and legislation is being named after this guy. Public artwork dedicated to him is being created internationally. This has moved so far beyond one event in the week since this merge was proposed that I'm surprised there's recent support to merge. —valereee (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—by your byzantine reasoning anyone would would meet notability requirements. But wikipedia is not here for the purposes of the canonization of non-notable people. Wikipedia does not have to get aboard a bandwagon of transforming a non-notable individual into a highly notable life lived. Wikipedia is not a creative writing project. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that determine eligibility for biographies on individual lives. Nothing about the life of George Floyd meets any of the criteria for a biographical article about the man. Please see WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm sorry, I'm not following...what Byzantine reasoning am I using that would allow anyone to meet notability requirements? —valereee (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—"how many children he had, and where he was born and raised, the work he did, why he moved to Minneapolis" are the sorts of details applicable to any person's life. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, well of course they are, and if those kinds of details about a person get significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, we often call the person notable and create a biography about them. How is that Byzantine reasoning? —valereee (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—most people walking the Earth are not notable for Wikipedia biographies. We have policies and guidelines which serve the purpose of screening out 99% of Earth's population. It doesn't matter "how many children he had, and where he was born and raised, the work he did, why he moved to Minneapolis". You can't pull the wool over people's eyes. WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL are still applicable. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop I disagree that this represents a memorial. I'll state again: when these kinds of details about a person receive significant coverage in reliable sources, we often conclude that person is notable and create a biographical article about them, and we include those details in that bio, even if those details aren't important to the reason the person is notable. You appear to be assuming bad faith on my part; please strike that accusation. —valereee (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You are going round in circles, Valereee. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles...The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it...The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article". Of course "we include those details in that bio, even if those details aren't important". Nobody argued otherwise. You are setting up straw men and knocking them down. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop You have accused me of trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. In general I'm happy to continue debate in a civil manner, but if you're going to assume bad faith, I won't bother. Please strike the accusation of bad faith. —valereee (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

