Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Lead information needs work

Re Floyd stating "I can't breath", my reading of the source does not support the present lead. I tried to change the wording [1] but I was reverted. I am aware that some sources do say he said "I can't breath" several times before he was on the ground with a knee at his neck, but even still I feel that we should not include this information in the lead without noting after arrest at gunpoint he said, for example, "they're going to kill me, "I'm claustrophobic" and repeatedly saying, "please, please," as he vigorously tried to not be put in the squad car, which could all be related to breathlessness. Later information says that his "claustrophobia" may be related to the his history of being shot by police in the past. As any experienced editor knows, the lead is meant for just a few facts, not aside information that needs a lot of background, which is the case here. Gandydancer (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the part about him calling for his mother. His then-girlfriend testified today that she was AKA "Mama" (or similar spelling). Aside from that change, I would also recommend the part about his breathing complaints stay chronologically clear, and remind everyone that claustrophobia is not an irrational fear of guns or police. Floyd was arrested after having a gun pointed at him, but the important thing here is that he now may have reasonably been trying to contact the living, not the dead, while quite possibly on pills that the latter "Mama" later said induce a feeling of imminent death. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh brother, are there any more ways that this article can be biased? Floyd's girlfriend said that while he called her "momma" it was different than the way he spoke of his mother. Most people are aware that men do not call out for their girlfriend as they are dying, they call out for their mother. [2] And BTW, it is good to see that you are right on top of recent information and yet the article has not moved to include new sources, for example it uses an old video with commentary rather than up-to-date sources, the New York Times, for example. Gandydancer (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As a man who's known hundreds of men, living and dead, I can assure you there is no standard rule for how we react to anything. Even the guys in this footage said and did a variety of things for a variety of reasons. I have no idea which Mama Floyd meant, same as you, can only guess. Maybe the Living Mama can tell by an undefined difference in speech, but she didn't let us know which way meant whom. The AP says the "crying out for his mother" factoid is now in doubt, so leaving either assumption out is fair. Picking one, even the newer, would be leaning. Maybe unbiased to offer both interpretations, but wordier than simply quoting Floyd's own words. I don't know what you mean by the last part, but updating sources has never been my line of work. Can you or someone else handle it? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The entire article is a tangled mess. For one thing it was started before the dust had even settled and first impressions are reported as though they are facts. Repeatedly. And no one has updated them. For example we state: "Prosecutors said that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck for seven minutes and forty-six seconds.[a][12]:6:27[17]:7:28[8]". This does not match up. And in fact it should read eight minutes and forty-six seconds according to this old report (though updated information is nine minutes and 29 seconds). I've had this article on my list for months but I never spent any time here because in my experience Wikipedia editors have handled similar articles without bias. I've really felt my heart warm to how well we have handled similar articles. But not here. Not here at all. Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. I'm sure you can appreciate that we operate on WP:CONSENSUS, and sometimes our own viewpoint is different.—Bagumba (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a Project 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.

---

I know this is the wrong place to ask, but I have a problem with the lists of changes made DURING the George Floyd protests (List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests). There may be others. Aren't those technically over? At least until Derek Chauvin is found guilty or not guilty. I'm not looking forward to what happens if he's found not guilty.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss that on the talk page for the article you mentioned. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Your personal views and speculation about events are not necessary. Minnemeeples (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said, there may be other articles and I'm looking for some central place to ask the question. This is not about my personal views. This is about accuracy. Either the George Floyd protests are over or they are not. If they are over, the title of the list I linked to is wrong, or the content in that list is wrong. That is not about my view or about speculation. If Wikipedia is WRONG, it needs to be fixed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood. Sorry about that. The George Floyd protests are still an ongoing series of events, especially in Minneapolis, and that article discusses that context. I agree that there will need to be extensive clean up over several articles in the George Floyd Wikipedia universe at some point in the future, as sources provide a broader historic lenses of the events. But it is premature to declare the entire protest movement over. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You might want to ask at that lists talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said, are there any others? I started out thinking the names of the other lists were wrong.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee: Have you tried using the search box, or looked at Category:Killing of George Floyd? Otherwise, try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The lists are not in that category.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a Black Lives Matter Wikiproject you could consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't find it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Black_Lives_Matter. Also, would you have any objection to my closing this talk page section? As you said at the beginning, it doesn't really belong here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have to, but there needs to be some kind of "official" talk page when it is uncertain where to go.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: There is WP:HELPDESK. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2021 (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.

As the case unfolds in court, there is testimony that officer Derek Chauvin knee was not on his neck rather on his shoulder blades

The chief of police and the department use of force expert have both testified that officer Derek Chauvin knee was not on his neck rather on his shoulder blades. This fact is corroborated by video evidence and should be included in the wiki article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuquar7 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Care to provide a source?Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A source states When Mr Nelson showed different angles of footage of the arrest, Mr Arradondo also noted that right before the paramedics arrived, it appeared that Mr Chauvin had shifted his knee onto Mr Floyd's shoulder blade. So, to clarify, at the most generous Floyd had been dead for at least 2 minutes already before Chauvin moved his knee from his neck. That seems a dramatically different retelling than the IP suggests. Koncorde (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

So in fact not "Derek Chauvin knee was not on his neck rather on his shoulder blades" but rather "Just before the paramedics arrived he moved his knee"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it could be read that way, but also that he moved it just as they walked up. But either way Floyd was dead and for several minutes had a knee on his neck. I believe this is "corroborated by video evidence" and every other witness. Koncorde (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

More interesting, in a massive bombshell in the court testimony, the medical examiner who did George Floyd's autopsy behind the scenes told investigators that George Floyd had a and I quote a "Fatal level of Fentanyl"118.208.30.208 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a bombshell by any stretch, simply reiterating what we knew he said last summer. Still a good point for reasonable doubt. But so was everything Baker told the world in June, my only new takeaway is his resemblance to CM Punk, eyewise. The important reiteration is that a knee to the back of/or the neck is in no way related to mechanical asphyxiation, homicide is strictly medical, the prone position is 100% safe in Canada and meth is inherently unsafe in any situation or amount. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I like how he finally publicly clarified the difference between other significant conditions and the direct cause: "Mr. Floyd's use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual and neck restraint. His heart disease did not cause the subdual and the neck restraint." But they were contributing causes of death, the police activity only being "the most important thing that precipitated the death" (emphasis mine). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

He also found no evidence of neck compression or restraint on the back or neck or any signs of asphyxiation. In other words, without being told what happened, he would have ruled it a drug overdose stating if George Floyd was found in a locked room home alone, he would have ruled it a drug overdose. It's interesting then what he wrote on the autopsy report as it seems to be based not on the actual autopsy but rather 3rd hand information. In regards to the article here I think the fact he found no bruising on the neck or back or any signs of asphyxiation should be mentioned more prominently in this Wiki article. More information is better than less.118.208.30.208 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also good to be reassured that a perfectly reasonable cardiovascular event caused by known stimulants, depressants and hard work can still be a homicide if it complicates a routine human-on-human intervention/procedure. Maybe better at the trial article, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Re "bruising on the neck or back or any signs of asphyxiation", it was explained in detail that no signs of bruising, etc., would necessarily be expected from the form of asphyxiation that killed Floyd. Gandydancer (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"from the form of asphyxiation that killed Floyd." The imagined form I'm guessing seeing as it's not stated on the coroners report as the cause of death and rejected by the coroner himself on the stand. Even the claim blood flow was restricted from the brain was rejected as arteries to the brain run both sides of the neck and if restricted on one side simply flows faster on the other side. 118.208.30.208 (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The form that doesn't kill 3,000 out of 3,000 unsimulated exemplary Canadians for a reason the dissenting pathologist can only explain as "amazing", before trailing off balderdashed into a sustained objection. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Hang on He also found no evidence of neck compression or restraint on the back or neck or any signs of asphyxiation. In other words, without being told what happened, he would have ruled it a drug overdose stating if George Floyd was found in a locked room home alone so are you saying that the Coroner is admitting that in any future instance this occurs that the police may have entered into the room, placed them on the floor, knelt on them for 9 minutes, before leaving and locking up using the spare key? Controversial, but I'll allow it. (And this is why coroners deal with all the evidence, not just selective evidence). Koncorde (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Read the article I posted or better yet watch the entire witness interview under oath by the medical examiner. From his medical examination of the body he found no evidence of asphyxiation and no evidence of bruising on the neck or shoulder, including actually looking underneath the skin itself which would be consistent with high amounts of force. His autopsy conclusion was George Floyd died of a heart attack (and he had 90% blockage in 1 main artery to the heart and 75% in another) caused by the exertion from the STRUGGLE with police, not from the knee to the neck. Of course if this is the new standard for homicide then police will never be able to arrest anyone every again should they happen to be on meth/fentanyl and have a dodgy ticker. 118.208.30.208 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a heart attack, sudden cardiac arrest. And the standards of homicide aren't changing. Just maybe murder standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly shouldn't place someone face down on the ground with their hands cuffed behind their back then apply any pressure while that person complains about being unable to breathe until such point that they stop breathing and are dead. Then continue anyway. Again, this is all your interpretation. We'll go by outcome - which was Chauvin was fired, he has been roundly criticised for the technique applied, and a man died in his care for doing the thing he should never have been doing. The court will decide if his level of neglect amounted to 3rd degree or higher. Koncorde (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You mean this "Baker classified the death as a homicide, which he said in a medical context meant that it resulted from the actions of a person or persons but did not imply any criminal action." to this "Asked by the prosecution if he stood by that, Baker replied: “I would still classify it as a homicide today."? Semes to me he is still saying he was killed as a result of the officers actions.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct, from the struggle. Not from Asphyxiation which weirdly keeps being brought up and shot down by the autopsy and medical examiners own testimony. Also there are 2 types of homicide, lawful homicide and unlawful homicide. Simply being listed as homicide does not infer guilt. Frankly the fact that medical examiner has contradicted the claim of asphyxiation now in both the autopsy and testimony should be more prominent in this article IMHO. 118.208.30.208 (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

And "Dr Andrew Baker told the court that the police pinning the 46-year-old Black man to the ground was “just more than Mr Floyd could take” by making it hard for him to breathe, causing stress hormones that worsened a heart condition and led to his death." and "“In my opinion, the law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression was just more than Mr Floyd could take, by virtue of those heart conditions,” he said." (note "Neck Compression"). So yes he is stating the restraint was a contributory factor to Floyd's death. IM am not sure this testimony is quite as exonerating as you want to present.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

He said nothing about pinning a black man and making it hard for him to breathe, that's editorial injection. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's still factually incorrect, use editorial discretion and seek consensus, we're not required to reflect anything that gets written. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it? provide the quote where he (as in him, using his words) contradicts it. We shouldn't be engaging in wp:or and analyzing or second-guessing RS. Nor should we use primary srouces.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple unsnippeted quotes in the WaPo piece I just added to his part of the trial article, repeatedly omitting race and denying asphyxiation, pick one. (Also in The Guardian, linked below here.) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to navigate two talk pages. Post the quotes here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You already have been, read it or don't, I don't even understand what you want to do with this. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I am not the only editor here, because others may come who are not a party to the other article. As a courtesy to other users.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"Allegedly using counterfeit money"

To obtain a conviction for passing counterfeit money requires that prosecutors prove an intent to defraud - that is, that the person knew the bill was counterfeit. We cannot know whether or not Floyd had an intent to defraud, because he was killed before he had a fair trial. We cannot convert his act into a crime absent such proof. BDP clearly applies here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It could be reworded, to say the note was fake, but he might not have been aware. But not sure how we could do so. I think as stand its OK though.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objection to that. The question isn't whether or not the bill was fake, it's whether or not Floyd knew it was fake. If he did, crime. If he didn't, no crime. Because our opportunity to know that is gone, we can never know for certain, and we cannot declare him guilty of a felony on a Wikipedia editor's say-so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

