Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NPOV

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I have no idea how to place a template for this AND I have not been active recently. However, I think at least a few facts should be included: it seems to be that facts are omitted now. I propose to include a summary of the following.

-George Floyd's criminal record.

-The 911 call leading to the officer's arrival.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-death-911-transcript-minneapolis-police/

-The 2 autopsy reports (concerning meth and contribution of the meth to his death).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-death-autopsies-homicide-axphyxiation-details/

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/06/01/george-floyd-familys-lawyer-independent-autopsy-determines-floyd-died-of-asphyxiation/

-American and international policies for violent offenders and suspects that are considered armed & dangerous and heavily intoxicated.

[Remainder redacted by Levivich ^[dubious – discuss] 17:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)]

85.150.152.71 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As I have already said, he was not out of control, and no RS says he was.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Most of this is primary sources and original research derived from them. Also undue weight as his criminal record is not relevant to being pressed into the pavement by an officer's knee and suffocated. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I have redacted a large chunk of the OP that contained WP:BLP and WP:NOTAFORUM violations (and blatant misinformation, e.g. regarding GF's autopsy reports, or the very false claim most black people killed by police are killed by black officers). The "links" supposedly backing that up were all bad URLs; BTW here's a real source about police brutality and race. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
... not to mention, do your goddam home work and check the archives before wasting everyone's time rehashing stuff. E Eng 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there user 85.150.152.71, I had previously had some NPOV worries about the article, but they were misplaced, I must have only skimmed it, it seems really neutral at the moment, on close reading. What had led me to worry (needlessly, I now think) is that one of the section titles seems to exceed the sources on the balance between the weight of Chauvin/airway versus the weight of other officers/diaphram/positional asphyxia. Early media focus didn't know that the other officers were sitting on Floyd (they weren't visible in the first video that became available), and Chauvin's black glove made him appear to have his hand nonchalantly in his pocket. Regardless of this, the article correctly describes all the aspects of the restraint, and Floyd's possibly misleading statement about claustrophobia and/or breathing difficulties before the restraint started. In any case Chauvin was in charge hence has responsibility. Failure to put Floyd in recovery position even when the ambulance was called is criminal. The knee on neck too, if it was restricting the airway (Floyd said 'my neck hurts, my stomach hurts' and 'I can't breathe'). Technically speaking, many sources explain that someone handcuffed face-down with weight on them can fail to get enough oxygen to survive due to restriction of the diaphram. I don't yet know how to understand sources about the neck restraint. I wish the autopsies were clearer. Crucially, regarding your comments about criminal record or intoxication, these are as irrelevant as excusing someone who kills an old person by saying, they were frail anyway. Killing refers to the boundaryline between life and death. I am thinking, the title of the section "Chauvin kneels on neck" or whatever is not very useful in summarizing what the section says, but the section seems amazingly clearly, honestly and fairly presented, in my view. Createangelos (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Use other video frame to replace lynching photographs

Latest comment: 3 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Reposted since Header/Main photo is closed. The selected 'frame' is too similar to lynching photographs used as racial propaganda: smiling killer, gory white substance on victim's mouth, etc. There are other images to select, at least 1 for every second of the video = 480+ alternates. A good sequence in OS when Chauvin isn't looking content is the macing sequence. I suggest changing the selected image to one where Chauvin isn't looking content/almost smiling, as when he grabs the mace before Thao steps in front of the camera. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Try Lynching postcard Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: His facial expression seems pretty neutral to me, and this is the best look we get at his face. This is also the moment that has overwhelmingly been used by reliable news sources; a quick Google Images search suggests most outlets are using frames very close or identical to ours. Examples: NYT, CNN, The Independent, Star Tribune, The Sun. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Chauvin's "look" is oft-cited. Unlike the postcards, the text here is moreorless neutral.—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

True Bagumba, and at the end of the OS, he steps full frame into the camera shot and then literally smiles. lagoQnsi have you checked the mace sequence to see if we can capture his face well enough? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

In the name of God someone explain what "the OS" is, PLEASE. Operating system? Old Style? Osmium? Open source? Overall survival? Oxygen saturation? What??? E Eng 19:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Original Source. Pasdecomplot is referring to the video. I think it's a conflation of OR and primary source. We have a steep learning curve. Pasdecomplot to me seems an obviously well-intentioned editor who is having a hard time figuring us out. —valereee (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

OS is original source, what the video is in this case. A academic research term EEng. Pasdecomplot (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Well it's certainly not a academic research term this particular academic researcher has ever heard. E Eng 06:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Removed subsection 'Alt text' to an archive, it used to be here. —valereee (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Our story so far

So far this thread has about 4 posts about the photo, 493 about one editor's use of an eccentric abbreviation, and 8204 about whether a talk-page subheading constitutes a content fork. [Later note: This references an intervening subthread, now removed.] What next -- an RfC? E Eng 11:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba Thanks again, but I can't access the topic above 'Alt text' with the mobile equipment I use. If others can, the obvious conclusion is their equip is different and/or they have different apps. Not weird. The streamlining of topics or "same general subject" idea would work IF the topics were the same. The topic discusses changing the image, while the sub-topic is concerned with text describing the existing image, which effectively changed the topic completely to one which indirectly supports keeping the existing image. That's completely contrary to the topic. I agree Levivich that 'Alt text' isn't being discussed, and think it should be archived. Any final comments on 'Alt text' EEng?? Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There ya go, Pasdecomplot, and you're welcome. Please indent on talk pages. —valereee (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

so, EEng can you work on the video image also? With your equipment, could you share an image of the macing moment where Chauvin isn't looking pleased and where Floyd doesn't have noticible white substance on his lips? Maybe if we IagoQnsi Bagumba could see it, then consensus could be reached. Just a thought. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I have no special equipment. E Eng 17:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping you did —valereee (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I was going to make a joke along those lines, but that would be too cheap even for me. E Eng 00:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole world of special equipment jokes—valereee (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Big picture in the centre

Latest comment: 3 years ago27 comments5 people in discussion

Why is there a very large picture of the memorial at the top of the arrest and death section, practically the first section of the article, in the centre of the page? Apparently it's been around for a while, so I presume I'm missing out on some discussion and I know EEng would never allow such MOS and structural desecration to occur under his watch. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, desecration is my middle name (in full: E Desecration Eng). I don't know of any MOS guideline against such placement, but now that my attention's been drawn to it after all this time, that particular image might go better in the Memorials section IF we have another image that focuses more specifically on the location of the incident. E Eng 01:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. It's not in a relevant section, it shouldn't be centered, and its size should be scaled down. It goes against WP:NPOV.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As already noted it's probably more appropriate for the Memorials section, but what does NPOV have to do with it? E Eng 06:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: NPOV, maybe I was just going out of my way to be devil's advocate. At any rate, so far agreement that it doesn't belong there.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I get the NPOV concern, too. It's a huge picture of tributes left by protesters, and it's smack in the middle of the arrest and death section. It's like one of the murals. I hadn't really thought of it before, but now that's been pointed out it definitely feels like NPOV. —valereee (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, looking at the current caption of the photo, if the intent is to show the crime scene, then the image should be cropped to show less of the pavement and the flowers and zoom in on the store with a better view of the specific spot he was killed.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a wide shot helps. Perhaps not as wide as it is now but certainly including most of the intersection helps give a context for the area (and aids with visualising some later events, like the parks officer nearby who was found to not have sufficient sight of the event). Perhaps up to slightly left of the traffic light, if we're cropping. Though, I think a pre-event shot of the area may be better - one that isn't filled with flowers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Since you guys are too busy wringing your hands I've WP:SOFIXITed it for you. I did this before ProcrastinatingReader's post just above here, so if we want to back off the cropping a little that can be done. E Eng 14:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Some think the crop works better, but some prefer the whip.

-E Eng

I think the crop works better —valereee (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

eyeroll —valereee (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I gotta be me. E Eng 17:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The crop is not good IMO. Before at least it showed the memorial in the intersection; now it shows a bunch of people in front of a store. TBH I wasn't crazy about the old picture either, which is a picture of a George Floyd memorial, but it's not a picture of the George Floyd memorial, which is this: [1]. IMO, we can use that to illustrate the section about George Floyd memorial as fair use. Alternatively, there may be a free one out there somewhere. I'm not sure if it's still possible to create a free one; I don't know the current status of the memorial.

I also think the first image in the Memorials section, which shows the Cup Foods logo prominently, is inappropriately drawing attention to the store that just happened to be the location of this tragedy. I feel like we're shaming them. The caption says it depicts protesters, which it does, but I think there are much better images of GF protesters we could use. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The request was that, for the image in the section describing the incident, to avoid the memorial aspect and just show the location. The problem is that, for reasons that surely must be obvious, it's impossible to get a photo of the area without everything plastered with signs and flowers and stuff. So I did the best I could by cropping.

For the later Memorials section, perhaps the original uncropped image would work well. In fact, the cropped closeup in the incident section, and the uncropped full-view-with-flowers in the Memorials section, might be a nice touch.

Unfortunately, the mural can only be used under fair use (because it's copyright and, ya know, maybe the artist wants to control dissemination of his work and doesn't want millions of people seeing it on the internet without paying him). E Eng 17:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ehh, not exactly. If it were a picture of the mural, we could only use it as fair use. But if someone took a picture of the intersection, with the flowers, etc., and the mural was part of that, the photograph itself would probably be seen as transformative, and the photographer would probably be able to license it with a compatible license, like CC-BY-SA. In fact, someone has done just that, and I'm going to go test this theory now. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, there's already deletion discussions at Commons. [2] [3] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Told you. They're really going for the jugular by pointing out that not only does the mural artist have a copyright interest, but Floyd's heirs do as well, since the mural was based on Floyd's selfie, which they now own. E Eng 18:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This is only a problem because of the insistence in WMF policy that everything here be licensed for commercial use, and not just educational/non-profit, even though this is a god damn free encyclopedia, and nobody would every question whether it was fair use for a free encyclopedia to publish a picture of a memorial in an entry discussing memorials, but nooooo the WMF says we have to make sure it's OK for people to sell this article and its pictures, and it's just another example of these fucking ridiculous policies getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. It drives me to rant. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

We can probably upload it onto enwiki directly and claim fair use instead? Downscale if need be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we use File:George Floyd Tributes Outside Cup Foods Minneapolis.jpg at the top of the Memorials section. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

W/r/t showing the location where the event occurred, neither the cropped nor uncropped version really does a good job of that, IMO, particularly because it's facing the wrong face of the building. The event occurred on the side of the building facing the gas station, not the side facing the restaurant (which is the vantage point from which the current photo is taken). There are probably better pictures out there that show the location where GF died, that we could use in the arrest section. Also we might add a map. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I for one will have no objection to the substitution of better images. E Eng 18:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Then I suggest File:Terrence Floyd, George Floyd's brother visits the location where his brother was killed, now a memorial, at Chicago Ave and E 38th St in Minneapolis, Minnesota - 49960683978.jpg to illustrate the Arrests section, with a caption indicating it's a picture of George Floyd's brother standing at the location where George Floyd was killed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good choice —valereee (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Protesters along and around 38th Street in Minneapolis on Tuesday after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 08.jpg is another one I think we could use to illustrate the protests section. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I added these pictures and rearranged the memorials section, putting the wide intersection shot at the bottom as a footer. Not sure if anyone else will like this arrangement or not (feel free to revert or otherwise improve). I also added the picture of Floyd's brother standing where Floyd died to the section talking about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:UPRIGHT, I reduced that scale of the intersection shot to 1.8, the max suggested. I also un-centered it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

More respectful image?

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

I feel like the prominent display of this image [4] of George Floyd's death is unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful to the deceased man and his family. We have other images of Floyd, can we use a photo of him when he was alive rather than one of him being murdered in the street? If my loved one had died in such a horrific and public manner I wouldn't want an image of his final moments on display like this. It's a horrific image. I know some people are going to say we don't censor Wikipedia, and I agree, but showing some basic respect for the dead man and his family is not censorship, it's simply being decent. Bacondrum (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#RFC: lead photo closed two weeks ago. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm surprised it was such a strong consensus. The way this image is used seems callous and disrespectful to me, but that's just my opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Its placement should be lower in the article. It depicts the face of a man dying. A reader landing on an article shouldn't be greeted with the face of a man dying. It has informational value but that informational value is not diminished one iota by placing it at a lower slot within the article. The only thing "accomplished" by placing it in the uppermost position in the article is maximizing the impact and shock value on a reader when they arrive at the article and I don't see that as a "value" at all. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is entitled "Killing of George Floyd" and the picture depicts the killing of George Floyd. I mean, what would one expect by clicking on an article named "killing of..."? If I click on Lynching of Jesse Washington, I know I'm probably about to see the picture of a dead, mutilated man. Alcaios (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That is absolutely horrifying. Lost for words. I can't stomach reading about that, such incomprehensible horror. Bacondrum (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, thankfully no horrible photos, but for absolutely horrifying see Elijah McClain. I had to take it off my watch list because every time it came up it made me want to cry. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Our primary obligation is to reflect sources, Valereee. Since this is a current event, as opposed to the 1916 lynching in the above linked-to article, we are necessarily concerned with the sentiments of living people. On a visceral level we experience current events almost as if they are happening in our own lives. That is because we share time and space—this being 21st century America. We aren't shirking our duties of reflecting sources if we reverse the positions of these two photographs: [5], [6], in the article. Nor are we caving in to censorship. This is a matter of appropriateness, given that this event took place a month ago. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED should be consulted. El_C 03:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

El C—why are you saying "WP:CENSORED should be consulted"? I think that is irrelevant. Nobody is arguing to remove the image from the article. It would for instance not be censorship to reverse the positions of these two photographs: [7], [8], in the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The distinction between 1916 and 2020 should be noted, Alcaios. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Making a considered and sensitive choice is not censorship, but regardless the vote was very firm, so I'll leave my query there. Bacondrum (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

just want to also add a point since the consensus was reached before the George Floyd split I believe, and people have brought this up afterwards. A picture of Floyd is presented on his actual page (George Floyd) while a picture of his death is presented on the page about his killing. I think it’s appropriate, and as Levivich said, the consensus was strong to keep it Anon0098 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the placement of the topmost image in Lynching of Jesse Washington but I oppose the current placement of the topmost image in Killing of George Floyd. This question has nothing to do with censorship. Do we invoke the concept of censorship when we consider moving text from one part of the article to another? Bacondrum is correct when they say "Making a considered and sensitive choice is not censorship". Bacondrum initiated this section by voicing an objection to "the prominent display of this image" and I too am arguing for less "prominent" placement of the image. I merely object to it being the topmost image. We are discussing image placement here. I agree with Bacondrum when they say that the current placement is "unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful to the deceased man and his family". I would add that it is "unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful" of black people in general. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I find the idea of hiding the picture of his death further down the article to be the true disrespect. This article is about that death and how it is affecting American society. To say "looking at this is upsetting, we should hide it" is to completely miss the point. --Khajidha (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree..black lives matter 2600:1702:2340:9470:E8D6:43FD:29B9:196D (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think an attitude of care is reflected in a casual attitude to displaying images of Floyd's violent death. Quite the opposite, it reflects a callous disregard for his and his family's tragedy. But if other editors can't see that then I'll say no more. Bacondrum (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

2600:1702:2340:9470:E8D6:43FD:29B9:196D—how does "black lives matter" have bearing on that which is under discussion? Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I think you've broken the archives, can you go fix that? —valereee (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If I broke the archive, I'd be glad to fix it. But I don't understand, what did I break? I guess you are referring to my undoing the archiving here. Can't I use the "undo" function to remove that section from archive? Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I see it is still in the archive. What did I do wrong? And what should I do now? Should I delete the older version of the "More respectful image?" section that is in archive? Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted from archives. I hope that is the right thing to do. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not actually sure. The person who archived may have used a script, and that script may make multiple edits to make the move. Generally reopening discussion is done with a fresh section rather than unarchiving, I think. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it should have been archived as a comment was posted about 30 minutes before it was archived. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal: 8'46"

Latest comment: 3 years ago174 comments116 people in discussion

This proposal has been open for more than a month, it has been nearly a week since the last !vote, and a request for closure has been registered by Jax 0677.
By raw headcount, there were roughly 55 support !votes, 51 oppose, and a handful of alternate or indecipherable !votes.
Arguments on the merge side largely put forward the idea that the amount of independent content at 8'46" was insufficient to support a standalone article. Arguments on the oppose merge side were datelined well after the proposal was opened and noted that the 8'46" article had been significantly expanded. (Indeed, many merge !votes struck their comments and converted their opinions to don't merge towards the end of the discussion.) Arguments on both sides largely relied on perceptions of readability and didn't directly cite any policy that would support or not support merger.
I read that, while there is a slim majority of support to execute the merger, there is no consensus to do so. Chetsford (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I propose to merge the article 8′46″ into Killing of George Floyd. This reference to the length of time that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd’s neck is worthy of a paragraph at the target article - maybe under a "Tributes" section since "in popular culture" seems a rather jarring reference to a controversial death. But IMO it is not worthy of a standalone article. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have changed my mind and now think it qualifies as a standalone article; see below. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. Subjects stemming from a parent subject can become independently notable if large amounts of subject-independent coverage arrive on that child subject, as is the case with Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church. However that is not the case here, at the very least for the time being. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Vote withdrawn after taking another look at the article and at the nominator's own words further down below. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- That article has had a complex life in a short amount of time - nominated for deletion, renamed and in the deletion discussion you changed your !vote about its status. So it may not be the strongest example. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
~~Speedy Merge That page was not necessary. What if i create a 5 second chokehold wikiapedia. Will that be enough to create a page? Regice2020 (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)~~ Sock strike Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- If that chokehold was covereed in WP:RS, and thousands of people took to the streets, perhaps yes. So yours is not really a strong argument. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Nor is the argument that a position which takes almost ten minutes to kill, if it happens at all, can be compared to a legit chokehold. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Regards So Why 06:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Reiterate support. Even the expanded article is at least half filled with information already on this page that would not need merging and the other half fits here better. I also don't see the "in journalism" section as relevant to the topic at hand. Regards So Why 14:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose MelanieN's opinion shouldn't be the only reason for deletion. Kire1975 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
No one is arguing for deletion. The proposal is to merge it here since it would be better covered within the context of this article instead of a standalone article. Regards So Why 10:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Per nom. Certainly deserves a section in the main Floyd article. KidAd (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Per nom, by itself with seldom references from WP:RS, it doesn't hold enough content to warrant it's own article — IVORK _Talk 07:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - The duration has become notable in itself because of the reporting and programming that has been produced with 8'46" as the focus. As the article states, a highly notable range of channels carried programming of this exact length, attesting to the significance and exposure of the public to this - Nickelodeon, BET, CBS Sports Network, CMT, Comedy Central, Logo TV, MTV, Paramount Network, the Smithsonian Channel, TV Land, and VH1. Speaking to the nom's comment: there is no Wikipedia policy around excluding content due to something being "jarring." In fact, one could contend that "jarring" indicates a level of notability that justifies the focus of the article. I've also added a number of "die-in" protests that are using the 8'46" as the focus. Note that 8′46″ is also currently in the navbox Template:George Floyd, added by others, so a "speedy" decision isn't the right route as others have deemed it worthy of more widespread exposure.
Since the merge proposal is not being done on the associated talk page, a courtesy ping for all the other unique editors of the article - @CommanderWaterford, DividedFrame, Jadewest.catvalentine, Jim Michael, Koavf, Letcreate123, Paintspot, Pegship, and TJMSmith: -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Doesn't seem to be enough independent content (at least as of yet): merging this into a section that discusses language related to the protests (alongside slogans like "I can't breathe") seems reasonable as of now. May I also say how happy I am that this title uses proper primes instead of <'> and <">? (But also how sad and exhausted I am that we need to keep on fighting for African-Americans' basic right to life?) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Could probably just as a section explaining the meaning of 8'46" Tbrechner (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support This is very much a part of this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Doesn't require it's own page and people looking it up should pereferably find it under this article. Aaryan33056 (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Would fit better as its own section of the article, rather than being an article itself. Fernsong (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, it's become a common duration for commemorations and protests about Floyd's death. It's clearly worthy of an article on its own merits, expanding on that point. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It's clearly becoming it's own thing and will continue to evolve. Let it be. I see the work of well meaning new editors and it's all scrubbed with one gruff opinion. If you weren't born with an indentured servant great grandmother or have been through the new user experience more than once you wouldn't know both sides like I do. Technophant (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Do not make assumptions or dismiss users opinions based upon who they are (or who you think they are) it is a violation of wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support and Merge Not independent enough yet; include the content here, then split it off later if it grows to the point where it warrants its own article. AzureCitizen (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. It's part of the event. Wikipedia is not knowyourmeme. T8612 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - The amount of time isn't notable, nor is it independently notable from the killing it is tied to. There are numerous ways to make reference to the killing of George Floyd (time his neck was compressed, his initials, a nickname), but we don't give each of them an article, do we? After Kobe Bryant died, numerous people made reference to him using his uniform numbers 8 and 24 as references. But we didn't give each of them their own articles because they aren't notable separate from the subject they are tied to. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not a strong argument or parallel though. 8 and 24 were already established as his player numbers, and no one was using them in much higher stakes situtations like protests for justice or civil rights. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT it should be merged over, it just one part of this, not enough content to be off on his own. Dream Focus 14:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. Better covered here. Popcornfud (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support, I don't see why this should have its own article. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC) see below for new vote The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed my mind and I now oppose my own merge request. When I proposed it, the article looked roughly like this - a few examples of popular culture observances which could easily have been added to the article. But since then User:Fuzheado has expanded it to include more and different types of information, to the point where I think it is now a viable article. @Regice2020, SoWhy, KidAd, IVORK, CommanderWaterford, Koafv, Slatersteven, Aaryan33056, Fernsong, Mandruss, AzureCitizen, T8612, Y2Kcrazyjoker4, Dream Focus, Popcornfud, Thanoscar21, and The Spirit of Oohoowahoo: You all supported a merge. Do you still feel it should be merged, or do you think it now qualifies as a standalone article? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Still support - It's still not very expansive. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support (again). Can still be covered in the main article without losing critical detail. Popcornfud (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Still support. I rest my case. T8612 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The Commemorations section should be in the protest article. The section "In journalism" isn't really notable enough to be mentioned at all. The section "Safety" should be in the main article. And not enough "In popular culture" to justify its own article, anything notable should be mentioned in one of the two existing articles. Dream Focus 16:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- They can be in both in different ways. In fact, I didn't exhaustively list all the 8'46" events because that's not a good use of the article. I thoroughly used them as references for WP:N and WP:V purposes, but a thorough list is beyond the scope of the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Still support. Look, news coverage of the Shooting of Michael Brown very often, maybe even usually, mentioned that Brown was shot six times. That didn't warrant an article Shot six times. If and when this rises to the prominence of #MeToo, we might be able to justify an article 8′46″ movement. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a strong argument - no one was putting forth "Shot six times" as having any resonance in either protest themes or how to structure remembrances for Michael Brown. You are entitled to an opinion, but it's not a good analog for comparison. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

And of course you are entitled to your opinions about the issue at hand and the strength of my argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN for recognizing the article's evolution and merit. I was confident it was worthy of its own article before, and while adding more details I was even more convinced of its far-reaching impact. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Still support - While recognizing that the article has definetly expanded from what it originally was when I first gave my support on it, there just doesn't seem to be enough on the article to justify it being its own separate page, rather than being a part of the Killing of George Floyd article. As such, I still support a merge. Fernsong (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Still support - Thank you for the mention. The article has changed since this request was put forward but it is still comparatively lacking in the capacity to be a standalone article. While it definitely educates the reader, it doesn't have enough to have it's own article. The points were categorized, and while that is a good effort, that's all there is. Hence, I choose to continue to support the merge. Aaryan33056 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support. It should be merged because the existence of 8′46″ trivializes the subject. The subject is this very serious subject currently titled Killing of George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It does the exact opposite of what you claim by detailing how the 8'46" is being highlighted to bring attention to injustice. I hope any closer of this proposal recognizes this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You are speaking in platitudes when you say the 8'46" article is "being highlighted to bring attention to injustice". Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you need to read closer as I did not say anything of the sort. The duration itself is being used to "bring attention to injustice" and not the Wikipedia article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

8'46" is a "catchphrase". A catchphrase is "a phrase or expression recognized by its repeated utterance. Such phrases often originate in popular culture and in the arts". I think the use of a catchphrase to stand in for a serious subject does a disservice to the serious subject. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That it is merely a "catchphrase" is your opinion. If you read the article you will see that it is covered in multiple dimensions - in the context of forensics (as part of the charging document), popular culture, the media, and in protests. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A phrase being a rallying cry does not make it substantial enough for an article. "A rallying cry or rallying call is something such as a word or phrase, an event, or a belief which encourages people to unite and to act in support of a particular group or idea." Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI, as of today, a widely syndicated Associated Press piece refers to it this way: "8:46: A Number Becomes a Potent Symbol of Police Brutality." [9] Not just a slogan or catchphrase, but a symbol. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the source that you provided reads "All protest movements have slogans. George Floyd's has a number: 8:46". Especially in this instance we should not be creating articles willy-nilly as doing so trivializes the subject of the main article—which I would characterize as death in police custody as a result of abuse. Bus stop (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Article has been expanded related to the impact of the term and now has all the requirements to stay as an standalone article. Killing of George Floyd and George Floyd protests are already long articles so I don't think merging them is a good idea, given that article has sources and relevant information. --B1mbo (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Strongly. This is ridiculous. 8:46 is no more notable for being the time of the World Trade Center attacks than it is the time I was born (really!). Trillfendi (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a good (or cogent) argument. 1) No one has made a case for the time of the WTC attacks because the circumstances and significance are completely different and 2) there are not two-dozen reliable sources documenting the time you were born as notable. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I evidently juxtaposed two thing involving an 8 46 time period: one is an event that defines how we view modern history... the other is only significant to an astrology chart. It can take me 8 minutes and 46 seconds to bake Nestlé cookies. What other specific time has a Wikipedia article? This is the issue we run into when we just go making articles out of thin air. Recentism and exclusion. Trillfendi (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Support 8′46″ does not seem notable enough to have it's own article. (Check WP:Notability) Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support at least for the present. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC).
Support - 8'46" pertains to George Floyd's killing and isn't (yet) related to any other topic outside of that (if so, very few low notable topics). It should be merged with Killing of George Floyd. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

