Talk:Murder of George Floyd

BRD - Officers' previous alleged conduct

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.

---

Starting a BRD for the edits by Gobonobo which I reverted here

It would see to me to be WP:UNDUE as these facts are directly unrelated to the event that is the subject of the article. If, during the course of an investigation, these facts and allegations are later connected to this case by the FBI or others, then we should add them. I think this is similar to when folks tried to add the criminal record of the victim on Death of Ahmaud Arbery. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:EvergreenFir, don't you mean "directly unrelated"? To me, it seems directly related: there is a man who dies of excessive force, and the cop with his knee on his neck, and a cop standing by doing nothing, were known of having used excessive force. How is that not relevant? And there is no comparison with the Arbery case--Arbery was the victim. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean unrelated. Thank you. And in my view, the general exclusion of "past misdeeds" goes for all parties. While I completely understand why it's being reported, I do not think Wikipedia should include it unless it because part of the facts of the case. BLP applies to these officers as well (including WP:BLPCRIME). EvergreenFir (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight over this, and I know the BLP applies, but the facts presented here strike me as directly relevant. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of excessive force are just that: allegations. It does not mean they were "known of having used excessive force". This might be rebutted if the terms of the settlement acknowledged wrongdoing and, specifically, excessive force. However, this is not a necessary aspect of a settlement. In essence, you have unproven allegations which cannot indicate whether this incident is an instance of excessive force. I do think that if the officer's (unproven) past is retained, then it makes sense to have the decedent's past in the article. Both achieve the same end: allowing the audience to speculate about the incident. If we want speculation, we ought to make it balanced. Perennial Student (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: A victim's criminal record is not relevant to a case like this. A perpetrator's record is directly related and in this case has been properly reported in multiple reliable sources per WP:NPOV. If OP were taken seriously, we'd have to remove significant portions of Jeffrey Dahmer's early life section because he was never convicted of killing animals or underage drinking. Kire1975 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dahmer is long dead, so that comparison falls flat. I'll reiterate that in nearly every case like this, the histories of both parties are often brought up to attempt to paint a character portrait. Often, for black victims, the intent is to show the victim "wasn't a saint" to justify the killing/murder (especially by white officers). I always fight those on the grounds they are UNDUE unless they come up in court (in which case we should mention it in the trial portion, not the biography portion). But what's good for the goose... this should apply to the alleged perpetrators too. IMO, it's just a matter of time before we add that material but we should wait until the presumptive court filings. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Facts are facts, per WP:CRYBLP. Removing these facts because it reflects poorly on some guys who stood on a guy's neck for seven minutes while he was crying "Mama Mama" and did nothing but say "Don't do drugs kids" until he died before they get a chance to defend themselves in court is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Kire1975 (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, there is the possibility that the decedent's history is relevant (as has been pointed out below iirc). This is if it were known that the victim had a violent past to the officers and in turn caused increased anxiousness on the part of the arresting officers to control the victim. This is not known and, perhaps rightly, it ought not be included unless it demonstrated. But it's not true that criminal history necessarily bears no relevance to the incident. Perennial Student (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've posted on BLPN to seek more input on this. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_George_Floyd_-_Inclusion_of_Officers'_histories. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose; agree with Kire1975 and their reasoning above. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support including Chauvin's history. Amy Klobuchar opted not to prosecute him when she was Hennepin County DA in 2006. This could impact her in the Biden veepstakes. It's getting considerable coverage and seems highly relevant to this case.[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support or Oppose depends on whether the relevance to the article is clearly established and any material complies with Wiki rules for living persons 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:6 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support including Chauvin's history. It is relevant and it is covered in multiple RS. It also helps explains Chauvin's action. It is clear from media coverage that this was not a one-off and this article should reflect that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support including whatever portions of the officers' histories are treated as significant by RSes. I'd say that's at least their professional disciplinary histories, and possibly also matters beyond that. Also, can this be un-pinned and closed? Is it still a live issue? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support in as much capacity as it is reported in RS. Levivich and Quinn said it well.--Calthinus (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support including police officers history. I think it is important context as they are the aggressor. In contrast as George Floyd was not the aggressor and had the action done to him. I don't feel his past convictions are relevant as his actions are not in dispute. --Evertent (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of past records of police at this stage, per arguments of EvergreenFir, that consistency demands it pre-trial. In this particular instance, it is very difficult to see what these officers could possibly do to more completely destroy their own credibility than they have already done. However the inclusion of this info cannot serve any useful purpose, except to further prejudice opinion against them - characterise them as bad beyond what they have themselves done and allowed to be witnessed and filmed. In many European countries (inc UK), the publishing of this info before or during a trial would constitute contempt of court, since it makes actual trial little more than a 'rubber-stamp' of the 'court of public opinion'. Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support including Chauvin's history. RS reveal that he has had a disciplinary history revealing problematic behavior throughout his career. This is directly relevant to the case. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, less because of what it says about the officers individually than because of what it says about police departments' appalling tolerance of criminals in their own ranks. EEng 13:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• We should not report allegations of prior misconduct by either the officers or Mr. Floyd. Allegations against the officers where no findings or discipline resulted do not mean that misconduct occurred— anyone can file a complaint. Records of Floyd's prior arrests also mean nothing, especially given the racial disparity in arrests. It is arguable whether actual adverse findings in either situation are relevant, but we should not invite the reader to draw inferences from mere allegations of misconduct. Kablammo (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Kablammo—don't we have a section on this page where you can address whether we can address information about George Floyd? Furthermore, prison sentences should not be construed as "allegations of prior misconduct" as they follow on convictions legally obtained. And additionally you say "we should not invite the reader to draw inferences". That is correct. I agree that we should not write in a way that invites the reader to "draw inferences". On the other hand we should not deliberately omit relevant information prominently found in sources. That is suppression of information. Fortunately Wikipedia is not censored. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support including information on Chauvin's history as a policeman. Obscurely sourced information on Chauvin's history as a policeman should be omitted but prominently sourced information about Chauvin's history as a policeman should be included. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support including Chauvin's record of complaints and involvement in the death of several other citizens. Terasaface (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include relevant information. Relevant information would be the two times Chauvin was reprimanded for conduct complaints. The other 16 complaints aren't relevant; anyone can file a complaint. The accident he helped cause is irrelevant. The shootings that were found to be justified are irrelevant. The award for valor...probably irrelevant, unless he got it because he dragged other cops off a suspect they were beating up or something. Oppose including the irrelevant stuff. —valereee (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include only relevant - agree with valereee. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support including the work-history/background of all the officers involved in killing George Floyd; including, but not limited to officer Tou Thao's court case involving his use of excessive force that was settled out of court. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons 2600:1702:2340:9470:75CF:F0D7:D27B:FDC9 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Kire1975. OptXSolo (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