We are not alleging it was a crime. merely that it has been established that the bill was fake, thereby giving the shop assistant reasonable cause to call the cops. WWGB (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course we're alleging it's a crime - he was being placed under arrest. You don't arrest someone if you don't suspect them of committing a crime. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. The word allegedly is absolutely required. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Is George Floyd known as a living person? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"George Floyd was killed by a police officer, so now we get to declare him guilty of a felony without a conviction" is a rather revealing argument. As you of course know, BLP applies to recently dead persons as well, per WP:BDP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

And which officer would that be, a living person presumed innocent? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I explicitly did not say "murdered" because no conviction has been obtained. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

And we explicitly said "arrested", same rationale. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

What? Who is he saying is guilty?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody, that's why this argument is confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Well if we remove allegedly we are saying Floyd was guilty, that is Noth's point, what is yours, who is north saying is guilty, where does he say it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Saying “Floyd was arrested for using a counterfeit bill” is no different to saying “Chauvin was arrested for murder”. Neither statement implies guilt. WWGB (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we say "arrested for murder"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

We say he was charged with it, that's "worse", if getting arrested is bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You do understand the difference between arrest and charged?Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Simple answer, change context of statement. Look at how it is worded in the intro to George Floyd main article. It places the weight of the claim on the supicion of the clerks. Koncorde (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

One would say that they were arrested on suspicion of a crime. [3]. That would be an acceptable alternative phrasing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that would work.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That said, we do know Floyd knew it was a fake because he was told multiple times, by multiple people who swore (or affirmed) he refused to return his change and cigarettes. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No we do not, he could have just assumed the store was trying to trick him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the storekeepers are presumed guilty of attempted robbery and perjury, not the guy on parole for armed robbery. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

MAybe, who knows (and floyd was not out on parole, he was sentenced for 5 years, that sentence was in 2009, so ended in 2014).Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine, not the guy who pleaded guilty to tricking a woman into thinking he had legitimate business robbing her house. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. The point is we do not know.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Simply no way to hear him affirm on police bodycam that he understands they're investigating him over a fake bill. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

While it is a hot topic, due to the on going trial, the officer is innocent until proven guilty, maybe we could put died on (date) instead of killed on(date). Let’s let justice show it’s potential and let the facts speak for themselves. 2600:1011:B108:26F8:D429:8C4F:3602:3AAE (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See previous discussion about kill vs. death here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the names of the passengers in the car Floyd was driving, and who the car belonged to. Why the heck are these pieces of very basic information not already included in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:blp, it would be wp:undue for us to include then to my mind.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Basic information: according to trial testimony, Morries Lester Hall told police officer Peter Chang that the car belonged to George Floyd's friend Sylvia. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is the relevant, what does it tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hall and Hill have become pertinent public figures now, intertwined in RS with the famous drug aspects. Be careful about prejudice and libel, of course, but go for it. Forget Sylvia, though, she was elsewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Their importance to the incident that day is further emphasised by the prosecutor's reluctance to pursue Hall's testimony; they know it could reveal some potentially damning evidence for the defence. I don't think there is any sources discussing this specific part of Hall and Hill's involvement, though their other involvement is certainly noted and could be included in the article. As above, proceed with caution. Here are some sources you could use: [4], [5], [6]. The second of these doesn't focus on the trial like the other two do, so this one is likely more useful. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

why is the black officer involved described as "someone identifying as X"

if i go to barrack Obama's wikipages im pretty sure they will not say "they identify as black/african american". From my understanding of wikipedia rulesregarding this, we are simply supposed to use the term the 'mixed race" person chooses to use. NYTs, for instance, simply calls him black as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/us/minneapolis-police-officer-kueng.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Because that's what is written in this reliable source, and we follow reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes the sources use those words but that's not relevant to how it's supposed to be presented on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2600:6c44:701b:200:204a:9858:ea3e:5b1d (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably better just to go with the NYT source here (as I did), no need for this level of detail about his race, and the NYT is a better source anyway. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

George Floyd was killed?

According to who? Wouldn't that determination be up to a court of law? Vincent Silver (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/FAQ#Q4.—Bagumba (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
LOL You cannot kill a healthy man using this police procedure. Floyd, with his 220/160 blood pressure, was a walking corpse. The statement that Floyd was "killed" is an invention of hysterical Marxist wackos. At best, it is a speculation, not a fact. 46.252.225.59 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC) The article doesn't say the police procedure killed him. Obviously, some readers infer it. But they also did under the old title and leads, can't be stopped. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Indeed, the article should be renamed death of George Floyd, because his cause of death is great controversie amongst experts. Francis1867 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC) His cause of death maybe, not the fact he was killed, he could have been killed by an overdose.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC) No, it's not of controversy. He was killed. See the FAQ, specifically Q4 and WP:DEATH. TAXIDICAE💰 17:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Article should be renamed "Suicide of George Floyd". Man died of a drug overdose. 2600:1012:B15C:E7F4:0:20:8A59:8701 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC) That's not what the jury said. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Juries have been known to get things wrong.2600:1012:B15C:E7F4:0:20:8A59:8701 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Well until there's another verdict and sources report otherwise, the article won't change. TAXIDICAE💰 21:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Times are incorrect—timeline needed?

Currently, the article states that Floyd used the fake bill in Cup Foods "around 8:00" (22:00)—but this is clearly incorrect. It would seem that he entered Cup Foods around 19:34 and spent some 10 minutes in there, then paid for the cigarettes with a counterfeit bill and left just before 19:45 (although I'm not 100% clear if the Cup Foods timestamp is correct). Then Floyd nodded out in the Mercedes, and the store employees came out on two separate occasions to try to get him to either pay for the cigarettes or return them (the cited Washington Post video shows one of these occurring at 19:55)—and they eventually called police at 20:01. It seems to me the article would greatly benefit by establishing these events and their times—there is a wealth of information here, but it may not be enough on its own. It strikes me that an actual timeline might be of great help—but in any case, obviously incorrect information must be removed/corrected immediately, and I will do so now. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I partially recall a BCA agent or MPD officer testifying that a Cup Foods camera's clock was a bit ahead. The same witness noted the Dragon Wok exterior camera was considerably wronger (hours, not minutes). I believe the same witness said he (was definitely male) had initially obtained the Dragon Wok video through a search warrant. About 67% clear. Find that witness, he could explain the correction 100%. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: 8:00 PM is 20:00, not 22:00. 7:45 PM, i.e. 19:45, is "around 8:00", that is, around 20:00. Maybe that explains your confusion? Smartyllama (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: thanks for that. If it were fast, that would mean that he actually left even before 19:45. I'll try to find the witness—was it the MPD's tech guy, by any chance? @Smartyllama: a typo on the time. But describing 19:45 (or before) as "around 20:00" creates a real problem in an article about an event that took minutes and in which seconds made great differences. It strikes me as important whether Floyd was out in the car and "nodded out" for more than 15 minutes before the police were called, or "about" 1 minute, no? And the currently cited sources are from long before any actual testimony established the true time. Thanks to you both! Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It was an officer with the power to execute a search warrant. Was not Jeff Rugel, IIRC. Dragon Wok cam was a half hour or so fast, not "hours", my bad. Floyd definitely left the store around quarter to eight. I don't have a good mind for remembering specific minutes, especially in a series, clearly. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

FAQ is incorrect regarding homicide

Homicide has a completely separate meaning in an autopsy report than it does legally and in general american parlance. intentionally or otherwise trying to confuse the two terms is highly misleading and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. How were the "facts"/Statements of this FAQ derived? Cleary there is a serious flaw in whatever methodology has employed here. Since it won't be too long for a verdict in this case to arrive I'm not suggesting any changes but i would urge the wiki editors/admins whoever who create these FAQs to use this as something as a learning experience for future similar events. I think all editors would agree that wikipedia should inform and not mislead2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the faq? The medicolegal meaning used in the autopsy is the same as the legal one used in statutes. What most people miss is that criminal homicide is the one you can be arrested for and not all homicide is illegal (e.g., assisted suicide). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Quoting you: "medicolegal meaning used in the autopsy is the same as the legal one used in statutes." This is the the problem. They simply are not the same.2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

They simply are not the same. Evidence, please. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

homicide described in a autopsy is dictated by the guidelines set out by the CDC. Homicide defined by state or federal authorities are defined by the statues thereof. They can agree or disagree. To give a simple example that will illustrate: someone run over by a drunk driver may in fact be ruled an "accidental" death by the coroner, but legally be adjudicated as a homicide.2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be "criminal homicide". Minnesota (the state in question here) does not have any charges for "homicide" (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609). It only refers to "the person causes the death of a human" when discussing criminal statutes against homicide. From this source,

Homicide is defined as the action of one person directly causing the death of another. A death that occurs during and is related to the commission of a felony is also considered homicide. A violent death may stem from some kind of deliberate or purposeful action, but intent to cause death need not be present or proven for the classification as homicide.

Homicide and murder are not the same. All murders are homicides, not all homicides are murder. "Murder" is not an acceptable manner of death classification for death certification purposes. "Murder" is a term used under specific conditions in criminal law matters as as a general concept. An example might be that of unintentional firearms-related hunting death. While it may be classified as a homicide, it is up to legal authorities to determine when to prosecute such a case as "murder," "manslaughter," etc.

EvergreenFir (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is the FAQ is is trying to use the medical terminology to substantiate the use of the word "killing". I've never seen a law that used the terminology "criminal homicides". There are homicides that do in fact qualify as being crimes. Federal and state statutes would not use the term "criminal homicide" though and would instead refer to the specific convictions/charges, such as "second degree manslaughter". I believe my example of the drunk driver accidentally running someone over should have conveyed the point well enough. It should be noted that in this case in particular none of us nor any experts know with 100% certainty what actually killed Floyd since there were many variables that could have theoretically lead to his death in this, unlike many other cases such as a fatal shooting/stabbing. 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

There are intentional homicides, reckless homicides, etc. Those can be criminal acts (actus reus). That's what we call it here in Wisconsin ([7]). Ohio does too ([8]). But homicide, in these statutes, refers to the direct cause of death of another human.

But again, we have official rulings that Chauvin killed Floyd. A jury is deliberating on whether or not this killing (homicide) was illegal. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing official (besides the criminal complaint) has ever attributed it to Chauvin, Kueng or Lane by name, Chauvin was always Wikipedia's inference. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, now there's a verdict, knock yourselves out. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the specific change being proposed?—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not say it was homicide.Slatersteven (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Potential inclusion of Maxine waters controversial comments, and the judge's comments regarding potential mistrial/overturning of verdicts

The judge specifically described her comments as "abhorrent" and mentioned that they may cause an eventual overturning of the trial on appeal. I think this should be included in a section somewhere, perhaps even in its own sub section given the gravity of the situation. I also think due to the various ways to parse this and the complicated nature of the legal system, the section should largely stick to direct quotes with minimal parsing/attempts to interpret exactly what is being said or implied. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/19/maxine-waters-minneapolis-remarks-kevin-mccarthy-marjorie-taylor-greene 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The judge said “But I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury. They have been told not to watch the news. I trust they are following those instructions.” Whatever happens on appeal is clear WP:CRYSTALBALL territory, and unless this actually has an impact (much too soon to know, at this stage); we shouldn't include everything in the news per WP:NOTNEWS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." and just a bit later "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included"

Regarding WP:NOTNEWS it is also quite clear in the "news reports" subsection that is largely predicated on considering "the enduring notability of persons and events." I hope I don't have to argue the notability of persons and events of this case. Even in the eventuality that guilty verdicts arrive and not overturned in the future for this specific reason it's notable that the judged suggestion himself that the comments where so problematic they could cause a mistrial. His comment you quoted also indicates he is unsure whether or not it has actually biased the jury 04:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk)

There's almost nothing on the trial here right now. It's more relevant to State v. Chauvin.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree, it certainly belongs there as well -- but the causative link here, regarding this page, is maxine waters and her attendance/support of the protest/unrest outside of the trial itself. it seems it would be appropriate in the response/reactions section currently in the wiki. In the future should it became defining judicial event in the case, perhaps its own section2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The comments are covered at several Wikipedia articles: Maxine Waters, Daunte Wright protests, and 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial justice protests. There is no need to also include them in this article. They may have relevance to State v. Chauvin later. Minnemeeples (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the relevance of its inclusion is in other articles. Could you explain or is there some wikipedia policy regarding such? Maxine waters responses to this case cleary are relevant to the response section, certainly far more than some incredibly fringe non notable stuff in there like some non-notable person claiming the death was a "deepfake", but somehow that's managed to be included.05:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Waters' comments are more pertinent to protests than they are to the killing of George Floyd. Her comments had literally nothing to do with the the act of George Floyd being killed. They were about how people should respond to trial verdict. Minnemeeples (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