8:48 is not related to anything that I know of. 8'46" is, however, and the article makes it rather clear how it has wide resonance in vigils, protests, popular culture and in the media. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Corrected the error, thanks for pointing that out. The uses of the term and resonance among corporations and groups all seem to stem from reactions to George Floyd killing and protests, making it easy to keep all of that under separate articles (i.e. Reactions to the killing of George Floyd, Reactions to George Floyd protests). 8'46" itself should redirect to Killing of George Floyd - EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Weak Support, with the option to also keep this article. This is only a noteworthy time interval in the context of Floyd's killing (and in the 9/11 attacks, but that one is sufficiently disambiguated). It should be merged for now, but we can un-merge it if we decide if this has long-term notability later. epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"only a noteworthy time interval in the context of Floyd's killing" - Yes, and? There's no policy I'm aware of in Wikipedia that prescribes this as a problem in terms of article-ness. It is a time period made famous by Floyd's killing, but now has resonance in multiple domains. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the more important thing to think about is the long-term notability, i.e. would 8:46 still be repeated in 1 year? 10 years? Or would this be a phenomenon that fades out next month? WP:10YT should probably apply. I can't breathe, a similar article, is an example of something that has since become a widely-spread catchphrase, and is obviously noteworthy. Let's see if the same applies here, too. I think it may apply, given the widespread usage on social media, but we can't really predict the future. epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:10YT makes an excellent case to oppose this merger for now, and revisit the decision later. It says we should "wait and see". Yardenac (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Support - This is really not that well-known and deserving of a dedicated article. Xxavyer (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I have changed my mind, this article definitely provides unique content. Is it necessary to exist? No. Will a lot of people see it? Probably not. But I don't think the specific stuff it has is worth merging, so the only other option is deleting. And I don't think something not being absolutely necessary or not likely to be seen is grounds for deleting, if it will nonetheless be of educational value to those who end up reading it. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, you can't have two votes here. Since you have changed your mind, you should strike your "support" vote above. If you don't know how, here's how: <s>'''Support'''</s> -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know (I am relatively new here, just joined in 2020) The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The article has been significantly updated, and I think a lot of the content on it is not worth merging with the main George Floyd article, or the article on subsequent protests. It should stand alone as an article related, but separate from those two. Reminder that not everything regarding those events needs to fit into one of the main pages - it's okay to have supporting articles on related topics. I think the topic that is notable enough to warrant its own page. The current page primarily discusses specific use of that time (8 min 46 seconds) in protests and popular culture, not Floyd's murder itself. Coffeespoons (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose and perhaps revisit the question in 6~12 months. I feel merge decisions like these are best made with hindsight after the article has been allowed to develop freely - especially for current events. If there was a real case for existing, that will have made itself clear with more content and sources. If there wasn't, then the decision to merge can be made with more confidence. But for now, give it room to grow. Already several supporters of merging have changed their minds, citing the ongoing progress the article has made. Yardenac (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose proposition but I support merging into George Floyd protests not Killing of George Floyd because the time is primarily used in protest.Waters.Justin (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support merge Doesn't have much coverage outside the US and is essentially encompassed by the death page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: coverage outside the US is not a determining factor in our policies. Even if it was, there has been significant coverage "outside" the US because of Associated Press coverage [10], and the fact that major US news outlets are internationally read. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as the article is expanded and contains details that wouldn't be useful in the main Killing of George Floyd article. I concur with Yardenac above that this can be revisited in a 6 months or a year. Plus, the main article is large; we do not want it to get unwieldy. TJMSmith (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, on top of which the Killing of George Floyd article is probably too long already and ought to be split into more sub-pages. Brad (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support as the subject is too specific for its own article. It easily be covered in this main article. Slight support to merge into George Floyd protests. GoodCrossing (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Merge Per nom, KidAd (talk · contribs), and IVORK (talk · contribs), it's certainly worthy of a subsection on the Killing of George Floyd article but doesn't have enough WP:RS to warrant it's own WP:SPINOUT page. --— Preceding comment posted at the request of 172.101.5.82 (talk · contribs) actually added by Mdaniels5757 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The nom has changed to oppose and there's no way it will be speedy anything. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons listed by other uses above. (Let's revisit this one in a few months.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Support merge Even with expanded content there is significant duplication that is already covered in the main article or protests article or can be combined with the Responses section, especially if that gets spun-out as a subarticle instead. Reywas92^Talk 03:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
oppose for many reason, including that this article is already far too long, and is already stuffed with too many related but distinct topics. Geo Swan (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose the 8.46 article is now big enough to be a stand-alone page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per above. truflip99 (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - The Associated Press ran this story which is being picked up in syndication by many news outlets around the world, "8:46: A Number Becomes a Potent Symbol of Police Brutality" [11] [12] - Fuzheado | Talk 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"All protest movements have slogans. George Floyd's has a number: 8:46" You are arguing for a standalone article for a "slogan". Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Untrue. 1) One should look up the difference between a slogan and a symbol, as they are quite different. 2) The above !votes show this is not going to be merged. Best for all to focus on productively writing an encyclopedia. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are not engaging in dialogue. No surprise there, as your "argument" is for a separate freestanding article on a "slogan", according to the source that you provided. (Couldn't the Killing of George Floyd article explain the existence of the slogan 8′46″? Probably in about 2 sentences?) You are not explaining what you see as the "difference between a slogan and a symbol". Instead you are saying "One should look up the difference between a slogan and a symbol". Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you are trolling or not. I have been thoroughly engaged in dialogue on this page. The difference is so simple I didn't think it needed explanation: shouting "8 minutes 46 seconds!" is a slogan. Lying down for a "die-in" for that amount of time, turning on the lights in Dodger Stadium for that amount of time, putting a black screen on TV with a pulsing "I CAN'T BREATHE" for that amount of time or Google telling employees to be silent for that amount of time are all symbolic. Let's not continue pointless debate - AGF and keep on editing. Cheers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are simply citing manifestations of a slogan. Indeed it would be surprising if there were not manifestations of a slogan. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The entire field of semiotics would have a problem with this definition. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Support merge No need for a stand alone article on this topic. The subject is too specific for its own article and much to obscure. Lightburst (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge & Redir. At this moment, 8'46" might be getting some coverage, but it has not turned significan/long lasting enough to warrant separate article as of yet. Merge and redirect. --nafSadh ^{did say} 19:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Five days after my original evaluation, things have changed a lot and 8'46" has become significant enough to warrant a standalone article of its own. --nafSadh ^{did say} 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Merge and this should be renamed and trimmed. Like George_Floyd insided or something. Jack007 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The content in the 8:46 article warrants inclusion, but per Wikipedia:Article size and WP:SPINOUT most of this content should not be in the main article concerning the killing of George Floyd. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merge to this article - if it's merged anywhere, it should be merged to George Floyd protests (but that should be addressed in a separate merge proposal at Talk:George Floyd protests). In relation to the Killing of George Floyd, 8'46" is a coincidental detail--the time period Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck--other than being too long of a duration, it has no more meaning than that the time of day was 8:30 p.m. or that it was a Monday, etc. In relation to the George Floyd protests, 8'46" is a significant symbol. Thus, if it's not on its own page, it should be on the protest page, but not here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Killing of George Floyd is already too long. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. Even though the main article is too long, an article about the duration of an event, however terrible it is, does not have enough encyclopedic relevance in itself. If 8'46" was not a timelength, but a movement, I would probably oppose for now. Ron Oliver (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The article has been expanded considerably since nominated and now meets notability guidelines. This symbol has made its way into playlists and commemorations as part of Blackout Tuesday and is being used as a symbolic time for moments of silence and die-ins across the world. I also trust the judgment of the nominator, who has reversed their position. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 09:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merging or deletion — When there are activist movements, there is often a rush to create lots of articles based on initial hype and media coverage, and then there's a process of tidying them up later—think about the Occupy protests and the many tiny Occupy offshoots that ended up going to AfD and being merged. That is indeed a risk. But if this were at AfD, the test of standalone inclusion in terms of WP:GNG etc. are fairly clearly satisfied—it is well-sourced. There is a risk it is too soon, but this is equally balanced out by... well, if it is, and the use of 8'46" as a means of memorial, protest, activism (etc.) fades away in a few weeks or months, there's nothing stopping us from having a deletion discussion about it then, since there is no deadline, and as others have noted, this article is getting quite long already. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merging or deletion - The subject of this article passes WP:GNG. A standalone article is justified per WP:SIZESPLIT. Krakkos (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

* Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin (2nd nomination). If Trayvon Martin has his own article, so should George Floyd. Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment sorry wrong one. Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - I think this passes GNG since there are multiple independent sources that are directly about this subject. If this was just trivially mentioned in some sources of course I would support a merge, but thats not the case when there are multiple credible sources directly about the subject.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - while there should be a good paragraph about 8'46" in the George Floyd article, I also think this is now an independent phenomenon, and will likely to continue to be one of the major symbols of the protest movement. Having a standalone article will also keep unrelated detail out of a core article that is already quite long - eg the fact that the Senate observed 8'46" is notable for a standalone article, but maybe not for the core Death of George Floyd article. (Also, everyone should note that all of the articles on this subject are very fast moving, and the 8'46" article has changed quite a bit since the original nom, as has the real-world context and usage). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - the subject has seen significant attention in protests and in media as of late, as represented by the size of the article at present, and has become noted in protests worldwide. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 20:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support into George Floyd Protests and this article 8'46" is inherently related to both these articles but as a standalone topic it's not notable EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support merge Both articles are directly related, and 8'46" is derivative and subsidiary of this article. Just give 8'46" its own subsection on this page instead of having a whole page dedicated to it. RopeTricks (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. This has become separate "slogan" that's related to wider BLM movement, not just the police slaying. It's similar to the I can't breathe article. 109.76.87.125 (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. It's becoming more apparent that the main article is better off splitting into multiple articles for various topics. This is no exception, as I see it, as there's already quite a lot of WP:RS in this article already. Quahog (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, for the [8'46"] article as is (and growing); if somehow it can be kept under ~20kB I support the merge, but that is very unlikely to happen. This [killing of] article is already large enough. Feelthhis (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: sources in the article and arguments above make a convincing case for notability. Much better to leave this as-is for now and revisit at a later date when lasting significance can be better evaluated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for now. We can revisit this whole series of articles when we have more perspective, when the scholarly works are written. It's too hard to judge while we're in the middle of this. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Support merge into George Floyd Protests because there is no need for a stand alone article on this topic. Sokuya (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons above. Notable, well sourced, decently sized and expanding. QuestFour (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Support: This is too obscure, and should be merged for easier access. As a standalone article its not notable enough to deserve a whole page. Hextor26 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - the length of time is not independently notable to the event. The article contains the origin of 8:46 (should already in this article) and some other events (protests, memorials etc.) which reference the time. A separate article is unnecessary.
SSSB (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - This is a phrase that is only associated with this event and probably won't be used for any other event. Love of Corey (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I think this article being as well-sourced and decently sized (without overcompensating in my opinion) proves that it has a right to stand on its own. It would take up too much room in the main article, which is already quite large, although not unreasonably so at the moment. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I believe this article now has enough material to stand on its own. The RS coverage has been extensive and this subject is worth covering in a separate article than either the killing or the protests article; both, moreover, are already very long, so I do not believe it is helpful to merge 8'46" into either. Davey2116 (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Support This protest wasn't known enough to have it's own page. Epicneter (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 8′46″ is a noteable period of time, and per WP:Split it's helpful for the reader to have a seperate article on this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. This page is already very big. We need to make all possible sub-subject separate pages. If anyone thinks 8′46″ does not deserve a separate page, they should start an AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. 8′46″ page is an obvious content/POV fork. This is not a separate sub-subject of two general subjects, which are this page and "protests" page. If merging does not succeed, it should be deleted (AfD). My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose the other article is too long as is and has a few splits already proposed adding more to it is counter productive.Blindlynx (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The killing of George Floyd's article has already been splitted because it's too long already. We can't merge all the aspects of this tragedy into one giant article. BTW, IMO, if this article has to be merged with an other one, it would be better to merge it with an article about the protests. --Deansfa (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The time interval is now independently notable for its use as a political symbol, in the same way as other iconic slogans. -- The Anome (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose; it's achieved a criticality on its own now, and besides, the merge target is too big as is. Feoffer (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Support This 8'46" is non-notable. It is but a statistic in the incident and, really, a slogan. It is also an immateriality in the overall scope of the alleged offense. Further, also strong support merger of "George Floyd" into this article. Floyd is not notable otherwise, except for his criminal record- Veryproicelandic (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Strongly support merge This is a mostly pointless and non-notable article that can very easily be merged. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Support merge He was unknown and not notable prior to his death. 122.11.146.209 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good-faith comment, as he has obviously become notable after his death. And this discussion isn't over whether George Floyd is notable, but rather over whether 8'46" should exist as an independent page. Coffeespoons (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Strong merge support per nom. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - the support crowd better explain where this articles information should be placed. As of now all other articles are huge already. This does not justify merging etc. So I oppose a merge.BabbaQ (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Support It would do as a section in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P,TO 19104 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Basically Support, although some of that material should go to George Floyd protests instead.--Khajidha (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This seems notable enough to merit its own article. If it’s merged, I think that the “Calculation of timespan” section should be merged into the “Killing of George Floyd” article & everything else should be merged into the “George Floyd protests” article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. 8’46” is a reasonable standalone article meeting GNG. It needs further development to show the cultural impact of the time but that’s regular editing. This article is already too long and needs content spun out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support or afd the [8′46″]] article as completely unnotable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@RichardWeiss: Do you have any sources to support your claim that the article is "completely unnotable (sic)"? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Such a claim, for a negative, is not required, indeed never required, on Wikipedia. It has to be for thse who claim he is notable to source such a claim. Please be aware of this! And given that BLP covers the month after the death of any individual it is particularly important that to establish a claim to sufficient notability for an article requires sourcing. So please can you proovide sources that his life before he was died was notable? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: It is, actually, in this instance, as you are claiming something counter to the myriad sources provided on the article page. The onus is on you to prove the topic is not notable. Of course you can't (because it is notable), but you are certainly welcome to try. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Nope, those sources prove his death was notable, and we have this article for his death. There are no sources before May 25th because he wasn't notable in life. I await your sources, your claim that the article is full of sources which I have to magically find that allegedly claim what you say is not an adequate response, as per the way we do things on Wikipedia, esp when BLP is involved, as you should know well given your 15 odd years of editing here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: Your ignorance of what the sources say does not change your burden. It also appears you aren't clear on what even needs to be notable for the article to qualify for notability. You might want to re-check what you're discussing. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: I'm not so ignorant of what the sources say to think there are any sources which say oro demonstrate that he was notable before May 25th or that there are any soources about him from before May 25 beyond perhaps basic reporting of his crimes, which would not be notable by Wikipedia standards unless some other notoability is established (e.g., we'd report minor crimes by an otherwise notable person, and could do so here as his post-death notability has been amply established). Trying to claim that he was notable before May 25 is about the most fringe view I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Instead of providing sources for your claim you go on the attack in a rude manner. I am very familiar with WP:Notability and use it regulalry in my work here. Please stop assuming bad faith and either provide a source showing his notability before May 25th or don't. Going on the attack won't resolve anything. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: I think you've made it clear enough from your misunderstanding of this debate that any competent closer of this discussion can safely ignore your !vote. When you're ready to discuss the topic of this !vote, please ping me. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Support. There is no reason within Wikipedia guidleines for there to be a separate article. As described in that artcile's talk page, there are only a limited number of direct references to the time. Move the information to this article. Additionally, from a strictly technical view, the inclusion of single- and double-quotes in a title can cause issues on some browsers. Although there is a discussion to rename the article in Talk:8′46″, it makes more sense to eliminate the potential issues and move to this article. 18:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. Whenever a big event happens there's attemtps to capture every single event and over detail everything. this is not WP:News and having way too much of a WP:RECENTISM bias is big. Imagine if we had Wikipedia in 1921 and how over detailed we'd make pages? Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Abstain - I believe there needs to be more evidence presented for this concerning the notability of the article and its context to warrant its own page.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Support There is no reason why it needed its own page in the first place. Anon0098 (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge the article has no content other than a list of vigils that were held for this duration of time, if we dedicated a paragraph to it in the existing article it would be enough to cover all the main points. Gammapearls (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It merits its own article. deisenbe (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Support for speedy merger. Prosecutors in the case said the actual time was 7 minutes 46 seconds in an amended filing, which is being widely reported in the news media. Eight minutes 46 seconds is having less relevance by itself.VikingB (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Support a speedy merger, particularly in light of the fact that the time is now said to be 7 minutes, 46 seconds. I think it makes more sense from a reader's standpoint to have all information relevant to the Killing of George Floyd on one page. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: It is now a number much larger than George Floyd. p b p 17:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge now that it's 7'46" this seems like we could wait to see if that actually becomes notable. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Given that there is significant coverage of the time itself, and the article Killing of George Floyd is being considered for splitting, we shouldn't merge another article into it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong support "8 minutes and 46 seconds" is a ridiculous article subject and is not notable (are we going to start making articles on every petty slogan that passes through twitter?). The majority of sources which mention it are not mentioning it as a separate phenomenon, but are using it as catchy bit of wording to decorate the titles of articles about George Floyd's killing. If it is merged, much of its content should be removed as pedantic. Zortwort (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge "8 minutes and 46 seconds" is not notable. --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Do Not Merge comrade..it`s a separate entity 2600:1702:2340:9470:75CF:F0D7:D27B:FDC9 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Support At least at current time, if it independently becomes a notable reference in the future in relation to other events, then it would be appropriate to have a separate article. —Paleo Neonate – 09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose there is sufficient news content for its own article... and "8 minutes and 46 seconds" has become a poignant symbol of excessive force (see 8:46: A number becomes a potent symbol of police brutality, APNews. Many people may not remember George Floyd's name, but remember the images instantly when hearing 8'46".–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Support There is a page for Killing of George Floyd this should be merged to it and further the actual time was 7 minutes 46 seconds in an amended filing,. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Support It talks about the same information, so there shouldn't be two separate articles. Unless there is going to be a future movement or organization named 8:46, then merge is needed to erase confusion. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support merge not notable for a standalone article. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merge: a notable subject as a subtopic of the protests, for which there is more information available than can reasonably be contained at other George Floyd protest articles. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 16:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - OP's opinion of worthiness is not a legitimate reason for such a thing. Kire1975 (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It`s becoming it`s own event and needs it`s own article as the George Floyd Protests early on became a separate article and for the same reasons 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The intial reported time continues to be referenced in protests and receives WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It should remain a standalone article. For example, on July 4 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: They took a knee on the highway for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, the amount of time initially reported that a Minneapolis police officer in May knelt on the neck of George Floyd.[13].—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Right now it is just a regurgitation of information. The article Killing of George Floyd is the best fit for merge. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

image to faq?

Latest comment: 3 years ago57 comments7 people in discussion

We've had multiple discussions of the main image. Should we add a 5th faq? —valereee (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As an alternative, do we have an "index of RFCs" talk page header template? Sort of a local-perennials list. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so that people will stop asking about it for a while. (I still vehemently disagree that depiction of a real person’s death should lead an article. I think there should be a policy against that, frankly.) Trillfendi (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The informational content is not the problem. The placement is the problem. All of its informational content would be present in a lower position. The image should be kept in the article. But it should be in a lower position. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Trillfendi, I do understand the concern. I don't think any other articles -- and there are now dozens of articles -- are using that image, if that's of any help. :( —valereee (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, there's

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

But that's not really the same. I suppose we could ask for one. It's just another banner no one will read. But again major plus: more opportunities to act all high and mighty. —valereee (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—previous discussions were poorly focussed. Moving text from one part of an article to another doesn't entail a discussion of censorship. Why are these previous discussions about censorship? We are discussing lowering the placement of a sensitive image. The image is highly relevant to the article therefore nobody is arguing that it should be removed from the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, we could make a template that combines the FAQ with the search box thingie. We could also add a "do not question the following editors:" section. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does "do not question the following editors" even mean? The editors should not be questioned? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think an image FAQ is a good idea. Despite having serious reservations, I would have just accepted it instead of starting a discussion if I'd known the reasoning and that there was such a firm and well reasoned consensus to use it. I think an FAQ would at least give people like me a first port of call to understand why we've gone with such a an extreme image of Floyd being murdered. Otherwise I think objections to it's use will be brought up again and again. Bacondrum (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich Bus stop "We could also add a "do not question the following editors:" section." I assume that was meant as a joke? Bacondrum (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, referring to "more opportunities to act all high and mighty". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thought so. lol Bacondrum (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Would "the following editors own this article" be clearer? Or is that too on-the-nose? I agree with Bacondrum. We've had at least five long discussions of the image -- using it at all, using it as the lead image, using that frame of the video, cropping it to include only Chauvin, and at least one other -- so it definitely could have an FAQ. But that image is currently (and I think correctly) only used in this article. It's not an appropriate image for any other of the many Floyd articles that the FAQ is used on, and adding it to the general FAQ is just going to confuse editors at the other pages. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Damn nit!

-E Eng

Damnit that's a good point. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried to figure out how to make a second FAQ. There seems to be a way using {{FAQ|see also=[[Wikipedia:FAQ]]}}, but I screwed it up when I tried to follow instructions so I'm not sure. —valereee (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I could do it but a second FAQ? I think that's self-defeating. If we end up writing a user manual for editing this page, we will have shot ourselves in the foot. I think you've made me re-think the whole one-FAQ-for-all approach. Maybe they should be custom FAQs for each page. *sigh* I can do the technical thingamabobbies (since I'm the one that plastered the FAQs everywhere I kind of own this problem now), but I'm just not sure what the best outcome is. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I agree. One FAQ to rule them all probably just doesn't work, even though the topics are strongly related. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Also if you do the technical thimgamabobbies for the other articles, I'll start drafting a possible Q/A5, if that helps. :) —valereee (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—why would there be a FAQ for image arrangement? We have FAQs for such points as Does it have to say "white" police officer? But image arrangement? Why? Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

For image in general. People keep asking about the image, the frame, the placement of the image, the crop of the image. This way we can point them at the past RfCs and any current discussions. —valereee (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What if we had both... one FAQ box on the talk page only, and that FAQ box included both "global" and "local" questions? So we could add a Q5 just to this page, but it wouldn't show up on the other pages. (And we could add a different Q5 to George Floyd, etc.) Would that be a good way to do it? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The past RfC is of excessively poor quality; it is not worth consulting. The image arrangement in the article is not subject to a FAQ in the same way that factual and verbal information is subject to a FAQ. Wikipedia is verbal, with images being supplemental, and the order of images, from the top of the article to the bottom of the article, is irrelevant, unless an image has particular pertinence to a section. These images do not have that sort of particular pertinence, therefore image placement should not be referenced in a FAQ. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought that's what I was suggesting with a second FAQ? No objection to it, if I'm understanding you correctly. —valereee (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

But we haven't even had our first FAQ yet, val. OK I'll try to put something together later today. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you making an awkward pass? What I was thinking of for an initial draft was Q5: Why are we using this horrible, upsetting image in the lead? Should we choose a different photo for the lead and either delete this photo altogether or use it later in the article?