RFC on Floyd's criminal past

Should we mention George Floyd's past crimes?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes of course it should be included because it is notable. If there's going to be a biographical section on Floyd then it is censorship to include only details that tend towards one kind of portrayal. 95.144.47.53 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
2. I think so... biographical details about both Floyd and Chauvin are relevant to the case because they are the primary characters. Biographical details includes their personalities, a brief description of their life, including criminal history if significant. Having info on Floyd, both good and bad, is better than having nothing on him. This is an encyclopedia, and details are often relevant even if they are not directly connected by the article's title. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Yes. If we are going to have a biography section for the individual, then the fact that (BLP violation removed) is probably a more important biographical detail than the fact that he liked basketball and hip-hop ("essential facts" which we currently deem important enough to include in the biography section of George Floyd). CrimeChecker (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)— CrimeChecker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

   CrimeChecker, how is that relevant to the death of George Floyd?, the topic of this article. Notice that we have a biography of living person policy on Wikipedia and that policy also applies to those who recently died. You are not allowed to make accusations without any evidence. The DailyMail is a tabloid and is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia ever. I have removed your WP:BLP violation. Please don't do that again.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   ^this editor was created today. Their comment should be ignored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   You can verify the Daily Mail screenshot by going to the Harris County Clerk website yourself. However, it requires creating an account and logging in. Lcaa9 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   Lcaa9, actually you don't need to create an account. You can search on harriscountyso.org using SPN 01610509. – RossJ81 ^Talk/_Cont 21:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Yes, because it's relevant to even a short account of his life. Jim Michael (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Yes, because it is an important part of his biography and has been reported widely. There is no reason to suppress it, and in fact suppressing it could be considered POV. BLP certainly does apply to him, as a recently deceased person, but BLP says we can include negative information if it has multiple reliable sources. The officer’s previous record should also be included, as it currently is. See my suggested wording under "discussion" below. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Yes. It is important to provide context. If the page mentions Floyd's background as a rapper and high school athlete, it should mention the rest of his life prior to his death. KidAd (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Yes, because whole his life should be briefly described and because this is something noted in RS on the subject of his death [3]. It is relevant because RS say it is relevant. All previous complaints with regards to involved police officers should also be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
8. Yes, unless the biographical summary sticks to the bare basics like at Shooting of Trayvon Martin (birth & where he lived, studied or worked at the time of his death). As it stands we mention Floyd's sporting and musical interests etc, but not this significant part of his life story. Jevansen (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   That's not a reasonable comparison, because Trayvon Martin has his own article, which is why the article on the event only has a small amount of background info on him. Jim Michael (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