But her comments were explicitly about the verdict regarding the death of George Floyd. And regardless of the potential greater or lesser pertinence to other wiki pages, the question is if its significantly pertinent to this one. 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific people's reactions are more in Reactions to the killing of George Floyd than this article. —Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's probably relevant to State v. Chauvin, I think it makes a lot of sense for it to go it in the reactions section, especially given the judges statement that her comments could lead to grounds for an appeal. This article though? No not really. Edit: I've added them in. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Floyd’s injuries revealed in new pictures

• startribune → "Thomas also revisited ground covered by previous medical experts concerning injuries on Floyd's body, saying they indicated his struggle to open his chest to breathe: scrapes on his knuckles, face and shoulders. The judge then had photos of the injuries distributed to the jurors, and Thomas explained what they depicted and why the images "are consistent that he is pushing himself so he can get in a position to breathe."
• not RS in en:WP, but good fotos → "Underlining how hard Floyd fought just to be able to breathe, Schleicher showed the court graphic photos of the injuries he suffered when he was pinned down, which had been previously presented to the jury but were not released publicly until Monday." --87.170.198.43 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Again this might be more relevant in the article about the trial.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the photos and details about the injuries he sustained during his death makes sense in this article. Not sure about copyvio issues about using the photos of his injuries, but just because it's information released publicly during his trial doesn't mean it's not information relevant here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We already have information about his injuries, what new does this add to that?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The article only states "One witness pointed out that Floyd was bleeding from the nose"! --87.170.198.43 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021 (2)

Chauvin kneeled on his back, nor his neck, per the video submitted to evidence. Please let this Wikipedia page reflect that. Statements like that should be redacted. 209.16.78.119 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2021

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: Moved by Swarm (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Killing of George Floyd → Murder of George Floyd – A clear-cut case, should be a technical request. PatGallacher (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Guilty on all counts. Murder is now the correct designation. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support conviction means this is legally a murder. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, obviously – guilty verdict was reached. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support For the obvious reasons already stated. Waterfire (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Change "Killing of George Floyd" to "Murder of George Floyd" to reflect jury decision and not use passive voice. Rendermethod (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support Chauvin has been convicted of Murder and this is now qualified as a murder legally and in sources. TAXIDICAE💰 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support.--51.175.236.163 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Agree, per WP:MURDERS. Jade Ten (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support in light of the guilty verdicts. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support and speedy move. The verdict has been rendered. There is no reason to belabor this point for a full week. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – I've added a move request at the technical request board as it's an obvious candidate for a speedy move. Sceptre (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:MURDERS as Chauvin has been convicted. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons above. JeanLackE (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support (and speedy move) per WP:MURDERS. Murder is now the correct designation, legally. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Actioned as an uncontentious technical request, submitted here (histories merged). ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:25, 20 April 2021 (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 21 April 2021

I will correct the incorrect information. 47.55.82.152 (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC) I will correct the incorrect information.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Similar article new draft started

I just started Draft:2021 Columbus shooting and thought I would leave a message here for editors who want to help out on it. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021 (3)

I would like to request an edit on behalf of my brother George. I'd like to add a quote that he once told me. Liblover98 (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021 (2)

Change “killing of George Floyd” to Death of George Floyd. The trial in this case has not concluded and a guilty verdict has not been rendered. 76.175.205.0 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Also see Q4 in Talk:Killing of George Floyd/FAQ EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The story is coming to a conclusion pretty soon. Right now it seems that Floyd killed himself/just died, source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/expert-cop-justified-pinning-george-floyd-pavement-77059891 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.135.56 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's what the defense's expert asserted. That doesn't make it "the truth" EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Neither does a jury verdict which will be appealed constitute truth, which is one reason why this article should not be titled "Murder of George Floyd". 2600:1012:B15C:E7F4:0:20:8A59:8701 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

CHANGE: " Floyd had complained about being unable to breathe prior to being on the ground,[14]"

TO: "Floyd had complained about being distressed prior to being on the ground,[14]"

REASONING: The current wording does not correctly reflect reference #14 172.58.99.86 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: From the source: [9] Floyd displays signs of distress as officers try to force him into the back of the vehicle, telling them he can't breathe and volunteering to lie on the ground instead. Seems to be supported by the source. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It was a reasonable request and the previous phrasing implied he had breathing difficulties prior to have a knee on his neck without placing in context what caused those difficulties; which is precisely what the NPR article does. I've slightly amended the text. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand Goldsztajn's logic. Volteer1 was right. The original text fairly reflected the source. Floyd did complain about being unable to breathe prior to being on the ground, and that is what the source says. The text, as amended by Goldsztajn is now confusing, because it now (correctly) says that Floyd 'continued' to complain about breathing difficulties while on the ground, but fails to state the sourced fact that Floyd had first complained about the same before being on the ground.85.255.234.128 (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

With repect, your further revision makes the problem worse. Now the text implies that Floyd only started complaining about breathing difficulties once he was on the ground, which runs contrary to the source quoted above. In my view, the original text should be restored. That text accurately reflected the source, and there is no reason to deviate from it.85.255.234.128 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I returned this part to the article as it is confirmed by the source mentioned above. adamant.pwn — contrib/talk 09:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the way in which "breathing" is (and has been) used here is the NPR source describes Floyd reacting to two distinct phases of his detention: (1) when first handcuffed, but no further physically restrained, and exhibiting signs of a panic attack (worry, overbreathing, ie *anxiety*) and (2) having his breathing pathway physically compressed. Floyd may have expressed his experiences of these phases in similar words but the *cause* was entirely different in each period. Linking these two distinct phases as Floyd *continuously* experiencing "breathing difficulties" suggests a condition common to both and prior to the specific circumstances of his murder. It falsely mitigates Chauvin's culpability in Floyd's death. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Claiming that Floyd's airway was physically compressed near his neck falsely aggravates Chauvin's culpability, contrary to all the medical testimony except Tobin's narrowed hypopharynx theory. Even the prosecution knew positional asphyxia from the pavement was easier to get over. The idea of a blood choke is even more demonstrably absurd (squeeze one carotid artery at home, even if you're in the right spot, it does nothing). The conditions common to the whole continual feeling were atherosclerosis, hypertension, fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Claiming that Floyd's airway was physically compressed near his neck; I never did. The above comment utterly misconstrues the meaning of breathing pathway, inter alia. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, shouldn't have presumed; which area was Chauvin (or an accomplice?) compressing in your recollection? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Picture moved

I think the movement of the image of this incident should be discussed; glancing at the past discussion in the archive, it didn't seem to be a problem that it was a non-free image, one user even saying "This is a quintessential use of a non-free image that is the subject of the topic that is causing the entire situation.". 331dot (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 Ping editor. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the image illustrate the entire article? 331dot (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The entire murder case—and, by extension, this article—centers around the video. Therefore, putting it in the lead seems an appropriate application of WP:NFCI #9#8. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. Jayron32 cited NFCC#8, but this image is contextually significant to the article as a whole. It's more contextually significant in the lead than in later parts of the article. As far as I can tell, this usage meets all the other NFCC image criteria. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I think you are right that #8 (rather than #9) is the correct WP:NFCI (not WP:NFCC) choice. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a violation of WP:NFCC #8 because the image is contextually significant to the article as a whole. In light of the foregoing discussion, I have reverted the edit. Mz7 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. No image can substitute the value of this image for the entire article. This video, perhaps even this exact frame, was heavily used in reliable sources and the trial itself. It is almost impossible to give this subject sufficient coverage without featuring this image prominently. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Meets WP:NFCI #8 for "iconic and historical images". It's arguably synonymous with the whole incident, making it suitable as a lead image.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As much as I hate that a whole half-hour boils down to a split second, I can't deny Exhibit 17 actually works as intended. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. Remember all, I always assume I am always wrong in everything I do, and expect to be corrected by people who actually know what they are doing. Thanks for fixing my egregious mistakes here. Keep up the good work, and when you see me screwing up Wikipedia again, just fix it. I'll try to do better in the future. I'm sure I won't do any better, but I will try. --Jayron32 12:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 If there is a case to be made that the image should be elsewhere, I'd like to know what it is. I just noticed that the long-standing image had been moved without discussion after prior discussions determined that it was okay, and didn't really mention any free use issues. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: I believe I already told you I was wrong and your were right. I apologized and everything. What else do you want me to do? --Jayron32 02:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 I guess I was just getting a sarcastic vibe there. If you weren't doing that, okay. I'm not interested in being right if I'm not right. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If this were not considered an iconic image that captured the page subject, something like this from WP:NFC#UUI (albeit for book and magazine covers) would apply: ... is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. —Bagumba (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

conflicting content?

The last few sentences of the Kueng/Lane section seem to contradict each other -- it says Kueng, Lane, and Chauvin made a similar arrest on May 3, and then the section's final sentence says that on May 25 Kueng and Lane were in their first week as officers. —valereee (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"were with Chauvin as the day was part of their field training", it appears to have been a training day.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The oft repeated "rookies on their first week" comes from the officers' defense attorneys. More context: "Police records indicate that while the men were rookies, they had more experience than a handful of days on the force. According to their records, they joined the department in February 2019 and became full officers in December. Minneapolis officers must serve a year on probation and spend time in field training with a more senior officer before they are fully qualified." - BBC (there is probably more up to date info out there than this article from last June). Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

Change title, it is entirely biased. I will never financially support Wikipedia because this is clear evidence of bias. 2600:1700:9520:35C0:805F:AB63:F6D7:22FB (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See FAQ Q3 & Q4. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There has been a conviction of murder, so the title reflects reliable sources and the general established consensus. It's now legally a murder.2001:569:7BB7:D200:49F0:3BBB:9DF0:F9A5 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• If we were blackmailed to change content due to donations beins withheld, very little would remain on Wikipedia. You are free to believe what you wish, including disbelieving a 9 minute video of the murder, but Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and they state the occurrence of a conviction in a court of law of murder for Chauvin. If the Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on loses your donation because of that, so be it. If you just want to hear what you want to hear or listen to right wing talking points, you can do that somewhere else. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

New Trial

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.

---

If a new trial is granted by the judge that Eric Nelson, the attorney, is filing for, will we change it back to "Death of George Floyd" or "Killing of George Floyd" since that would invalidate the other trial? Dashoopa (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't worry about that until and if he is granted a new trial. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

We should, since I would like to know IF it is granted and there is a high likelihood it is in light of recent evidence about one of the jurors. Dashoopa (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. It's unlikely to be granted. University of St. Thomas law professor Rachel Moran told CBS Minnesota that it's unlikely Chauvin's legal team will succeed in overturning the verdict. "It's really hard to overturn a conviction, and courts are especially reluctant to interfere with the jury deliberation process," Moran said.[10] We can discuss it if it is granted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That's one opinion. There are plenty of lawyers that disagree with that. [11], [12] Also, I'm asking because I want to know if Wikipedia will do honest editing or not. Dashoopa (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles covers Wikipedia's policy.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2021 (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.