A5: There have been multiple discussions on this image, most of which can be found in Archive 3. There is currently a discussion about considering whether to move this image out of the lead and move it to later in the page, which you are invited to join.—valereee (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—aren't you trying to discourage the questioning of the current arrangement of images? Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The current draft wording encourages people to join the discussion by inviting them to do so. —valereee (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Editors need your encouragement and invitations? Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have literally zero idea what your point is. You ask me if I'm not trying to discourage, I say no, I'm trying to encourage. Then you make a sarcastic remark about other editors not needing my encouragement. WTF is your actual point? I'm fast losing patience. This is feeling like disruptive trolling. —valereee (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the net effects of a FAQ is the discouragement of inquiry. For instance Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer? A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the net effects of a FAQ is the discouragement of inquiry.^{[citation needed]} Please suggest alternate wording that will encourage editors new to these discussions to initiate informed new suggested edits. —valereee (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of wording of image FAQ

Valereee, I suppose "yet" was presumptuous {{George Floyd FAQ|Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Local FAQ}} now allows adding local FAQ questions (in this case, Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Local FAQ) to the end of the global FAQ. See the top of this page; I added your text to the local FAQ for this page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Supposing 'yet' was presumptuous is its own kind of presumptuous Nice little bit of technical thingamabobbie! —valereee (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying there's a chance, despite my little thingamabobbie? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

lololol...well, no. —valereee (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—I've made this edit. Do you find it acceptable? Any objections? Bus stop (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No objection, if you think it's an improvement. —valereee (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually made further changes to clarify, too —valereee (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've made this edit, the point being that entire removal of that image from the article is not an idea seriously considered. Bus stop (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

But people are still asking about, which means it belongs in the FAQ

WP:NOTCENSORED is ubiquitous in these discussions. The reason most commonly given for keeping this image at the top of the article is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, which the A could explain. The fact it's not being currently discussed isn't a reason to remove that question from the Q section. It's a reason to address it in the A section. —valereee (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the point being addressed in that FAQ. We are merely saying in that FAQ that if you question the image, others do too, and therefore please see Archive 3. You are invoking the concept of censorship when the concept of censorship is not even on the table. This is the same problem I have previously pointed out about the discussions that can be found in Archive 3. The question of censorship triggers a knee-jerk reaction. We should be trying to avoid knee-jerk reactions. We do not need a FAQ to trigger a knee-jerk reaction in favor of prominently displaying this image in the topmost slot of the article. The FAQ need not be problematic. But you are going too far when you place on the table for discussion the possibility of entirely removing the image from the article. The reaction to that possibility is predictable. Editors will argue for keeping the image prominently displayed, on the basis of the policy that everybody is familiar with—that Wikipedia is not censored. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. If people are asking a question frequently, we should be including that question in the FAQ. Period. —valereee (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—this FAQ need not touch upon the possibility of doing away with our policy of permissiveness concerning a wide variety of imagery as we are not relegislating our policy on censorship. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be insisting that your own version of the question be used. I disagree. If we aren't going to include all specific frequently-asked questions, we should include no specific frequently-asked questions and instead include only the overarching question. I am not going to revert you, and your multiple reversions seem to me to be approaching edit-warring on an article that is covered under discretionary sanctions. —valereee (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of move discussion text at local FAQ

WWGB, not sure I understand your removal and edit summary -- there is at least one editor arguing to open a new discussion on that right now in the below section, and you've commented there. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Because that is not a discussion to move the image. It’s a couple of disgruntled editors who refuse to accept a consensus decision. The FAQs report done deals, not minor argy bargy. WWGB (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WWGB—as a result of the RfC to which you refer, we now know that Wikipedia is not censored. An RfC has to be properly formulated from the start. Most of the support votes reference censorship. This is hardly surprising. The question asked in the RfC references censorship. A properly formulated RfC would put a question before the community as to which of two photos was preferred for the Info-box, but that is not what Archive 3 does. Archive 3 is merely "argy bargy" over whether Wikipedia should be censored, and therefore Archive 3 is not a "done deal". Bus stop (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we get it, we know that you are in a handful of editors who don’t like the kneeling image in the infobox. So what are YOU going to do about it?WWGB (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WWGB—this image may or may not be the best image for placement in the Info-box. I agree that this image should appear somewhere in the article. I'm just not sure it should appear in the Info-box. Wouldn't you agree we should have an RfC to determine which of two images should be in the Info-box? As this article is about "killing of George Floyd" another possible photo for inclusion in the Info-box might be a photo of George Floyd alive. Therefore I think this photo would be another consideration. All I am saying is that I think the community should decide. As it stands, we do not have consensus for the present distribution of images in the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The community has spoken. Overwhelmingly. I agree with that consensus. I repeat, what do YOU intend to do? WWGB (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WWGB—in this particular instance we are grappling with a question concerning the distribution of images in an article. You don't have consensus for your favored placement of this image in the Info-box. Do you disagree? (Clearly, this image should appear somewhere in the article. What this means is that we are not discussing censorship at all. We are only discussing the distribution of images within an article.) Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, how long are you going to keep beating this dead horse? Can you please go find some other talk page to bludgeon, at least for a while? Give people a break. E Eng 15:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng—no one needs to be burdened with references to "Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles". There is no need for it. Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It got your attention. There's more where that came from if you keep the relentless, unending, insufferable bludgeoning of every discussion with the same points over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over. Learn to accept defeat with grace. E Eng 14:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't burden the page with nonsense. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Separating out different discussion on whether previous RfCs were misconstrued

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion

If anyone wants to challenge an RFC close, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. If anyone thinks consensus has changed, they can make a new proposal. Arguing about a prior close without challenging it or making a new proposal is not productive. (non-admin closure) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

If we misconstrue the question, we skew the results. If we construe the question as being can Picture A be in the article, the answer is yes, because Wikipedia is not censored. But if we construe the question as to which image is more appropriate for the uppermost position, we might get a different result. Past discussions have been primarily about whether Picture A can be in the uppermost slot. Of course Picture A can be in the uppermost slot—because Wikipedia is not censored. But most of those supporting Picture A in the uppermost slot cite the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. In a sense, we haven't discussed whether for instance Picture B or Picture A should be in the uppermost slot. We still have to have that discussion. Bus stop (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The question put to the Wikipedia community was "Should the current lead image ... be replaced?" The answer was an overwhelming "no".[14] The matter of the lead image is resolved. WWGB (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, WWGB, there is very little established in those past discussions. They are poorly focussed because they were poorly formed. The reasoning often given is per WP:NOTCENSORED. A preferable question to put to the community involves which of 2 images should be in the top 2 slots. No one is arguing that the death picture should not be in the article. Sources use it and so we are compelled to follow suit, but a question of appropriateness for the topmost slot actually has not been addressed. Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Past discussion was overwhelming. The kneeling image stays in the infobox. WWGB (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies to the whole article. The poor focus of the RfC can be seen in the invoking of WP:NOTCENSORED in many posts. All that has been overwhelmingly established is that the kneeling image should stay in the article. Furthermore you are writing "done deal". That suggests to me a disinclination to any sort of discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The RfC overwhelmingly !voted to keep the kneeling image in the infobox. If you don't like the outcome, that's tough. There IS nothing to discuss. It's a done deal, get over it, move on and stop wasting everyone's time reading your pov. WWGB (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus Stop, there seems to be consensus among editors here that this does not need another discussion. If you believe this needs a full community RfC, you could probably open a generalized image policy RfC, like Trillfendi suggested, possibly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. ~~But please, you're highjacking this thread, which is about an image faq.~~ (Striking because I separated it out, my own comment was the only one that needed to be moved.) —valereee (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WWGB—I would call it "the death image", not "the kneeling image", as you put it. I see no need to make it superficially attractive or palatable. We are not referencing Colin Kaepernick kneeling. Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The image is called [File:George Floyd neck knelt on by police officer.png]. You can think of it however you like, but it's not moving out of the infobox. WWGB (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not activism. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean, but I am only “advocating” for an overwhelming consensus. WWGB (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You are acting like a bull in a China shop. 30 minutes after someone posts to a discussion on the appropriateness of an image, you archive the discussion. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bus stop that the discussion from a few weeks ago should be re-opened as there are many editors who were literally putting out fires in their neighborhood who were not able to vote on the discussion. I agree that the discussion question was framed poorly and what I saw at the time was many who argued that it should be in the article, but not at the top, who voted yes to keep it on the basis of non-censorship. Terasaface (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The "discussion from a few weeks ago should be re-opened" because it is obvious editors are responding whether Wikipedia is censored. When someone speaks about censorship they are not addressing which image would be most appropriate in the topmost portion of the article, which is the Infobox, because Wikipedia is not censored, and no one has ever argued that the image should be omitted from the article entirely. An RfC should ask which of 2 images should be in the uppermost slot and which of 2 images should be in the second most uppermost spot. We have an image of the living George Floyd in the second most uppermost slot. I would suggest an RfC on possibly reversing the current positioning of these 2 images so this article does not show insensitivity to others in the more prominent of these 2 images. Thanks, Terasaface, for pinging me. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Terasaface, there's no perfect way to make sure everyone who has an opinion is available. Redoing one inevitably would mean some who voted in an earlier one, figuring the subject has been settled, wouldn't even see the new one. We don't take a mulligan on RfCs because some people were busy at the time. Dozens of people did vote in one or more of the RfCs, including you, and some of them were open for two or three weeks. —valereee (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, Bus stop, I have good news, and I have bad news, to share with you. The bad news is that the RFC question was Should the current lead image, which is a screenshot from the viral video showing a police officer kneeling on George Floyd's neck, be replaced?, and the answer came back 3:1 "no". That was three weeks ago, and it seems to me that's pretty strong consensus for not changing the lead image, full stop. The good news, for you, assuming you want to revisit the issue, is that it was nac'ed by a now-blocked LTA sock. So, have fun with that. :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Levivich for ping-mongering me. The RfC goes on to say See above discussion for opinions up til now; the general debate is whether or not it is a shock image, and if should be moved to the article body per MOS:LEADIMAGE or if stay as is per WP:NOTCENSORED, though all opinions are welcome and encouraged. What does WP:NOTCENSORED have to do with the RfC? There is no censorship involved in moving an image to another part of an article, just as there would be no censorship involved in moving text from one part of an article to another. Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ping-mongering??? E Eng 03:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Kinda sounds naughty —valereee (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"When someone speaks about censorship they are not addressing which image would be most appropriate in the topmost portion of the article"^{[citation needed]} Because my objecting to censoring the image by hiding it further down the page IS that an image of the killing of George Floyd is the most appropriate one for the topmost portion of the article "Killing of George Floyd". --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha—you write "I find the idea of hiding the picture of his death further down the article to be the true disrespect. This article is about that death and how it is affecting American society. To say "looking at this is upsetting, we should hide it" is to completely miss the point." Nobody said anything was "upsetting" yet you are using that in quotes. There is no "disrespect" in this image. I recommend reversing the positions of the image of the man alive and the image of the man probably close to death, as seen in the current version of the article. That is also the RfC I recommend having. As for the previous RfC, it could hardly have been more sloppily formulated, and the responses are reflective of its poor formulation. It should not serve as support for the current state of the article. An RfC must be disciplined. Ludicrously, that RfC reads "Should the current lead image, which is a screenshot from the viral video showing a police officer kneeling on George Floyd's neck, be replaced? See above discussion for opinions up til now; the general debate is whether or not it is a shock image, and if should be moved to the article body per MOS:LEADIMAGE or if stay as is per WP:NOTCENSORED, though all opinions are welcome and encouraged." Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The previous discussion was opened by Bacondrum saying that the picture was "unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful", I paraphrased that as upsetting. If my usage of quotation marks around a paraphrase confuses you, I apologize. This isn't the article about the man alive (and I disagree that such an article should exist, as he was not notable as a living person), it is the article about his death. If an article is about "A", it should start with a picture of "A". This is very simple. --Khajidha (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Khajidha I am not easily upset, it's not that I find the image upsetting, you've got me dead wrong there. It's not about censorship or anything like that, the use of this image is not compulsory. Unlike Busstop, I object to its use altogether. I was asking if we could use a more respectful image - the way Floyd was murdered so callously and publicly was degrading and humiliating, I think we are too casual about the destruction and humiliation of Black people in the media. I just think we can and should be more sensitive and respectful to Floyd and his family and not show him foaming from the mouth while being murdered under the knee of a racist cop. Again, the use of this image is not compulsory, we can and should consider being sensitive to the dead mans memory, both out of respect for him and his grieving family. That's not censorship, it's consideration - something that racist cop never had for Floyd's life. I just wanted to clear the record on my reasoning, I accept the consensus was to keep. Please don't paraphrase my words to mean something significantly different to what I actual meant, I literally meant precisely what I wrote: "unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

there is a reason why this person [15] Emmett Till had an open casket funeral 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Should the lede have 8 minutes and 46 seconds or almost 9 minutes?

Latest comment: 3 years ago27 comments21 people in discussion

NO CONSENSUS

This RfC is a bit of a mess. Not only are the !votes extremely close in number on either side for both questions, but both sides were originally arguing that a link from the rough number to the article does or doesn't represent an Easter egg because 8'46 is or isn't the same as "almost nine minutes." Further, although the actual precise number changed, the proportion of people voting to use "the precise number" (without noting which precise number they meant) didn't change afterward, and most late !votes didn't weigh in on whether or not to link in the lede. Some !voted for the precise time in ways that didn't make clear they'd realized the precise time had changed, so appeared to be saying they wanted to use the precise-but-incorrect 8'46" in the lead. Further, multiple commenters who didn’t !vote mentioned we needed to deal with the change in time because it partially negated the arguments that the imprecise time linked wasn’t an Easter egg. Ee now have "almost eight minutes" linking to the article Eight minutes 46 seconds. I’m closing this with no consensus; I think we do need to fix the lede, but IMO the change in the precise time changed too much about the original questions to be able to accurately interpret the !votes. —valereee (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Which is better for an encyclopedic article? The exact time or something else? Should it read knelt on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds or should it be knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes? Either way links to an article about that time, which makes it seem even more ridiculous when you don't have that exact time listed. Dream Focus 16:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We tell the reader that Floyd was 46 years old – not 46 years, 3 months, 17 days old – because the latter, overprecise formulation gives the reader no additional understanding of anything while it wastes our most precious resource as writers, to wit our readers' limited reservoir of attention and capacity for assimilating detail (or reading past useless detail). Almost nine minutes and Eight minutes 46 seconds have precisely the same relationship. (We're talking here about the lead, where every word counts. In the article body we give full detail, or course.)
I'm not sure I feel particularly strongly about the above, but I do about this: it's absolutely inappropriate to link the time specification (in whatever form we settle on) to 8'46". That's a classic WP:EASTEREGG. That link is given later in the article, with appropriate explicit introduction, in the discussion of protests and reactions. E Eng 16:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I prefer "almost nine minutes", and it shouldn't link to 8'46". That link should be removed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it is preferable to use the rounded number in the lede. While I oppose the existence of the 8′46″ article, if that article is to exist, we should link to it in the lede. I do not perceive an WP:EASTEREGG type problem concerning that link. It is not an WP:EASTEREGG because 8 minutes and 46 seconds equals 9 minutes, unless my math is off. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Given the notability of the exact time (as used in various protests, in various speeches, and in almost all coverage of the incident this article covers), we should use the exact time in the lede. This is very much unlike an age which changes constantly until the person dies, and at death, is often not notable beyond the years passed since birth. This is also not an WP:EASTEREGG as we're giving the exact value to the link, the link merely provides additional information on the significance of that specific amount of time. ~~As regards "every word counting", it actually consumes more space to be less specific...~~ depending on how it's presented, anyways... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I can see a case either way, but have a preference for Dream's version. Some readers, including me, appreaceated the 8'46" link. With Dream's transparently worded version, there's not even a borderline violation of WP:EASTEREGG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Exact time - The problem with just linking 9 minutes to 8'46" is that precision of information is lost on a printed copy of the page (as per WP:EASTEREGG). Now, specifying exact amounts of time isn't usually necessary when dealing with encyclopedic content because it's trivial at best and wouldn't provide any additional insight to the reader. However, in this case, the distinction is necessary because of how iconic and symbolic 8'46" has become to the protests and the amount of coverage from reliable sources it's received. Additionally, saying 9 minutes and then clarifying it as 8'46" just sounds redundant to me. Specifying the exact time is the best option here. --letcreate123 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Imprecise time - The distinction between 8 minutes and 46 seconds and 9 minutes makes a mockery of the concept of precision. It doesn't matter. It makes no difference. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Redundant vote struck by closer —valereee (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Exact time, per letcreate123. That time - 8'46 - is now iconic. Let's not be coy, and let's not create eastereggs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that it is "iconic". We are not in the business of beating the drums of protest. Wikipedia doesn't engage in boosterism for any cause. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely right. E Eng 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The link is an easteregg regardless of whether the text the reader sees is almost nine minutes or eight minutes forty-six seconds. Per MOS:EASTEREGG, we're supposed to make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. Only readers who already know will have any idea that this link will take him or her to an article about a meme or protest slogan. In the Memorials and protests section we've got
The length of time that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck, eight minutes forty-six seconds, was often seen on protest signs and messages , as were the words "I can't breathe".

and that's the right way to do it. (I wrote it so of course I would think that.) E Eng 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Imprecise time is fine, and remove the link (which is included with relevant context lower down). This is meaningless precision that draws attention away from the fact that Chauvin knelt on his neck for the thick end of ten minutes, including three minutes after he was dead, and thus presumably not struggling much. Guy (help!) 22:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
My reading of 8′46″ has the duration at 7:46 - the 8:46 is an accounting error in the complaint against Chauvin, so almost 9 minutes is a fairly big rounding error on our part. Josh Parris 23:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about 7:46 because this video shows Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for 7 minutes and 53 seconds. Chauvin's knee is already on Floyd's neck when the video starts; we don't know how long it had been there. The criminal complaints are based on body camera footage, which hasn't been publicly released yet, and the complaints say 8:46. They're probably not wrong about that, since Chauvin's body camera footage would probably show rather clearly when Chauvin knelt. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Even more reason to merge that article. Time stamps themselves are not notable. Trillfendi (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
IMHO: almost nine minutes is too verbose; 8'46" can be a little hard to interpret at first read. On top of that, this duration is an estimate, so being too precise while not exactly accurate is a bit weird. 8 minutes and 46 seconds contains cons of both of the aforementioned options (to verbose, overly precise and eventually reduces flow of reading). So, only okay compromise I can see is keep it as is, i.e.: almost nine minutes.

In terms of keeping wikilink: the notability of 8'46" is albeit a separate discussion. While the article lives, use the wikilink. --nafSadh ^{did say} 19:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

almost 9 minutes, no link, per EEng. --JBL (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the exact time (I was the one who originally changed it) for two main reasons. First of all, there is a large protest movement and plenty of protest activities that have sprung up around that specific time, not around almost nine minutes (see 8'46). Futhermore, this phrasing to me seems encyclopedic. Look, says Wikipedia, he was in a chokehold for almost nine minutes! Although others may disagree, it seems as if we are dramatizing the situation, which should not be the job of an encyclopedia; its job is to report facts, and report them neutrally. --Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Exact time of 8:46 (or 8 minutes and 46 seconds): 8:46 has become a significant number in its own right. p b p 18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - prosecutors now say it's 7:46, not 8:46. [16] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Per other comments, we need to address the fact that the timeline has been corrected, for it's now 7:46 and not 8:46. Love of Corey (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't really make too big of a difference. The question is one of "give exact time, or give rounded time", so the change in quantity doesn't make the question moot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Exact time The time has become something of a symbol of Floyd's death, so it should be recorded in the Wikipedia article.Wurbl (User talk:Wurbl) 16:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Imprecise time in the lede as per User:EEng and User:Bus stop, while including precise time at some place in the body of the article. Chetsford (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
eight minutes and forty-six seconds should be included as having become a symbol itself (sources [17], [18] [19]). Can say approximately 9 minutes when talking about the actual act, but the symbolism of the time and its use in protests (protestors kneeling silently for that long [20] [21] [22]) should be included and the reason for that timing likewise included, and yes included in the lead. nableezy - 16:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

It takes a heck of a lot of oxygen to talk

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Transcripts of body camera videos have been made public and I don't think this quote or others are in the article. Should they be?

I can't link to what I read but this is one source. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we need multiple high quality secondary sources to summarize. (Which are out there, with more coming soon, I just haven't looked personally.) The secondary sources will tell us what parts of the transcript should be included and what to say about it. There's a lot in those transcripts that might be added... the part you quote, the part about being shot before, the part about him being afraid that they were going to kill him from the very beginning of the encounter... but we need secondary sources to filter it all. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(after ec) Yeah like that CBS article! :-) For my part I would encourage bold editing to add this new information in (as long as it's well sourced) and we can go WP:BRD if there's something to discuss. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like nothing from the transcripts has been added. I don't even see a mentioned of the transcripts being released. I did see there is some conflict between the various transcripts. One quotes Chauvin differently that the other. I could link to what I see but if you don't go to the same library that I do, it's unethical for me to share my username and password.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Transcriptions are notoriously error-prone. I suggest we be ultra careful by (1) ideally finding two independent transcriptions that agree on whatever we're quoting and (2) do a direct listen and see if it sounds right to us as well. I've just seen too many times where people have filled in a best guess instead of being clear that there's something not fully intelligible – and that includes transcriptions submitted as evidence in court. E Eng 01:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue conspiracy section

Latest comment: 3 years ago35 comments7 people in discussion

The conspiracy section should be deleted. Per the WP:UNDUE policy: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

If the conspiracy theories were truly notable, like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories or Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, a seperate article would exist, and a "see also" could be added. However, the Floyd conspiracy is a fringe theory without credibility. The Independent wrote: Those claims, which the Republican candidate and “academic” has tried to prove with an online report, have no basis in truth.[23] Reuters said claims that it's not really Chauvin in the video were unfounded.[24] The New York Times called Floyd being alive an unfounded rumor.[25]—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree, if we must have this put in conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Conspiracy theories section of the article is 100% on-topic and should remain in the article. "Conspiracy theorists are baselessly arguing that George Soros, the billionaire investor and Democratic donor, is funding the spreading protests against police brutality...On Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of posts are circulating saying that George Floyd is not actually dead...Untruths, conspiracy theories and other false information are running rampant online as the furor over Mr. Floyd, an African-American man who was killed last week in police custody in Minneapolis, has built."[26] Why would we omit that there is a plethora of misinformation out there about this incident? Bus stop (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

To be comprehensive the article needs to acknowledge this, and the two sentences now there (I killed a third) are by no means UNDUE, but details of these delusions belong at List of conspiracy theories or wherever. I do wish there was somewhere to put it other than its own section, and that may arise as the article grows. E Eng 12:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Why would we omit that there is a plethora of misinformation out there about this incident?" Because this is a website based on factual information, not tabloid trash and political mudslinging! Either it goes to List of conspiracy theories or it goes away. There shouldn't even be a debate! MarcoPolo250 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

MarcoPolo250—it is reliably sourced that "Untruths, conspiracy theories and other false information are running rampant" and that "the combination of evolving events, sustained attention and, most of all, deep existing divisions make this moment a perfect storm for disinformation".[27] Have you looked at the particular section in question? It does not promote unfactual information. It acknowledges its existence. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My fingers can't believe they're typing these words, but Bus stop is 100% correct. I wouldn't call it egregious if the article omitted all mention of George Floyd conspiracy theories (leaving them to be covered only in List of conspiracy theories) but the article isn't comprehensive without at least a nod. The only real question is how much detail to give; my emphatic opinion is: very little, plus a pointer elsewhere where more detail is given. E Eng 05:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Are you advocating WP:IAR on the UNDUE excerpt quoted in the opening?—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a subtle point but I don't think this is analogous to flat-earthism. Of modern sources touching somehow on the earth (geology, or the space program, or climate change, or any of a zillion related topics) you'll find essentially none even mentioning flat-earthism. That's why flat-earthism has no place in the Earth article. But there are abundant sources at least briefly describing G.F. conspiracy theories, and quite a few dedicated to them. E Eng 06:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That is an uneven comparison of scholarly publications on earth versus news stories on Floyd conspiracies. There are news stories on flat-earth proponents, like this star basketball player. We don't include them because they are fringe.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How many news stories you got on other flat-earthers? E Eng 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

We're getting off topic (but 11 million Brazilians can't be wrong)—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. You said There are news stories on flat-earth proponents as part of your reasoning, but in fact I'm pretty sure that's the only recent example you're going to be able to produce (well, maybe Trump too – wouldn't surprise me) so your reasoning is pretty flimsy. E Eng 21:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear. Flat earth is the example written in the UNDUE policy. You created the news story exemption for the Floyd conspiracy. —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let's be clear. UNDUE gives flat-earthism as an example of something to be excluded because of its "minuscule" following, which is consistent with the one (1) instance you've supplied of someone with those ideas. Unfortunately the group entertaining G.F. conspiracy theories does not seem similarly mineucule. So I haven't created any exemption, I'm merely applying the test you quoted to the instant situation. E Eng 01:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so we disagree on whether it is a "tiny minority".—Bagumba (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I think you mean this: positing ideas such as that the incident never happened, or that participants in the subsequent protests were paid? I thought about possibly pulling that. Does it really matter what the details are? And aren't all modern right-wing conspiracy theories essentially those same ones, so is that detail even necessary? —valereee (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Everything has a conspiracy theory these days. UNDUE policy gives specific guidance on handling "tiny minorities". Is there any reliable source that says these might even be plausible?—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Plausibility would be irrelevant, Bagumba. Do you think there are rules for constructing an article? I don't. The George Floyd incident is blown way out of proportion in multiple dimensions. The Conspiracy theories section of the article is merely noting that misinformation is also way out of proportion. The conspiracy theory section of the article is telling us that the amount of misinformation generated by the George Floyd incident is inordinate. I am responding to "Is there any reliable source that says these might even be plausible?" Bus stop (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop: Do you think there are rules for constructing an article? For one, WP:ONUS.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—this edit has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE as mere mention constitutes inconsequential weight. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, that was not my edit. And I don't understand you bringing up UNDUE in a direct response to a comment about ONUS.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—we are talking about writing here. Were we to flesh out these conspiracy theories, the argument could be made that we are providing UNDUE WEIGHT to the conspiracy theories, and you would be right in saying "Valereee, removing the section would be an improvement. However, I still side with policy, UNDUE. If these Floyd conspiracy theories aren't notable enough for their own article, this article doesn't need to dignify them." The policy is not the problem. Your application of the policy is the problem. Yes, we would be dignifying the conspiracy theories if we fleshed them out. But mere mention is different from fleshing out. In the interests of poor writing you and Valereee are omitting any reference to what these theories might be. Why would you be leaving that to the reader's imagination? A slight mention gives the reader an idea what sort of conspiracy theories are found to exist. Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, very true. I certainly think a section isn't necessary, especially when we're talking at most two sentences. We could consider removing the section head and reducing this to a final sentence in the previous section simply acknowledging that there were conspiracy theories, maybe? —valereee (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, removing the section would be an improvement. However, I still side with policy, UNDUE. If these Floyd conspiracy theories aren't notable enough for their own article, this article doesn't need to dignify them.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's completely absurd. See WP:NNC. E Eng 21:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

NNC is irrelevant. UNDUE is not a notability guideline. And we dont link "see also" to red links (MOS:NOTSEEALSO).—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Then why does it matter if the conspiracy theories are notable enough for their own article? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If it was a standalone article, it is presumably notable enough to warrant a "see also".—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Talking to you is like being trapped in a hall of mirrors. E Eng 04:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I don't agree that everything that's included in this article needs to be notable enough for its own article. It just needs to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. That said, I'm not sure these conspiracy theories are noteworthy. It's still a bit of DOGBITESMAN, but for me the removal of the section heading and details mostly fixes it. —valereee (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—why are you omitting the slightest reference to the subject of that sentence and that paragraph? Is that what you would consider informative writing? You have removed "positing ideas such as that the incident never happened, or that participants in the subsequent protests were paid". Bus stop (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, per the discussion above. Bagumba and I are trying to find a compromise position between "none of this is even worth including" and "there needs to be some mention of it." Please stop asking rhetorical questions like "Is that what you would consider informative writing?" It's disruptive. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is now the third time I've directed you at Bagumba, I think you mean this: positing ideas such as that the incident never happened, or that participants in the subsequent protests were paid? I thought about possibly pulling that. Does it really matter what the details are? And aren't all modern right-wing conspiracy theories essentially those same ones, so is that detail even necessary?. You added it back with no explanation and without showing consensus to include, for which the ONUS is on those who want to include, not those who want to exclude. I'll remind you that this article is under discretionary sanctions. —valereee (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Bagumba—why would you write:

"Conspiracy theories began spreading soon after Floyd's death.[166][167][168] The Los Angeles Times said on June 22 that some theories had been "amplified by a growing number of people on the far right, including some Republican leaders" but that "some Republicans (had) begun pushing back" on false claims and those spreading rumors.[167]"

instead of:

"Conspiracy theories positing ideas such as that the incident never happened, or that participants in the subsequent protests were paid, began spreading soon after Floyd's death.[166][167][168] The Los Angeles Times said on June 22 that some theories had been "amplified by a growing number of people on the far right, including some Republican leaders" but that "some Republicans (had) begun pushing back" on false claims and those spreading rumors.[167]"

You mean the reader does not need to know even an inkling about what those conspiracy theories were? Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Policies re neck

Latest comment: 3 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Quote: The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12) from: https://web.archive.org/web/20120417172352/http:/www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300 as discussed in: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-israeli-secret-service-teach-floyd-police-to-kneel-on-neck

I do not see it mentioned here.