9. Yes. If the history of George Floyd is removed, then the police officer's history should also be removed. Otherwise, this page is not neutral. Lcaa9 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
10. Yes, because a reader invests time in reading a Wikipedia article with the expectation of being informed about a topic. Virtually all of the best quality sources include material pertaining to who George Floyd was. He was a person most recently put out of work by the coronavirus pandemic. This is not presently in the article and this should be included in the article. George Floyd was an ex-convict. Being an ex-convict is not like being a person from a privileged walk of life. The status of ex-convict puts one at a distinct disadvantage in life. George Floyd was an ex-convict since 2014. His life had been a struggle, relative to someone from a privileged walk of life. He worked many odd jobs. This should be noted in the article. George Floyd relocated from Houston to Minneapolis to try to find work. This should be in the article. "After he struggled to find work in Houston, he left the city for Minneapolis...There, he worked two jobs, one driving trucks and another as a security guard at Latin American restaurant Conga Latin Bistro." George Floyd literally spoke out on social media against youthful gun violence. In a recent video on social media, he spoke out against gun violence, saying: "Our young generation is clearly lost". This should be included in the article. It is normal to include peripheral information in an article of this sort. Furthermore the incarceration rate is extremely high in the US relative to the rest of the world and this population is comprised decidedly of people of color. It is therefore especially problematic that we suppress this information. George Floyd's life was tragic from many perspectives. Five years wasted in prison, only to be unlawfully killed by police 6 years after getting out of prison. Our article should delineate some of these aspects of George Floyd's tragic life as this is amply supported in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
11. Yes, it is part of his identity and life context explaining his journey that brought him to be in Minneapolis. This is why reliable sources find it notable. I suggest the copy below at the beginning of "Discussion" by Melanie is notable, as a reliable source found it notable. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Yes, the best sources we have pretty much have all written about this. We summarize secondary sources; there is no reason to exclude this from our summary of the incident. However, what exactly to include, and how to word it, are all questions that need to handled carefully, following the lead of the top sources. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
13. Yes, were are doing the same for the accused cops why not for the victim. // Eatcha (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
14. Yes, since people have the right to know and not suspect that Wikisconceals something lkitross (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
15. Yes, especially if we are including other BLP details widely reported in RSs, such as Floyd being described as a "gentle giant" and the officer's previous disciplinary records. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
16. Yes, especially since the current version of this page includes the sentence "he was described as a 'gentle giant' by friends and family" with absolutely no mention of the other side of him—his criminal record. Either take out that sentence to better paint a more neutral picture, or include his other life details. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should not be trying to paint biased portrayals by omitting details that would change a reader's perspective on a person. Filia Pirate (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
17. Absolutely. Not only should the coverage on this topic be neutral, but it will also be useful due to the very reason provided above this. The man was not innocent throughout his entire life, and should not be treated as such, while the officer receives a full-on biography over the incident. 180app (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
18. Yes; if prior actions by a police officer are relevant and included to establish a propensity for violence (ie. Officer X has been involved in three shootings and was now involved in this fatal incident, so his past actions show he may have been violent here too), then the victim's criminal record, especially one indicating violence, is very relevant when the police argue that he was resisting arrest (which would be an issue of the victim using violence against the police). There is no other reason for including the police officer's history if not to argue for a propensity for violence; an otherwise unblemished career would no doubt have gone unremarked. Either way, for balance sake alone, the victim's criminal history is relevant as long as it is relevant to delve into the background of the officer (or officers) involved, and incident is not being described in a vacuum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.111.153 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
19. Yes - it has large WP:WEIGHT of coverage, is part of his life, and is part of what the Police chief said about him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
20. Yes; it's a significant part of the story, it's covered by RS, and there is no justification for censorship. That said, WP:BDP would probably apply to any specific additions. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
21. Yes absolutely. This is likely irrelevant to the court case, but relevant to the whole story for context. The article includes other biographical details on Floyd (music, basketball, kids) and ends up painting a distorted picture of him. Some would suggest that these details need to be removed too but I think many readers would be interested to know who the alleged victim was. Omitting this widely reported information is censorship. For instance reliable sources claim that from 2014 Floyd had turned his life around. Now this information has been omitted too (for it would have raised questions as to what was there to turn around in the first place). Russian Wikipedia includes one sentence about his criminal record and a reference (to an English newspaper article). That would be reasonable here too. BorisG (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
22. Yes - if there is going to be a biography section in the article, which there is, and which draws on such things as his school athletics record, then it should certainly also mention his prior significant interaction with the legal system. For completeness it should also include the evidence that in more recent years he was reformed and spoke out to turn young people in his community away from crime and violence. Include this huge part of his life, or remove the biographies of persons involved from the article. Can't have it both ways. 79.64.157.123 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
23. Yes - it is highly relevant to the death of George Floyd. A significant issue is whether he resisted arrest, and knowing that he had numerous experiences with law enforcement factors factors into the plausibility of this. It would be harder to believe a 46 year old man with no criminal record or history of assault or drug use would be combative with police than someone who does. So in concealing this information, wikipedia would be trying to deceive the reader. It makes the article propaganda, instead of impartial information. It is analogous to if police-supporters tried to delete ex-officer Derek Chauvin's previous complaints, disciplinary record, and shootings. On a human level, it denies the reader to obtain a fuller sense of the tragedy, because Floyd was attempting to turn his life around after being released from prison in 2014, so this facts (and dates) of his criminal past are not entirely negative. They contribute to the big picture of the person who died. Leaving it out would harm the perception of Wikipedia as an objective resource. Walterego (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Walterego: Can you point to RS coverage that he resisted arrest? Regards SoWhy 14:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, it is described in the coverage of the charge against ex-officer Derek Chauvin, the warrant describes Floyd resisting twice and cites the various videos and testimony from the other officers. It says he resisted being handcuffed, then was compliant for a short time once cuffed, and then resisted being put into the police vehicle. "Officer Lane handcuffed Mr. Floyd. Mr. Floyd actively resisted being handcuffed.....officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of squad 320 from the driver's side. Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers." https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/derek-chauvin-criminal-complaint-trnd/index.html https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/29/read-murder-complaint-details-george-floyds-last-minutes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterego (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Walterego:This more recent article from CNN interviews eyewitness reports that Floyd was not resisting arrest. The owner of Cup Foods, who originally called the police said in this interview that Floyd was not resisting arrest. Terasaface (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

24. Yes, but only briefly. I pondered this for a while but in the end, this is something RS have reported widely and thus needs to be included to maintain NPOV. However, one sentence should be sufficient and the phrasing should make it clear that at the time of his death, he was not under any restrictions or actively under investigation, i.e. that him being picked up by the police was not related to prior felonies (and by all accounts, the officers in question had no knowledge of those prior convictions when they restrained him). Regards SoWhy 14:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
25. Just be sure to point out that repeated scrapes with the law are capital crimes in Minnesota. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
26. Yes This is making Wikipedia look like an unreliable source and people are already making fun of Wikipedia on social media because of this. While the record has been covered by most major news organizations such as BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, ABC News, NYT/AP, Global News, Al Jazeera and local Texas Monthly; and added by numerous unaffiliated people and keep getting removed by the same person, remove-arguers have offered no other real argument except it's too unrelated to the case (even though it's obviously related) and belongs at his "upcoming own article". Where as if you look around the spot where people have been adding it, there are long yawnsome details of athletic experiences and musical affiliations and then of the police officers similar past infractions. There has also been a sentence with citation needed there for a long time! The purpose of this from the start doomed "discussion" is only to play time against something that is extremely well-sourced and clearly more relevant than everything surrounding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.205.116 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
27. Yes Of course. Why was the police called for him in the first place ? Because he was accused of using a fake 20$ bill. Using counterfeit money is a crime. George Floyd's criminal tendencies has led him to commit a crime that would be the cause of the police being called on him and ultimately leading him to his death 51.154.221.239 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    What? I favor including this information, but not for the reason you are presenting. His death is not because he allegedly committed the offense of using counterfeit money. The police handling the arrest were immediately fired and one was arrested—for good reason. One officer used unjustified force for an extended period of time—that caused death. The other officers stood around idly and did not prevent the officer who was in physical contact with George Floyd from inflicting harm on him. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

28. Yes to the limited extent proposed by SoWhy, no more than that. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
29. Yes. It gives compelling information on the backgrounds of both. Apparently Floyd "had landed five years behind bars in 2009 for an assault and robbery two years earlier, and before that, had been convicted of charges ranging from theft with a firearm to drugs" (NY Post), and for the Daily Mail "he entered a woman’s home, pressed a gun into her stomach and searched the home for drugs and money, according to court records" (Daily Mail). This doesn't look to me as an easy person to deal with—it's important to explain thoroughly, we need to WP:avoid victimization. --Foghe (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
30. Yes, because Floyd's previous experience with police(apprehension/arrest) indicates, that he would know that there are consequences to either complying with or resisting arrest. The officer's handling of Floyd is based on Floyd's behavior (resisted getting into the police car). Whether or not the officer's handling was disproportionate to Floyd's action. Lechatmarbre (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
31. Yes, I do not see why not. His past is very much related and is covered in reliable sources. --nafSadh ^{did say} 19:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
32. Yes - His past is covered in reliable sources so I see no reason to not include it here. –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
33. Yes, for WP:NPOV reasons and to provide a full account, but making clear that the officers who restrained him weren't doing so in relation to his past crimes. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
34. Yes, because it is variable, notable and relevant:
    • It is verifiable through official records.
    • It is a notable part of his biography: this wasn't a single misdemeanor in his childhood, there are a number of felony convictions over a long period of time that therefore had a significant impact on his life.
    • It is relevant to the article because he was killed by a police officer after being accused of a crime, so it is indicative of his past experience with the criminal justice system.