Omission of the racial and ethnic identity of J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane

It is important to give the racial and ethnic identities of Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane considering how much of the discussion revolves around race and currently the article is lacking in this respect. Floyd, Chauvin, and Thao are already respectively identified as black-American, white-American, and Hmong-American. I believe Lane is white while I know Keung's identity and that it is a bit more problematic. His father is described as black (Nigerian) and his mother as white. Despite being mixed-race and raised solely by his white mother, he is described as black, such as in this article by the NYT. Shouldn't this information be added in? --2603:9001:510A:C000:3CA5:45A1:ACD4:313 (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have no choice but to go by RS...I think... This is the same situation as that of former president Obama who has a black father from Kenya and a white mother, who raised him, and yet he is referred to as Black, not "mixed race". As far as I know, black/white mixed race people almost always ask to be identified as black--if they look Black. But, in a way, it does almost seem to go back to the "one drop rule", doesn't it? OK, back on topic I agree with you about including race. Gandydancer (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Federal charges in lede

I see the indictment under "Federal investigation", but isn't that big enough for the lede?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS: 9 minutes and 29 seconds link

I had unlinked "9 minutes and 29 seconds", a time span, from Eight minutes 46 seconds, a symbol, per MOS:EGG: make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. It's less to do with the exact 9:29 and the amount of time, and more to do with the symbolism. The actual 8:46 protest was already linked and mentioned at Murder of George Floyd#Memorials, protests, and other reactions. I also changed "9" to "nine" per MOS:NUM09: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.

@Gandydancer: Can you please explain your revert with the "not an improvement" explanation?—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Assuming we word it so as not to surprise the reader, do you object to include a link to that article in the lead? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Given MOS:LEADLINK says lead links should be limited to begin with, a MOS:EGG—even if borderline—seems like it should just be dropped. Again, it's still in the body. It seems like a recent inclusion too. I'm more at a loss as to how spelling "nine" is "not an improvement".—Bagumba (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This article seems to have a large number of active watchers and have apparently approved of the link. Perhaps others will give an opinion as well. As for nine rather than 9, all of our sources use 9 and in this case I believe that the WP MOS should be overlooked. Gandydancer (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

WP doesn't deviate from WP:MOS because of sources' styling. You're perhaps confusing styling with an article's title and WP:COMMONNAME (which WP's article is anyways named "Eight minutes 46 seconds").—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not confused about anything. RS is the boss of Wikipedia not the other way around. Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you are confused – RS have different reasons to use different styles than we do. Our manual of style prevails over say, the AP Stylebook or whatever style guide some particular news outlet chooses to use. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this an easter egg though? It's referencing the same thing, just with a different name due to the time being refined after the body camera footage was released. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Eight minutes 46 seconds is more about the symbolism and protests and the diary of how the time was progressively re-calculated. It's less to do specifically with 9:29 and his actual death. Then MOS:LEADLINK says to minimize lead links anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. It's already linked in the note, but perhaps it could be spelled out explicitly in the body of the article somewhere and linked to seperately. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If the actual 8:46 is deemed significant enough, then yes, mention and link to it explicitly. I personally think it's more of a side topic and is not prominent enough for the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Somewhat unrelated question regarding your edit referencing WP:LEADCITE, we'd still need citations for claims about living people, which extends to the recently deceased. From WP:BDP: The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, but – when does Floyd no longer become "recently deceased"? For instance we don't need necessarily need citations for "Floyd's murder lead to worldwide protests", we probably do need a citation for "Chauvin... knelt on Floyd's neck" (Chauvin is very much alive), but I'm not sure about things related to Floyd. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1: I'd usually wait for it to be semi-frequently challenged before citing in the lead. "Likely to be challenged" can be hard to gauge, as I suspect some will at times challenge merely for the sake of challenging. Ultimately, it's respecting consensus once objections are known. YMMV. —Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2021

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.

---

Murder of George Floyd → Death of George Floyd – Although convictions have occurred, given that Judge Cahill said "Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned" and Chauvin has expressed his intent to appeal, Wikipedia would be polluting a future jury pool for an upcoming court hearing by affirming the term "murder" based on this conviction by jury who were not sequestered from news of the riots.

It is both premature and unnecessary to avoid NPOV here when litigation is still ongoing, and possibly a BLP violation. If we go back to the first move on June 2nd 2020 "death" was the original title of this article and the proposal to move to "killing" was made May 27th, meaning less than a week of deliberations were allowed before EI_C's expedited discussion closure, as the admin admitted in the summary.

The decision should be reversed and if there is a desire to move back to either 'killing' or 'murder' that should require a fresh proposal with extended deliberations, ideally after the issue of Chauvin's appeal is settled. WakandaQT (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This is absurd. The consensus is clearly for murder of, as Chauvin is currently convicted of murder. If he appeals successfully then it can be discussed. Read Q4. YODADICAE👽 17:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be a moratorium on any more requested moves. P-K3 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Further, death is incorrect as the ME ruled it a homicide, meaning he was killed, so even if Chauvin hadn't been convicted of murder, the title would be killing because he was killed regardless of culpability of the person who carried out the act. YODADICAE👽 18:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRYSTAL. If the conviction is overturned on appeal, then we can entertain a request to move this article then. We should not move this article based on mere speculation that the result might be overturned. As of now, the defendant has been convicted and thus the title reflects our standard practice for these kinds of articles. Mz7 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not; vexatious RM - "Wikipedia would be polluting a future jury pool for an upcoming court hearing by affirming the term "murder" based on this conviction by jury who were not sequestered from news of the riots." is complete nonsense. We cannot impose arbitrary standards on how a jury was handled to base out naming decisions. The conviction is legitimate. Chauvin has the legal right to appeals, but unless the conviction is vacated or he is successful, retried, and found not guilty (or hung jury) he is legally "guitly". All major news outlets use the term "murder" now. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2021 (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.

pocket illusion

April 15th there's this article explaining that Chauvin's hands were not in pockets an that this was an optical illusion created by the black gloves:

• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/15/fact-check-chauvin-did-not-have-hand-pocket-floyds-arrest/7219674002/

Given that this was a wide enough misconception to have received a fact check, is it possible worth a mention in the "other reactions" section?

There are articles out there still presenting that falsehood without disclaimer:

• https://www.timesrepublican.com/news/todays-news/2020/05/police-chief-working-hard-on-building-trust/ "Chauvin – kneeling on his neck with hands in his pockets"
• https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/24/us/derek-chauvin-eyes-indifference-blake/index.html "His sunglasses are perched on his head and his hands rest in his pocket."
• https://www.insidernj.com/officer-deserves-the-gas-chamber/ "You sit there and put knee on a man’s neck with your hand stuck in their pocket, that is an outright public homicide" .. " he had his knee on his head, he had his hand in his pocket like he was relaxing"
• https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/20/metro/hes-guilty-derek-chauvin-lynched-george-floyd-does-america-value-our-lives-now/ "He gasped for air as Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck. While the officers' hands were in his pocket, Floyd used his fingers"

I can see there's no mention of the pocket fib here and that's good, but I think it bears mentioning how prevalent this misconception was in the past, and possibly still might be to anyone who hasn't seen the fact check, given the negligence in making corrections. WakandaQT (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily make a WP:DIARY of everything that was debunked. A few years from now, people are more interested in simply what happened, not all the errors and misconceptions made in the process. If a few other sources also have significant coverage addressing the misconception, that could be more compelling.—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

As a person, I found the errors and misconceptions the most interesting part of this developing story from the start, and won't forget or be doomed to repeat them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave out any mention of the "pockets" misconception. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to claim this is making me rather curious of why. Although I never thought that particular case not a blatant case of cops stupidity --Askedonty (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it would make for a good footnote. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see what this would add. We know he was guilty and I am unsure that the pockets were even mentioned at the trial.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

With Slater. It didn't come up at trial, and I don't remember there being a significant outcry about where Chauvins hands were, nor any significant coverage. Presumably USA Today is responding to something said by someone? Koncorde (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be a nice footnote. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

while the trial of the other three officers is scheduled to begin March 7,2022 24.140.8.165 (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fixed lead.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Portal?

Is there a portal that would go well in the See also section? Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for discussion

I was told to reach consensus here of an edit that describes the interaction with the original clerk more, based on a forbes article that references the court proceedings. You can find it in the history. Any objections? If no, in three days i will publish it. Cheers. Rogerdpack (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Rogerdpack, what exactly is the edit you want to make? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_George_Floyd&oldid=1025097686 Thanks! Rogerdpack (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the edits is that they are well sourced (well known news site, which sources from the court proceedings), and these particular details don't seem to be mentioned on the page yet, and I believe are interesting. Feedback? Thanks! Rogerdpack (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are an attempt to change the narrative and the blue hue isn't all that relevant and the last bit seems like an attempt to blame Floyd for his own death based on a single Forbes report - we don't need to include every detail (especially considering this is still considered a BLP) based on someones assessment that he "might" be high, especially in the absence of an actual reliable source and evidence otherwise. BEACHIDICAE🌊 18:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting! Much easier than chatting with edit comments :) I can see how it is kind of unproven... I'll leave it off for now. Also interesting was that the clerk almost didn't turn him in at first... I'll let someone else add it if desired. Cheers! Rogerdpack (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

Last couple of sentences of the conspiracy theory section are not conspiracy theories. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You mean the part you tried to remove about Trump tweeting about a secret anti-fascist terror group inciting violent riots and looting? The tweets described by the Washington Post as a "deranged conspiracy theory? Actually yes, that is a conspiracy theory. The rest of what you opportunistically removed, about Trump delighting in the possibility that he might order police to open fire on protesters as several infamous white police chiefs have said about black protests in the US in the recent past, is entirely and directly relevant to this article. Maybe it doesn't belong exactly where it is, but it definitely belongs in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

sources

do we have sources?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.190.89 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

For what? If you mean for the article see [[13]], we have 241 named sources.Slatersteven (talk)

name 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.

---

This article could be renamed to "death of George Floyd" SadInAShed (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it should be. You may be interested in this move discussion from April. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This is more recent (15 May), and there is a 6 mo moratorium on moves anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I linked the older version since it had the same proposed target as this user's suggestion. Great point on the moratorium, and thanks for the reminder. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Note English is one of the few encyclopedias where it says murder, in Dutch, German, Spanish, French they all speak of death. (These are the languages I speak apart from English) AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

MAybe, but we are not them. The courts found it was murder, so murder it is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely you are not them, the wiki's in the other languages are far more neutral to my experience. AntonHogervorst (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How is it non neutral for the title of this article to reflect the legal determination that was made? This was titled "death" until then. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay that explains 331dot. Seems a valid reason. AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• SadInAShed The judicial system has determined that Floyd was murdered. You are free to disagree with that determination, but that does not change it or what reliable sources report. The only way this would be changed is if appeals change the determination. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2021 (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 21 June 2021

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 NOT “murdered by a police officer”, he died from complications of being on drugs found in his system (Fentanyl) and cardiac event while being ARRESTED. Swrecreation (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also make requests in "change x to y" format. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

And, that is not what the courts have said.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Swrecreation You are free to believe what you wish(despite the video and eyewitness evidence to the contrary); however, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and they all state that the justice system determined that Floyd was murdered. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2021 (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.

Paywalled source

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.

---

Source 47, The Washington Post is paywalled, and it also blocks me from viewing articles for apparently having adblock when I don't have anything of the sort installed (thanks Firefox). A new source should be found to replace source 47. 2601:807:8101:60B0:3849:D87A:F87B:517A (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

it is not against the rules to use paywalled sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Well what do you expect me to do then, cite Wikipedia itself? I'm doing research for a school project, and these paywalled articles are actively hindering my ability to do this research. 2601:807:8101:60B0:3849:D87A:F87B:517A (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether you can cite Wikipedia itself depends on your school's policy. However, you being hindered by a paywall on a third-party site is not a reason to remove the site as a source. That said, I think your problem stems from trying to access the archived copy which seems to have the ad block banner. The live link does not have a ad block warning for me. Regards SoWhy 16:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I apologize for being frank, but that is not our problem. You(or your parents if you are a minor) are free to purchase a subscription to the Post to be able to read it, or you can go to a local library that has a print or online subscription and read it. Journalism is not free, reporters need to eat and pay rent. There is no requirement that sources be easy or free to access. You shouldn't cite Wikipedia itself as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

On a site note, this highlights a problem with web.archive.org making those links unusable. I'll drop them an email to see if they are aware of the problem. Regards SoWhy 16:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Also we are not here to be a surrogite for proper research, go to a library, do an online search for what cite 47 claims. Hell write to the paper and ask them if they can supply you with a copy of the articel.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to suggest solutions that you can reasonably assume are not practical. While there may be a non-zero chance that somebody who received his email request would respond with a link to access the article, this isn't gong to solve the problem for others in a similar position. There really isn't an answer in our current economic/political system. Whenever someone pays a fee to access information, they are heightening the significance of these fees as a source of revenue for the newspaper (i.e. they're making the restriction of information more valuable), so they become more dependent on this source. Thus, convincing your parents or your school system to fund your access is just contributing to the problem. Admittedly, newspapers need income and it's gotten a lot harder for them. There is no real solution that doesn't involve a complete re-working of our system. Fabrickator (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

We are not here to fix issues with education or the media (or our current economic/political system). Nor is this talk page a forum for discussing such issue (see wp:not]] and wp:talk).Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2021 (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 July 2021

208.180.58.106 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC) I would like to edit this page to spread some positivity for George Floyd.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to the coroner's report results? (Section III. No life-threatening injuries identified)

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.