OK Valereee, I have struck it. See above. And I apologize for any offense. But the point remains that it doesn't matter the number of children he had, where he was born and raised, what work he did, or why he moved to Minneapolis. Quotidian details don't establish notability. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks! I think we're talking past each other. I believe you are following policy as you see it; I too am interpreting it the best I can. It's fine for us to disagree. The policy on this is open to interpretation. —valereee (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You are saying policy is "open to interpretation". How so? If you invoke WP:IAR, policy would be "open to interpretation". But you have not invoked WP:IAR. For Wikipedia purposes there is nothing notable about the life of George Floyd, and I won't be swayed by emotional appeals. It doesn't matter the number of children he had, where he was born and raised, what work he did, or why he moved to Minneapolis. This has nothing to do with notability. George Floyd should not have a biographical article if Wikipedia abides by its own policies, aside from WP:IAR. In my opinion Wikipedia should steer clear of jumping on this bandwagon. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I think the basic argument is that he now meets WP:GNG by a lot. You may not feel there should be so much coverage. And I can even see a WP:BLP1E argument. But to just argue he didn't do enough to have an article would be to misunderstand our inclusion policies which state "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Do you think he hasn't received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources? Hobit (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No Bus stop, I am not IARing at all. I am looking at the policy for subjects notable for a single event, and it says we generally cover the event rather than the person, but if media coverage of both is large enough, two articles may be needed. My interpretation of that rule is that there's enough coverage to justify a bio. Your interpretation of that rule is that there isn't yet enough coverage to justify the bio. IMO we're disagreeing on interpretation. I agree it doesn't matter to the interpretation of that rule how many children he had, etc. etc. What matters, and I've now said this to you at least three times in this thread, is the amount of significant coverage in reliable sources we find. And of course you shouldn't be swayed by emotional appeals. If you think that's where I'm coming from, you've got another think coming. —valereee (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge This topic is now too important for us to not have articles on the main people involved. GNG is trivially met. It is one event, but this, and his role in it, are so big that he meets the requirements of having a separate article. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge He was unknown prior to his killing. Sgnpkd (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - He wasn't notable when he was alive. He is now after he got killed. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 14:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Once he’s notable, a stand alone article is called for. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hansen Sebastian you seem to be saying he is notable now, but !voting to support the merge? —valereee (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • That is probably a typo. I think Hansen Sebastian intended to type "He is not after he got killed". Perhaps they can weigh in and clarify. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I am convinced by Levivich, X4n6, and Blameless. I can understand why some editors believe 1E applies (I was tempted to believe the same at first glance), but the arguments from the editors I mentioned have convinced me that it does not (and by extension that a biographical article about George Floyd passes notability guidelines). I am also persuaded by the arguments that this article is already large enough that splitting it up is beneficial for the readers. I believe that the oppose votes are done in good-faith and that editors who support the merger cite that it was his murder that led to him becoming as widely known as he is today, which I do not disagree with, but the argument that swayed me against a support or neutral vote is that there is precedent for believing 1) that the notability of the protests that occurred in the aftermath of Floyd's killing should be considered a second notable event and 2) that the sufficient amount of reliable secondary sources providing biographical information about him makes an article warranted. Examples of this rationale include that Rosa Parks, Emmet Till, and others all have standalone biographical articles, despite the fact that you could argue that it was one event - and in the case of Till that event was their murder - that resulted in them being notable enough to have their own biographical articles. They have articles because the notability resulting from their individual events (be it Parks not giving up her seat or Till being murdered) extends far beyond said events, and as a result, there is no shortage of biographical information available to write articles about them. The same is true for George Floyd. 1E may apply for many if not most articles covering instances of police brutality, but it does not apply when the killing is so significant that the victim becomes a martyr and a symbol of something much greater than themselves.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If you read the articles you would realise that Till's is about his death and cover up/lies not his life and why are you bringing Rosa Parks in to this? Clearly not even worthy of a comparison. Parks was awarded the presidential medal and was a political campaigner and did several other notable things outside of refusing to move on a bus. Again, people please read the articles and do some research before commenting. Games of the world (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - As for now, George Floyd is relevant for the incident of him being killed, his life or biography is not relevant to the incident. This information should just be added to the page about the event, and, if for some reason his figure as martyr or biography becomes interesting, this page should be added then. Greenlucid (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose While the letter of WP:1E would say merge, the RS on his life and interest in it justifies an article on George himself. WP:IAR case here. - Scarpy (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd undoubtedly meets GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Close per WP:SNOW. I can't see this argument ending with consensus. I'm personally neutral about the issue, though the WP:1E policy tends to support merging, while at the same time allowing the leniency of seperate articles, should the event or media attention surrounding the individual become significant. For that reason, the existance of this article isn't a major issue from a policy standpoint, and getting consensus for a merge would probably be impossible at this point. For these reasos, I'd say snow it for now. Perhaps this discussion can be reopened sometime in the future, after the situation has calmed down and its final consequences become apparent. Goodposts (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the merge per nom. Was George Floyd notable before the incident? ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Commment. A counterpoint: Was Emmett Till notable before his death? Maybe not, but his death was so notable it made him notable as a person as well. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, the same point can be made for Gavrilo Princip, Lee Harvey Oswald, Matthew Shepherd, and many other people who are notable for one event. It's a common misconception that "notable for one event" (WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E) means "not notable". The only questions are whether it was a significant event and whether the subject had a substantial role in it, which in my mind, are indisputably true here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • User:Levivich - those don't have multiple articles either - the two are not seperable, and all in a single article is a better way to cover it. Since the amount of content is bigger there than here, 36 screens versus 9, it seems more in line with WEIGHT and also just easier to merge that way. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Markbassett, that's a good point. I still would be more inclined to merge this article with George Floyd than the other way around. If it were one article, at George Floyd, I would probably support splitting that article to have a separate article on the killing per WP:PAGESIZE and WP:PAGEDECIDE. So I still think I come out in favor of two articles instead of one, but you've made me rethink that because I also cannot think of an example where we have two articles: one on a person, and one on their death. Given the choice, if we had one article, I'd rather it be called "[Person's name]" instead of "Killing of [person]". (But that would be a change that would apply to many articles.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
    • There is no separate article for the "Death of Emmett Till", though. If we're going to follow that example then this should be a discussion about moving "Death of George Floyd" to "George Floyd" rather than a discussion about a merge/split. Surachit (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I would say that the Emmett Till article needs to be moved. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per what X4n6 said. Floyd is the subject of international attention and both his life and legacy have been covered extensively. The main article about his death is way too big already and merging would not serve a good purpose. cookie monster (2020) 755 20:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:1E he is only notable for his killing and the events that transpired from said event. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 05:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose An article on George Floyd is warranted, judging by the incredible amount of coverage and reaction not only his death has recieved, but he himself. Also, per WP:1E, which Levivich pointed out: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". Respectfully, this honestly shouldn't even be a discussion. AshMusique (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Floyd was not notable before he died. As for the mentions of protests and such, those are not because of Floyd, they are because of Floyd's death. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose George Floyd has become very notable for reasons other than his murder. His life is of interest to people a lot more than typical victims of police brutality. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:DRAFTIFY or otherwise keep the standalone biography. There's enough sources already dedicated to his life, not just about his death, and it's reasonable to expect only more will be written. FWIW,WP:OTHERSTUFF example of Trayvon Martin.—Bagumba (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge: BLP1E is not designed to cover intense periods of international coverage that last weeks or longer. There are literally thousands of reliable sources across many languages that can be used to build up an extremely high-quality article in adherence to the purpose of Wikipedia. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 14:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strog support Completely unnotable individual. His death is notoable and I support having an article about his death. He wasn't so there is no good reason to have an article about him. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Information is increasing about the importance "Big Floyd" (George Floyd) in the early Houston Hip-Hop music scene. See NPR, RollingStone, The Mercury News, and Radio. That means he is at least notable for two events. So, WP:1E does not apply in this case. Cheers.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - not notable before his death and (obviously) can't become notable as a person after. The notability is for the death. --Khajidha (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