    – RossJ81 ^Talk/_Cont 21:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

35. Yes reliable sources talk about Floyd being an armed robber: BBC:[4]. He was also arrested accused of using a fake 20 dollar bill. So his crimes are relevant to the article. Also the wikipedia article contains background info about him playing basketball and working at a restaurant, how can someone claim that is relevant to his death but him being an armed robber is not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
36. Yes credible sources have discussed Floyd's criminal record. As long as remains in his biographical section I don't see a problem with it, Wikipedia is not censored. For those who are saying it's not relevant to his death, you're right its not, but neither is pretty much everything else in his biographical section. That section is supposed to discuss Floyd's background and his past criminal record is part of his background. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
37. Yes since factual biographical information that is relevant because if nothing else it speaks to Floyd's familiarity with the police & criminal justice system TcomptonMA (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
38. comment I think that if Floyd's criminal history is mentioned as a part of his personal background, then since this is an article about his killing by a police officer we must also include the former officer Chauvin's record as well. Chauvin had 18 prior complaints against him and has been involved in more than one other case of a citizen dying at the hands of police. Terasaface (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
39. Yes We need to list that information about him. A lot of news media mentions it, and if reliable sources believe its a notable aspect of this situation, we should also include it here. Dream Focus 22:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
40. Yes He had a violent criminal past. The officers say he was resisting. Some say he wasn't. His violent tendencies may well be considered relevant to readers. John2510 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
41. Yes (Redacted) Actor on The Flash was fired because of him. See the tweets (from 8 years ago) he was fired for, this is insanity. I never cared about all of this. But I love that actor and want to support him. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    1. That's got to be one of the worst cases of victim blaming I've ever seen. The murdered man being blamed for the misdeeds of others (like Sawyer) who have gotten in trouble for their racism. SMH. -- Valjean (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
       1. So fast to jump to conslusions. Sigh. The story also includes cyberbulling of that actor and looking for dirt, the tweets were not racist, only mysogenestic and the only one who liked his videos 8 years ago was black... and gay. Ah yes, the black woman that controlled her big cyberbulling army was already arrested once for that but still continues to do so, to destroy whiteness, racism, etc. The worst part for me is that even "the Flash" actor mocked the guy for that. People are very heartbroken under that mocking post and so am I. I commented in that actor's wiki talk page, if you for a second will forget that you are a liberal or whatever. 2A00:1370:812C:D131:2DBE:3EB:E942:5E8D (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
          1. Saying that Floyd "destroyed so many lives" because he was killed is just wrong. Don't blame the victim. Take your concerns about Sawyer elsewhere, as this article is about Floyd. -- Valjean (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
42. Yes Numerous RSs detail this and omission here would be noncompliant with NPOV.--MONGO (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
43. Yes, briefly. Plenty of reliable sources consider his background relevant. Obviously his involvement in the local ministry in the last few years should also be mentioned. Alaexis_¿question? 05:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
44. Yes per Walterego. Numerous RSs have mentioned this as a part of the background to the topic so it is worth mentioning it in this article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
45. Yes as it's very relevant to the entire situation. Also mention Chauvin's misdemeanor (or whatever is called) record.Fendergenderbender (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
46. Yes to a limited extent, as it was a part of his life. We can mention the conviction without specifically calling him a "criminal". Only use the best sources and don't go into too much detail. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
47. Yes based on all the arguments above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
48. Yes - it is important for the sake of accuracy to publish all pertinent information in an effort to properly inform our readers in an encyclopedic fashion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
49. Yes Floyd's most egregious crime, the home invasion that he plied guilty to, was first in a single isolated paragraph in a reputable Atlanta newspaper. The exact wording was in the Wikipedia article. The next time I saw it was in a Times or Wapo article that was a hagiography where this traumatic armed home invasion was an example of his life challenges that he overcame by helping others in his community. This is relevant as there is a norm of jurisprudence that previous felony convictions are evaluated as increasing sanctions IE: "Three Strikes and You're Out." While, of course, this does not excuse Clauvin's actions, given that he probably knew Floyd's history, this could have influenced his distrust of Floyd. Arodb (Arodb talk) 12:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Arodb (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
50. Weakest possible yes. This is by no means an easy call and I could understand why there would be much disagreement amongst reasonable editors on this one, even if not for the impassioned context and high volume of response. On the one hand, WP:NPOV is always a compelling argument, but I think some who have advanced that argument here have failed to account for the fact that WP:WEIGHT is a part of any neutral determination of the appropriateness of a given piece of content. And though I think reference to it is one of the most over-used/abused principles in Wikipedia's toolkit of rhetorics, WP:BLP remains an important policy, and surely it should apply here, if on any situation in any article. And indeed, the policy has language rather directly on point here, under WP:AVOIDVICTIM. At the end of the day, the past criminal history of the victim here is just not what I would call directly and centrally relevant information to the article regarding his arrest and death while fully restrained and well within the control of the arresting officers. So after a fair deal of balancing of the considerations, I was at first inclined to !vote 'no' on this one.