---

I understand referring to "murder" given the conviction of Chauvin. What I don't get is why no question is raised in the article as to the appropriateness of the determination. The coroner's report clearly states "no life-threatening injuries identified". Why is that not considered worth mentioning?

https://interactive.kare11.com/pdfs/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf

HENNEPIN COUNTY

MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE
AUTOPSY REPORT

ME NO.: 20-3700 CASE TITLE: CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION DECEASED: George Floyd aka Floyd Perry SEX: M AGE: 46 DATE AND HOUR OF DEATH: 5-25-20; 9:25 p.m. DATE AND HOUR OF AUTOPSY: 5-26-20; 9:25 a.m. PATHOLOGIST: Andrew M. Baker, M.D.

III. No life-threatening injuries identified A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column injuries, or visceral injuries E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks negative for occult trauma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwannall (talk • contribs) 01:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, including analysis of primary sources. If reliable, secondary sources have commented on this question, we might include that in the article. If you have some expertise on the matter, you might consider publishing your analysis elsewhere, for potential later inclusion here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2021 (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.

Why is there no reference to the coroner's report results (Section III. No life-threatening injuries identified)

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.

---

I placed this topic recently and was hoping for a reply. Instead I returned to find it removed.

The question is simple: Why is there no reference to the HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE AUTOPSY REPORT, section III of which is titled "III. No life-threatening injuries identified". I said then and I repeat that I understand titling the article "Murder of..." because there was a guilty verdict in a trial. That does not explain why there is no reference to the ME report, which throws at least some doubt on that outcome.

I propose to add comments, or that someone should add comments, that acknowledge the contents of that report and remark briefly on their relation to the return of a guilty verdict. I suspect that the proper presentation is to make those remarks brief but link to another article where the accusations, trial and verdict are themselves the topic of discussion.

The PDF of that ME report can be found here:

CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwannall (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It would entirely original research for you to use Wikipedia to declare that a medical examiner's report throws at least some doubt on the verdict of a criminal jury. Therefore, we shall not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2021 (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.

Derek Chauvin should be in Perpetrator's List

Please put or add Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao on Perpetrator section of the George Floyd murder infobox.

Lane and Thao are nonstarters as they have not yet been convicted of anything in connection with this murder. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Related discussions re: monuments

Please contribute to ongoing discussions at Talk:List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing the title from Murder

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.

---

I know it's LEGALLY a murder, but perhaps the appearance of the trustworthiness of wikipedia could be helped by changing the title of this article a bit? WP:IAR could be used. -Stryker Genesis (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You think that we should ... improve our reputation for "trustworthiness"... by lying? Jorm (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this entire insinuation and request is just asinine. What the hell are you really trying to get at here? What is your goal? To imply that Floyd wasn't murdered is obvious, which then begs the question: Why? Is it to make it appear "more normal" that black men are routinely executed by police, and that it's okay? I'm genuinely curious as to your goal, because from where I (and most rational people) stand, you're proudly coming across like a jackass. Jorm (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Stryker Genesis Wikipedia doesn't ask anyone to trust it, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. It's up to readers to examine the sources provided and judge them for themselves. If anyone reads the information here and does not agree with it, that's up to them. As Derek Chauvin was convicted in a court of law of murder, independent reliable sources describe this as a murder, so we do as well. IAR requires that there be a benefit to the encyclopedia in ignoring a rule; there is no benefit in ignoring what independent reliable sources call this event. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2021 (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.

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.

---

I was looking up the Killing_of_Justine_Damond and suddenly wonder how the Chauvin\Floyd page was being handled as regards titling. It appears Murder is currently used in reference to the Chauvin conviction for the death of Floyd (White officer, Black fatality), while Killing is used for the death of Damond (Black officer, White fatality). Which term is the Wikipedia standard? The race of the victim\individual convicted should not affect what language is used. Please pick one standard and keep it constant. 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Officer Noor is guilty of manslaughter, not murder. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Note this was closed, as to why it was, see the close notice.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2021 (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.

What is the recourse for placing a section here and having it removed without comment or discussion?

I have tried twice to ask a question here, and both times it has simply been deleted. To whom can I petition for an override so that at least the dictator who has taken control of this page is required to respond to the question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwannall (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Crwannall No, you will not be permitted to post original research. Further personal attacks will result in a block. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I would advise you to move on from this, but if you really want to pursue this grievance, WP:ANI is the proper place. Be aware that your own actions will be reviewed as well. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems that your previous posts were responded to but archived—perhaps prematurely by Jorm—to Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 7.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to give air to racist talking points. Jorm (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I was one of the people who responded to Crwannall and I strongly support Jorm's actions here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, a mixed bag here. First, for the record, it is a welcome improvement to find that the topic stayed here long enough to come back and find it here, with comments. Yes, the previous attempts were archived mighty fast. Fine. The comments themselves are puzzling somewhat. I am completely mystified over the accusation that I have engaged in "personal attacks". Could the person who believes that elaborate on it? I asked a question. I don't see how that is an attack of any sort, personal or otherwise. I definitely don't see how mentioning the official Medical Examiner report and pointing out a clear and obvious inconsistency between received wisdom and an unequivocal section of the report is even remotely related to giving "air to racist talking points".

This looks more like there's a group who have decided that there is one and only one possibly acceptable view of the situation, and any and all attempts to discuss it other than within the limits that they have decided are acceptable must and shall be shut down. Even on the Talk page. No "loose talk" on the Talk page! This seems to me to be almost the exact opposite of the intent of Wikipedia, at least as I learned it in the earliest days. If this is what it has come to, it is a sad state.

I suppose that the test would be to find a secondary source that has developed the point regarding section III of the report, and come back here to try to get a reference to that source in here. Could that work?

Still, thanks for replying. That's something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwannall (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused why we would highlight something in the ME's report that was not even of the charges against Chauvin. Chauvin was never charged with inflicting a fatal injury afaik. He was charged with [ 609.19.2(1), 609.195(a), and 609.205(1). The concerns about WP:OR are valid here; it would be misleading and erroneous to highlight that portion of the report as it would lead the reader to think no (medically defined) homicide was committed. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling someone a "dictator" is a personal attack IMO. This is not the forum to discuss views on this event, but to discussm how to summarize what independent reliable sources say about this event, giving due weight to how things are covered in those sources. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss what you claim directly, then we can talk about what weight to give that claim. Nothing can wipe away the fact that a jury convicted Chauvin of murder. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The intent of Wikipeida is to be an repostory of certifiable information published in reliable sources, this (however) is what wp:not, please read that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation: Proposed move to Reactions to the murder of George Floyd

The misinformation section might be better suited for the article Reactions to the murder of George Floyd. The section discusses mere speculation by politicians and political commentators who were not witness or experts to the events. Misinformation and the promulgation of conspiracy theories is a reaction to the events and should not be given undue weight in the main article. Minnemeeples (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I bodly made this edit. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"Murder" is Facutally Inaccurate for use in Title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is still a six-month moratorium in place on this topic.

---

It is semantically and factually inaccurate to use the word "murder" when the death certificate does not note "homicide;" George Floyd's official cause of death was by drug overdose alone. As is, there is no note of the cause of death according the the death certificate.

It is semantically and factually accurate to note the officer was subsequently convicted of murder.

It is of interest to note these two disparate facts, and how they are polar opposites and will contribute to future appeals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.245.18.113 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You should read this article and its sources. Two autopsies, and one autopsy review, found Floyd's death to be a homicide. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, neither death certificates nor autopsy reports determine whether someone was murdered; only a court can do that, and the relevant court held that that his death was murder. All reliable sources refer to his death as murder; please see WP:RS for the policy on reliable sources, and see here for some more background. -- The Anome (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin was literally convicted of murdering Floyd in a court of law. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• You are free to hold whatever views you wish, but Chauvin was convicted of murder, this is indisputable. If you choose not to believe the video evidence of a cuffed black man being pressed into the pavement by his neck and expert testimony, that's your business, but we go by what independent reliable sources say, and they call this a murder. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2021 (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.

Internal inconsistency

This page has an internal inconsistency: “ On April 20, 2021, the jury found Chauvin guilty of all charges, including second-degree intentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.” Should probably be “ On April 20, 2021, the jury found Chauvin guilty of all charges, including second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.” Based on the linked sources.

Please change it as the factual difference between “intentional” and “unintentional” is very significant. 98.33.34.184 (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch, and thanks. Firefangledfeathers 21:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Date for civil rights trial

The date for the civil rights trial of the three other officers is January 20. Currently, the article only says the trial will take place in January. I am asking that this be changed to reflect the confirmed date. https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2022/01/07/3-former-mpd-officers-to-stand-trial-on-jan-20-in-george-floyds-death/ 2607:FEA8:7460:31BF:FCAC:B:F040:FE6A (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Race of other officers

The article lists Floyd’s race (black), Chauvins race (white), and Thao (Hmong). However the races of Kueng (black) and Lane (white) aren’t listed. To be consistent, their races should also be listed. Or Thao could be removed since him, Kueng and Lane were to a certain extent bystanders to Chauvin actions. 107.119.41.140 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Rather vague

The article currently states: "testified that Floyd's chances of survival could have "doubled or tripled" if the officers performed CPR on him" While probably true, do we have sources stating that the officers had relative training? It is unclear from the sentence whether the officers declined to help Floyd, or whether they were unqualified to do so. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

As long as the statement is accurate compared to the source, we don't need sources describing any training or lack thereof the officers had. The testimony is what it is. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Inacuracy

First of all, there has been no stated evidence that the murder of George Floyd was racially motivated, and officer Derek Chauvin doesn't have a history of racism. The murder was still wrong, and he deserves to be in jail, but in the category section, it states "History of racism in Minnesota." In the case of Floyd, it would've been serious police incompetence.

Also it's not necessary to include the fact he was "Black", yeah it gets you media support, but in any page about the murder of a white person, it doesn't state anything about racism against white people, nor does it include that they were white, why doesn't it include the fact the victim was white, because it's irrelevant it's okay in Wikipedia wants to kater towards a leftist audience, literally every large platform has bias, but at least they don't hide it.

Getting back to my point, I think more research needs to be done on Derek Chauvin's, George Floyd's, and this page, because they are either getting there sources from the onion news, or they are trying to please the leftist audience, if they are, at least they should be honest about it.

--Signed, (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Alixapixle8

Please see Talk:Murder_of_George_Floyd#FAQ. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

fixing grammar

Please change at sometime to sometime. Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Should MN v. Lane be listed as a trial in the infobox?