=> Let us add it.

It also ties in with a conspiracy theory promoted by Mr Farrakhan and his ilk: snakes wrapping around Blacks' necks and more, q.v.

Zezen (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, add what, specifically, to the article, and where?

My concern is that the Channel 4 article you link to is about a conspiracy theory, and it mentions the MPD policies in order to debunk that theory. I'm curious if there are other RSes that discuss the MPD neck restraint policy, and what they say about it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidragon flagging an issue before jumping to another topic.

-E Eng

Dear Levivich and the Wiki colleagues:

1. Excuse my brevity, typos, and not contributing more here: it is early morning in my time zone and I will be off to work soon. Also I am typing it on a mobile.

2. Let us expand on this police policy: it seems to be a missing link in this article, and as you can see, it is being picked up worldwide (also in the UK) to weave in such murky conspiracy theories (with ancient snakes and such), so it is not my OR that I mention it here, see the URL breadcrumbs above.

3. Re: "RSes that discuss the MPD neck restraint policy.."

Alas, I have no time for this research: as a WikiDragon I can only flag this issue and jump to another topic, see also Point 1.

Bows

Zezen (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So the proposal is to add something about the chokeholds/neck restraints permitted at the time by MPD? There are better sources at Duke CSJ blog and MN Post —valereee (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there are sufficient sources to add something like, "At the time of the incident, the MPD authorized the use of neck restraints and chokeholds." But on a read-through I couldn't decide where it would be appropriate. Any suggestions? —valereee (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

My question is, does anyone at any point say the MPD did not authorize the use of neck restraints or chokeholds? Does anyone argue that Chauvin's "neck restraint" was authorized by policy? It seems like a straw dog argument to me, with the risk of misleading the reader. Every discussion of the policy I've seen says that Chauvin's knee-on-the-neck did not comply with department policy. I don't even think Chauvin's defense has (yet) said that his actions complied with policy. I'm not aware of anyone arguing that it was within policy. Thus, I don't think the policy is relevant. If there is some debate about the policy or its application here, then yes, I think it could be included, but we'd need to include the whole debate as well. The one thing I can think of is if that policy has been changed since the killing, then that might be worth including. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

City council voted to change policy to disallow neck restraints entirely June 5 per NPR although it's unclear whether that's actually binding yet. —valereee (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I remembered reading they were talking about doing it, and I haven't kept up with what came of it. I hate "reactions" sections but I love "impact" sections and I think changes-to-policy would fit well in an impact section. Maybe we should include the policy and the policy change in the "Memorials, protests and reactions" section (which maybe we should rename to "aftermath and impact"). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I'd LOVE to change the name of that section, and yes, the policy would be a good fit there with the rename. —valereee (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich and Valereee, I agree with the section name change and the inclusion of policy. SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

People forget that aftermath means bad consequences, not just consequences. And I'd suggest separating protests and comments and stuff from policy and legislative changes, though there may be a gray area that makes it hard for that separation to stay clean. E Eng 21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath is consequences of something bad, not necessarily bad consequences? The consequences of bad things are also often bad, of course, but I'm not sure it's necessarily always indicating a bad effect, like the 'fallout' from something. —valereee (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Great question. Great points. Whether or not choke-holds generally are permitted or were indicated in this situation I would be very surprised if whatever Chauvin (appears) to have done even meets the definition of 'choke-hold' or was in compliance with any SOPs. Using your knee to apply your body weight to a persons neck against the road.... has that ever been a thing or considered a form of choke-hold? I mean it did choke Mr Floyd and it did appear to hold Mr Floyd, but does that make it a choke-hold by any given definition? ... as opposed to a highly dangerous act not in compliance with any applicable policies at the time. Seems very odd. Even if Mr Floyd had not died would perhaps seem likely he could have sustained spinal injuries. Levivich is there any authority to suggest what Mr Chauvin (appears) to have done is even a form of a choke-hold? May be a danger of conflating whatever Chauvin appears to have done with accepted notions of choke-hold. Forgive me if I'm off-piste here. SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I'm not aware of any sources calling a knee-on-the-neck a "choke hold"; I'm not sure even about "neck restraint". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be immensely surprised if what Mr Chauvin was alleged to have done could be characterised as a "neck restraint" pursuant to any policies or guidelines. Perhaps we might get some discussion of this in the indictment and the criminal proceedings... SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Might come down to whether it "applyed direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck)" but that might be qualified if it can be established Mr Chauvin "should reasonably know [the force used] create[d] a substantial risk of causing death or great bodily harm" so how the leg was used and the time used for may be relevant. An interesting question is whether that Mr Chauvin had 3 other officers with him should have changed the calculus of what force was (assuming any at all) warranted. SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: a knee-on-the-neck being a choke hold or a neck restraint, this is what the MPD's policy book said:

Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway. (04/16/12)

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

So what Chauvin was doing, according to the MPD's definition, was a "neck restraint," and a knee on the neck was at the time more or less specifically included. Procedure clarifies in the next section that it's to be used only on subjects who are actively resisting and further specifically clarifies it is not to be used on subjects who are only passively resisting. So, yeah. The knee-on-the-neck, allowed, but not in that situation. —valereee (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Policy book aside, I added to the article that the criminal complaint said such neck restraints are dangerous.[28]—Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Body Camera footage has been released

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Erasing what is backed by the sources I provided only suggests political activism.Mancalledsting (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The above edit was made by a block evader.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Was just starting a section about this. I suggest you read WP:AGF instead of accusing others of political activism when it's just as easy to read your edits in a far less flattering light.

(edit conflict)Mancalledsting has been pressing material that says body cam footage "confirmed that Floyd was in fact resisting arrest."

One of the sources used for this claim barely mentions that, instead describing "a panicked and fearful Floyd pleading with the officers in the minutes before his death, saying “I’m not a bad guy!” as they tried to wrestle him into a squad car." Just reducing that to "he was resisting arrest" is dishonest and, well, certain policies makes it rather difficult to describe the broader social trend that kind of edit smells of.

The other source refuses to load for me currently, but another user confirms that's not what the source really says. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's more cut and dried than even that. Neither source says Floyd resisted arrest; what they relate is that one of the officers' attorneys claims that Floyd resisted arrest. E Eng 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Was just about to say the same thing. By the way, the sources are very similar since they both draw from the same AP text. Lester Mobley (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's one from NYT.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Mobile editors and FAQ

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

At least 50% of editor conflicts on Wikipedia are due to the vast technical gap between mobile and desktop editors. (The other 50% is mostly engvar.) Mobile editors can't indent (if they use the default reply mechanism), don't see the talk page headers, and often miss pings and even user talk page notifications. This causes a lot of disconnect and leads to strife.

The FAQ, for example, does not appear to mobile editors using the default Minerva skin. They have to click "about this page" to see it. And the "about this page" is in like 5pt font. Browse to this page on your phone and see for yourself if you see the FAQ.

I suggest moving the FAQ from the talk page header into a lvl-2-headed section that's pinned that says something like "READ THIS FIRST". i.e., do what every forum on the web does and have a sticky thread with the important stuff at the top. Alternatively, we could have both the talk page header and a sticky thread. I always assumed why Wikipedia doesn't do sticky threads like everyone else, but I'm inferring from the fact that it's not done, that this means a bunch of editors hate it for some reason. I look forward to being enlightened :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself of course, the reason I never do sticky threads or {{DNAU}} is I can never remember the syntax e.g. the documentation says that {subst:DNAU|2=hours} prevents a thread from being archived for 3650 hours. Um, ok... E Eng 01:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I just use {{subst:pin section}}. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

At least 100% of editor conflicts on Wikipedia are due to disagreers disagreeing.—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I beg to differ. E Eng 01:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: We could put an edit notice about the FAQ, to reduce the risk that lack of notification is the issue.—Bagumba (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, edit notices don't seem to show in mobile view.—Bagumba (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, exactly. I think a sticky thread (with some kind of attention-grabbing header, link an all caps READ FIRST: or IMPORTANT:) is the only way to "push" a notice to a mobile editor (though I could be wrong of course). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never understood this "well, the mobile version can't handle something, so let's not do it" thing. That's a problem with the mobile version, not with Wikipedia itself. Makes as much sense to me as the idea that since radio can't show pictures, we shouldn't have television. And since modern mobile devices can be set to show the normal version with all of its features I don't understand why anyone would continue to use the hacked to bits and hideously ugly mobile version anyway.--Khajidha (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, the OP wasnt saying not to have an FAQ, but rather how can we make FAQ work for mobile also.—Bagumba (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

My point still stands. Why isn't the mobile app being told to fix its problems so that it can handle Wikipedia. The mobile view is what needs to change. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, yeah I agree, but in the meantime? Informing mobile editors of the FAQ will help desktop editors save time, too. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I vote for header + sticky thread, and hell throw in an edit notice. Can there ever be too many notifications almost no one will read? —valereee (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I view FAQs as something that regulars can conveniently point editors to after the fact. We tell editors to be bold, and sometimes editors just overlook something, even if they make a good-faith effort to do due diligence.—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk Page

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion

Could some far-more-intelligent-than-me types find a way to organise this Talk page a little better? I don't direct that comment at anyone, just observing that the current Talk page is a little difficult to follow. Having said that a big fan of the Q&As! SiJoHaAl (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, SiJoHaAl, and welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately we can't go through and organize other people's posts. The most we can do is insert subsections into discussions to allow easier navigation, plus archive past discussions. This means things can get a little messy when there is a lot of discussion happening; you get used to it after you've been here a while and learn how we do things (you can read about that at WP:TALKPAGE), but highly contentious articles like this one can be hard even for experienced editors to follow. —valereee (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And omigosh I forgot to say thank you for reading the FAQs! —valereee (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think refactoring indents is also allowed on a limited basis. Some posters just never seem to "get" how to indent and I often fix that for them when I am in a discussion with them so that it is clear that it is all one thread.--Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, true, me too, especially newer users. After a few reminders I start getting snappish though. :) —valereee (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a particularly difficult-to-navigate talk page, even as compared to other article talk pages. I think, in all seriousness and sincerity, that we've (collectively) allowed some talk page threads to just spiral out of control. Like beyond the point where the thread is useful to anyone, so long and convoluted that no new editor could possibly jump in. Scroll up and look at #image to faq? and #Separating out different discussion on whether previous RfCs were misconstrued. I've been editing this article almost daily for over a month, I'm one of the primary contributors, I created the FAQ template, I've commented in those threads, and I still have no idea what those threads are about! If I don't know what's being proposed or what we're talking about or where the conversation is going, there is no chance that a newcomer (like SiJoHaAl) could possibly participate. So I wonder if we should archive those threads and going forward make an effort to keep discussion focused and productive--something an average person could follow. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
it could always be worse ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Ha! True. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
SiJoHaAl—you say it is "difficult to follow". Can you be more specific? Can you point to any concrete examples? Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well it could benefit from more sub-sections and archival using the FAQ mechanism. OK, for me reading this talk page yesterday it was difficult to determine which topics of discussion had been resolved and which topics and questions remained open for further talk discussion. As I said in my original comment, I was not pointing to anyone in particular, just making an observation about the presentation as it currently stands. SiJoHaAl (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
SiJoHaAl, better now? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
ooof, yes —valereee (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Much better.SiJoHaAl (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
SiJoHaAl, for this one, since you were replying to Levivich (even though I also responded to Lev) you indented correctly; we both are responding to the same post, so we use the same number of colons. —valereee (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Yay - how do I know when to use the Asterix and when not to? SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
SiJoHaAl, God bless you for asking these questions. Nobody bothers to ask these questions! WP:LISTGAP contains the long answer; the short answer is: use colons when you're replying to a post with colons; use asterix when you're replying to a post that uses asterix; they should match. So if you're replying to a post like ::Blah blah you would respond with :::Blah blah. If it were **Blah blah, you should put ***blah blah, and if it's a mix, like *:Blah blah, you'd respond with *::Blah blah (adding one more of the right-most character). If it's *::**:*Blah blah just forget about it, that's just not worth worrying about :-) Installing the WP:REPLYLINK script makes this easier, as the script handles indentation for you (and works most of the time, though not all). In terms of whether to use asterix or colon in the first place, that's a matter of personal preference--some editors prefer one, others prefer the other. Generally it's best to sort of make a thread "one or the other", so people just follow what came before. If you make the first reply, you get to decide whether it'll be colons or asterix :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
For the record, WP:TPO lists the following as among the things it's OK to do to other editors' talk page posts:
Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels ...

Little adjustments to indentation levels, on the fly, have way more benefit than you might think in terms of making the discussion easy to follow (especially so others can tell who's responding to who or whom). E Eng 20:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I wasn't advocating getting rid of the content. Just simple organisation changes like those that have been made by editors since my comment. Much better. If any of my own comments could benefit from indentation fixes and so forth, I welcome those tweaks. SiJoHaAl (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

SiJoHaAl, I've added a colon to the front of your above post, to indicate that you were replying to EEng. When you reply to someone on a talk page, you indicate to whom you're replying by inserting one more colon than they had used. So if you reply to this, you'd use four colons. That's one of the ways we organize talk pages, along with inserting sections or subsections where we think they're needed and archiving discussions that are over. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I wish I could make a "poster" of the above exchange, as an example for others.

A well- intentioned, polite newbie posts a bit of a complaint. Several Experienced Editors respond in a friendly manner, and make some needed changes, thereby confirming the poster's observations. Then they go the extra mile, and tutor the OP concerning TP formatting. My thanks to all those who worked together to give a new editor a welcoming experience. I learned something too, concerning the use of asterisks and colons! Sincere regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, as soon as you lower your guard we'll turn on you like a pack of wolves. E Eng 05:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Heh,heh.....(hears distant howling, hides under mushroom)Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
We're more bark than bite. ^^^^Kzin grin^^^^ —valereee (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
_{Valereee, Run away, run away! [[29]] Seriously, though, thanks.}Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Policies re CUP Foods store

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

The readers may still be missing the context. Apart from police rules, see my proposal above (thanks for the lively discussion thereabout!), let us add info about the environment and rules, legal and otherwise, that the food store and the neighbourhood had operated in.

To wit, and sorry for the messy quotes, as pasting these on the mobile UI:

From the beginning of its operation, CUP Foods has had problems with loitering and drug activity on and near the premises. CUP Foods has also experienced problems with shoplifting, vandalism, theft and forgery. (Licensee at 758-759). 6. Super America, which is a gas station and convenience store located directly across the street from CUP Foods, has also experienced problems with loitering and drug activity on its premises. (Appledorn at 323, 332; Skrivseth at 441-445; Wadena at 645, 661). 7. After CUP Foods was first licensed, the City received complaints about loitering in front of the store and the store remaining open after lawful hours of operation. [1] The City’s Licensing and Consumer Services Division gave the Licensee verbal and written warnings to comply with the lawful hours of operation at CUP Foods.�.. https://mn.gov/oah/assets/211012612.fdg_tcm19-159716.pdf

Plus: CUP Foods is located in a high-crime area of Minneapolis and, not surprisingly, experienced problems with loitering and drug activity in and around the store. In 1991, relator complained to respondent about the loitering problem, and at a city crime specialist's recommendation, relator placed two yellow “no trespassing” signs outside his store. Respondent conditioned relator's licenses on reduced hours of operation ...https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-court-of-appeals/1060890.html as summed up in the NYT article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/cup-foods-minneapolis-george-floyd.html

-> let us weave them in, maybe together with the aforementioned police "neck" policies, to help elucidate the motivations of the parties, actors, and bystanders.

Zezen (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And this one, broadening the cultural and social context, an article from 2015 presaging the events: While laws banning loitering and lurking have deep roots in many Twin Cities [Minneapolis–Saint Paul, for the non-US Wikipedians, moi y compris] communities, legal experts and social activists say they’re often constitutionally questionable and contribute to racial inequality and an authoritarian police force...

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/06/22/antiquated-lurking-loitering-laws-have-long-history-in-twin-cities/

As an aside, the local laws quoted therein sound vaguely classist and Communist to my European ear:

In a Coon Rapids [nomen omen, q.v. for the attempts at changing the name] city park, it’s illegal to say anything “loud,” “boisterous” or “insulting.” A person found lurking in Brooklyn Park with the intent “to do any mischief” or “to commit any crime or misdemeanor whatever” can be imprisoned for up to 90 days or fined $1,000. In Maplewood and Cottage Grove, it’s unlawful to loiter “in such a manner as to cause annoyance.” In Minnetonka, you’re forbidden from acting “in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals.” Sheesh. Sounds like a fun place. Zezen (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what point this sea of text is trying to make. The involvement of Cup Foods can be summarised in one sentence: "Floyd passed counterfeit money at Cup Foods, and the store called the police." WWGB (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I to have no idea what you want to add.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes." Perhaps it could be argued, but reliable sources would have to provide the argument, that the seedy (disreputable, run-down) environment helped facilitate the tragedy that ensued. Is this what you are referring to, Zezen? Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place for original research and theories. VikingB (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

1. "Wall of text" - I pasted salient quotes "saving" your from perusing even more "walls" in the reffed articles.

2. "No place for original research" and "FAQ: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article! When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a reliable source.

NYT and CBSLocal are reliable sources, as far as I know.

3. "I to have no idea what you want to add".

Pasting a "mini-wall of text", then, a quote from the reffed OR, the NYT article summarizing the above "walls of text." I want to add also this social, procedural and legal context:

the killing happened in a neighbourhood] where shootings have erupted nearby and undercover officers have surveilled patrons. Amid reports of rising crime more than 20 years ago, the Police Department urged the store to call 911 on people loitering outside. In the 1990s, the police reported spotting a series of drug sales around the store, and the Minneapolis City Council tried at one point in 2000 to revoke Cup Foods’s business licenses.

-> Both the police and the store were operating under set policies. The actions of the store were not racist but mandated by the Police Department (see above) and ultimately by the City Council, so as not to lose the licence, see the "walls of text" for the detailed rulings. Ditto for the police policies.

As a self-avowed WikiDragon, let me "sapienti sat" at that.

Zezen (talk)

Okay, I think I've figured out what Zezen is proposing. The section above [the killing happened in a neighbourhood] where shootings have erupted nearby and undercover officers have surveilled patrons. Amid reports of rising crime more than 20 years ago, the Police Department urged the store to call 911 on people loitering outside. In the 1990s, the police reported spotting a series of drug sales around the store, and the Minneapolis City Council tried at one point in 2000 to revoke Cup Foods’s business licenses. is a direct quote from the NYT article. Zezen is asking us to provide context: that the neighborhood is high-crime and that the cops had told the store to call 911 for petty offenses such as loitering.

It's not actually OR. The NYT is putting the ideas together; later in the article they discuss the fact the store has changed its policies and will only call 911 to report violence. Is it worth including for context? —valereee (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As its now 2020 , no.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It is all irrelevant here. Cup Foods reported a fake bill, not loitering or violence. WWGB (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

They did report that he was drunk.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear if the 911 guidance still applied; the article also said the area was gentrifying. It might be something to add to it's neighborhood, Powderhorn Park, Minneapolis.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo Must Be Pulled

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments16 people in discussion

This photo might as well be a confederate statue from America's South, and I find it offense because it could be provoked as a symbolic photo to the the ideas of a white-supremacy. For those reasons, please remove it. Thank you for your time. - King Keenan The Wright 07-18-2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Keenan the Wright (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The image depicts what occurred, just as images of Confederate statues on Wikipedia depict the statue for historical reasons, as an encyclopedia should. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That. Also, I'm confused. Why do you think hiding the image is going to do more good to stop "the ideas of a white-supremacy"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it hard to see how white supremacists would think "look here is a white man killing an unarmed black man" will benefit them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we talking about this photo? It should not be removed from the article entirely—but it should be relocated to a lower position in the article. Wikipedia doesn't have to be censored in order for Wikipedia editors to use common sense. An image of George Floyd alive should be at the top of this article. Gratuitous prominence given to violence detracts from the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yawn! Again? WWGB (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This is about his death.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Drop the stick. —valereee (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m all for (1000% percent) moving the depiction of death to another part of the article, but how the hell is that comparable to a Confederate statue? What a non-sequitur. Trillfendi (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP asserted that the current image could be seen as symbolic of white supremacy; Confederate statues are also viewed as such symbols, but we don't forbid images of them. My point was to emphasize that we don't engage in censorship. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t believe in censorship either. But I do believe in decorum. Trillfendi (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See Q5 at the top of this page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Leave it alone 2600:1702:2340:9470:200B:8D97:705A:F35B (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd, (while still alive), is pictured in that article. The Killing of George Floyd is well represented by this image. Please note the verb in the title. The image in the article portrays the act. Per sources given, of course.

As an example, see Oklahoma city bombing, which has an image of the after-effect of the bombing, not a photo of the Murrah Building prior to the (verb), bombing. Because WP is not censored, we have the ability to show the results, or the commssion, of terrible events. Regards,Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep the photo. It pithily illustrates what the article is about. Zezen (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep the photo - HOWEVER the photo is gruesome, grisly, and disturbing. It's a disgusting image. I suggest that this photo be resized to a smaller size and slightly blurred (not enough to eliminate ALL resolution). When I looked at the photo I almost threw up. Children use this website for research. I am not a child and find the photo objectionable. LET'S COMPROMISE and make the photo a little less disturbing by making it smaller and less detailed with a much lower resolution, so that it's grainy and somewhat pixelated, for those of us with a softer stomach. Another compromise is as Bus stop suggests, put the photo elsewhere in the article. I would say both options aren't mutually exclusive, the photo could be both pixelated and put elsewhere in the article. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your pinging me. I only support relocating the photo within the article. I don't support measures that involve degrading the quality of the image—such as reducing image size or image resolution—in fact I think those are terrible ideas. Censorship hinges on the reduction or elimination of information—in this case visual information. But relocating an image within an article sacrifices no information—it only reduces the initial impact the reader has with the image. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The photo depicts an act which was "gruesome, grisly, and disturbing". To remove it, hide it, or edit it is to refuse to face the truth and is highly offensive and unbecoming of an encyclopedia. --Khajidha (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Where ever we move the image to someone's still gonna object, Leave it where it is. –Davey2010^Talk 17:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree 2600:1702:2340:9470:9407:91EF:9E8C:2E7 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Although if it's lower - would that not or would it still be visible in a "hover" of a mouse pointer? If not, then less "objections!" I would support anything that results in a less objectionable article, especially if we consider how a young adult, a pregnant woman, or a child might unwittingly see this image. Let's keep things real. Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Pregnant women? —valereee (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I just reviewed this entire thread, and didn't really notice till now Levivich points out:
https://i.postimg.cc/Gt2TXN4C/2020-07-22-1004-14-Screenshot.png
See Q5 at the top of this page
Q5: Why are we using this particular image at the head of the article?
A5: There have been multiple discussions of the lead image, most of which can be found in Archive 3.

The overwhelming consensus is that this is the image that best represents the topic.

Is it really our place to redo and undo the work of other editors? No. If that were true, nothing could ever get done. As soon as someone finished a project, the next person would come along and tear it down, and make it over again. Yes, there's a time and a place for revision, but we have to have respect for those who came before us, and went to all the trouble of discussing the options and reaching a consensus. If there already was a consensus on this photo, then this entire topic, in my opinion is basically moot. The only discussion, in light of that, is not whether or not the photo is proper or not, but where that photo should go, or even if that photo should be of a lower resolution. The photo has already been confirmed by the above consensus in the FAQ, which directs all editors to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_3. Thanks to all, keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: to my own, previous edit. I just reviewed the archive discussion, and it seems as if also the position of the photo was part of the discussion. So, I'm suggesting that this thread be declared moot - since a consensus on the very same issue has been really, very painstakingly, reviewed. Even to the moving of the photo elsewhere in the article. Please review this in the above link for yourselves. I do not agree with the consensus, but Wikipedia is run by editors as a group and to my perspective, I believe that it's often directed by consensus, most if not all of the time. My only suggestion is that the FAQ at the top of the page be more verbose and explanatory - which will eliminate some of the confusion that I and other editors are forced to deal with. I would suggest that the FAQ in Q5 reflect, not only the photo itself, but also the position of the photo, to eliminate any more doubt or confusion. I am a relatively inexperienced editor, so please feel free to correct me, or set things straight if you see that I am off base. Thanks to all and keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

wording of FAQ-5

Latest comment: 3 years ago32 comments6 people in discussion

I'm starting this topic to suggest that the FAQ be updated to reflect that the archived discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_3

seemed to reflect not only the particular image being used, but also the placement of the photo. Please correct me, if this isn't the case, but if it IS the case, let's try to arrange for the FAQ to reflect not only, that the consensus was to use that image, but ALSO to place that image where it is. Thus, it may save many editors time in discussion of whether or not the photo is in the correct place in the article, as well as, discussing if the photo is appropriate for the Wikipedia page.

Levivich points out:
https://i.postimg.cc/Gt2TXN4C/2020-07-22-1004-14-Screenshot.png
See Q5 at the top of this page
Q5: Why are we using this particular image at the head of the article?
A5: There have been multiple discussions of the lead image, most of which can be found in Archive 3.

The overwhelming consensus is that this is the image that best represents the topic.

I would change this to: "A5: The overwhelming consensus is that the placement of, as well as the selection of, the particular image, is the result of the consensus of many editors." (or something to this effect)

My personal opinion isn't crucial to this discussion, since I'm not happy about either the photo itself or the position of the photo, but that is why I'm suggesting this change. I took a good amount of time and suffered a good amount of consternation over a topic that has already been hashed over and over again and already been decided. If the FAQ were more verbose, it would have saved both myself, and many other editors a good amount of time and trouble.