    [Indenting rest of post to maintain numbered list formatting.] The problem there is that I just don't think its feasible for this particular article. Some of the defendants in this high-profile case could quite possibly assert partial details of Mr. Floyd's background as a part of their defense, and that information will surely need to be covered here. Indeed, a police union rep has already utilized a hyperbolic variation on such accusations, as the article indeed reports. Because these elements cannot reasonably be excised from the article, it becomes necessary to contend with the issue of Mr. Floyd's criminal past: otherwise we are essentially just creating our own little Streisand Effect generator, by including references to others attributing nefarious qualities to the victim, but omitting any actual neutral discussion of what the man's past actually looked like. This means that those who would like to avoid this topic to see the victim's dignity preserved could actually end up seeing the opposite happen: he could be vilified in the attributed statements of third parties included in this article, but not balanced by any discussion of the realities and specifics. And the average reader (presuming they are not the type who just assumes the worst case scenario when they are told someone is a "criminal" (which unfortunately describes a great many people), would be thoroughly unsatisfied with just hearing the accusations without knowing more, and will go looking for that information--and who knows about the neutrality and veracity of what they find in a singular source; at least here we are in a position openly summarizing and attributing to a large number of sources and exercising some editorial discretion to present the background in a non-biased fashion, bu representing the weight of the sources faithfully.

    However, even this reluctant support forced by the pragmatic realities of the situation has its caveats: there needs to be extensive discussion and compromise (erring on the side of BLP/AVOIDVICTIM precautions) as to how his past is described. Details such as those regarding his purported use of a gun in a previous alleged crime would, for example, be wholly inappropriate, prejudicial, and contrary to all policy in this area: let's please remember that this was a man who was after-all clearly restrained and ultimately defenseless against the act that took his life, so details hinting at speculation as to a supposed violent character are fairly irrelevant and should be strictly avoided--except perhaps in the form of naming previous charges in themselves, if that is found to be appropriate content. The only way such information becomes relevant is if those accused of his murder assert that they knew of his criminal past and that it influenced the manner in which they handled him as a detainee. But we can discuss such assertions in the article if and when they actually are made, and within that context; throwing in even mild implication that Floyd was a violent man at this juncture would go strongly against every relevant policy in this area.

    TLDR: Reluctant yes to including some description of the victim's criminal past, if only to concede to the reality that those accused of his murder may use it to ameliorate their culpability as a legal or public matter, but at the same time I would strongly oppose any language (aside from any used in a listing of past charges/convictions) which implies a violent nature, as such information would be 1) wildly out of proportion with how a majority of reliable sources describe the nature of the event, 2) incompatible with our policies on victim blaming, persons notable for only one event, and other vital WP:BLP principles, and 3) not covered under any compelling relevancy exception, except as necessary to address claims made by the criminal defendants here, which can be handled on a case by case basis, if and when such incidents arise. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

51. Yes. (Summoned by bot) Relevant to the controversy surrounding his death. Per WP:NOTCENSORED. Coretheapple (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)'
52. Yes: including short context is WP:DUEWEIGHT but anything longer than a very brief summary would not be WP:DUEWEIGHT. AnomalousAtom (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
53. Yes per above, His past is relevant and is sourced in reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

No

1. I can see no relevance to this. It tells us nothing about why this happened or how it could have been avoided. It is just a bit of title tattle.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
2. It's not relevant to the Death of Georgy Floyd (the arrest for forgery made zero mention of priors). What's more, George, who was killed by Derek, has no recourse to appeal his past convictions, and the police are notorious for making false arrests on the back of bigoted policing. Police records should not be considered as a reflection of reality. --Shadybabs (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
4. I don't see any relevance whatsoever to the article subject, which is Death of George Floyd. This is not a George Floyd biography article. If it becomes a notable part of the death (e.g. the US President starts tweeting about Floyd's criminal past), then it can be reconsidered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
5. No, and why are we discussing this again? Isn't this the third go-round? His past had nothing to do with this incident, and did not affect in the least the behavior of the police or anyone else. It is offered here, and promoted elsewhere, for the purpose of prejudicing the public against him. The incident happened 13 years ago and is not relevant to this event. Kablammo (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
6. No - I can't see the relevance of his past crimes to his murder. I also question whether this would meed WP:DUEWEIGHT. I've been following this story pretty closely in the news and I haven't heard anything about it so far. - MrX 🖋 22:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
7. No It is not at all relevant to the situation and only serves to blame the victim. Adding this attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE serves only to blame the victim. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
8. No It is irrelevant to this topic and Floyd's death. Such information would contravene DUEWEIGHT and introduce a FALSEBALANCE, essentially a rationale for blaming the victim. I think we need to impose a moratorium on this question. It seems editors have been over it enough.times already. This might be going into WP:DE territory. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
9. No - Irrelevant to the context behind the murder. Adding it would only create a false sense of balance and a sense of blame against the victim, which is a WP:BLP policy violation. --letcreate123 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
   • Vote withdrawn after further looking into the situation, particularly on the Discussion section down below. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
10. No the scope of this article is his death. Not his life. --Calthinus (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    Narrowly-defining "the scope of this article" is entirely the province of those arguing to omit information found in virtually all good quality sources addressing the same subject as our article addresses. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    The title of this article is "Death of George Floyd", so its about his death.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    You say below We do not need to know about his life prior to this unless it has a direct impact. Anything else smacks of trying to prove a point. What point, Slatersteven? Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, I suspect the point is that 1. he's a nice regular guy, look at his friends who say he was a gentle giant or his athletic record; therefore he's an innocent victim OR 2. he's a career criminal, look at the fact he's been arrested and jailed before this; therefore he likely deserved this or brought this on. These are the kinds of thing people look for to excuse or condemn the behavior by the police toward a citizen. —valereee (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    Exactly all of this is about saying either "Innocent victim" or "a villain, and a jailbird". We do not know if he was passing bad cheques, or id he was if he knew, we do not know if he was running a Muckiness Battle horn smuggling ring or if he was in fact the worlds second nicest man. Only (and only) if what he did led to this is it relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    He won't ever be convicted of passing counterfeit bills because a dead man can't be tried, but we do know what crimes he was convicted of, and this is relevant to people who are debating his character or the morality of the police. It isn't right for wikipedia to omit relevant details out of a political agenda.Walterego (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Nor to include it for the same reason, to imply he was a criminal even thought he had no convictions for 5 years. This is precisely why we cannot include it, we would be implying something about his character, and that violates wp:crime and wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Walterego, his character has zero to do with how he died unless it led to his death. A previous conviction for armed robbery, a high school football career, and friends who loved him had nothing to do with how he died, which is the subject of this article. If he had previous charges or convictions for resisting arrest, it could be argued to be relevant because resisting arrest could contribute to his death. By the same argument, the morality of the police is only relevant if it could be argued to have contributed to his death. Previous complaints of undue force could be argued to be relevant. Previous complaints of accepting bribes, probably not. —valereee (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Valereee—The New York Times writes "Floyd was charged in 2007 with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents". Some of the "oppose" votes in this thread are saying that mention of this "only serves to blame the victim". That makes no sense. Good quality sources such as The New York Times don't try to "blame victims". And a 5 year period of time in prison is hardly an insignificant event in a person's life—that is the reason the best quality sources are mentioning this, not to "blame the victim". We should be following the many good quality sources carrying this information. We should be adhering to the general outline of coverage of this topic as found in the best quality sources. That serves the reader's interests. The reader does not come here to read political propaganda. They read an article such as this to get up to speed on the basic facts surrounding this incident. It does the reader a disservice to selectively omit basic facts. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, that information belongs in George Floyd (biography), but it's irrelevant here and WP:UNDUE. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Valereee, if the officer's prior use of force history is relevant, then the victim's history of violence is relevant, especially when the police are arguing that they used that force in response to violence from the victim (ie. resisting arrest). This goes directly to the heart of this article, which are the circumstances surrounding George Floyd's death. Not mentioning it only undermines the legitimacy of the article and implies, at best, that Wikipedia is trying to sugarcoat a victim's checkered past, and at worse, is actively covering up information in order to help create a narrative. 24.178.111.153 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    It depends. Complaints about the officer's undue use of force on the job are relevant. If he had a domestic violence complaint, I'd argue it's not relevant. Ditto for Floyd. A history of resisting arrest is relevant. But the commission of a crime twelve years ago is not relevant to his death, and covering it in the very short paragraph is undue weight, IMO. I am arguing that we remove all irrelevant details from both bios. And quite honestly "checkered past" comments make me feel this more strongly. —valereee (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