Lane pleaded guilty to the aiding manslaughter charge so there wasn’t a trial, so should it be listed as one? I lean towards no but I want to hear other editors’ opinions. TheXuitts (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

Lane was sentenced on July 21st 2022 to 2 in a half years for civil rights 47.160.131.242 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noting Lane's sentence. This edit was done (here) here with a source cited. Minnemeeples (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The picture in the introduction

clear case of WP:GREATWRONGS, nothing to do here Dronebogus (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's disrespectful to the memory of Floyd to put a picture of him in this humiliating and desperate situation. 2A00:A040:1A0:3BF:E88D:9760:F492:67C3 (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC) It is the most iconic image of his murder that exists and is, for that reason, appropriate for the infobox. (If having the image in the infobox means we remember the incident and Mr. Floyd and work to make sure that such an incident never happens again, that is a fringe benefit beyond the scope of the encyclopedia.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Also it seems appropriate to have an image of the incident, in an article about the incident. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC) On the contrary, it's the most appropriate image to have, so that we see what happened to him and see that it doesn't happen again. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC) It's appropriate for the title of the page. His biography, George Floyd, has a different image, as it's about his entire life.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC) I don't see how this is a clear case of righting great wrongs at all. Does the image need to be retained here for posterity's sake? I agree, it is the iconic image of his murder, and unfortunately his life, but it is quite humiliating. Will it prevent further racism, or will it inspire future racists? I'm not sure it helps the situation. RIP Mr. Floyd, this may be how WP remembers you. Crescent77 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Over nine minutes

The lead section says that Derek Chauvin laid on George Floyd's neck for "over nine minutes." However, that phrase links to a Wikipedia article on it being 8 minutes 46 seconds. 8 minutes and 46 seconds is almost a quarter of a minute less than 9 minutes, and is not more. Should this be changed? 216.207.176.186 (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The times are verifiable, but the link is an MOS:EGG violation. I'm also surprised that the body doesnt appear to make any mention of the times anymore. —Bagumba (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Bagumba. I removed the link and added a short mention, with link, of the initial time estimate and use in protests into §Protests (see this diff for the changes). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a controversial subject

Why does Wikipedia not remain neutral on these issues? Wikipedia is not meant to have biased articles. OJ Simpson was never convicted of murder, yet it is widely assumed he was in fact, the murderer. One should not use court cases as the determinants of the title of a Wikipedia article. Shameful behavior. 126.156.142.36 (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop reverting these talk topics, as they are related to the article. Thanks. 126.156.142.36 (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

They are nonsense. Per WP:MURDERS, if someone is convicted of murder, we use "Murder of" as the article title. You are not the first troll to come along complaining that Floyd was a drug addict. This has been discussed and is not a useful contribution. 25stargeneral (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that, the fact that derek chauvin was convicted of murder, is controversial in and of itself, so why would it be in the title? Just because someone is convicted, does not automatically mean that they were convicted of said crime. Very stupid article title. Pbs123456789 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Just because someone is convicted, does not automatically mean that they were convicted of said crime. No, it...it really does. If they were convicted of a crime, then...they were, y'know, convicted of that crime. You understand how silly the sentence you wrote is, right? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

To repeat the edit summary of my edit reverted by 331dot, WP:BOLD Having image of Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck as the lead image breaches WP:SHOCK, so I've moved it to section #Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck. Replaced lead image with a selfie George Floyd took, which "gives readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" (per WP:LEADIMAGE) as readers know the article's about a murder (it's in the article title) but readers are more likely to benefit from an image clearly showing the face of George Floyd, rather than the previous image where his face was less clear, as that provides the confirmation that they have arrived at the right article about a murder.
To explain my BOLD edit in more detail, I believe the current image is unnecessary to confirm to readers they are at the right article, because they don't need confirmation that they arrived at an article about a murder. They know what murder is, and the word murder is in the article title. What they may need to confirmed to them is the identity of the victim, which an simple portrait of George Floyd suffices in doing, so they know they're not confusing George Floyd for another murder victim. I also reiterate that George Floyd's face is not clear in the image of the actual murder. This argument I hope adds onto the one about WP:SHOCK (images like this, which cause distress to a large number of readers, should not be the lead image). I would also like to conteract any arguments about changing the lead image being in breach of WP:CENSOR. I have not removed the image of Chauvin murdering George Floyd, just moved it to another section, and if WP:SHOCK was somehow was in contravention of WP:CENSOR, WP:SHOCK would never have been written or made a guideline. --TedEdwards 21:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Please review the past discussion on this topic. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I would note that SHOCK states "Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia. Editors may assume, per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, that readers are aware that such articles may contain such images." The role of the image is not just to confirm that people are on the right article, but to illustrate the topic, in this case, Floyd being murdered. Least shock value doesn't mean no shock value. I may be treading into WP:RGW territory, but people should be shocked. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added a hidden note to the image and I've added this to the FAQ. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Date bias

no later than mid-February 2022. Should the year be different (i.e 2023)?197.238.105.100 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. Thao's evidentiary trial will conclude at the latest by February 2023, 90 days after the November 17, 2022 deadline to submit evidence. I corrected the date with this edit and this edit. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

I think the line "Floyd had been arrested on suspicion of using a counterfeit $20 bill." should be amended to say "Floyd had been arrested after a store clerk complained that Floyd made a purchase using a counterfeit $20 bill."

This makes it more clear what exactly was alleged and by whom and clarifies that a purchase did indeed occur and Floyd was allowed to leave the store with the items he purchased with the bill in question. Markmywordz415 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

Please replace the photo of Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck with a trigger warning and a link to the photo for users to click on. Seeing photos of police violence without a warning is often traumatic for African Americans. Thank you. Scurranmoore (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Wikipedia is not censored and the current consensus is to include the image as-is. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Scurranmoore We also don't do "trigger warnings". If you(or others) don't want to immediately see images that may offend or affect you, there are ways to suppress the display of images with your account. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please Use a Different Image

The image attached within the description of George Floyd's murder is incredibly triggering and contributes to the further traumatization of the black community. People should not see a picture of a human being in his final moments when trying to read about the individual whose precious and valuable life was so unjustly taken on a site so easily accessible as this one. 2603:7000:3F00:3021:38AB:CDF1:D7FA:5EBE (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Respectably disagree. What is traumatization is the repeated murders of blacks by officers of the law. What is finally bringing some measure of "justice" is the proliferation of video devices. Which is to say, the imagery is important and should not be censored. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

But this article is not about the individual, it is specifically about the murder. You'll notice that the image does not appear in the article on the individual, George Floyd. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• (ec) The consensus from other discussions is that the current image is the most appropriate one for the topic. Maybe what happened to Mr. Floyd will be less likely to happen in the future if people see what he went through. If you don't want to see images like that, there are ways to suppress the display of images. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Police need changing, most cops are good, but the few bad ones have done, and will continue to violate the social contract. We're asking cops to do too much as well. The statistics are sad. And they don't/can't lie. I support that image. MattL9 (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible rewording

The witness, who filmed the incident, is considered to be then-17-years-old.197.244.236.124 (talk)

minnemeeples can U fix that?102.157.200.141 (talk)

I made an edit to that section. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

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 the word murder the word murder would mean the killing was premeditated and on purpose it should instead say killed 2603:6011:7D00:9DC4:FDC6:A6D9:6235:C972 (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Murder is categorized into different degrees. B3251 (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The Killing of Jeremy Mardis was also classified as murder. The title of that page still refers to it as "killing".Countryboy603 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please start a requested move. Lightoil (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Please don't start a requested move, actually; it's not going to happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The courts say he was murdered, RS say he was murdered, so we say he was murdered. 11:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Please cite a reliable source in the future. In this case, there wouldn't be one, because you are only referring to first-degree murder —Bagumba (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The courts do not say the victim was murdered. The court convicted the policeman of second degree murder. Not murder. Second degree murder. Unintentional second degree murder. It’s quite technical, and variable by jurisdiction. Second degree murder does not match the dictionary definition, the dictionary definition matches first degree murder. And anyway, it’s the sources that matter. What do the sources say? The best sources, not technical primary sources. Eg https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html. They don’t say murdered. The perpetrator found guilty of murder, yes. The victim murdered, no. Murder, unqualified, in the title, is a WP:SYNTH violation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So he committed murder with out murdering someone, for real? Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Second degree murdered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Find 1 source that uses that exact term, just one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Source check, “George Floyd was killed” vs “George Floyd was murdered”. Wikipedia is leading the sources in using stronger language. WP:SYNTH. Sources do not say “George was murdered”. WP:Citogenesis. Wikipedia derivatives dominate the usage of “murder”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So no we do not have any sources backing your own made-up (see wp:or) term. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

yet something tells me if we renamed this article more explicitly to "Depraved-heart murder of George Floyd", that would also be a problem... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The problems are multilayered and multifaceted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no problem. He was convicted of murder. Therefore, under the law the victim was murdered. We don't put details in an article title. In one state, first degree murder is defined as murder of a law enforcement officer. I guess no one but a policeman has ever been murdered in that state. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The Killing of Jeremy Mardis was also classified as murder, yet the page calls it a killing. --Countryboy603 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This is false. Stafford was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, which is why the page is not titled "Murder of Jeremy Mardis." If Stafford was convicted of murder - any murder - that page would be titled "Murder of..." per WP:DEATHS. Combefere ★ Talk 07:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaunharper/2022/10/14/why-its-important-to-say-george-floyd-was-murdered/

https://news.sky.com/story/derek-chauvin-sentenced-for-murder-the-story-of-the-day-george-floyd-was-killed-and-the-moments-leading-up-to-his-death-12280977

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101141297/its-been-2-years-since-george-floyd-was-murdered-by-police-in-minneapolis

https://news.stanford.edu/2021/09/20/psychological-toll-george-floyds-murder/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/george-floyd-trial-verdict-police-b2022868.html

Do we need more? Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This needs closing as a waster of time. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2023 (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.

Requested Move

Create a formal WP:RM to request a move.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose the title be changed to "Killing of George Floyd". The Killing of Jeremy Mardis was also classified as murder, yet is referred to as a killing in the title. Countryboy603 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Countryboy603 The officer who killed Mr. Floyd was convicted of murder by a jury, so this case is called a murder. The suspects of the other case you speak of were convicted of manslaughter, not murder. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose per WP:DEATHS. The Killing of Jeremy Mardis was not classified as a murder, but as a manslaughter, which is why the title "Murder of..." was not used in that case. Combefere ★ Talk 03:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose. As per 331dot's post above - the crime was murder. Also, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST?... Just because another WP article about a death caused by another person is called "Killing of" is not a good enough reason to change the title of this article. Shearonink (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose See the flowchart at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Chauvin was convicted of murder. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Support I have now seen new quality sources describing with the word “murder” —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) . A straight case of WP:SYNTH vs sources, and editors emotionally wanting the more emotive term. Sources do not say Floyd was murdered. They say he was killed. Sources do say that Chauvin was convicted of murder, but they do not say that the event was murder. Technically, Chauvin was not convicted of murder, but of second degree murder. These are not the same thing. The conviction is technically defined, and is different to the standard meaning of wikt:murder. Floyd was killed, and Chauvin was convicted of second degree murder for the killing. This is plain and simple English. Wikipedia should be written in English. WP:SYNTH exists for a reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Second-degree murder is murder. It's right there in the title. This is plain and simple English. "Sources do say that Chauvin was convicted of murder, but they do not say that the event was murder." This is patently false, and I'll request that you strike the statement. Sources do indeed say that George Floyd was murdered. What Has Happened in Minneapolis Since George Floyd Was Murdered Here’s what’s changed since George Floyd’s murder three years ago Man who witnessed police murder of George Floyd sues Minneapolis over officers’ actions The plain word "murder" is used in both the title and the body of dozens and dozens of sources, without the "second-degree" descriptor indicating the type of murder it was. Why? Because second-degree murder is murder. I'll ask you again to please stop disrupting discussions around WP:DEATHS with such blatantly false statements. This has been happening for years now. Combefere ★ Talk 05:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC) I won’t agree with you on redefining the meaning of wikt:murder, which requires intent, but thank you for three excellent sources. They don’t appear to be in the article, and the sources in the article (mostly at least) do not use that language. We should add these or similar sources, late reviewing commentary is always superior to contemporary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose per WP:DEATH. Floyd's killer was convicted of murder, not manslaughter or a lesser charge, in a court of law. 'Nuff said. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Conviction of Thao affirmed

Conviction affirmed 4 August 2023. Opinion at http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/08/222701P.pdf. Unofficial summary by the Clerk's office at https://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/todays-opinions . Kablammo (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources are now covering the decision. I just added it to the main article. Minnemeeples (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Video of sentencing hearing on August 7, 2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvrV1x639vw Kablammo (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

—and MPR news article on sentencing: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/08/07/last-excop-convicted-in-george-floyds-killing-faces-sentencing (cites to MPR News are durable (will not be deleted) and non-commercial (no advertising). Kablammo (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023

On August 7, 2023, Cahill sentenced Thao to 4+3⁄4 years in prison, the top of the state sentencing guidelines. Cahill said he believed Thao was less culpable than Chauvin, but more than Lane and Kueng, and that he had hoped Thao would be more remorseful in statements before the court. Thao was given credit for having severed nearly a year in a county jail facility since his federal conviction.