Please review this. I'm an inexperienced editor, so please let me know if there is something that needs to be corrected or deleted, or revised. Let's get into this discussion. Can someone clarify that this FAQ answer needs updating? Thanks to all editors for participating and please keep up the good work. בס״ד

172.250.237.36 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Verbose" is generally not considered a good thing. I think what you're saying is tht the explanation needs to be expanded. If you can suggest a specific wording, we can discuss. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't "FAQ - A5" simply be removed? There is significant opposition to it. This is not to say there should be any immediate change to the placement of this photo within the article. But discussion should not be discouraged by the existence of "FAQ - A5". Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop Thanks for your participation. I do not mean to hijack your query to Valereee, but I see this question as hijacking my topic, which is the wording of the A5 in the FAQ, not the validity of it. Maybe a better way to address your consternation over this FAQ section would be to make it into a separate topic? I'm not against what you're asking, but it's not what I'm asking here, either. So that's kind of like hijacking this topic, and if you want to participate in this topic, I've suggested wording already above as a clarification of the FAQ - A5 which, as I've pointed out, has already led to several editors falling into a confused swamp of ideas, when these ideas were already in consensus. In fact, I can, myself, start a topic below this one addressing your question. It's your question, though, not my question. You or I can title the topic "Should F5/A5 in the FAQ of this Talk Page be Removed?" So, I'm asking you, please, to divert your interest with a bit more discipline, and try to focus, here, on the topic I've introduced. I am, as noted above, not an experienced editor at this point. Thanks so very much for your feedback, and please keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think I was hijacking your topic but please feel free to carry on with the topic you are addressing. My apologies if I hijacked your topic. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bus stop! Thank you so very much for your gracious apology. I totally forgive you, and I totally understand. Some of these talk pages are totally a disorganized free for all and that just makes it a mess and makes it really impossible or almost impossible to both communicate effectively and to get anything accomplished. It looks almost like many editors are more busy, trying to save their egos, than trying to make the Wikipedia website, more conducive to the imparting of knowledge, and information. Do you suppose that you're going to start that new topic after all? Please don't answer here, as you can see, I do not want to clutter this thread, with extraneous information. If you like, please edit my "talk" page. I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, as of yet. Keep up the good work!! Thanks for the feedback. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Do you suppose that you're going to start that new topic after all?" I have no immediate plans. "Please don't answer". Oops, I already did. "I'm a relatively inexperienced editor". When pinging, rather than using the formulation [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]], use a formulation such as {{u|Bus stop}}. (There are also other formulations.) The reason I suggest this is that the formulation that you have been using results in two simultaneous "notifications", or "pings", I guess because the name is in there twice. Bus stop (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point I have no idea what any of you are talking about...leave the photo in..leave the photo where it is...this is article is about the killing of George Floyd..the photo is a picture of him being killed..leave it be 107.217.84.95 (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

... and that's what editors voted overwhelmingly to keep where it is. WWGB (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi 107.217.84.95! This is not a discussion on that (inclusion of or non-inclusion of any photos). Yes, you are correct. You had no idea of what this discussion regards. Let's clarify this, and see if that will remove your confusion; This discussion is regarding the FAQ - Item 5 Answer. I'm proposing that it needs to be more explicit. My supposition is that it is too ambiguous. Thank you for your feedback! Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

For those more familiar with the past photo discussions, I would suggest summarizing in the FAQ the past rationales with relevant policies or guidelines. The current answer reads more like "Trust us." Instead of a link to a archive with many threads, links to specific discussions would be more accessible. See Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ as an example for citations to relevant discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Bagumba, I'm not suggesting that. There is already a link, as you point out, but if you're suggesting that "summarizing in the FAQ the past rationales" should be actualized, this discussion is not directed towards that end. We are simply wondering if the wording of the FAQ in A5 be changed to: "A5: The overwhelming consensus is that the placement of, as well as the selection of, the particular image, is the result of the consensus of many editors." (or something to this effect) As you point out, the FAQ already links to archive 3 (screenshot):
https://i.postimg.cc/h4wpTN4L/2020-07-22-1004-14-Screenshotv.png.
Your point is well taken, but please, is there even a WAY to make a link that specific? If so, you'd better give us a few good examples. If you could, then perhaps also, we can formulate those links within the new text of A5. Thanks for the feedback! Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I haven't followed the image topic here that closely. I do recall people mentioning WP:NOTCENSORED. And presumably, MOS:LEADIMAGE is satisfied.—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:BagumbaThanks for the feedback. If you're going to derail this topic, please, refrain. Otherwise, contribute in a constructive manner. I'm not posting this topic for it to devolve into a swamp of confusion. Please provide the links that you wanted to add or otherwise let's remain focused on the item in the FAQ A5 - is that agreeable? Thanks again, keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba's comment is directly relevant to fleshing out FAQ answer 5 and in no way a derailment of the topic. They're offering information on what policies were discussed in previous discussions of the image and what policies are relevant even if they weren't specifically discussed. —valereee (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Valereee! Can either you, or User:Bagumba possibly, please provide some possible alternative links, as were previously suggested? All I was asking for were a few links. Also, can we please try some possible suggestions on improved verbiage as well? Thanks for trying to keep this topic on track! Before you came along, I was a bit worried and uncomfortable. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You can learn how to do this. Go to archive 3. In the table of contents, click on a discussion you think might be pertinent. If it is, copy the URL of that section. That's your link. —valereee (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Valereee It wasn't even my suggestion, nor do I have any idea of what the rationale behind such a link would entail. Otherwise, thanks I'd love to pick out a few links but, as I said, I'm not even aware of which links that user:Bagumba has in mind, or even if I was interpreting his suggestion correctly. It's quite possible that I didn't. I am only suggesting that the verbiage of A5 in the FAQ be revised to be a more explicit and verbose form of terminology. This is in hopes of preventing confusion on the part of editors, which is ostensibly the purpose of having a FAQ in the first place. When you wanted me to provide a suggestion on what the verbiage would be, I did so. Is there any way possible that you, too, could try it, and please provide a suggested, improved A5 example for us? Thanks so very much. Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with just pointing people at archive 3. And I'm sure you mean well, but I'd sincerely appreciate it if you'd stop attagirling me. —valereee (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are "fine with just pointing people at archive 3", Valereee, then could we agree to the removal of "The overwhelming consensus is that this is the image that best represents the topic"? Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, yeah, that's not what I meant lol. If you feel this strongly about this, why haven't you just opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images? The rest of us here have been pretty darn clear that we think consensus has been reached that this image is the most appropriate one for this article's lead image Your next step would be to get such photos generally declared to be too shocking for lead images for articles on recent deaths. I know at least one other editor who would support that. So why are you just going on and on and on about it here? —valereee (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I am going to take the liberty of changing this section's heading to "wording of FAQ-5". I trust all concerned editors will speak up if this is objectionable. Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Valereee, but that link has no impact on the focus of this topic. If you somehow have gained the impression that I, who started this topic, had a notion of any link being significant - THE TOPIC has been DERAILED. Which is what I already mentioned a couple of times. Should we get back on track? I don't care what link is there or even, if there isn't any link. That has nothing to do with this topic. What this topic is about? At this point, I am embarrassed to have to point out, that the topic is about the wording of the FAQ item A5, and the point made, is that there is left, too much ambiguity. Can we get some kind of acknowledgement here? Thanks for your participation, and for your gracious feedback! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop. You are giving me a very strong vibe of patronization and I don't like it. —valereee (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Bagumba—you say "See Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ as an example for citations to relevant discussions." Yes, WP:NSPORT contains eight, in-depth FAQs. But they are of general applicability to the entire encyclopedia. The situation at WP:NSPORT is quite different from the situation at Killing of George Floyd which is about one FAQ that is definitely not of widespread applicability. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, agree. I can't imagine what possible other article this image would be appropriate for use on as a lead image, and as it's only fair use I'd argue it isn't even appropriate as a non-lead image anywhere else. Maybe a different crop on just Chauvin for Derek Chauvin, but even that I'd have to think about. —valereee (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute—Valereee agrees with me? There must be something wrong with the universe. Perhaps we are experiencing Geomagnetic reversal. Bus stop (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'll agree with you all day long if I think you're correct. :D —valereee (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, maybe I'm missing something or misled you somehow. I was merely citing an example of an FAQ adding links to relevant discussions for anyone looking for background on the conclusion an FAQ makes. It's independent of how many pages the FAQ applies to, whether it's one page for this Floyd killing FAQ, or many pages for a subject notability guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what point you are trying to make as our FAQ already says There have been multiple discussions of the lead image, most of which can be found in Archive 3. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There's currently 32 sections on that page, while there's a capability for MOS:SECTIONLINKS.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—Archive 3 contains section headings reading "Header/main Photo" and "RFC: lead photo". But if you would like to make the link more specific I would have no objection. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Killing" of George Floyd

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments11 people in discussion

According to the Hennepin County autopsy done precisely 12 hours after Floyd's death, there's no evidence to suggest Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd. In fact, the evidence reported in the autopsy shows the exact opposite.^[1]

There should be an edit done that instead says "Death", since it's very obvious that he died (not at the hands of Chauvin's actions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalNate (talk • contribs) 17:48, July 15, 2020 (UTC)

@PalNate: please see FAQ #4 at the very top of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu—I think the source PalNate is providing, the "Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office Autopsy Report" would suggest that the article title is misleading and that FAQ #4 is misleading. The article should be accurate even if a terrible crime was permitted. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, the second autopsy suggests that the title is appropriate. FAQ #4 is appropriate as it was Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck that killed Floyd. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu—The title is misleading. The second autopsy was carried about privately and paid for by Floyd's family. I can't trust the validity of something when the possibility of a private examiner could have simply been paid to say something. The second autopsy hasn't even been released to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalNate (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No one has been convicted yet so why is it described as a killing. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Phoenix1494 (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Phoenix1494, see FAQ4 (if it doesn't show at the top of this page, you might have to click the "about this page" link at the top to see it) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, to be fair, some readers might have a different definition of killing, which is not addressed by the FAQ.—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, who was the perceptive genius editor who raised that point?

I edited the FAQ to say "common American English parlance"... better? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It is obvious he was killed..it is just as obvious that he was murdered..this is not a courtroom 2600:1702:2340:9470:200B:8D97:705A:F35B (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nor did anyone say or imply it was a "courtroom". Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes they did...Phoenix brought up innocent until proven guilty which only applies to the law..if an animal " kills " another animal it means the same thing..it has nothing to do with the law..if a soldier gets killed in battle some would say it`s not a murder but the victim was killed 2600:1702:2340:9470:6D85:7514:AA02:ACDF (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Support the above. Killing as in Mr Floyd was killed. Not to imply offences or guilt of any of the other people mentioned in the article. Let's not descent into the Dead Parrot sketch here. SiJoHaAl (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The answer to FAQ 4 is false and misleading. ("In most US jurisdictions the determination of whether or not a death is a homicide is made by a coroner or medical examiner, as a prerequisite to other legal proceedings. The medical examiner in Floyd's case determined that his death was, indeed, a homicide.") As stated in the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Press Release Report that accompanied his Autopsy Report, a classification of Manner of Death (as homicide, natural, accident, undetermined, etc.) is made "for purposes of vital statistics and public health. Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process. Such decisions are outside the scope of the Medical Examiner's role or authority." ^[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:52d0:3f90:284c:c131:2c19:8609 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Baker. Hennpin County US. Andrew Baker https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf. Retrieved 26 May 2020. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Baker. "Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Press Release Report" (PDF). Andrew Baker. Retrieved 28 May 2020.

I`m guessing what you`re saying it`s not a homicide unless the murderer is found guilty in court..this isn`t true..if he get`s found innocent in court he may still be guilty..you have gone to this place where all this is only a legal matter and nothing else...more to the point the man was killed...homicide is not just a legal term https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homicide 107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with details as described

Latest comment: 3 years ago29 comments9 people in discussion

Problems with details as described

as a preamble to this, i just want to point out that ensuring the accuracy of the articles relating to this event is starting to become a chore and more work than my day job so i only have 3 points to highlight initially. if i see anything else later i will add them here (each point is individually signed so they can be directly responded under :)). the 3 articles: Derek Chauvin, George Floyd, and Killing of George Floyd literally have multiple components where they contradict each other, disregard reliable sources, fail to update mistakes or outdated information... why does this have to be so hard? Stayfree76 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

1. In "Initial Events" it says "Lane drew his gun and ordered Floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel; Floyd complied and Lane holstered his weapon."

this is not accurate according to the [complaint], which states "As Officer Lane began speaking with Mr. Floyd, he pulled his gun out and pointed it at Mr. Floyd’s open window and directed Mr. Floyd to show his hands. When Mr. Floyd put his hands in the steering wheel, Lane put his gun back in its holster." and [body cam audio transcript] which shows that mr floyd did not comply initially. excerpt:

Lane: yup-yup Just head back In. They're moving around a lot. Let me see your hands. George Floyd: Hey, man. I'm sorry! Lane: Stay in the car, let me see your other hand. George Floyd: l'm sorry, I'm sorry! Lane: Let me see your other hand! George Floyd: Please, Mr. Officer. Lane: Both hands. George Floyd: l didn‘t do nothing. Lane: Put your fucking hands up right now! Let me see yOur other hand. Shawanda Hill: let him see your other hand George Floyd: All right. What l do though? What we do Mr Ofcer? Lane: Put your hand up there. Put your fucking hand up there! Jesus Christ, keep your fucking hands on the wheel. Stayfree76 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

2. In "Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck" it says "Kueng checked Floyd's wrist but found no pulse;[1] the officers did not attempt to provide Floyd with medical assistance.[9]:6:46"

the line the officers did not attempt to provide Floyd with medical assistance. is superfluous (not necessary) as the the act of calling emergency medical services meets the requirement of "attempting" to provide medical assistance. also within the same paragraph it already mentions "At approximately 8:22, the officers called for an ambulance on a non-emergency basis, escalating the call to emergency status a minute later." Stayfree76 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

3. in "medical response and death" is says: "Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck for almost a minute after the ambulance arrived, despite Floyd being silent and motionless."

this is a loaded sentence and should be reworded to something along the lines of "Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck until the emergency services started care". it is irreverent how long the medical team was present as it is clear they were setting up. once they started care chauvin immediately removed the knee." Stayfree76 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A substantively similar discussion is at the thread you already started at Talk:George_Floyd#Misleading/False_Information. I suggest initial discussion take place there and avoiding multiple forums. Details specific to this article, if needed, can be continued here afterwards. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

the first point here is unique to this page and deserves a discussion here as it is once again, unique to this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayfree76 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Its also OR. As I see it is only at this point "Lane:' Put your hand up there. Put your fucking hand up there! Jesus Christ, keep your fucking hands on the wheel." that Officer Lane tells him to put his hand on the steering wheel, nor is "up there" in any version of English I know synonymous with "on the steering wheel". In fact even not pissed I would have to have asked "where do you want me to put my hands?".Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

no, that is when he told him to keep his hand on the steering wheel. the only point i am making is: the wiki statement implies that the command to show hands was immediately obeyed, but it was not. the order was the show hands not put hands on steering wheel. how hard is it to not misquote someone? this is a huge problem, especially since the person in question is still alive. Stayfree76 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No we say "Lane drew his gun and ordered Floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel; Floyd complied and Lane holstered his weapon.", when was Floyd told to put his hands on the steering wheel?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

for the love of god and everything holy. i know what is said, and it is NOT WHAT HAPPENED. are you reading the same thing as me? displaying only the pieces of history that you want to show/use is NOT the same thing as showing or describing what happened. i cant even believe i have to discuss this. its right there, in plain english. In fact even not pissed I would have to have asked "where do you want me to put my hands? the fact you bring in what YOU would do clearly highlights your bias... i am not trying to say anything how i feel, i simply want correct and concise wording. you must understand this is a very sensitive topic and any, even small, push in either direction can be VERY damaging. Stayfree76 (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I feel like maybe we haven't been clear on what "original research" means. Original research is when you or I -- for instance, from watching the video or reading the transcript -- say "Look! You can see right there what happened. Person X said Y!" That's original research. The video and transcript are of ZERO USE to us here on Wikipedia. We wait until the media reports on what happened in the video or what's said in the transcript. We don't report on the video ourselves. —valereee (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

here is the problem. WHERE IS THE SOURCES THAT ARE USED FOR THAT STATEMENT DOES IT SAY THAT? here they are [30][31] the nytimes article even says "By combining videos from bystanders and security cameras, reviewing official documents and consulting experts, The New York Times reconstructed in detail the minutes leading to Mr. Floyd’s death." IS THAT NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH?? the BBC source says "After approaching the car, one of the officers, Thomas Lane, pulled out his gun and ordered Mr Floyd to show his hands. In an account of the incident, prosecutors do not explain why Mr Lane thought it necessary to draw his gun."... i this point i dont think you have a right to tell me to stop posting. i am not even using my own sources. I AM CLICKING ON THE SOURCES THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE HAS RIGHT NEXT TO THE SENTENCES I AM INQUIRING ABOUT. the transcipt and other things are there just because for some reason PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO LISTEN. Stayfree76 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Original research" means "original to Wikipedia". That is, the policy forbids us from doing the review and reconstruction. It does not apply to us quoting the research done by the NYT. That is citing research by the source, not original research done by us.--Khajidha (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, that is not correct per WP:RS reliable sources and also why is everyone dodging the fact that the nytimes "supposed rs" CONTRADICTS THE STATEMENTS IN THE WIKI.:

1. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

2. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.

3. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Stayfree76 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, please stop using TYPOGRAPHICS and just provide the source that says these things. Here's the template:

Source X says Y. Let's change "current wording" to "suggested wording."

That is literally the necessary and most persuasive length of argument that needs to be made. —valereee (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, instead of criticizing the way i post. FIX THE ARTICLE. did you even read the initial discussion point? I DID EXACTLY THAT.

"1. In "Initial Events" it says "Lane drew his gun and ordered Floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel; Floyd complied and Lane holstered his weapon."

this is not accurate according to the complaint, which states "As Officer Lane began speaking with Mr. Floyd, he pulled his gun out and pointed it at Mr. Floyd’s open window and directed Mr. Floyd to show his hands. When Mr. Floyd put his hands in the steering wheel, Lane put his gun back in its holster." and [body cam audio transcript] which shows that mr floyd did not comply initially." NEW: that does not even include the fact your own sources contradict the statements in the wiki and one of them IS NOT USEABLE PER WP:RS. this is getting comical. if this remains unfixed i will just hit up the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Stayfree76 (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, by "the complaint" you mean a document that constitutes original research? —valereee (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, in my original discussion point yes. can you please use your brain. the reason i initially used that source IS BECAUSE IT IS AN ALREADY USED CITED SOURCE IN THE **** WIKI. there is literally a sentence that says "According to the criminal complaint against Chauvin, Lane asked Chauvin twice if they should move Floyd onto his side,[54]" COME ON. the source directly following the STATEMENT ITSELF DOES NOT EVEN SUPPORT THE STATEMENT. the bbc article...........are you incapable of reading? i have literally linked to more than 5 sources showing the wiki is wrong, plus 3 or so more THAT THE WIKI USES ALREADY THAT SHOWS THE WIKI IS WRONG.... FIX IT. Stayfree76 (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact it's used, attributed, for one thing doesn't mean it can be used for everything. Honestly Stayfree, you are being so insulting that you make me completely uninterested in continuing to help you figure us out. I'm not sure what you think you're going to accomplish by this kind of behavior, but I'm done. —valereee (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It took you this fuckin' long? Val, you have the patience of a saint. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a frickin' patsy is what's the truth —valereee (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

you said it was ORIGINAL RESEARCH, not me... the policy states it is never ok. "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." BUT that doesnt even matter. the BBC article literally doesnt even say what wikipedia says, and the other one is also an analysis and doesnt meet reliable source or OR policy guidelines and cant be used........ this is disgusting. how am i looking like the bad guy when you are are blatantly directing the wikipedia article with your emotions and feeling.Stayfree76 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Well, we've moved from bold caps to just caps, so they are making an effort to meet you halfway. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at Stayfree's initial points one by one. 1) "Lane drew his gun and ordered Floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel; Floyd complied and Lane holstered his weapon." At worst, you could say that this is too compressed, but it does not present any falsehoods. 2) "did not attempt to provide Floyd with medical assistance." Providing assistance implies personal action, not just calling for an ambulance. 3) Whatever the medical personnel were doing, there is no reason to continue to press down on a person who is completely motionless and unresponsive, so the "despite" wording is appropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

lets look at the source that the wiki has right behind the statement AGAIN. see bbc it says "After approaching the car, one of the officers, Thomas Lane, pulled out his gun and ordered Mr Floyd to show his hands." are you kidding me?...... to the second point. the only source that follows the statement does not conform to WP:RS anyways. it has it right here in the article... "By combining videos from bystanders and security cameras, reviewing official documents and consulting experts, The New York Times reconstructed in detail the minutes leading to Mr. Floyd’s death."

this entire component of the wiki "the officers did not attempt to provide Floyd with medical assistance.[9]:6:46 According to the criminal complaint against Chauvin, Lane asked Chauvin twice if they should move Floyd onto his side,[54] and Chauvin said no.[9]:7:02" ARE NOT USING RELIABLE SOURCES. Stayfree76 (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, your problem is that you are a single-purpose account who gives an extremely strong impression of trying to cast the death of George Floyd as a perfectly routine matter of reasonable restraint gone awry, in contravention to pretty much every reliable source out there.

That may not be your intention, but it's how you come across, especially with the SHOUTING.

Instead of the arm-waving and personal conclusions, you should make specific proposals in the form "change X to Y based on Z source", and the source should be reliable and preferably more than one.

Otherwise I think you're going to end up topic-banned. Guy (help!) 10:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

i am not a single purpose account. i have also edited Cherokee Nation. you shouldnt confuse new with single purpose and maybe also stop assuming what you think my intentions are. i will tell you what they are, right here, on record. my intentions are "to ensure the wikis in question do not contradict each other or contradict the reliable sources used to qualify certain statement". its kind of weird when a wiki article says something, cites a source, then when you open the source it says nothing in line with what the wiki says. im not pulling these sources out of my butt. i am just clicking on the sources that are linked right after the sentences. step 1. read sentence, step 2. click cited source, step 3. read cited source, step 4. notice they are different, step 5. request for wiki article fix, step 6. get dumped on by everyone and their cats. Stayfree76 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, my cats are innocent! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I`m pescetarian 107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a place to mention previous use of chokeholds ?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As the article states, the use of chokeholds in law enforcement was banned by the Minneapolis city council in June. However, I believe it would be interesting to mention the previous use and prevalence of this technique. For instance: Minneapolis police used neck restraints at least 237 times since 2015, and that force knocked someone unconscious 44 times. Fa suisse (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The ban is in the body at § State civil rights action. You can be bold and edit it directly, or place your suggested wording here for discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Change Killing of George Floyd Murder of George Floyd

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

Done to death indeed. Nothing productive can possibly come from this discussion. Please see Q4 in the FAQ, prior discussions in the archives, and refer to the moratorium on moves to "Murder of George Floyd" until either January 1, 2021 or a legal conviction, whichever comes first. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I`m starting a new section...what do you mean by we ? what is your point ? I am arguing for changing the title of the article to The Murder of George Floyd...I realize this has probably been done to death but that doesn`t necessary mean the current title is accurate " to slaughter wantonly : SLAY " is not ambiguous " 107.217.84.95 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a murder until someone is convicted of murder. We must follow WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see Q4 in the FAQs. —valereee (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That`s my point..it says murder is strictly a legal matter but it is not as I pointed out in the previous section..Wikipedia is wrong in this instance..the word murder has multiple definitions one of which is simply killing another person..pick up a dictionary and look up the word murder..if two people are on a desert island and one kills the other it is a murder despite what it says here...no one will ever know..it will never go to court..it is still a murder...according to Webster..again multiple definitions..one of which is when a person kills another person..George Floyd was killed by another person...that`s a murder...the FAQ is incorrect and needs to be changed..look it up in a dictionary 2600:1702:2340:9470:341A:A0AE:D4DB:6878 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if it can mean "killing another person", the main definition is something like "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." (from Lexico: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/murder), so using "murder" could be misleading. Regardless, reliable sources do not use the word "murder" to describe the killing of Floyd (yet, hopefully), so we do not use it on Wikipedia. This request will go nowhere. Lester Mobley (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your example would be happening outside any legal jurisdiction, so that legal definitions would be irrelevant. Floyd's death occured in a specific jurisdiction, with a specific legal definition of murder. Because of that, that legal definition is the relevant one. It isn't "cherry picking" it's using context to determine which meaning is relevant. --Khajidha (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Murder is a legal determination, not a dictionary definition. Please read WP:BLP. Calling alleged perpetrators murderers before being convicted could open up Wikipedia to legal jeopardy. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You`re overlooking the obvious..the guy on the island was murdered by definition..you cannot choose your own interpretation when there are multiple meanings..you keep bringing up the legal function which is not the only meaning..there is no such thing as the main definition..you just keep ignoring what is written down in plain English..no..the guy on the island was murdered..everyone here has gone from he wasn`t killed to he wasn`t murdered because of an arbitrary definition rather than the entirety of the meaning..he was murdered....anyone here who says he wasn`t does not understand the word..to say he wasn`t is an arbitrary judgement. I know I`ll never get anywhere with this..I understand saying it was a " killing " is probably easier for some people to understand..however to say the guy on the island wasn`t murdered is incorrect...look it up in a dictionary...as is the murder of George Floyd 2600:1702:2340:9470:8C56:FBFF:579B:E823 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has concerns that go beyond the dictionary definition that cannot be as easily dismissed as you think. It isn't a matter of ease of understanding. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This is getting really boring. How about we wait for the trial. It will likely call it murder or manslaughter. Patience. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Move article again?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There is a move memorandum until January 2021 or until a conviction is made (see top of the page). Further discussions about the title are thus not beneficial to this page or this project. Which is something the author of this section seems to be well aware off. Regards So Why 14:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Bodycam footage was leaked and it is obvious to any objective person that it is virtually impossible that any of the officers will be found guilty of homicide. the most likely scenario is that he entered a drug-induced delirium and had severe side-reactions from a panic attack induced by the high levels of fentanyl while on DUI.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/03/us/george-floyd-police-body-camera-video-leak/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/us/george-floyd-police-bodycam-footage-leaked-daily-mail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPSwqp5fdIw

Regardless, unless people still want to push their personal agenda, it is blatantly obvious at this point that the title breaks wp:NPOV. Established editors that are willing to be objective and don't fear getting banned by wp:Cabals for defending wp:NPOV should probably pick up this discussion. 2601:602:9200:1310:3C11:C11E:EDAD:B07B (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet, it's very convenient that none of the sources provided support your statement: the most likely scenario is that he entered a drug-induced delirium and had severe side-reactions from a panic attack induced by the high levels of fentanyl while on DUI. So I think your request will not be taken seriously, as you've not adequately explained/proven how this title violates WP:NPOV. Might I add, it's fascinating that you have such a grasp of WP:NPOV and concerns re "cabals", yet this talk page section is your first edit on Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What we know with certainty is that a death took place. My preferred title is "Death of George Floyd". Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Is it in dispute that Chauvin was a cop?