11. No, not relevant to the incident. I would support relevant material being included in an actual biography of George Floyd. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Include only details that could have contributed to leading to the death, which is the subject of this article. This is not a biography of Mr. Floyd or of any of the police, it's an article about Floyd's death. His athletic career, the fact his friends loved him, and his arrest record are trivia unless they have some relevance to the death. If he was ever charged with resisting arrest, that could be relevant. Otherwise it's WP:UNDUE to include them. Ditto biographical details on the cops other than as relevant to leading to the death. Charges or convictions of using undue force are relevant. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
13. No, only include irrelevant stuff that portrays him in a good light to push your agenda, his prior dealings with law enforcement should be hushed up. Also make sure to mention all four policemen were white. 85.238.90.27 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Valereee—the selective omission of information that is found in most sources addressing the same topic as our article addresses can constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. And we don't wear blinders when we write about a subject for which there is ample sourcing to set an example for how we should address that subject. This isn't a creative writing project. That would include the creative omission of information that editors dislike for non-germane reasons. We adhere to the findings of the best quality sources. For instance the BBC writes "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, I'm not saying selectively exclude relevant information. I'm saying exclude information that is irrelevant to his death because this article is about his death. It's irrelevant to his death that over a decade ago he was convicted of armed robbery. He wasn't committing armed robbery at the time of his death. He wasn't even armed at the time of his death. So it's irrelevant. If he'd had previous convictions for resisting arrest, that might be relevant to his death, and especially so if the cops say he was resisting when he was killed. This isn't me trying to paint him in a positive light; the information about his conviction and jail time is in his bio, where it belongs. Literally the only reason I can think of to include this information in the article about his death is that some people (like the above IP, which must have edit conflicted with you when you responded to me) will interpret that to mean WP is intentionally whitewashing the incident, and that doesn't feel like a good enough reason. —valereee (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

    No, it is not "irrelevant", Valereee, and thank you for pinging me. We aren't a creative writing project. You are making arbitrary distinctions that the BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, and a slew of other good quality sources are not making. We can talk about the Killing of George Floyd while also talking about his 5 years of incarceration. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, RS are also reporting his birthplace, number of children, athletic and musical career, high school, etc. etc. etc. Do you think any of those is relevant to the article on his death? I haven't seen a single RS say that any of the biographical details they're reporting was relevant to his death. We've included what they say about his biographical details in his biographical article. When some reliable source says, "His death needs to be understood in relation to his arrest history," or something similar, I'll say we should include it. —valereee (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

    It's not about portraying him in good light. The person could be a serial killer and it would still be wrong to kill him while he is not resisting arrest and begging for his life. If articles did not have titles and content that sticks to their titles then wikipedia will be useless. The fact that all four policemen were white is relevant to the situation. There are several highly cited events where white policemen killed black men, and this is one of them. The fact that some of them had prior complaints on them is also relevant. And your comment is in the wrong section. Tesatafi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

14. No None of which relevant to how he died and this is not even a biography of his life. We don’t even know this man’s birthday. Feel free to include the complaints against the offending officer. Throw Klobuchar in there too.Trillfendi (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
15. No Any prior record or arrests is irrelevant to his murder. Include in his biography article, should one be created. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
16. No or, if we do so, it should be in an extraordinarily cautious and sensitive manner. A decade ago, fully 1/3 of black men in the US had a felony on their record, a process that's been described as a part of the criminalization of the black population more generally in the US [5]. Whenever a black person is killed or dies in police custody and the death becomes well known, some media organizations (usually small, local media or right-wing media) bring out past criminal convictions, either minor or more substantial, that are unrelated to the incident but provide context appearing to justify the death. We shouldn't contribute to that, so if we do report this, we should do so very carefully. -Darouet (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Darouet—please explain how for instance incarceration from 2009 to 2014 could appear to justify the death? This is in response to your assertion that "Whenever a black person is killed or dies in police custody and the death becomes well known, some media organizations (usually small, local media or right-wing media) bring out past criminal convictions, either minor or more substantial, that are unrelated to the incident but provide context appearing to justify the death." Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

    Try reading some of the yes responses here, they say just that, "he was a villain and a jail bird, if he had not been one he would not be dead".Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Bus stop: by implying that Floyd is a criminal, and therefore deserving of punishment. I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you about whether mentioning "positive" or "negative" aspects of someone's life will influence readers' views. If we are making editorial selections about what content goes into the bio for each participant in this incident — and we are — we need to consider 1) how relevant is the information and 2) is it prejudicial? -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