Please note that his state sentence will be served concurrently with his federal sentence. Source claims "Officers are serving state sentences concurrently with their federal sentences."

On August 7, 2023, Cahill sentenced Thao to 4+3⁄4 years in prison, the top of the state sentencing guidelines. Cahill said he believed Thao was less culpable than Chauvin, but more than Lane and Kueng, and that he had hoped Thao would be more remorseful in statements before the court. Thao was given credit for having severed nearly a year in a county jail facility since his federal conviction, and his state sentence will also be served concurrently with his federal sentence. 137.70.164.141 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I added a supporting AP source that explains the concurrent nature of the sentence. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023 (2)

Out of respect for George Floyd, the photo of him dying whilst being held down by Chauvin’s knee should be removed and replaced with a personal photo of him. I appreciate it is in public interest to show the gravity of the crime but this is disrespecting him as a human being. 89.125.49.233 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is titled Murder of George Floyd, so the image fits. Also see the FAQ. A personal photo of him can be found at his personal article, George Floyd. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Coroner on Death

Coroner said toxicity levels of fentanyl were lethal. This should be added if we want to recount history accurately. Whether he died from asphyxiation or not, we should provide accurate data. If you deny accurate data you are a political bias hack. 98.154.9.194 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The courts did not find this significant. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

One source already used in the article says that Floyd died due to "a combination of factors" and that he had a "potentially fatal level" of fentanyl, as well as other drugs. Yet it says that he was murdered...

So the article is lying. To restore it's good faith it should say that while Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder, George Floyd likely died due to a combination of factors etc... Xclamationmark (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(ec) If you would take the time to pause making personal attacks, you could actually read the article and see that it says "Fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death." If you have independent reliable sources that provide more detail than that, please offer them. Note that Wikipedia does not claim to be without bias, as all sources have biases; sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what to believe. You are free to read this and disagree with everything presented. If you think Mr. Floyd's drug use somehow excuses his murder, you are free to think so, but the trial will not be relitigated here. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Facts are not biased. Wikipedia is supposed to display facts, only. 69.118.78.145 (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

facts are also not ignorance. hope this helps, IP. B3251 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic, with a neutral point of view. A common misunderstanding with Wikipedia is that this means "without bias" but that is not true as all sources have biases. There is no policy stating "facts only".

As I stated, the article already says that "Fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death." Again, if you have sources that provide more details, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The WP:VNOT policy reads:

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article.

—Bagumba (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

Please change "Murder" to "Death" since the autopsy report that was released unambiguosly shows that George Floyd was not murdered. PoppyWasSloppy (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done: Autopsy rep[orts do not use the word murder. That is the job of the courts. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  You are correct. Autopsy does not say he asphyxiated. (death by choking/lack of air) 2603:8081:3400:510B:5835:33FA:71C5:AC7B (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  There was disagreement about the specific cause of death with the two autopises, "Two autopsies—one by a local government official and one by doctors working for Floyd's family—determined that his death was a homicide. Released on June 1, 2020, they differed over whether there were contributing factors and whether the agreed cause, restraint and neck compression, was combined with subdual or asphyxiation.". It was claimed by one that "that Floyd's heart stopped while he was being restrained and that his death was a homicide caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression". As noted, the findings of the autopsy are not a legal conclusion. The legal conclusion is determined after a trial in a court of law by a jury, which weighed the evidence presented. In this case, the jury determined that this was a murder, which was reported by independent reliable sources. You are free to disagree with the evidence offered at trial and free to disagree with the conclusion of the jury. 331dot (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin and the other people involved are free to use all legal channels to get the conclusion of the jury overturned(or their plea tossed and have a trial), and if that happens, the title of this article can be revisited, but not until then. 331dot (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It should say that Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder, but that Floyd likely died "due to a combination of factors" including "potentially fatal levels" of fentanyl, as one of the sources quoted by the article ALREADY says. So the article is conflicting with it's own sources. Xclamationmark (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Murder is a legal conclusion, while the autopsy is a medical determination. Two separate things, there is no contradiction or conflict. As you already know, both are noted in this article. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Refer to Talk:Murder of George Floyd/FAQ#Q4.—Bagumba (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A jury determined this was a murder, that's all we need. You are free to believe as you wish. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

External link

@Minnemeeples: You removed this link to a 2023 documentary about Floyd's death, stating in your edit summary it was a "political propaganda piece". What specific content in the documentary is "political propaganda"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time finding quality sources that discuss the documentary. I mainly see poor-quality right-leaning sources praising it for (paraphrasing) "revealing the truth about Floyd's murder" and poor-quality left-leaning sources criticizing it for distorting the facts. The fact that the film is based on the book They're Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd does suggest that it's more focused on pushing an opinion than on presenting the facts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Fall of Minneapolis is not a credible documentary about the murder of George Floyd and the aftermath. It was a "crowd funded" documentary by right-wing media source Alpha News featuring Liz Collins, a former WCCO-TV personality and spouse of Minneapolis Police Department officer and former police union head Bob Kroll. The film is based on a book by Collins. At WCCO, according to Bring Me The News (article on Jan. 25, 2022), Collins did not report on policing issues because of a perceived conflict of interest due to her relationship with Kroll; she later left the station after facing public scrutiny.

The documentary has only received coverage in the typical right-wide tabloids, such as Alpha News (promotional piece on Nov. 22, 2023), New York Post (opinion piece on Nov. 20, 2023), Daily Mail (article on Nov. 20, 2023). It has not received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Local media source Patch.com had an article about it on Nov. 21, 2023, explaining the political nature of the documentary, "The Fall of Minneapolis casts Chauvin and his three former colleagues as political prisoners and victims of government corruption, conspiracies, and liberally biased mainstream media."

The documentary is the creation of far-right media to promote alternative, right-wing views on the murder of Floyd and the resulting aftermath. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The documentary was added as an external link, not as a source. The documentary features extensive bodycam footage, and a first-time interview with Chauvin. The documentary is relevant and content-related. Moreover, sites that fail to meet the criteria for reliable sources--yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources--are to be considered as external links, per WP:ELMAYBE. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to characterize this as a "maybe" EL. I don't think it's likely to help the reader's understanding of the topic as much as it would hurt it, based on what I'm seeing in the (again, not so reliable) sources. I think it would create an WP:ELPOV problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In WP:ELNO, we find: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I couldn't say for sure if the documentary includes "factually inaccurate or unverifiable research". The lack of RS coverage is a major part of the problem here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Listing a politically motivated, conspiratorial documentary under "External links" is undue weight. If Chauvin's comments from prison about murdering Floyd (he was found guilty of state charges; he pleaded guilty to federal charges) are notable, they will be covered in reliable sources, and we can quote from reliable sources. It will not be necessary to link to this particular piece as it misleads the reader that this piece is a historically relevant, unbiased documentary. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Besides, there are plenty of more widely distributed documentaries about the murder of Floyd and the resulting aftermath. For example:

• Say His Name: Five Days for George Floyd (PBS).
• Police on Trial (Frontline)
• Civil: Ben Crump (2022) (Netflix)
• Boys in Blue (Showtime mini-series)
• Etc.

These aren't listed in "External links". Minnemeeples (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, no need to link to fiction. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The article must be changed to "Death of George Floyd"

In every other language, the article is named "Death of George Floyd," therefore the English article must be renamed as such. No exceptions. 2600:6C4A:5A00:3982:B946:D70D:931A:AC14 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not how article titles work. We aren't concerned with what other Wikipedias do, as they are separate projects. Floyd's killer was convicted of murder by a jury in a court of law, so this is a murder. Full stop. You can disagree with their legal conclusion all you wish, and Mr. Chauvin is free to use all available legal means to overturn the conviction(SCOTUS just turned down an appeal), but until Chauvin's conviction is tossed, this is a murder. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

“Murder” is incorrect.

Not going anywhere O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don’t let emotions dictate the truth. 2600:1702:46DE:10:41ED:2A60:1A3A:4B99 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) The officer who killed Floyd was convicted of murder, thus it is the correct term. See WP:MURDERS A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) See Q4 in the FAQ near the top of the page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Perhaps your emotions are leading you to say this? A jury ruled it was murder. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) They did so in a rather botched show trial. More evidence of this is coming up. The "Death of George Floyd" would be less prejudicial as 'murder' in the title. A 'murder conviction' can still be mentioned. 105.8.6.173 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC) I know I really shouldn't engage with this, but he was convicted in a court of law and SCOTUS just refused his appeal this week. There is no "more evidence coming up". Keep the conspiratorial nonsense on 4chan please. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC) You are entitled to your opinion, despite the clear evidence to the contrary, but here we summarize reliable sources. The legal conclusion of the jury will not be relitigated here. Mr. Chauvin is free to use all legal means to overturn his conviction (SCOTUS just turned down an appeal by him). Consider what you would want when under the knee of a police officer unable to breathe. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) @331dot: If you watch the bodycam footage at The Fall of Minneapolis, Floyd started saying he couldn't breathe when they were trying to get him into the police car, long before Chauvin had his knee on his back. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Then he probably shouldn't have put his knee on Floyd's neck, but as I said, this won't be relitigated here. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) The bodycam footage--not admissible at trial--shows Chauvin's knee on Floyd's back, exactly as his training manual (also not admissible at trial) showed him to do it. Can't blame SCOTUS for their decision...any more peaceful protests and our cities would be ashes. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) I'm done. The ways in which people try to justify the disproportionate killing of minorities by police, and ignore evidence such as the lead photo of this article is facinating on a certain level. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Verdict wrong

Not going anywhere Part II O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not murder according to the corners report 173.167.162.241 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Wrong - two autopsies have stated that the cause of death was homicide, as stated in the article and backed up by citations. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC) That is false, one of the source cited says that Floyd died due to "a combination of factors" and that he had a "potentially fatal level" of fentanyl, as well as other drugs. The article should say this and that Chauvin was convicted of murder, it should present all of the facts and stay neutral on the verdict, not depict it as a murder "because the jury ruled it as murder"... Unless you admit that Wikipedia is biased like Larry Sanger is saying. Xclamationmark (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC) The article notes the findings of the autopsy. As I note below, the findings of the autopsy are a medical conclusion, not a legal conclusion. The legal conclusion was for the jury to determine as the result of a trial, which happened and the jury found Chauvin guilty. You can disagree with the conclusion of the jury all you wish, but that doesn't change the content of this article and what it is titled. Derek Chauvin is free to use all available legal means to overturn his conviction(the very conservative SCOTUS just turned down an appeal) Wikipedia does not "stay neutral" on a verdict when reliable sources do not. Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased. As all sources have biases, bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what to believe. You are free to read this article and disagree with everything presented. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Also, y'know, what makes you think that Larry Sanger himself is unbiased? He is very much biased, particularly about Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Murder is a legal conclusion, not a medical conclusion. The MEs determined Floyd's death was a homicide, the jury determined it was murder. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) As you are not a court of law, you do not get to declare the legal verdict wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Coroner's never use the term murder, and you are not an appeal's court. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC) See Talk:Murder of George Floyd/FAQ § Q4 —Bagumba (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) And Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo said that Chauvin had been trained in the dangers of positional asphyxiation and characterized Floyd's death as murder. References

Autopsy - not murdered

Facts Trump your feelings. The Autopsy shows ZERO damage to his trachea. He died of a drug overdose. 4X the legal limit in his system. The drugs killed him, not Derek. That’s a fact. 96.8.253.190 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, the role of the autopsy is to determine a cause of death from a medical standpoint. Murder is a legal conclusion, which is determined by a jury in a court of law. The jury reviewed the evidence and determined Mr. Floyd was murdered, full stop- so we call it a murder. You can disagree with this conclusion all you wish, and Mr. Chauvin can use all legal means to overturn his conviction(SCOTUS just turned him down) but that doesn't change what we call this case. The results of the autopsies are stated in this article.