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

I find the stated rationale for this reversion dubious at minimum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_George_Floyd&diff=970219732&oldid=970218905

soibangla (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why it was removed or what it has to do with the courts. It is certainly relevant. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on with the edit summary, but I do think adding "by a police officer" was repetitious when very next sentence explains "Derek Chauvin, a white police officer...". --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Deciding that Floyd was killed by Chauvin is a matter for the courts. The coroner has decided WHAT killed Floyd, but it has not been determined WHO, if anyone, killed him. WWGB (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the courts are for deciding if Chauvin committed a crime in the killing of Floyd. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems there is a disconnect between killed and murdered. Kill is defined as "cause the death of", while murder is a criminal charge: "kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation". Kill is not necessarily tied to the legal system. It is possible to kill someone but not be found guilty of murder. As for reliable sources, I only see a few saying Chauvin killed Floyd:

"Floyd, a Black man, was killed on May 25 by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, ..." Los Angeles Times. July 29, 2020
"Chauvin was charged four days after he killed Floyd ..." Star Trinune. June 8, 2020

Most other RSs instead say Chauvin is charged with Floyd's murder.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder# " to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously " https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homicide?s=t Homicide is the act of one human killing another " Murder is not just a legal term or is homicide...the only difference between the words killing homicide and murder is that murder and homicide being essentially synonyms by definition and involve persons except to those who perceive any sentient being as self aware..while to kill may apply to any living thing...if George Floyd was killed as in the title of the article and it was obviously perpetrated by another " human " it was a murder and/or a homicide as both the victim and the perpetrator were people..the point being the title of this article should read the murder of George Floyd or the homicide of George Floyd the former being more appropriate as not only inquiring minds want to know..the law has nothing to do with it 107.217.84.95 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Murder is a crime. Homicide may or may not be. O3000 (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You are not reading the links..murder and homicide are both crimes..they also pertain to the acts themselves..one definition of murder is as I said above is to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously..of homicide the act of one human killing another..this is undisputed fact as defined in the English language..all words have multiple connotations...you are wrong with regard to this..you cannot choose the definition which best promotes your agenda..homicide is a crime and an act of violence as is murder..they are two separate things described by the same word as in blue the color and blue the emotion..I don`t know where you got that it wasn`t..it doesn`t matter whether the perpetrator is found guilty or not..read above..not just the definition that suits your purpose but all definitions 107.217.84.95 (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

And we do not say manslaughter or murder, we say killed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your own source disagrees with your statement that the act of homicide is a crime. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You are correct...homicide does only refer to the act itself not the legal interpretation although there is some overlap..all the more reason why this should be referred to as the homicide of George Floyd which doesn`t read well although is accurate

You are cherry picking definitions..these are from Merriam/Webster the accepted last word regarding the meaning of words in the English language.

Collapse dictionary defs (and for the record, the Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted last... er... word regarding the meaning of words in the English language)

murder noun mur·der | \ ˈmər-dər \

Definition of murder (Entry 1 of 2)

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought was convicted of murder 2a: something very difficult or dangerous the traffic was murder carrying the luggage was murder on my back b: something outrageous or blameworthy getting away with murder 3: a flock of crows There's a reason the proper term for a flock of them is a murder of crows, and it's not because we like having them around. — Jeffrey Kluger

murder verb murdered; murdering\ ˈmər-d(ə-)riŋ \

Definition of murder (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb

1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice 2: to slaughter wantonly : SLAY

3a: to put an end to

b: TEASE, TORMENT c: MUTILATE, MANGLE murders French d: to defeat badly intransitive verb

to commit murder

emphasis on 2(2)

to slaughter wantonly : SLAY

homicide noun

ho·mi·cide | \ ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd , ˈhō- \ Definition of homicide 1: a person who kills another / detectives investigating a homicide

Emphasis on : 2:

a killing of one human being by another

You cannot pick whatever definition suits your purpose..if for some reason this never goes to court it is still a murder by definition and a homicide as well as a killing..if you don`t understand that you need to find a paper dictionary and looks these words up for yourself By naming this article the killing of George Floyd it necessarily follows that this was a murder and a homicide because there were two people envolved as well as a killing..this was not a car accident..he killed the man..this has not been disputed in any meaningful way..this is by definition.

Slatersteven " And we do not say manslaughter or murder, we say killed." Don`t go there..it won`t you far on Wikipedia 107.217.84.95 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Said the IP with 80 edits. E Eng 00:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not, as we use none of those words, so their definitions are irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You are not what ? How are the meaning of these words irrelevant ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not cherry picking definitions of those words, we have not said it was murder or manslaughter or homicide. So their definitions are irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

appropriate discussion page

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The last move request was here, which links to the two previous move requests prior to that and also declared a moratorium on move requests (i.e. title changes) for the earlier of 6 months or until a conviction is made.—Bagumba (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

This get`s old..the truth is the truth..I literally read someone here say once that Wikipedia has nothing to do with the truth but exist to publish sourced material only. How do I do I close a discussion because I disagree with it ? More to the point how exactly do I navigate to the appropriate discussing page ? I don`t see a link to it. 2600:1702:2340:9470:8C56:FBFF:579B:E823 (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We do not have to opt for the most inflammatory title possible, even after a murder conviction, assuming that is what transpires. A title is not a billboard. Bus stop (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I just want to know where I can talk to someone about Wikipedia's definition of the word 2600:1702:2340:9470:9:D8AF:49D3:724B (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

One place for posting general questions might be Wikipedia:Teahouse. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

OK..thanks 2600:1702:2340:9470:9:D8AF:49D3:724B (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don`t take this the wrong way but I have a legitimate point here..that being said I don`t understand what the 40 edits have to do with anything ? I know why my edits above were shut down..I have a right to know how..these are not unreasonable request..thank you 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your point may be legitimate but couldn't consensus override that point? Different people have different views on a question, but one version prevails. That is the version that best reflects the consensus of arguments articulated. "Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately." You are saying above "I know why my edits above were shut down. You are free to articulate your argument. You initiated this section called "appropriate discussion page" just as you initiated the section above called "Change Killing of George Floyd Murder of George Floyd". I for one am all ears. I am waiting to hear your argument: why should this article be changed to "Murder of George Floyd"? I don't agree with you. But I am open to reading your arguments. If I am unconvinced I will probably tell you why I think your argument is fallacious. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

This edit request to Killing of George Floyd has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the names of the officers involved or at least say alleged until they are prove guilty. <redact> 2601:88:8100:2920:9157:42ED:100C:164 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We really need a way to prevent random drive-by editors "resolving" edit requests by pasting in boilerplate saying "please get consensus first". That's not helpful. The (at least minimally) helpful answer in this case is that reliable sources don't support these assertions and extensive discussion of these points is in this page's archive. EEng 22:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng, maybe some way to advertise that an article has plenty of active watchers? This one has 450 watchers, 450 of whom visited recent edits. Probably enough regulars around to deal with edit requests. :) —valereee (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
(Idea 1) One way would be a template with parameters X and Y. When present on a talk page, it causes edit requests on that page to not appear in the patrol queue (or whatever they call it) if there have been at least X edits (non-bot edits) to the talk page within the last Y days. Something like that.

(Idea 2) Or maybe that should be the default all the time, no template needed.

(Idea 3) Or maybe either of the above, plus if the request remains unanswered after Z days, then it goes in the general queue of edit requests needing answering.
Unfortunately this will take some technical work, not sure how much though. How about you and I commit to remembering to raise this at VP. E Eng 11:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, take it to your talk, or mine? —valereee (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yours. And I'm just gonna add here, after rereading the response originally given, how absolutely stupid it is. Think about it. (a) Someone using the template is, almost by definition, someone who doesn't know about our processes and consensus and all that stuff. (b) If they did know how about such stuff, they would have opened a discussion thread instead of using the template. (c) And once consensus has been reached (as the response contemplates) any of the non-IP participants could install the change, no edit-request template needed. The response given implies the entire edit-request system is pointless – which it's not, but the way the patrollers deal with requests makes it pointless. E Eng 13:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I did find it humorous that the IP suggested we say alleged until the officers are proved guilty; while stating that the dead person was on drugs, passed counterfeit money, and resisted arrest without such a qualifier. O3000 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The autopsy already indicated Floyd was intoxicated on fentanyl. No new information there. The rest is a matter of bias. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, don't get me started on the whole subject of asking complete noobs to figure out how to properly use a template. Half the time I can't get it right in one try. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The original poster made two sections, one of which was subsequently removed under WP:DENY. Both really seemed like trolling to me and both should probably have been treated the same. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I have a greater problem with the OP not citing any sources. I'm OK with the response, which is an AGF that perhaps sources exist that have yet to be identified.—Bagumba (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You two are completely missing the point V and I are discussing. Come join us on on her talk page. E Eng 22:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I just don't care about that point. My ooint is that this shoukd have been immediately removed and the original troll poster ignored. And that this should still have been done after the initial response.--Khajidha (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

2601:88:8100:2920:9157:42ED:100C:164 only made one suggestion: "Remove the names of the officers involved or at least say alleged until they are prove guilty." The second and last sentence in their post consisted of gratuitous commentary containing 3 assertions: "George Floyd was on drugs, passed counterfeit money, and resisted arrest." I think the least likely of these 3 assertions is that George Floyd "resisted arrest." But perhaps legal proceedings will reveal a finding on that. Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"I can't breathe" link

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Valereee, I saw the you removed the link to I can't breathe in the lead because you said it's inclusion was "pointy". However, according to The New York Times, "I can't breathe" have been said by at least 70 people who have died in police custody in the past decade, and over half of the victims were Black.[32] I think the problem is more that the fairly new I can't breath article currently calls it a BLM slogan in the lead sentence, as opposed to calling it a general survival cry in a lot of police custody deaths, not necessarily all Black, which also happens to be used by BLM. The WP article can also go into an idea among law enforcement that a person who can talk can breathe, which the NYT article also discusses. I think readers are better served by 1) linking to "I can't breathe" 2) continuing to improve the "I can't breath" article.—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't breathe is an article about a political slogan, not an expression of breathlessness. Floyd was not making a political statement to the police, he was just expressing difficulty in breathing. Just because a phrase in a Wikipedia article is also a Wikipedia title does not mean that the two should be linked. If considered important, the point can be made that Floyd's statement was subsequently taken up as a protest slogan. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I don't think we can link the quote from him to the slogan. He wasn't using the slogan. He was saying he couldn't breathe. I get what you're saying, I do. We can talk about RS making the connection. But we can't link from his words to the slogan, IMO, it's pointy. That's my opinion. I'm open to discussion. —valereee (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@WWGB and Valereee: I think what I'm looking for is a way to educate readers, separate from the slogan, that "I can't breath" is a common refrain in deaths while in police custody. As the slogan seems worthy of a standalone article, perhaps what WP needs is an article on the cry or "I can't breathe" deaths. At any rate, I can see that linking "I can't breathe" should not happen without either changes to the current slogan article or creating some other page. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the link to I can't breathe creates confusion or is seriously problematic in any other way. The reader has no trouble distinguishing between an article on a slogan and and an enunciation by a person experiencing respiratory distress, and the reader should be made aware of the other article. Bus stop (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Instead of linking within the quote, a separate sentence could read (Also see I can't breathe.) Another possibility is to put the I can't breathe link in the See also section. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't breathe is already reported and linked in the first paragraph of the section Killing of George Floyd#Memorials, protests and reactions. WWGB (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, even if we wrote 'I can't breathe' deaths, (and actually it might be a good to spin those out of I can't breathe,) I still don't think we can link Floyd's exclamation. We don't have any evidence he's making a political statement. Linking to it is commentary by wikipedia, IMO. We could maybe somewhere within the article add something about 'I can't breathe' having become a slogan due to its use in multiple police custody deaths, there's plenty of support for that, if that would address the issue for you. I could maybe see linking the way Bus stop is suggesting, but even that just feels pointy for the lead, and as WWGB points out, it's already linked in the section. —valereee (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, a potential spinout should be apolitical to differentiate it from the BLM campaign. It could deal with 1) background of victims saying "I can't breathe" before dying in police custody 2) the explanation and counters that some police say "if you can talk, you can breathe" and 3) a possible list to WP standalone articles of such notable deaths. At any rate, I'm not sure I'll get to creating such an article; others can pick it up if it makes sense. I might drop a line at Talk:I can't breathe as a placeholder. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This came up way back at the beginning. A link like this is an Easter egg; a reader not already in the know will have no idea where clicking will take him. Wikipedia should not be a place of interesting surprises. E Eng 15:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best to not link in the lead per Val and EEng. BTW, reading the I can't breathe article for the first time I'd agree that it needs work ~~and in fact I am over-all very critical of it~~. I'm a retired nurse and have seen many people die and it used to be common (before sedation now commonly used) for people to feel like they could not breathe as they were dying. They would beg, "just bring me to a window so I can breathe". (Strike critical comment later after spending some time at the article) Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

BLP violation

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit request to Killing of George Floyd has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black American man, was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest for allegedly using a counterfeit bill." to "On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black American man, died from a Fentanyl overdose in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest for allegedly using a counterfeit bill. Deviaxx12 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

is that what the autopsy said? [the most rhetorical of questions] StayFree76 ^talk 23:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it's what one of the officer's defense attorneys are claiming.[33], So,

Not done – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

New bodycam footage suggests dubious interpretations of some events

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Iff new footage unambiguously reveals something to be incorrect, then we can discuss changing the article. But anything less is WP:OR and not allowable. We do not call interpretations into question unless reliable sources direct us to. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The new footage calls into question some interpretations of the events. In particular, the sentence below seems dubious, and it is of relatively major importance to the interpretation of the event:

At 8:19, standing on the passenger side of the vehicle, Chauvin pulled Floyd across the backseat from the driver side to the passenger side, then out of the car.[11]:3:56

This statement is sourced to a June 1 New York Times' video based on their interpretation of surveillance footage. The video that they are using to make this statement is shot from an angle does not actually show what's happening; everything is hidden behind the police vehicle. We now have a clearer idea of what was happening on that side of the car from the newly released bodycam footage ([34]). Although it is all still a little iffy.

From the bodycam footage, it is clear that one of the officers definitely pulled Floyd across the backseat. (Before he does it, he tells Floyd that he is going to pull him in, at 7:31 of the first video in the link.) But it is not clear at all that Chauvin pulled him *out* of the vehicle. It appears as if Floyd may have pushed himself out with his feet (though he might have been pulled, as suggested). This interpretation is bolstered by the fact that Floyd keeps saying "I wanna lie on the ground" and "I'm going down", whereas after he is out of the car, one of the officers tells him to get back in the car and "take a seat", and you can hear them say to each other "get him in the squad" (8:08 of first video). They want him *in* the car; Floyd is the one who wants out. After Floyd is mostly out of the vehicle (however he got out), then the officers tell him to come completely out of the vehicle and lie on the ground (10:34 of second video).

The reason that this is important to state correctly and cautiously is because pulling Floyd from the vehicle might be interpreted as demonstrating intent to kill him.

Because the June 1 interpretation of what was happening was made based on a camera angle that does not show what is actually happening, I suggest that the dubious statement above be removed. If kept, it should be sourced to a more reliable source. For example, if this is what the Prosecutor says happened, then it can be kept (but sourced to the Prosecutor rather than the NYT video). Bueller 007 (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bueller 007: Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims regarding the bodycam footage? The footage itself would be a primary source requiring an additional source for interpretation, and the Daily Mail was depreciated three years ago (after spending a much longer time in a limbo status where it could only be cited alongside an additional source to verify they weren't just posting sensationalist bullshit yet again). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

First, I am not advocating for the addition of anything; I am advocating for the *removal* of something dubious claimed about a living person. Second, I am not referring to a single thing in the Daily Mail article. I am referring to the raw footage, which demonstrates that the NYT's interpretation (based on something they could not even see) is questionable. But again, I am not suggesting that anything be *added* to the article based on that footage. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say you were going to add anything, I said you were making claims. Those claims appear to be based on either the Daily Mail (not an option) or the tape itself without a non-primary source to give it context. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Have we not already discussed this and rejected it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, it's like the community seems to think we have some sort of rule against editor interpretation of primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You are not reading what is written. The NYT is making claims based on something that is not shown in their own video. This is the primary complaint. You can watch the video that Wikipedia is using for that claim. It does *NOT* show Chauvin pulling Floyd out of the vehicle. The NYT *cannot* see what is happening at that moment in time from their footage. That claim does not belong in the article. (Further, as additional evidence, consider the bodycam footage.) To make things clearer for you, imagine that the NYT had said that Chauvin had punched Floyd while he was in the car (which is completely hidden from view from the camera angle they are using.) That would not belong in the article. You are arguing for the inclusion of the NYT's *speculation* about what happened, which is not supported by their own evidence or the evidence that has come to light since then. But please, feel free to continue to misinterpret. I would never want to suggest that someone stop exercising a skill that they excel at. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Not shown in your interpretation of the video'. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The cited NYT source says "Security footage, witness videos and official documents show how a series of actions by officers turned fatal."[35] Even if the interpretation that you are questioning was based off video—and we don't know that—it would not necessarily be shown in the NYT's published video, nor captured in those body cams published by the Daily Mail. Instead of removing the NYT's interprestion as you did, WP:INTEXT attribution could be used to say "according to The New York Times", for example. I don't see anything that inherently contradicts the NYT's report.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Bueller 007, you write "I am referring to the raw footage, which demonstrates that the NYT's interpretation (based on something they could not even see) is questionable." I should not be interpreting raw footage. You should not be interpreting raw footage. The wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Inserting my interpretation of raw footage, or your interpretation of raw footage, would be a lapse from WP:OR.
In my fifteen years here I have worked on lots of articles on controversial topics, and I have made well over ten thousand edits where my personal conclusions were at odds with the conclusions of every single RS. I think a genuinely compliant contributor has just two policy compliant choices when their personal conclusions are at odds with those of the RS. Either ignore your personal conclusions, and stick with doing your best to neutrally summarize those RS, or walk away, and let other contributors work on that topic.
Please do not insert your personal interpretation of raw footage.
If just a single RS comes forward, and explicitly suggests the newly public footage requires a new timeline, you can summarize them, bearing WP:WEIGHT in mind. Geo Swan (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
My 2c: Both sides have a point, but the detail is not important and should just be removed or changed to something vague like "...and Floyd ended up on the ground." In the broader context, it's not necessarily significant how he got on the ground -- there was a struggle, and he ended up on the ground over by the police car -- what happened next is what's important. It doesn't matter who pushed and who pulled; it's the knee-on-the-neck part that matters. Le v!v ich 02:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Off topic: WP:FORUM of WP:OR

New raw footage shows: Floyd claimed he cant breathe long before being on the ground. Floyd Restrained on the ground with knee at 11:30 talking ALL THE WAY to 16:13 (4-1/2 min of talking AFTER KNEE restraint) still visibly breathing till 17:30 stops breathing, apparently heart attack. The Knee restraint did NOT restrict his breathing. ambulance arrives at 20:50 ALREADY TOO LATE. 2 more minutes before CPR started. WAY TOO LATE. ambulance arrives 51:30 on stretcher 53:40 CPR started. Total of 5 min since heart attack stops heart before CPR started in ambulance.=Motorhead (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm collapsing this as WP:TALKOFFTOPIC per WP:NOTFORUM, as there is no improvement to the article suggested and appears to be WP:OR. Feel free to uncollapse if an improvement is proposed based on cited, WP:SECONDARY reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Reversion of Correct and add detail to the sequence of Lane drawing and holstering his weapon when initially making contact with Floyd as detailed in referenced NBC/CNN article Revision as of 17:58, 13 August 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

My edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_George_Floyd&diff=972773310&oldid=972763519 was reverted as "This is original research; we need someone talking about this in a reliable source" when I included a citation to https://www.nbc29.com/2020/08/11/graphic-court-releases-body-cam-footage-george-floyd-arrest/. The article authored by CNN and posted by an NBC affiliate states "About 14 seconds after approaching Floyd's car, Lane pulls his gun on Floyd when he does not fully comply." Furthermore, it contains a transcript containing numerous quotes from Officer Thomas Lane commanding Floyd to display his hands including two which contain the exact phrase “Let me see your hands.” Please explain how my edit is original research or lacks a reliable source. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Perhaps you would share your reasoning NovaCrest5878 (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

NovaCrest5878, I've expanded on your original edit here, using a New York Times article that provided more WP:SECONDARY analysis.—Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba I appreciate your edit, you found a better source with more detail than I had. If I could request a small favor. I'm new to this and I'd like to understand if I went wrong with my original edit and if so where. My edit seemed to have an impartial tone and was based exclusively on details from an article authored by an organization listed as a reliable source WP:RSP. The prior text inaccurately implied that Lane drew his weapon simultaneously with ordering Floyd to show his hands so correction seemed appropriate. The only thing that would seem to be a point of dispute would be what could be considered "compliance" from Floyd so I endeavored to closely adhere to the article in that aspect of my edit. Thank you again. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

NovaCrest5878, I'll let Valereee comment on her reasoning. However, the source you provided had very little analysis, and it was interspersed throughout the transcript. It's possible that got overlooked, making it possible appear like a WP:PRIMARY source transcript and video that you were analyzing. Generally we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources, which are plentiful with this topic. As it is, the NYT piece provided more context about the sequence. Don't be too discouraged. You were bold in making an edit, it got reverted, and then you started a discussion (WP:BRD). Perfectly normal. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba Thank you! NovaCrest5878 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I cannot remember what I was thinking, but it looks like I just...made a stupid mistake? Apologies, NovaCrest5878, and thank you for doing the right thing and bringing it to talk. :) —valereee (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee I appreciate you taking the time to respond and your forthrightness NovaCrest5878 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation in the section Minneapolis police response

Latest comment: 3 years ago57 comments6 people in discussion

Currently the section Minneapolis police response implies that the police department lied when they reported that Floyd physically resisted and appeared to be suffering medical distress. Reliable sources that came out 3 months afterwards showed and discussed recently released body cam video where Floyd resisted and appeared to be suffering medical distress, like the police report said. The misinformation can be remedied by adding the following to the section.

Around August 11, the police publicly released body cam footage that showed Floyd struggling with police when they were trying to handcuff him and again struggling to keep from being put in a police car.[36] As they tried to put him in the back seat of the police car he said, "I can't breathe ... I had COVID, man … I can't breathe."[37]

Here's the excerpt that was used from the text of the 1st reliable source, "The officers pull Floyd from the car. He struggles as the two officers try to handcuff him." And here's the excerpt from the text of the 2nd RS, "Floyd is then shoved into the back seat and squirms, saying, 'I can't breathe ... I had COVID, man … I can't breathe.' A struggle breaks out on the other side of the car, as officers attempt to shove him in." Bob K31416 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

He also said he had been shot before and his mother just died, but there is no evidence of him ever being shot and his mother had actually died two years before then.[38] Did the autopsy show he had that disease in him? Dream Focus 17:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Gee why don't you look it up on Wikipedia and see what it says. Le v!v ich 17:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

He also said ... his mother just died For context, when and where was this and what is its significance?—Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't imply the police were lying. It states explicitly that the police omitted key details (knee on the neck), which is what the cited sources say. Le v!v ich 17:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Our article does. It says that the Police Department issued a statement. It then gives a quote, "After Floyd got out [of his car], he physically resisted officers. Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress." Our article then says, "Hours later, after witness and security camera video circulating on the internet contradicted that account,[75] the department updated its statement..."

So basically, our article implies the PD was caught in a lie, and then changed their story. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the sources say happened (including the word "contradict"). "Lie" is kind of a charged word, I guess it's a lie of omission, but the article says what the sources say: the statement didn't include all the facts, and after video contradicting the statement was released, the police "updated" the statement (you could say "changed their story" or "backtracked" or what-have-you, I guess "updated" is a bit euphemistic, but I think that's the word used in the sources as well). I'm not seeing the "change X to Y" here. Where/how is the article out of line with the sources? Le v!v ich 18:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

For reference, can you quote the specific text from the Wikipedia article that you believe implies that the police lied?—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I see I'm running into a roadblock here. So I'll simply stand by my previous statements and see what any other editors may care to add to the discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

im with Bob K31416 here. the ABC articles says It revealed the truth: a white police officer had used his knee to pin the neck of an unarmed African-American man, George Floyd, to the ground., inferring the original statement was a lie. that being said, omitting information isn't a lie and their original statement was 100% true (a man died in police custody).

this is a loaded statement and looks like WP:Synthesis to me Early on May 26, the Minneapolis Police Department issued a statement ("Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction") which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck:

also this is misleading Hours later, after witness and security camera video circulating on the internet contradicted that account. just because more context or detail is given to an event doesn't mean the original statement contradicted the current statement (the current statement builds off of the original.) StayFree76 ^talk 21:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis applies to our use of sources to construct an argument that they don't make. In contrast ABC are actually making that statement themselves.[39]. Critically the article actually frames the reveal within the wider context of police misinformation Law enforcement officers have been captured beating, gassing, and shooting rubber bullets at terrified US citizens across the country, in a wave of state violence. And the footage has exposed in real time how police have historically used "official reports" of controversial incidents to obscure the truth. In addition their original statement is contradicted by witnesses who gave their opinion on the statement in real time, in addition to review of the CCTV, which is then subsequently reported on in reliable sources with the context of criticising the polices initial statement being loose with the truth. Koncorde (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

do a control + f on that source. "knee" is shown 4 times and none of them state ...which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck:. wanna know what else the police report didnt state? that i like big butts. should we add that into the article? all jokes aside, i said that bold part was synthesis because some editor drew the conclusion that mentioning that is important themselves, not because a source deemed it important, and so that specific portion would be better off removed. i am just stating this as something i found important while doing some honest reading about the discussion at hand so i can make an informed decision. StayFree76 ^talk 16:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it says "Late last month, a Minneapolis police spokesman told reporters that a man had died after he "physically resisted" officers, but "officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and officers noticed that the man was going into medical distress". It revealed the truth: a white police officer had used his knee to pin the neck of an unarmed African-American man, George Floyd, to the ground".. The point being made is clear - as is the subsequent raft of sources all explaining what is significant about the polices initial statement; the absence of any mention of his being restrained and cajoled by the public into maybe not killing the guy they were kneeling on. I am not sure which editor you are referring to that is arguing it should be included because they think it's important rather than because the RS support its inclusion - but it's an irrelevance because it's supported by the RS. Koncorde (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to go to the trouble of bolding a statement, you should also go to the trouble of making sure the statement is correct. What are you talking about, saying the ABC.au source "said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck"?