17. No - not relevant I come from a country (UK) where publishing the records of the police officers would itself be an offence while a trial is pending (since it inevitably prejudices everyone's opinion of them and this case), so given the choice, I would prefer neither Floyd's nor their records to be included at this stage. However, that isn't the choice and isn't the question. Even if Floyd had been a serially violent criminal (which no one claims), applying lethal force, when someone is already restrained and has no potential to resist or represent any danger to anyone - is beyond comprehension. I cannot see how Floyd's (relatively distant) record has any relevance to him being killed, especially since there is no reason to think the officer's knew and certainly Floyd was not even suspected of being engaged in violent crime at the point he was killed, and even if he had been behaving in a threatening manner, application of force would only have been appropriate up to the point he was restrained - beyond that it is clearly 'punishment'. I'm sorry, but it is difficult to understand why anyone would think his record relevant, except in some way thinking that massively disproportionate force is justified, or understandable, if someone has a criminal record. There may be circumstances in which the record could become relevant, but not simply for the sake of including it or to achieve a spurious 'balance'. Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
18. No I do not support including George Floyd's previous convictions. George Floyd's actions are not in question here therefore it is not relevant. Furthermore adding it as part of the few details of his backstory suggests relevance as part of the event. --Evertent (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

    That is correct—"George Floyd's actions are not in question". I don't believe anyone has ever said George Floyd's actions were in question—or at least I know that I have never said George Floyd's actions were in question. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

19. No mentioning it is unnecessary, considering the topic is talking about his death. His criminal record got nothing to do with the incident surrounding his death. Idealigic (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
20. No per Slatersteven. Krakkos (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
21. No - reasons below, discussion section, in response to valereee. TLDR; Lack of relevance, arguments to include just because police history is included is WP:FALSEBALANCE for reasons I gave. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
22. No per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Along with other not-immediately-relevant details of his life, this belongs on George Floyd (which I think should not be merged here), simply per WP:DUE. This page has to start following WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and the number and WEIGHT of sources that discuss his past convictions is insufficient to justify inclusion in a brief, only-the-essentials summary of the event.

    The paramount importance of the WP:AVOIDVICTIM policy tips the scales further towards the presumptive exclusion of the information from this page. This consideration further stipulates that if the information is included, it should be made clear that sources agree the arresting officers were unaware of his record, to avoid making BLP-violating insinuations. FourViolas (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    That advises against prolonging or participating in the victimization of living people, impossible for editors in this case, since the victimization ended in death. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    The meaning of "living" in the context of WP:BLP, including AVOIDVICTIM, is defined by WP:BDP: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Floyd is a perfect example of someone in the "recently died" stage of life, whose reputation is still subject to being tarnished or burnished by the information we publish about them, and whom Wikipedia still owes a professional level of respect and consideration. FourViolas (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    No, living means living, in this context (the whole section is plain English). It relates to those famous victims of prolongable victimizations, like libel, doxxing and hate speech. You're reaching too far with this alleged murder victim, who was never known for getting tarnished or burnished. Even if noting his background was intended to hurt his reputation, dead people are immune to any real harm. A "professional level of respect and consideration" is evident in how the professional journalists have noted his background, we would reflect that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    The term living is used everywhere throughout WP:BLP, except where the WP:BDP section states that the whole policy applies to recently deceased as well as living people. The argument that "living means living" would therefore imply that BDP is never supposed to apply, which is absurd. FourViolas (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    BLP generally doesn't apply to material concerning the dead, you quoted this yourself. Exceptions can apply, but only where reasonably applicable. Saying we're participating in or prolonging this victim's deadly victimization is absurd, because we know it lasted just under nine minutes on May 25. Also, that part applies to biographies; saying the supposed victimization does belong in the biography is double absurd. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability_of_the_policy, before clarifying that BLP policy applies only to living people with the exception of recently deceased ones, states that BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. If a family member of mine were violently killed, and people made an effort to widely publicize irrelevant information from their past that others then used to insinuate that they may have deserved their fate, I would absolutely consider this to be prolonging their victimization. You're right that this makes it problematic to include the information in the biography, but that is a lower-traffic page where the information is appropriately contextualized as part of a comprehensive review of publicly available information about Floyd's life that is not essential to understanding his death. I apologize if my use of "absurd" came off as a personal attack; I meant it in the logical sense.FourViolas (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    This guy's notable victimization has nothing to do with how his relatives might feel bad about reading he had a criminal record. It was all about being kneeled on by cops. It's illogical to equate known physical victimization of a dead person with hypothetical emotional victimization of living people, especially if the latter material is considered irrelevant to the former topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    How would anyone "insinuate that they may have deserved their fate"? That is impossible, FourViolas. If you think you know a way, please tell me about it because I do not think any such way exists. Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, I was referring to comments such as this immediately above, asserting that George Floyd's criminal tendencies [...] ultimately [led] him to his death.

    InedibleHulk, differences of opinion exist over whether the dead can be morally wronged, for example by unfair reputational damage; for defenses of the position that they can, see Fisher 2001 or Scarre 2012. Given these differences of opinion, the strong language of WP:AVOIDVICTIM (editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to victimization, particular importance for people notable as victims) seems to indicate that we should take the more cautious view. In any case, the policy is clearly meant to proscribe some kind of non-physical victimization, as it's not common for people to be physically victimized based on how somebody edited WP. FourViolas (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, some non-physical victimization that some bio subject is notable for receiving and which might be prolonged, so nothing at all pertaining to this victim of entirely physical forces. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

23. No The article is about the killing of a person in the hands of the police. If we had information about the person resisting arrests or escaping from custody, and particularly if police acted with knowledge of that, then it would have been relevant. I disagree that Floyd's name would be unfairly tarnished if such information was published. The job of this article is to describe the circumstances of his death.Tesatafi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
24. No per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. 73.227.195.63 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
25. No as it's unrelated to his killing. The details about the police shouldn't included either normally but RS are giving those details some weight. As far as I can see, though, RS are not giving Floyd's criminal past the same weight. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
26. Hell no what a stupid question Kire1975 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    But is it a "stupid question", Kire1975? Wouldn't the reader want to know that George Floyd engaged in multiple acts of criminal activity spanning decades? The Federalist (website) quotes Candace Owens telling us of a string of criminal activity and prison sentences spanning decades. For instance "his record...includes jail sentences in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2007. His 2007 arrest...was for participating in an armed home invasion against a pregnant African-American woman, where Floyd held a gun to the pregnant mother’s stomach". Wouldn't multiple acts of criminal activity increase the incidence of adversarial engagement with cops and consequently the likelihood of bad outcomes for both cops and those people engaging in criminal activities? Bus stop (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Bus stop: The Federalist? Candace Owens? Hell no. Kire1975 (talk)