His notability is not for the death, but because of George Floyd protests called his name. Given that the person obviously passes WP:GNG, we should have a biography page about him. This is so simple. The killing is the last episod of his biography, which requires a separate page to discuss the perpetrators and other things that have littele to do with him. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As others have said, Floyd has gotten an extreme amount of international coverage and has become a worldwide symbol of the BLM movement. That should warrant an article. 64.43.128.112 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Change the name of the store to Cub 69.163.21.82 (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Was

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The name of the store is Cup Foods; see the photo in the article. WWGB (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record, there's a regional chain, Cub Foods. EEng 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

misuse of “alleged”

Not appropriate to use the term “alleged” to describe the counterfeit attempt by George Floyd but not the “killing” by police officers. Both are unproven and unconvicted findings of fact. Joey.J (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

JoeyJ, did you see the video of Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck? There's nothing "alleged" there. Meanwhile, there's quite a bit of doubt that Floyd had any idea that it was a counterfeit bill, or even if it was. Sources refer to it as an "alleged" counterfeit bill.[58] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

To help you understand better JoeyJ, the event is "alleged" murder, but indeed a "killing". And we go with WP:RS and WP:DUE. --nafSadh ^{did say} 20:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Archived copy of Minneapolis Police Department Policies and Procedures Manual?

Does anybody have an archived copy of "5-300.00 Use Of Force", MPD Policy & Procedure Manual, vol. Volume Five - Code of Conduct and the Use of Force, Minneapolis Police Department {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)? I'd like to have citations for both the current and previous versions. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it different from what's currently at http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300 ? —valereee (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in article

Please fix this:

"...while Thao stood nearby" or "...while Thao watched" (at the time Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck) is not completely accurate, for the following reason: Clearly visible in this eyewitness video, Thao opens the back of the police SUV, looks for an object, finds the object, then hands this object to Lane (the officer holding down Floyd's legs), who reaches his hand out to take the object (which may be a pepper spray canister) from Thao. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. However, due to WP:OR, we can only go off secondary sources. Please provide an adequate source and I will happily tweak the wording Anon0098 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

98.185.196.216 (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry Black Lives do matter but the movement is now Marxist I have always been for some kind of reparations but they’ve been hijacked by Marxism a political philosophy that wants to destruction of capitalism or thr United States and rebuild it but yes black lives do matter of course

 Not done: No change requested, and this has strictly nothing to do with this article, WP:NOTFORUM RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)