The ABC.au source says:

Late last month, a Minneapolis police spokesman told reporters that a man had died after he "physically resisted" officers, but "officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and officers noticed that the man was going into medical distress".
But then footage of the incident surfaced online and went viral.
It revealed the truth: a white police officer had used his knee to pin the neck of an unarmed African-American man, George Floyd, to the ground.

In addition, the other sources cited in the paragraph are quoted in Koncorde's comment below. As are a number of links to yet more sources saying the same thing. Le v!v ich 16:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

where in the the cited text does it say: ...which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck:? this is the problem, it doesnt... StayFree76 ^talk 16:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC) quick edit: when has wikipedia been about documenting what people dont say instead of what they do say?

Where in the cited source? Right here: It revealed the truth: a white police officer had used his knee to pin the neck of an unarmed African-American man, George Floyd, to the ground.

You see, "it" refers to "footage of the incident" that "surfaced online and went viral". Saying the footage "revealed the truth" means that the truth was previously concealed, in this case, by what "a Minneapolis police spokesman told reporters". Allow your eyes to glance up to the full quote in previous comments above, and note the author's use of the word "But" to start the sentence about footage, immediately after the sentence about the police statement. The word "but" denotes that the text after the word "but" will contradict the text before the word "but".

Then after "It revealed the truth", there's a colon (":"), which is punctuation indicating that the text that comes after the colon will be about the text that was before the colon. In this case, the text after the colon describes "the truth" that was "revealed" by the "footage" and which was previously concealed by what a "police spokesman told reporters". This "truth" is: (there's that colon again!) "a white police officer had used his knee to pin the neck of an unarmed African-American man".

So, as you can see, by reading the sentence, we are able to determine that the sentence means that the truth, which is the knee-on-the-neck, was revealed by video footage after being concealed by the police in their statement.

The astute editor will also note that this source is being cited for the quote, and that there are a number of other sources cited in the paragraph that support the content and make the same point more explicitly, as Koncorde pointed out below.

</condescension> Le v!v ich 16:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding StayFree's question: "when has wikipedia been about documenting what people dont say instead of what they do say?". Pretty much any article involving lies, misinformation, half-truths etc will include commentary by the RS about the omissions. For instance when someone alleges a crime, the RS may present evidence that they do not include in their allegation which supports, or disproves such a statement. Koncorde (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich:, andddddd we have now come full circle. so was the police report a lie? because that is the only way the truth makes any sense. StayFree76 ^talk 17:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the police didn't lie. They just didn't reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There was a modicum of Truthiness I am sure. Maybe even the initial statements by Chauvin etc were misleading in and of themselves - but that would be at a minimum synthesis, and likely OR to speculate on why they chose not to mention the fact he died at the scene after being knelt on for 9 minutes. Koncorde (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

so if they didnt lie why are we using charged working that infers that they did? the entire paragraph can be less pointy by saying: the prilimary police report said insert what it said. hours later more details surfaced and this happened. i dont think it should be this hard to point toward a bias when making a statement on what someone did or did not say... like come on. StayFree76 ^talk 17:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Because multiple reliable sources are all effectively asking the question: why did you omit this information and misrepresent the "truth" of the situation? Your chief officer is now saying that they would never ever publicly conceal information. Unfortunately, some people disagree Mary Moriarty, chief public defender in Hennepin County, said her office frequently deals with cases where Minneapolis police officers provide official accounts of arrests later proven to be false by video evidence. “Am I at all surprised that the police lied in their report? No,”. There is significant RS coverage of the absence of detail in the initial statement questioning the candour of the statement, and the reasons the initial statement does not align with subsequent coverage; which is why we do also. Koncorde (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If what ABC.au wrote doesn't make any sense to you, go over to www.abc.au and tell them. What we're doing here at en.wikipedia.org is summarizing secondary sources; this page is for discussing the summary of secondary sources at Killing of George Floyd. If you think that summary of secondary sources can be improved, this is the place to discuss it. If you think the secondary sources themselves don't make sense or are otherwise wrong, this is not the place to discuss it. Le v!v ich 17:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

i am saying your synthesis should not be on wikipedia. say what they said, then move on. dont insert what you think is relevant. as i mentioned before, i think me liking (loving) big butts is relevant and want that added. i know the sources didnt say that, but i mean, lets be real, we all know it to be. StayFree76 ^talk 17:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you know what synthesis is. Inserting your love of big butts would not be supported by reliable sources. If however a number of sources suddenly said "It revealed the truth: a white police officer had used his knee to pin the neck of an unarmed African-American man, George Floyd, and wikipedia user StayFree76 likes big butts" then it would be relevant and supported by RS. Koncorde (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

so how can you reconcile the current statements when compared to WP:Synthesis Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. this is not an explicit statement and is using some implicit [meaning?] understanding of the situation then boldly states it in the wiki as if it mattered. (when has a police report every been super detailed. they arent trying to say anything that can screw them down the road. this is common and normal. the current wording makes it seem like all other police statements are detailed af, when in reality, that is not the case.) this is why using implicit details is dangerous and why it should not be done in the article. are you comfortable with a wiki article functionally calling that PD a liar? if anything, the statement calling them a liar should be attributing to someone, but even so, as i mentioned omitting information is not lying and in the US the 5th amendment guarantees a citizens right to silence (of course this isnt so much the case with the PD report, but americans understand that you only say the minimum necessary so you dont accidentall dig your own grave). StayFree76 ^talk 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Neither the secondary sources, nor our article summarizing them, calls anyone a liar. Le v!v ich 18:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Easy, we aren't combining different parts to reach or imply a conclusion - to quote: And the footage has exposed in real time how police have historically used "official reports" of controversial incidents to obscure the truth. The sources implicitly state that the truth was not being revealed by the original statement. We are reflecting the absence of that information because it is seen as integral to the story by the reliable sources. The RS discuss how the original statement was "contradicted" by the evidence. They question the absence of critical information. Not war and peace as you suggest is expected. Just the bits that you would think are pertinent to the death of a man in custody that is being filmed by half a dozen people asking the police not to kill him by kneeling on his neck while he begs for his life and dies live on camera. They are questioning when would the transparency expected in a police report appear? You know, rather than worrying about something that might "screw them down the road". You might understand why the police did what they did. The RS however don't care about why the police might want to cover their own arses in the face of (yet another) dead man in custody and a public outcry. Koncorde (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

you just said it yourself, The sources implicitly, per WP:Synthesis we cannot use it if ...not explicitly stated by the source. im kinda confused at the push back on this one as you actively stated the current state is in violation of synthesis policy, but argue that it isn't. so does the source explicitly state that? if so, where? StayFree76 ^talk 18:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Typo. I meant explicitly, because I directly quoted it saying so. And the footage has exposed in real time how police have historically used "official reports" of controversial incidents to obscure the truth Koncorde (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

then why doesnt the wiki state that? i think you are mis understanding what explicit means. from [40] fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent. my point is, say what the sources say, not what they dont. currently we are saying what they dont say now what the do say. that is the problem. StayFree76 ^talk 19:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

New York Times says But hours later, a 10-minute video taken by a bystander was posted to Facebook, showing a different story than the first police statement or the subsequent update. Neither mentioned what was apparent in the video: a white police officer kneeling on the black man’s neck for several minutes as bystanders and the man himself pleaded for the officer to stop. we say "which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck". ABC AU says Late last month, a Minneapolis police spokesman told reporters that a man had died after he "physically resisted" officers, but "officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and officers noticed that the man was going into medical distress". But then footage of the incident surfaced online and went viral. It revealed the truth: a white police officer had used his knee to pin the neck of an unarmed African-American man, George Floyd, to the ground. we say "which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck". Minnesota Post says Early Tuesday morning, MPD announced in a press release that a man had died after a “medical incident during [a] police interaction.” The press release alleged Floyd had physically resisted officers – something later called into question based on a nearby restaurant’s surveillance footage. “Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress,” the press release said, making no mention of the police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck. we say "which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck". Koncorde (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

ok, so why isnt the Minnesota Post cited? the only one that says what the wiki says is not cited... maybe cite the source and call it good? you could have saved us all the time and just linked that source to begin with... next time, cite the source that says the thing that goes in the wiki. its a straight forward process. if someone clicks on the source and the statement isn't mentioned it is a bad look for the validity of the wiki as a whole let alone not something that is even allowed per verifiable policy. StayFree76 ^talk 20:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC) edit: also, the statement should be attributed to the Minn Post since it was their stance on the matter and was not quoted in their article as someone else's words. StayFree76 ^talk 20:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Because other editors believe the existing citations convey the information that we summarise. As do I. The Minn Post isn't saying any more than they are. And none of them are saying any more than a dozen+ other sources that can be cited for the uncontroversial remark that the original statement by the MPD didn't mention Floyds neck being knelt upon. I am more than happy to include as many citations as you like, but it is clear that you don't want to see what is plainly written to this point of suggesting we should attribute it as an opinion as opposed to an observation of fact. Koncorde (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

as i said. you are using an implicit explanation which is against policy. i did not write the policy, but it is there. if you dont cite the source correctly you are [by default] breaking policy. how hard is it to cite the source correctly? im getting the feeling that its because you are using this in hindsight against me, but im not battling or fighting you. i am simply discussing issues so they can be fixed. this is consistent with my stance on whether GF admitted to drug use. either someone said something or they didnt. dont put words in people mouths or try to think for the reader. if it is explicit in the source (which it is in minn post) the easiest thing for you to do is literally add your source to the line. boom problem solved. not sure why we need to discuss this further. StayFree76 ^talk 21:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing implicit about New York Times saying But hours later, a 10-minute video taken by a bystander was posted to Facebook, showing a different story than the first police statement or the subsequent update. Neither mentioned what was apparent in the video: a white police officer kneeling on the black man’s neck for several minutes as bystanders and the man himself pleaded for the officer to stop.. You have obstinately refused to recognise the existing sources for the sentence which either means you never read them before you started and don't want to look like you were pushing a POV, or you still don't get it and therefore are now trying to make this an issue of sourcing when the issue is with your comprehension. I am done AGF at this point. Koncorde (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

so how is Neither mentioned what was apparent in the video:... the same as what the wiki states as "which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck: [sic]". its like the editor copy pasted then edited the middle... this statement should be attributed like i said. you dont get to decide what information is relevant. if this is relevant because the author of the nyt article thought so, it should be attributed to the author. this is consistent with every other wiki on the planet. right now it 100% looks like the wiki is making the claim, not a reliable source. that is sketch, imo. StayFree76 ^talk 22:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times says the very thing you are saying that it doesn't. It says that the statement does not mention the kneeling on Floyds neck. This is not an opinion that needs to be attributed, it is basic fact checking that we entrust to reliable sources. The original statement does not mention the kneeling on his neck. The video shows it happening. Multiple news sources report on the discrepancy. That is the end of it. Koncorde (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

the paragraph in question, including the sources, is all over the place. the wiki is not for editors who are keeping up with events, but for people who [potentially] have never heard of george floyd before. see WP:AUDIENCE. it must be clear for the reader who said what and when. if it is unclear who said something, then it is a failure on us as editors to push for healthy and understandable wikis. there should be no room for a reader to personally attribute a statement to someone else. you have been borderline arguing for keeping the wiki in a confused state saying Because other editors believe the existing citations convey the information that we summarise. As do I. The Minn Post isn't saying any more than they are. And none of them are saying any more than a dozen+ other sources.., again see WP:AUDIENCE. the paragraph has ~4-5 cited sources. you are cross pollinating sources/details in other paragraphs with details in another. that is sloppy and confusing. StayFree76 ^talk 06:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing your push to change that sentence and questioning its significance as a blatant POV push. I am not discussing the paragraph, and have not been discussing the paragraph. The sentence is sourced to two reliable sources that make the same observation: the initial statement neglects to mention that Floyd died after having an officers knee on his neck for 9 minutes. They are literally inline citations. There is no cross pollination. No synth. No original research. I would suggest you havent a clue what you are on about. Koncorde (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

no, the original discussion wasnt even about that sentence you are just tunnel visioning on it. the entire paragraph has problems, which causes each sentence, when looked at, to be awkward [pointy?] and sometimes confusing. also, you should assume good faith. i was in the military, i am able to discuss without applying emotions to the matter, regardless of how i feel (no one cares how i feel and i am not important). as i have mentioned before, i have defended GF on wiki about the "hooping" statement. as an american, i believe in our constitution, which guarantees us a right to silence (5th). as such when public statements are made, they provide only the least amount of information necessary, and if challenged, can be clarified. this is what happened, and is normal. alot of the paragraph is a rehash of information elsewhere. see: Wikipedia:Too_much_detail. this entire paragraph can be summarized to this:

On May 26, the Minneapolis Police Department issued a preliminary statement. After video started circulating on the internet showing Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck, the department updated its statement and stated the FBI was joining the investigation. The four officers were briefly placed on paid administrative leave before being fired later that day.

StayFree76 ^talk 16:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I am "tunnel visioning" because that sentence is what you were objecting to and have been making repeatedly untrue / inaccurate claims about. This is demonstrated by the fact your suggested version specifically omits that sentence with little to no other changes (barring removing the actual statement itself) despite even now giving you even a source that you have accepted does in fact accuse the police of omitting the critical information (even though the existing sources did that already). Its almost as if while demanding I adhere to "good faith" you can continue to make bad faith arguments. I assumed good faith repeatedly as you persistently refused to acknowledge what sources said. And to this point have still not acknowledged that they say what they say. That is not good faith.

The presence of a 5th amendment is irrelevant, as the multiple news sources from the US (and other countries) are all specifically criticising the MPD's lack of transparency. Some going so far as to find corroborating witnesses willing to outright state that the MPD lie to protect themselves. In fact a large amount of the criticism of the death in custody of Floyd is about the police protecting themselves first, and the people they are paid to protect second.

Finally your military service is as irrelevant as my 100m silver swimming certificate. You might want to polish your own cock, and some may, but don't expect other people to admire their reflection in it. Koncorde (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the problem I noted can be fixed with deleting a sentence that's not about the neck kneeling, while keeping the point about kneeling on the neck. Here's the paragraph with the suggested deletion as a strike out.

Early on May 26, the Minneapolis Police Department issued a statement ("Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction")[12] which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck:[72][73] ~~"After Floyd got out [of his car], he physically resisted officers. Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress."[74]~~ Hours later, after witness and security camera video circulating on the internet contradicted that account,[75] the department updated its statement, calling its earlier statement preliminary,[76] and stating that new information had "been made available" and that the FBI was joining the investigation.[74] The four officers were briefly placed on paid administrative leave[76] before being fired later that day.[77]

Bob K31416 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ohhh I get it now, the implication is that the quoted portion is what was contradicted. For my part I have no objection to removing the quoted portion as its not really necessary and potentially confusing or carrying unintended implications. That said, I am partial to the "noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress" quote because that's like the understatement of the year, a hell of a way to describe five minutes of a man begging an officer to take his knee off his neck. But I can't really back that personal opinion up with sources. Le v!v ich 02:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Contradict can mean "to be in conflict with", as opposed to stating the opposite. I've reworded it.[41]—Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources provided don't use the word "conflict with", they openly say "contradict".WaPo: "In violent protest incidents, a theme emerges: Videos contradict police accounts", National Review doesn't say it in the article, but the meta-title says "New Video Appears to Contradict Cops' Claim that George Floyd Resisted Arrest", Newsweek; "The information corroborates what viral video footage released earlier this week indicated and further contradicts details included in the Minneapolis Police Department's original incident report", CNN: "Surveillance video from outside a Minneapolis restaurant appears to contradict police claims that George Floyd resisted arrest before an officer knelt on his neck". The use of the word "conflicted" is reads poorly in that sentence as it generally means the concept of "feelings" being conflicted, rather than facts being at variance. Koncorde (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Would suggest something like this: "Early on May 26, the Minneapolis Police Department issued a statement ("Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction") which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck.[1][2][3] The MPD stated that "After Floyd got out [of his car], he physically resisted officers. Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress."[4] Subsequently eye-witness video and footage from security cameras were circulated on the internet contradicting the MPD's characterisation of the arrest.[5] The department later issued an updated statement, calling its earlier statement preliminary, and that new information had "been made available" with the FBI now joining the investigation.[6][4] The four officers were briefly placed on paid administrative leave[6] before being fired later that day.[7]"

We should avoid using the word conflicted, or conflicting, as that gives the feeling that there were two informal narratives at odds with each other (such as might be used in the sentence "there are conflicting accounts"). Instead the RS are confident enough to use the words "contradict" to infer that there was at the very least a lack of candour in the initial statement with some speculating why that is the case. Additional sources all using the same / similar wording in addition to existing sources.[42][43][44][45][46] Koncorde (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we should use "contradict" and not "conflict" because that's the word the sources use, and those words mean two different things. I think Koncorde's paragraph in italics above is frankly better-written than the current text we have. I support either of the suggested changes so far (with or without the quote). I'm curious whether there are any new sources that discuss the recently-released bodycam footage and the initial police statement (I'm not aware of any). Le v!v ich 15:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI, some prior related discussions about "contradict" are at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 1#Sources for "this claim is contradicted by all video evidence"?? and Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 2#Minneapolis allows police use of neck restraint.. Le v!v ich 15:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The edit by Bagumba and the suggestion by Konkorde both retain the problem that I described in my previous messages. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

i was trying to champion your cause, but to no avail. i also thing the overall paragraph is worded awkwardly and has a huge run on sentence. the idea the paragraph is conveying is all over the place and i cant even follow what its trying to get at. StayFree76 ^talk 00:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's what it could look like with the simple deletion of the problem part.

"Early on May 26, the Minneapolis Police Department issued a statement ("Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction")[12] which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck:[72][73] Hours later, after witness and security camera video circulating on the internet contradicted that account,[75] the department updated its statement, calling its earlier statement preliminary,[76] and stating that new information had "been made available" and that the FBI was joining the investigation.[74] The four officers were briefly placed on paid administrative leave[76] before being fired later that day.[77]"

Bob K31416 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You version Bob suggests that that the witness and security camera contradicts the Chauvin kneeling. I see no issue with my version as the contradicts is focused on the characterisation of the arrest, not on a specific item given many witnesses disputed various elements and made multiple other claims regarding police conduct etc. If we want to rewrite it entirely then we can do, but both versions suggested by yourself fundamentally don't improve the actual paragraph. Koncorde (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Bob K31416, likewise, I though contradicted was part of the problem of the lie you were referring to. I'm not tied to it if it didn't help.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Updated police statement

Here's the updated police statement[47]. The original report is dated May 25 and the updated part is dated May 26.

Investigative Update on Critical Incident

POSTED MAY 26, 2020 JOHN ELDER

Investigative Update on Critical Incident

May 26, 2020 (MINNEAPOLIS) As additional information has been made available, it has been determined that the Federal Bureau of Investigations will be a part of this investigation.

###

Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction

May 25, 2020 (MINNEAPOLIS) On Monday evening, shortly after 8:00 pm, officers from the Minneapolis Police Department responded to the 3700 block of Chicago Avenue South on a report of a forgery in progress. Officers were advised that the suspect was sitting on top of a blue car and appeared to be under the influence.

Two officers arrived and located the suspect, a male believed to be in his 40s, in his car. He was ordered to step from his car. After he got out, he physically resisted officers. Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress. Officers called for an ambulance. He was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center by ambulance where he died a short time later.

At no time were weapons of any type used by anyone involved in this incident.

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has been called in to investigate this incident at the request of the Minneapolis Police Department.

No officers were injured in the incident.

Body worn cameras were on and activated during this incident.

The GO number associated with this case is 20-140629.

Bob K31416 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

i propose this change (edit: adding Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read, for reasons why i cut the fat):

On May 26, the Minneapolis Police Department issued a preliminary statement. After video started circulating on the internet showing Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck, the department updated its statement and stated the FBI was joining the investigation. The four officers were briefly placed on paid administrative leave before being fired later that day.

StayFree76 ^talk 17:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That is not a faithful summary of the secondary sources, as it omits the fact that the preliminary statement omitted the knee on the neck. Le v!v ich 17:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

yes it does. police did prelim report > videos of knee on neck > police update report. concise and straight to the point. the report got updated for a reason, yes? StayFree76 ^talk 17:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC) edit: morning brain bad... also, keep in mind this wiki needs to make sense in 10 years. including things about what people dont say, especially when the context of the paragraph implies it wasnt said, hence the updated report after videos came out. StayFree76 ^talk 17:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If we're to remain objective call it "the alleged killing"

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

This has been discussed to death. Please read the FAQ and if necessary the ten earlier discussions. —valereee (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The arguments I'm reading:

Any time one person causes the death of another – whether intentionally or not, whether criminally or not – that's a homicide. It's a very broad category. Every murder or manslaughter (of any "degree") is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder or manslaughter. A killing in self-defense is a homicide. Even an execution pursuant to a judicially imposed sentence of death is a homicide.

Response:

No one has been found convicted of murdering him. Therefore the premise is completely wrong to begin with. A person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is not a court of public opinion website.

Argument:

In most US jurisdictions the determination of whether or not a death is a homicide is made by a coroner or medical examiner, as a prerequisite to other legal proceedings.

Response:

Yes. It is not a legal declaration, it is an assumption which can lead to investigations and court cases.

Argument:

The medical examiner in Floyd's case determined that his death was, indeed, a homicide – or in common American English parlance, a killing. A homicide becomes, legally, a murder or manslaughter only once someone is convicted in court.

Response:

Yes. The manner of death was ruled homicide, but the exact office that ruled it a homicide also noted that "is not a legal determination of culpability or intent."

EpicMemeGamer (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Killing and murder are not synonymous, nor does a killing have to have culpability or intent.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

These arguments would only be relevant if the article was titled "murder of George Floyd". But it's not. --Equivamp - talk 14:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

ONo, so much of your above reasoning is equally not applicable, it is only applicable if (under law) a person has not been killed unless someone is found guilty of killing. But "killing" is not illegal.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I am totally sympathetic to the impropriety of the current title, EpicMemeGamer.

331dot—EpicMemeGamer has only made one edit yet you are calling them "disruptive". Furthermore, the existence of a FAQ does not rule out further discussion on the same topic and a discussion of this nature should not be closed 12 minutes after it was opened and the argument that there have been "ten earlier discussions" should be taken as an indication of the validity and importance of the topic being raised. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying this specific instance was disruptive by itself, but collectively they are. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That's gibberish. We may edit collaboratively but we certainly don't edit collectively. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Place of residence for the four officers

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion

It seems rather significant and important that none of the main people involved in the incident were actually residents of the City of Minneapolis, including Floyd and all four officers. A reader would assume that the incident involved people from Minneapolis unless told otherwise. Floyd lived in St. Louis Park and drove 20 minutes specifically to go to Cup Foods, a fact the article notes. The four responding officers lived all over the metro area as noted by several sources, including a Star Tribune article on June 5, 2020. I suggest adding a sentence that lists the place of residence of the officers in alphabetical order: "At the time of Floyd's arrest and death, the officers were residents of Coon Rapids, Oakdale, Plymouth, and Saint Paul, respectively."VikingB (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

(oops, edit conflict; we both started sections. Combining.) User:VikingB has made several attempts to add the specific towns where the four officers live, calling it “an important detail”.[48][49] Those additions were removed by User:WWGB, User:Bagumba, and me. Let’s discuss whether this is information that we should be reporting, or whether it violates their privacy or possibly poses a threat to them. Personally I believe we should not specify their residences, as they are Living People who took part in a highly controversial action, which could make them targets. The fact that some sources have chosen to report the information does not necessarily imply that we should. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

At one point you added a more general statement that none of the officers lived in Minneapolis itself[50], which seems possibly more acceptable. That one was reverted, I believe as Original Research because the source itself does not summarize in that way. Still, that might be a more acceptable way of making the point than actually naming their towns. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Why would it matter where they live at? Dream Focus 15:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering that, this seems trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that the place someone lived is irrelevant unless an RS draws some conclusion that it was material to the events. Living 20 minutes away from somewhere isn't significant unless someone remarks on it (i.e. if it was suggested Floyd travelled those 20 minutes for a reason that is particularly relevant). Going to a particular grocery store isn't important unless someone remarks on it (i.e. if, as I believe some sources have remarked, Floyd often attended the same shop meaning the owner may have had prior). It is particularly unimportant when they seem to live in the "wider metro area" as someone I believe said. Koncorde (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a source that makes that conclusion and explains why it is a relevant detail in Minneapolis.VikingB (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Mother Jones is clearly biased according to WP:RSPSOURCES. We shouldn't be going off that on whether or not to include place of residence for living persons, which requires significantly more tact. Anon0098 (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If multiple sources don't bring it up, it's not significant. Otherwise, the factoids we can mention are limitless.—Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not worth doing OR for. —valereee (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Here is a source explaining why that trivial detail may matter: "[name of officer], like the majority of Minneapolis’ police officers, lives outside of the city he patrolled. Nationwide, the configuration is not that unusual. But this type of geographic gap has been a source of tension in efforts to reduce police violence against Black residents." Another local news article discussed the context of Floyd's death with Minneapolis police officers not living in the city. Other articles have discussed the broader issue of MPD officers not residing in the city, but without specific context to Floyd. The proposed edit using the Star Tribune article on June 5, 2020 just notes the facts of the officers residence.VikingB (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Then that is the context we should mention it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The context here is the significance of the tension, not where each person lives. Removing it from that context loses its significance. Koncorde (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; making the "non-resident officers" point cited to that MJ article (and here's CBS local making the same point, and a USA Today article mentioning GF but not the specific officers involved) is good and can be done without giving the officers' particular residences. The non-resident officer issue has been written about before GF [51] [52], seems like good analysis to include in our article. Le v!v ich 17:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

VikingB writes "Floyd lived in St. Louis Park and drove 20 minutes specifically to go to Cup Foods, a fact the article notes." Where does it say in the article that Floyd drove 20 minutes to go to Cup Foods? Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right, the article doesn't say that. I misspoke. Sources don't explain what particular drive Floyd made that day or why. But we do know he didn't live or work in Minneapolis by May 25, yet he still went to the store per the store that was 20 minutes from where he lived. See the New York Times: "Mr. Floyd’s apartment in the suburb of St. Louis Park was about a 20-minute drive from Cup Foods, but he often visited the store to buy cellphone credits at the market’s MetroPCS counter." Sorry if I made the discussion more confusing.VikingB (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, VikingB. Thanks for the link to the article mentioning this. Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to talk VikingB. I read the Mother Jones article but am unable to access the NYT. I agree that this certainly is related to Floyd's death, but since it is not particular to only this death I believe that this would not be the place to bring it up--but if the group decides to include it here we would need a paragraph about it and not merely one sentence. BTW, a long time ago I used to live a couple of blocks from where Floyd was killed. St. Louis Park is usually considered to be part of Minneapolis and not a suburb. Have you considered working this into the Police brutality article? Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to default to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE on this one. Seems a bit much to list where each of them live. Anon0098 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Anon0098, we should not list where they live. Dream Focus 22:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"almost eight minutes"

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI

The lead currently reads that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd for "almost eight minutes".