And if Mr. Floyd was on drugs, perhaps Mr. Chauvin should not have restrained him by kneeling on his neck, which is clearly visible in video. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Chauvin had no way of knowing Floyd had just swallowed a lethal dose of fentanyl (you can see it in his mouth on bodycam though), and the restraint Chauvin used--the "maximal restraint technique"--appeared on bodycam to be done exactly as Chauvin was trained; you can see it demonstrated in his training manual here. When I have time I'll find some reliable sources and expand the article to list the plethora of exculpating exhibits ruled inadmissible at trial. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't engage in WP:SYNTH. Use your time more wisely than that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

How Chauvin was trained? "Just following orders" didn't work as a defense at Nuremberg, it shouldn't in Minnesota either. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not what Godwin's law is. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I invoked Nazis in an internet discussion. That's exactly what Godwin's law is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Chauvin lost in court. He then lost in appeals court. SCOTUS then rejected his appeal. The next step in appeals process above the US Supreme Court is not Wikipedia. We do not argue cases. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

AS you are not a court, you do not get to overturn the court's verdict (which is what we go by). Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What we "go by" is reliable sources, and an ability to pass WP:VNOT. Court rulings, and as the IP above has stated, "feelings", are not part of Wikipedia's guidelines. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually if a court finds someone guilty of murder that would be usable. It may not pass wp:n but it would pass wp:primary. As this is not about wp:n but wp:v, a court finding is usable. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You are free to disagree with the conclusion of the jury that heard all the legally permitted evidence, and Chauvin is free to appeal(he did and lost). You are even free to use your social media to promote that view. You aren't free to reargue the case here. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact, discussing whether or not a court case's outcome reflects reality is not infrequently done on WP; it is how we come to have articles like Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial where editors add information about the very sorts of issues, reservations, alternative theories, public doubts, and so forth, that complicate cases like this. Simpson was, after all, acquitted of the double murder with which he was charged. So how can a WP article "reargue" his case, as it does? This is also how we get WP articles such as the one about Anthony Ray Hinton who was convicted of murder in 1985 and sentenced to death. Hinton appealed to the Alabama Appellate Court in 1988 who unanimously confirmed his conviction and sentence, and then he appealed to the Alabama State Supreme Court in 1989, who ruled likewise. Case-closed, right? Actually, no. After being on death row for 28 years, Hinton's case was reopened due to demonstrable uncertainty about his guilt, and he was eventually exonerated and released. So "rearguing the case" is par for the course when it is high-profile and there is a possibility of a verdict having been wrongly reached, whether a conviction or acquittal. Lest anyone argue that Hinton's case is irrelevant since he was legally exonerated, there are many examples of those who have been demonstrably wrongly convicted yet never exonerated, such as Timothy Evans who, despite it having been proved that he was not in fact guilty, the state has refused to overturn his conviction. Indeed, WP articles are frequently works-in-progress which reflect ongoing changes even after acquittals or convictions and subsequent exonerations or prosecutions, such as with Trials of Kirstin Lobato who was convicted of first-degree murder in 2002 and sentenced to 40-100 years in prison, then was retried in 2006 for the same crime and this time convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 13-45 years, and in 2017 was ordered released, but about whom there are still questions as to whether or not she indeed murdered the victim. So claiming that a conviction (or acquittal) permanently closes the books on a case as far as WP is concerned, is absolutely false. Bricology (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The main article is miscarriage of justice, and we have both a list of miscarriage of justice cases and a list of wrongful convictions in the United States. Including cases of people convicted of murder, when the "victim" was still alive. Dimadick (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying that the case is permanently closed, but this page is not the forum to reargue it- that would be appellate courts which have already rejected Chauvin's appeals so far. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss the view that this case was wrongly decided, that's something we can talk about, not your personal views or analysis. What is closed is calling this a murder- it will be called that until Chauvin gets his conviction overturned. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Or that we can't add criticisms by RS or any other notable person. What We can't do is to overturn the court's decision. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

To add context, we can take a look at Leo Frank for someone who *was* convicted of murder, but the article doesn't label him a murderer. The reason why we can do that is because, as the article says, the general consensus among modern historians is that he was wrongfully convicted. We would need a similar general consensus to override the conviction here too, and so far, nobody has presented *any* reliable sources indicating such consensus (unsurprising, since no such consensus exists). It will not work to try to weasel things in by arguing about a preliminary comment by a medical examiner about an autopsy that's still in-progress or whatever--we need an overall consensus by experts in the field that this was a miscarriage of justice to disregard the fact that Chauvin was convicted of murder. Anything less will not fly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what have been said here. There is fairly good evidence that it was not a deliberate murder. It should be named "The Death of George Floyd." Academicskeptic9 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at WP:MURDERS. O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You will first need to get Derek Chauvin's conviction by a jury in a court of law overturned, or establish that the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that Chauvin was wrongly convicted. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Chauvin was not convicted of a deliberate murder. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove rename requests on sight

I propose that requests to rename this article as anything other than a murder(in line with WP:MURDERS) be removed on sight, and that this procedure be written in the FAQ on this page. See Talk:Adam's Bridge where this is in effect for another article receiving numerous rename requests, many as drive bys, by people who don't know or don't care about policy. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Then why not rename "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "Wikipedia, the censored encyclopedia" at this point! Xclamationmark (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

We have a FAQ, which answers every rename request we have had. It is not censorship to say "we call murder murder, and will not accept any out of court verdicts". Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Xclamationmark No one is being censored. You are free to hold your personal views, but this isn't the place to air them, and it is not open for debate here that someone was convicted of murder for killing George Floyd. One can disagree with the conclusion of the jury and believe Mr. Chauvin was wrongly convicted or that the trial was unfair or whatever, and we can even put in this article discussion in independent reliable sources about such a view, but this article will not be renamed until Mr. Chauvin gets his conviction overturned(which seems doubtful as SCOTUS just turned him down). 331dot (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What I wrote wasn't an opinion and had nothing to do with the verdict, I complained because one of the sources ALREADY cited in the article clearly states that Floyd died due to a multitude of factors, including drug use. The sources cited contradict the idea that it was a murder, not my opinions. Xclamationmark (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What has this to do with renaming the article? Also, which source? Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Murder is a legal conclusion, not a medical conclusion. The latter is for the ME to determine, the former is for the jury to determine. As I said, if you looked at the available evidence and reached a different conclusion from the jury, that's your right, but it doesn't affect what this article is titled. You weren't on the jury. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No, this is your opinion. The court ruled it was murder. Under US law, that means it is murder. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact in my original complaint I didn't say "remove murder", I proposed that the article should say that it was ruled a murder, while also explaining that Floyd likely died due to a multitude of factors, as the sources cited already say.

Instead of burying this information deep down in the sources, or in the autopsies section (only someone who looks specifically for it will find it).

At the moment they are depicted as if they don't matter, as if they are secondary causes of death, and in the introduction of the article they are not even mentioned! It straight up says thay Chauvin murdered him.

So you see, all I want is to restore the neutrality of the article, I don't even want to rename the article, so don't delete my comments, and don't accuse me of trying to push my opinion, don't associate me with those people please, explain why I'm wrong maybe. I'm not a kid, I will understand if I'm wrong, if you explain why. Xclamationmark (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It "straight up says" Chauvin murdered Floyd because......... a jury determined Chauvin murdered Floyd, a jury that looked at the available evidence, including the autopsies described in this article. The specific cause of Floyd's death is immaterial to this conclusion. If Floyd was on drugs or had medical problems, perhaps Chauvin shouldn't have knelt on his neck. Trying to say "a jury said it was murder but he died for many reasons" is not neutral, suggesting the jury got it wrong. It isn't not neutral to say Floyd was murdered because that's what a jury said. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So no, this has nothing to do with removing rename requests. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I sort of agree with 331dot. I would prefer that we comment more generally on new sections being started that dispute whether Floyd was murdered, as not all such sections are explicitly about renaming the article. To copy and adapt the note at Adam's Bridge, I'd propose

Q7: Why was my request or comment removed?

A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to describe Floyd's murder using other terms (e.g. "death", "overdose") or to change the name of the article accordingly will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and essays, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and WP:Reliable sources. Anyone removing such requests should include a link to this FAQ in their edit summary.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC) adding one sentence 16:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Sounds good. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

IN case it as not clear Support with one caveat, the edit summary has to say "SEE faq". Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Also agree with "See FAQ" in the edit summary. Enough is too much. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I added an instruction to link the FAQ in the edit summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

    • Reply - Agree with FAQ. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support along with "See FAQ" in the edit summary, per above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Absolutely. These requests have no merit and are just wasting editors' time.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support, it would be nice to not have to repeat the same things over and over and over again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Added Q7 per the early support above. If consensus shifts, it's easy to remove. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support as the state legal appeals have all been denied. (Chauvin has an active request to rescind the federal guilty plea.) Should there be significant legal developments in the case that would warrant a change in the title of the article, there can be a discussion to remove the procedure and FAQs to consider a name change. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Video copyrighted?

The screenshot of the video where Derek Chauvin puts his knee around the neck of George Floyd is marked as "copyrighted", when such status is likely unknown. I know that the copyright status is unknown though. Has anyone ever copyrighted the video? Who knows? Even the photo of George Floyd is marked as "copyrighted" SuperFeral (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe the copyright of both the photo and the video rests with the photographer unless it is explicitly released or given a license compatible with Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What I believe is that no one ever copyrighted the work, since it was first published on social media, before being ultimately uploaded to media outlets. This is common practice. SuperFeral (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I am certainly no copyright expert, but I don't believe an image needs to be registered with a copyright office to have a copyright. It just does by existing unless, again, it is explicitly released. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Per https://www.copyright.gov (for the US, where Wikipedia servers are located):

Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created.

The status of the video isn't unknown; it was copyrighted the moment it was created, and without an explicit release under a Wikipedia-compatible license, its status is not free and we cannot use it, other than under the strict fair-use criteria for non-free content. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I now understand. Better to keep it as fair use. SuperFeral (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone here watched “ THE GREATEST LIE EVER SOLD: GEORGE FLOYD AND THE RISE OF BLM”?

Need to change the title of the article? 98.242.8.141 (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I haven't, but almost certainly not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, a "Daily Wire+ exclusive". See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Daily_Wire. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Not in the same universe as a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd sooner trust Seth Abramson's prognostications than Candace Owen's research. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

After watching that moving and The Fall of Minneapolis, I wonder if Trump will pardon them all. Someone may want to write an article about either movie, then add a link from this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

He could only pardon the federal convictions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

White & Black

The text "White" & "Black" in this article should be capitalized, as these words refer to their respective racial group.

MOS:RACECAPS

AppGoo0011 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, and that's not what MOS:RACECAPS says: Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It also says that the capitalized forms are better suited when next to other, more commonly capitalized terms, such as "American," which there are instances of in this article. AppGoo0011 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I would favor a change to capitalized Black and White. Since this topic has MOS:TIES to the US, and since US style guides predominantly recommend capitalization, I think following suit would be helpful to readers. Since this topic covers not just Black and White racial/ethnic groups—also including Hmong-American, etc.—capitalization is recommended by the part of RACECAPS that says "The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

their respective racial group What makes you part of a "racial group"? 20% black, 100% black? What are Sicilians?[14] O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Answer me this: what's the difference between a white/black person and a White/Black person? One can be white whilst not being White (e.g. Albino people). AppGoo0011 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I beg you both not to go further on this. We don't need to come to a shared understanding of the concept of race. We just need to make a stylistic decision. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Under discussion on two article TPs. Should be on one. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I was told I had to make a Talk page section on each page I wished to have capitalized racial terms. AppGoo0011 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This is also under discussion at Talk:Reverse_racism where I noted: "Looking through the the article sources, looks like they generally use non-caps outside of titles. The NYTimes has two cites, both of which use non-caps.[15][16] I think same with quotes. Same with Vox, The Atlantic, WaPo, and The Baltimore Sun. All non-caps. Didn't look at the books. Too much work." O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)