You are invited to join a related discussion about the kneeling duration at Talk:George_Floyd#"Nearly"_eight_minutes.—Bagumba (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Airflow requirements

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is not a forum to discuss your own analysis or viewpoint of motives of the event. EvergreenFir (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Many sources correctly say that regarding postural asphyxia due to prone restraint the issue is restriction of the diaphram. For that condition it is NOT true that if someone can speak they can breathe adequately.

However, regarding neck compression, an airflow for normal breathing requires about 8 liters per minute. That is what the safety ISO sheet for BIC pens says, that is why they have a hole of area 3.4 square millimeters at the end of the cap. A hole of 3.4 square millimeters is large enough for adequate breath to enter the airway at the neck.

For speaking, some phonemes require 1.0 liters of air *per second* which is a peak rate of more than *seven times* greater than adequate for respiration. If the neck compression is constant so that the peak rate equals the average rate, it means that someone who can speak normally can get seven times the necessary amount of air needed to breathe.

I stress, that for diaphram compression the peak rate is sustainable only while the diaphram can move. But for the restraints of neck compression, it really is true that if someone can speak someone can breathe.

Now, we get to the real issue, the combination of postural asphyxia and neck compression. I still think if it is analyzed carefully, if a person can speak then the asphyxia due to diaphram limitation is not significantly aggravated by the airway restriction at the neck.

This all relates to Chauvin's remarks "You are using a lot of oxygen when you speak" and "relax."

It is very possible that Chauvin ignored passersby not because he was cruel but because he was convinced he was doing the right thing. Floyd had injured himself by banging his head in the car. Very likely Chauvin saw his role as preventing injury, only. Createangelos (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of "hooping"

Latest comment: 3 years ago70 comments10 people in discussion

I edited here to explain the meaning of "hooping" as "inserting drugs anally". This explanation is consistent with the context of the conversation between Floyd, Lane, and Kueng and supported by the cited article CBC which explains the meaning but in an entirely unrelated incident. I think it's pretty clear from context that Floyd isn't using the more common meaning of the term "the manipulation of and artistic movement or dancing with a hoop." Is any definition of hooping WP:PRIMARY until a WP:RSP defines it in context? The existing source Star Tribune says "Floyd said he [...] had been playing basketball earlier" but that isn't even a definition of the term. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This [53] seems to disagree. So you need a source that says that its use by Floyd meant taking drugs.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's almost uncanny the way people manage to find perverse interpretations of everything. E Eng 13:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Kinky.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven The Free Dictionary definition is for "hoop" the subsection on "hooping" contains two definitions "To hold together or support with a hoop" and "To encircle" neither have anything to do with basketball nor any reasonable interpretation in context but I'll look for a WP:RSP that is directly on point. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Neither does it say "to insert drugs up ya bum", either.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

[[54]], [[55]], [[56]]. So yes it is a term sued in basketball.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk about litigious! E Eng 17:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That should of course be used.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What should be used? [57] E Eng 20:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It should have been used not sued.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see: the use-mention distinction on steroids. E Eng 07:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I agree, the Harvard Sports Analysis article is a good example of usage NovaCrest5878 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the word "hooping" from the article because it doesn't appear in the secondary sources cited. The source says "playing basketball", which is what we should say, too. If there are other secondary sources about George Floyd that use the word (or ascribe a different meaning to it), they should be posted and discussed here, maybe the content needs to be updated. Until then, it seems to me this is a good example of the reason we have an WP:OR policy and write using secondary and not primary sources: to prevent editors from interpreting primary sources, e.g., "what does 'hooping' mean in this transcript?" Let secondary sources answer that. The Star Tribune says it means playing basketball. Le v!v ich 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Levivich There are lots of secondary sources discussing "hooping" and it's meaning in context but I haven't seen any that would likely be considered WP:RSP NovaCrest5878 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think changing "hooping" to basketball is a good solution.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The main one I've seen is The American Conservative [58] but that's yellow at WP:RSP which won't cut it for content this controversial in a BLP.

However, does anyone have access to the London Times? I think this Times article (based on search hits, I don't have access and it's paywalled) says hooping appears to be an allusion to drug use. Le v!v ich 15:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Times articles says, in pertinent part: In the video Floyd also refers to "hooping", which appears to be an allusion to drug use: fentanyl and methamphetamine were found in his system, according to a toxicology report. The structure of the sentence suggests that the inference on the sense of the word was made, by the reporter, based on the findings of the toxicology report – uncharacteristically sloppy reporting by The Times. E Eng 18:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng#s How is The Times' inference any less valid than the Star Tribune's if anything it would seem more valid from the context of the conversation and the findings of the toxicology report NovaCrest5878 (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't compare it to the Star Tribune. I compared it to The Times's usually careful reporting, from which I would have expected to read something like In the video Floyd also refers to "hooping", which may refer to playing basketball or may be an allusion to drug use: fentanyl and methamphetamine were found in his system, according to a toxicology report. E Eng 19:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng#s My apologies, you are correct. It would have been more fair for me to direct my statement toward the use of the phrase "playing basketball" than to your comment in which you clearly didn't compare the inferences. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"hooping" to me has always been related to basketball. i would never use it personally, but i dont play basketball anyways. this is along the lines of the [obligatory] mention of that NYT synthesis. though the sources are reliable the content they are pushing in that specific case seems unreliable. if they tried hard enough the Illuminati can be confirmed based on the unfortunate incident... Stayfree76 (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Albeit playing devil's advocate, Chris Cuomo asserted the contextual meaning was not basketball but drug-related 'CUOMO: "Drugs! Drugs, Joey. Drugs! He was on drugs." You heard him. He asked him.' Cached CNN Cuomo Prime Time Transcript NovaCrest5878 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Kueng: You got foam around your mouth, too?

Floyd: Yes, I was just hooping earlier.

The video of them pulling him over, and the transcript, show he was definitely talking about drugs he was clearly on at the time. Dream Focus 18:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

How does it show he was definitely talking about drugs, and how is that not just your own OR? E Eng 19:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Police officer: You got foam around your mouth, too?

Person: Yes, I was just putting drugs in my butt earlier.

I have a really hard time believing anyone would say that, especially to a police officer, even if it were true. Basketball seems like a much more reasonable interpretation. Admittedly, I have limited experience in these areas. Le v!v ich 20:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, we believe you. But seriously, I was going to make the same point. E Eng 20:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You were going to give your original research? LegendLength (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I added "hooping" back, with The Times, and a footnote. Le v!v ich 19:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

whatever it says, i think it should be heavily leaned toward the meaning being basketball with a small note about drugs. Americans are pretty good at knowing the Miranda rights even if they haven't been said as well as the fifth amendment. from one of my favorite rappers, Ice Cube:

It's already over supernova// I'm Kobe you a nigga I'm hooping over//[59] Stayfree76 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone foam at the mouth after playing basketball? Is foaming around the mouth something that happens by people using the drugs found in his body? Dream Focus 21:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
personally, i don't care if medical documents say a drug overdose causes it or not, but basically it comes down to a fairly small list of, but is not fully inclusive: drug overdose, rabies, seizure, *neurological other serious health conditions (which he did have). he had also said he was shot before, yet there is no documentation anywhere backing up that claim. this is not saying that it was a lie, but its well known that people say anything they can to get out of charges or from getting arrested. IMO, it would be doing him a disservice for anyone's interpretation of the matter, especially when done in hindsight, to be used. i personally, would rather just leave that part out based on it being so iffy, but if it must stay it should not lean toward him admitting to being on drugs... as mentioned before, [pretty much] every american knows to tell the police nothing that can incriminate themselves, which the Miranda rights covers: Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.. with that said, it would be easy for any defendant to say it meant basketball which would cast enough doubt on the statement for it to unusable towards incrimination. Stayfree76 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
He claims to have been shot before, he claims his mother just died, he claims he just had covid, he said he was claustrophobic. Anyway, how its written now is fine, use his word of "hooping" don't change it to be "playing basketball". Dream Focus 22:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

yea, i agree with you. im just against putting any weight into what "hooping" might or could or possibly maybe means since the general discussion is about including the [fact] Floyd said something self-incriminating. i just think that any news reports on the word are in hindsight after the autopsy report was available making it way too easy to draw some [potentially] strong conclusions that would have been weak prior to. Basically, did anyone mention hooping meaning drug use before the autopsy was released? if not, then it is likely no one considered/thought that until after the fact. hindsight reporting is dangerous, imo. (im picturing the "its always sunny" episode with the crazy investigative strings connecting the pictures, maps, and news clippings in my head.) Stayfree76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Rmv drug reference Sources related to Floyd commonly refer to hooping as basketball:

July 8. Fox News. "Lane said Floyd had foam at his mouth and determined he was "on something." Floyd reportedly said he was scared and had been playing basketbal."[60]
July 8. Associated Press. "According to the body camera video transcripts, when asked about the foam and whether he was on something, Floyd said he was scared and had been playing basketball."[61]
July 9. Star Tribune. "Lane then asked Floyd if he was on something, while Kueng asked about the foam around his mouth. Floyd said he was scared, and that he had been playing basketball earlier."[62]
July 16. The Washington Post. "But Floyd insisted he was on “nothing” and had been playing basketball earlier." [63]

Per the policy WP:EXCEPTIONAL: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. In this particular case, The Sunday Times, a newspaper in the UK, where basketball is not as popular as in the US, likely didn't know what it meant and took the first match that seemed to make sense from Urban Dictionary. Per WP:UNDUE: Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth).—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Le v!v ich 06:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, to suggest "I was playing basketball earlier" is a response to the question to "Why are you foaming at the mouth?" considered reasonable by the overwhelming majority of people seems unlikely. I'm a native US English speaker and the first thing I did when I saw the transcript was search Google for the meaning of "hooping" because I'd never heard it used as a verb before. Earlier in this discussion when Slatersteven provided examples of the term referring to basketball and three of the four examples were not from US English sources. Granted the usage could be regional or urban in origin. Put it into context however and it makes even less sense. I've never heard of anyone foaming at the mouth during or after exercise absent some sort of severe health issue. Healthline lists three causes for foaming at the mouth drug overdose, seizure, and rabies and says it is a serious medical condition and advises calling 911. A reasonable person encountering someone foaming at the mouth would seek urgent medical care not presume they had been playing basketball earlier in the day. Healthline - Foaming at the Mouth NovaCrest5878 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, but literally every part of your argument here is WP:original research. Your argument boils down to "I don't believe it." Several of us have expressed what we do and don't believe is likely or reasonable in this conversation, but in the end, when it comes to making a decision, it doesn't matter what we believe. The outcome here is driven entirely by the sources, and only by the sources, with no part of it involving what we believe, or have heard of before, or what makes sense to us. By "sources", I don't mean any source. I don't mean dictionaries. I mean reliable sources (RS) about this topic. In this case, reliable sources about this topic are mainstream press writing about this exchange between the officer and GF.

Here's how the analysis flows:

WP:NPOV requires us to faithfully present the mainstream view and significant minority views. Per the sources, the mainstream view is "basketball". Of five RSes analyzed here, four say "basketball". Based on this overwhelming (80%) consensus of sources, we must say "basketball", in wikivoice, per WP:NPOV and WP:V.
We would include "drug use" if it were a significant minority view, but we wouldn't mention it at all if it were a view held by a tiny minority, per WP:UNDUE (part of NPOV) and WP:EXCEPTIONAL (part of V).
WP:EXCEPTIONAL is directly applicable, and requires multiple, high quality RSes before we can say, even with attribution, that someone admitted to an officer to recent drug use (which is an exceptional claim).
The one source that says "drug use", The Sunday Times, is a high-quality source, but it's only one, so we can't say "drug use" and comply with WP:V (specifically WP:EXCEPTIONAL) if we only cite "drug use" to one source.
As such, barring additional sources to analyze, my recent edits should be reverted and "basketball" should be reinstated, cited to those four sources.
If there are other high-quality RSes beside The Sunday Times that say "drug use", I'd say we could represent that minority viewpoint in a footnote with attribution. Le v!v ich 17:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that my response was WP:OR but I thought that was acceptable in a talk reply especially when arguing against the alternate interpretation being WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I presume the flat earth example was used to set the bar high. I think there are a number of other sources though not WP:RSP Green on the alternate interpretation. Are all five of the sources you are using for your 80/20 comparison WP:RSP Green? NovaCrest5878 (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OR is acceptable on a talk page in the sense that what you posted isn't a violation of WP:TPG or any of our policies (although too much OR on talk pages can lead to people making WP:NOTAFORUM complaints, but this isn't one of those cases). But it's not acceptable for arguing about what should go in the article in the sense that such arguments carry no weight. This is where the oft-misunderstood saying that Wikipedia is about "verifiability not truth": it doesn't matter what GF actually meant in reality, because no one will every know the truth of that with 100% certainty, since GF can't tell us. So what matters isn't "what we think is most likely", it's what the RS say, and when it comes to "drug use", what high quality RSes say.

WaPo, AP, and Fox News (for news) are listed as green at RSP. Star Tribune isn't but that's not surprising for a regional newspaper (few are listed), and it is the paper of record for Minnesota, so it would almost certainly be green if it were listed at RSP. The Sunday Times is green. However, the important thing isn't so much that a source be green (because RSP is not an exhaustive list of good sources), but that it not be yellow or red. So all five sources are reliable sources, and The Sunday Times is "high quality" (whereas I'd say Fox News and the Star Tribune are reliable but not "high quality"), so to include "drug use", even in a footnote with attribution, we'd need at least one more "high quality" source akin to The Sunday Times that says "drug use". Something like the BBC or the New York Times or an academic journal. Le v!v ich 18:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are a couple of other sources "“Hooping” in the Urban Dictionary refers to the practice of transporting contraband in the rectum." The American Conservative (Yellow) "Asked whether he was “on something,” Floyd said he’d been “hooping,” or taking drugs." LA Times (Green) NovaCrest5878 (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

TAC is no good for being yellow as you point out, but I agree LATimes is green and I think it's high quality enough... LATimes is a national newspaper, the story is written by a bureau chief, it's published in the national news section... seems on par with WaPo. And as such I now think we should say "basketball" in wikivoice and "drug use" in a footnote with attribution to the Timeses. Le v!v ich 18:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You think the majority is basketball and the minority is drugs, I think it is vice versa. I propose wikivoice should either (1) give equal weight to both acknowledging the differing interpretations or (2) just use the verbatim term from the transcript and leave the interpretation to the reader NovaCrest5878 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but four RSes (Fox, Star, AP, WaPo) say basketball and two (London and LA Times) say drugs, no? I'd be on board with #1 if it were an even split. I'd never be on board with #2 because we're not giving the reader complete information if we're not telling them how the reliable sources define "hooping". Le v!v ich 18:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(2) was the state of the article before I naively started this and clearly there is an honest dispute even among the informed participants in this discussion NovaCrest5878 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

True but that doesn't make it a good thing :-) In theory, every prior state of every article is worse than the current state. Le v!v ich 19:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I could also make the argument that the more recent articles The Times 8/9 and the LA Times 8/20 all use the drug interpretation. The basketball interpretation articles are all from July so perhaps the consensus among WP:RSP has evolved to the drug interpretation. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an argument. 6 is also a small sample size. The real question is whether there is an accepted mainstream position and a significant minority position, or whether there are two evenly-held positions, and 4-2 v. 3-3 is a real fine line and thus rather unsatisfactory. I'm curious what everyone else thinks. Le v!v ich 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The American Conservative (Yellow) article is 8/4 and uses the drug interpretation NovaCrest5878 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

there is another big problem with this: “Hooping” in the Urban Dictionary refers to the practice of transporting contraband in the rectum. this is clearly stating the use is for transportation, not to consume. per this quote, the only way it would be in the blood is if the storage media holding said drugs was damage and were absorbed by the body. so you think GF said: i was transporting drugs in my ass, but the container broke, and i just ingested so much drugs i could die? (with the assumption that when you transport drugs its well above a single dose) StayFree76 ^talk 19:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense that Floyd would voluntarily admit to police that he transported illegal drugs in his rectum, i.e. one definition of hooping, when asked about foam around his mouth. It makes more sense that he would say it was from basketball like it was sweat, whether or not he actually played basketball earlier. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary has multiple definitions of hooping one "Placing an foreign item or object in your rectum in an attempt to smuggle it into a location." would fit if there was a failure of the container the other "Administering psychoactive drugs via enema...aka stuffin' E up yer ass." would fit directly NovaCrest5878 (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense for the same reason. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

that's fine, so we have 2 sources suggesting drugs, but lets look at that closer. one states which appears to be an allusion to drug use (not statement of fact) and the other states ...“hooping,” or taking drugs., but doesn't qualify how they drew the connection. that makes the weight of these, imo, much lower. StayFree76 ^talk 20:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, no source will ever be a statement of fact on this subject. Even if Floyd were alive the best anyone could do is hope to get an honest answer from him but since he is gone all anyone can do is make an informed guess. That's undeniably true regardless of how reliable any source may be. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's the relevant excerpt from the body cam transcript, pp 6–7.[64] Floyd says he's not on drugs and explains that the foam around his mouth is from hooping, which wouldn't make sense if hooping meant taking drugs.

Lane: What are you on something right now ?

George Floyd: No, nothing.

Kueng: Because you acting a little erratic.

Lane: Let's go. Let's go

George Floyd: I'm scared, man

Lane: Let's go

Kueng: You got foam around your mouth, too ?

George Floyd: Yes, I was just hooping earlier .

Bob K31416 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to beat a dead horse but as I and others have explained above we've read the same content and arrived at a different conclusion. The question now is how to proceed with opposing interpretations and no possibility of an indisputable source ever being available. I proposed two possible approaches but I'm open to better ideas. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the point I made wasn't discussed before. It's based on Floyd saying he didn't take any drugs, "No, nothing." Bob K31416 (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@NovaCrest5878: well, i didnt mean the statement was fast or not. making a statement of fact is more in respect to how the idea is presented. they are basically questioning the idea in their own statement, but still thought it necessary to bring up. i can lie to your face, but make it a statement of fact, if i word it as fact. StayFree76 ^talk 22:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a little difficult to follow, but If I understand, you are basically pointing out that by using the phrase "which appears to be an allusion" they are telling the reader that this is their best interpretation of the contextual meaning, not an indisputable fact. My point is that whether the source is or isn't explicit in telling the reader this is their interpretation of meaning logic dictates it is. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Allusion is a figure of speech, in which an object or circumstance from unrelated context is referred to covertly or indirectly. It is left to the audience to make the direct connection.. sounds like they are saying: "you decide for yourself". doesnt sound like something that Wikipedia can use, but then again im just an inexperienced editor so ill stop chiming in. that was the last bit i had left in me so ill drop out from here. hopefully my stance is accounted for in any future changes. :). StayFree76 ^talk 23:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Is hooping important? If we can't state in Wikipedia voice what hooping is thought to mean in this context, perhaps we don't mention it at all. The article already states that Floyd played basketball growing up. It's in the article that the officers suspected he was on something, and that he denied it. We already mention the drugs found in the autopsy. Mentioning the informal/slang terms that are unfamiliar to most readers doesn't buy us anything if Wikipedia is non-committal on its meaning in this context. For example, CBC describes the sequence without mentioning hooping: The other officer asks if he's on something. The first officer says, "Because you're acting real erratic … You've got foam around your mouth." Floyd says, "I'm scared, man."[65] If sources make hooping more prominent later, we can revisit.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

FFS, stop overthinking this. Floyd was into basketball, and would never tell the cops that he had shoved drugs up his arse. Just leave the quote as it is, almost all readers will get the gist that he had claimed he had just been throwing baskets. This thread reeks of OR. Just back off and let Floyd's quote be interpreted by readers. WWGB (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Source analysis table

Reliable sources on "hooping"
Source	WP:RSP listing	Date	Includes "hooping"?	Interpretation	Quote
Fox News [66]	green (for news excluding politics and science)	7/08	No	basketball	Lane said Floyd had foam at his mouth and determined he was "on something." Floyd reportedly said he was scared and had been playing basketball.
Associated Press [67]	green	7/09	No	basketball	According to the body camera video transcripts, when asked about the foam and whether he was on something, Floyd said he was scared and had been playing basketball.
Star Tribune [68]	not listed but it's the largest paper in Minnesota	7/09	No	basketball	Lane then asked Floyd if he was on something, while Kueng asked about the foam around his mouth. Floyd said he was scared, and that he had been playing basketball earlier.
The Washington Post [69]	green	7/15	No	basketball	Lane asked Floyd whether he was on drugs while Kueng pointed out the “foam” around his mouth. But Floyd insisted he was on “nothing” and had been playing basketball earlier. The county’s autopsy of Floyd showed evidence of fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use, but did not list them as causes of death.
The Sunday Times [70]	green	8/09	Yes	drug use	In the video Floyd also refers to "hooping", which appears to be an allusion to drug use: fentanyl and methamphetamine were found in his system, according to a toxicology report
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [71]	not listed but it's Canada's national public broadcaster	8/11	No	none	Pulled by his elbow, Floyd says, "Ow." The other officer asks if he's on something. The first officer says, "Because you're acting real erratic … You've got foam around your mouth." Floyd says, "I'm scared, man."
Los Angeles Times [72]	green	8/20	Yes	drug use	Asked whether he was “on something,” Floyd said he’d been “hooping,” or taking drugs.

Posted. Le v!v ich 18:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I posted a source analysis table above, adding the sources in the discussion above, but excluding any sources that were listed yellow at RSP. Please feel free to add any additional sources. Based on the table above, I think we should say "played basketball" in wikivoice in the body of the article. I'm ambivalent about a footnote explaining that he used the word "hooping" and that according to LA and Sunday Times, that's an allusion to drug use. Note that what's in our article currently is a bold edit of mine that I don't think has consensus and that doesn't include all the sources listed above.. currently it presents just two contradicting sources, so I don't think the status quo should remain, regardless of what we decide to change it to. Lev!vich 18:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm equally OK with either 1) saying "basketball" in WP voice (based on weight in sources) with a footnote to drug interpretation or 2) removing any mention to "hooping" and its interpretations because there is enough doubt on what it meant in Floyd's context, and the article already states that he was a basketball player and drugs were in his system.—Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence he was talking about basketball or that he was ever playing it. Some sources say hooping, others just guess that he meant basketball, some say it meant the drug meaning of hooping since he was foaming at the mouth and that doesn't happen from playing basketball. No reason not to just list exactly what he said. Dream Focus 04:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point. Both meanings are informal. If we cannot agree on what Wikipedia will say in its own voice about the meaning of the slang, which is unfamiliar to most readers, then "hooping" doesn't seem significant enough to mention at all.—Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  - Lane asked Floyd if he is "on something right now" to which Floyd replied "No, nothing". That is absolute. Are we really to consider that Floyd continued "unless you mean the drugs I shoved up my butt"? He clearly ruled out drug-taking, which removes that definition of hooping. Re the foaming, exercise often leads to dried spittle at the corners of the mouth, which could be confused with foam. (It is visible in the photo in the infobox). WWGB (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    - That's your interpretation. Not sure why this matters at all, how its related to the shooting. He was on drugs, they did confirm that with the autopsy, and the defense is arguing that the drugs killed him not the guy shoving his knee on his throat, it just happened at the same time by coincidence. Doesn't add anything to the article, so might as well eliminate it. Dream Focus 13:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Article name (again)

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Because it was ruled a homicide. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Should this not say Death of George Floyd? From what I see he died of an overdose.[73] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyrelin (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

See Q4 at top of page. WWGB (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So far it's considered a homicide. Your reference's title, "Medical examiner: George Floyd may have had 'fatal level' of fentanyl in his system", only suggests fentanyl overdose as a possible cause of death.

At one of the links in your article was the interesting comment by the County Medical Examiner, "[Dr. Andrew Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death.”[74] Bob K31416 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is a waste of time, this topic has been thoroughly exhausted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we don't just call it death of George floyd. He could have died from an od. He even had Heart Disease and covid. His actual death happened when his heart stopped. He could have been killed. Death would cover literally every term. If it actually turns out to be ruled an overdose, I think the person in control of the article name will genuinely keep it labeled "killing" because you could be "killed by drugs." We have an article called Death of Sushant Dingh Rajput for instance. It's surrounded by conspiracy and because the official cause is difficult to discern, they chose death as the most objective word. Here I think the title of the article favors accusation over accuracy, so the name is loaded as killing. EpicMemeGamer (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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

[Hennepin_County_Autopsy-1] Baker. Hennpin County US. Andrew Baker https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf. Retrieved 26 May 2020. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[Hennepin_County_Medical_Examiner's_Press_Release_Report-2] Baker. "Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Press Release Report" (PDF). Andrew Baker. Retrieved 28 May 2020.

[1]

[2]