    Shouldn't we not be engaged in political writing, Kire1975? Adversarial engagement with cops results in a higher incidence of harm, to both cops and criminals, and criminal activity increases the likelihood of adversarial engagement with cops. Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Agreed. You should not be using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Keep Candace Owens and the Federalist out of Wikipedia. Stick to WP:RELIABLE and WP:REPUTABLE sources. And please stop pinging me. Kire1975 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Kire1975—increased encounters with police result in increased likelihood of negative outcomes for both police and those engaging in possibly criminal activity. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Maybe, but he did not have increasing encounters, as he had not been arrested for 6 years, that is decreasing encounters.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Each additional interaction of an adversarial nature between cops and citizens increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Actually using that logic every interaction does, confrontational or otherwise, Hell even being in the same street, town, country nation does, being alive does. Only the living can interact with the police, so... This is not valid argument to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    You are saying that "every interaction does". But certain interactions are more fraught with danger than others. "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    They should not be, (which is the point of the demos). If you are not violent you should not expect violence from the police, even if you are an ex-felon. There is no evidence that the police in this case knew he was a jail bird, or has reason to think he was a criminal. But I have had my say now, this look more and more like nothing more than an attempt to lead the reader into thinking this was a justified killing (you only have to read some of the yes votes to see that).Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    No one is defending the actions of the police. I agree with you completely and emphatically that "If you are not violent you should not expect violence from the police". I also have not seen any evidence "the police in this case knew he was a jail bird, or has reason to think he was a criminal". The question is: who was George Floyd? Reliable sources provide some information. Most of the good quality sources such as the New York Times, the BBC, The Guardian and many others tell us some background information including multiple arrests and multiple periods of incarceration. I have characterized these as "adversarial" interactions. Most people do not want to go to jail. Perhaps I have occasion to interact with police because I have a minor fender-bender. I would probably not call that interaction "adversarial". Due to the high tension involved in adversarial interactions, people tend to get hurt. This does not absolve the cops of what looks to me like despicable behavior in this incident. But we are not taking sides. We are writing a dispassionate article. You say that I am "attempt[ing] to lead the reader into thinking this was a justified killing". No I am not. Wikipedia is a source of information. Once we start suppressing information we are in the business of misleading readers. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    This rank speculation is really disgusting and should be stricken. WP:BLP O3000 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

27. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Just hasn't had the amount of coverage here. Likely place is in his bio article.Casprings (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
28. No - No connection to his death, the subject of this article, has been shown by RS. BLP DUE O3000 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
29. No. This is not a biography of George Floyd, and "past crimes" is a shitty way of putting it in the first place. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
30. No As it is irrelevant to this instance. If there was a criminal history that connected the officer and Floyd perhaps that would be relevant but in this case, it does not make sense to include irrelevant information about his history that could lead to disrespecting his character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terasaface (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
31. No This page is about the killing, and his criminal history is irrelevant to whether he deserved to have been killed. Avoid victim shaming. This discussion is more relevant to his standalone biography at George Floyd.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bagumba—you are linking to an article on Victim blaming. Does that have anything to do with Wikipedia policy or guidance? Of course there are instances of "victim blaming". But we are not doing that here. We are saying he was released from prison in 2014. By what stretch of the imagination does that constitute "blaming" him for the tragedy that occurred on May 25, 2020? Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Bus stop: There is no evidence that his criminal history made him a target for police brutality. Thus, I see it as unrelated to his being killed, and the WP:ONUS to justify its inclusion has not been met. His criminal past is already in his bio, where it is relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bagumba—I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline relating to victim blaming or victim shaming and we cannot possibly be victim blaming or victim shaming. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

32. No it really has no bearing on the topic of this article Blindlynx (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
33. No it is not relevant to why he was killed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
34. No absolutely not for obvious reasons 2600:1702:2340:9470:C1C1:E610:C9E5:900A (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
35. No At least not generally or as a list where it would be WP:UNDUE: this article is not "George Floyd" but about the notable event that led to his death and followup. —PaleoNeonate – 09:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
36. No: irrelevant as to the manner in which Floyd died; see also: WP:AVOIDVICTIM, a BLP policy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on including record

Can we please now discuss this issue here and here only? We need to gain some kind of view as to who think what.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that WP:OTHER maybe relevant, just because we include trivia is not a reason to expand the trivia so much as trim it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Suggested wording: There was a sourced sentence in the article, but it was removed, and this article moves so fast I can’t find it now. It was along these lines, and this kind of thing is what I am suggesting/supporting: In 2009 Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison for armed robbery. Following his release in 2014 he moved to Minnesota, intending to “start a new life”. (continuing with "He lived in St. Louis Park…" etc.)

Sources

The reference is already in the article, it's the AP/Atlanta Journal Constitution reference (#33). IMO this is well sourced and important to understanding him, even though there is no way the officers could have known about it; he appears to have had no brushes with the law during his six years in Minnesota. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I say its not relevant, as there is no indication he was a villain, sir. Or a jailbird. at the time of his killing. It tells us nothing about him other than at the time he was not a wanted felon.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither does his high school football playing, or his rap band, but we include them. It is typical to include basic biographical information about notable deaths or crime victims, whether or not it relates to the event for which they are now known. Examples from recent articles about similar deaths: [6] [7] [8] (By the way, I'm not a "sir". 0;-D) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Then we would need to include far more background information on the officers, details of each civilian complaint, the police response to said complaints, the nature of their past killings, disciplinary records, etc. Also more details for Derek's violent behavior at his security job. That's far more material to the case at hand and necessary for balance.--Shadybabs (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Not opposed to that, but another discussion will need to be established on including that content. One step at a time. KidAd (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

For DUE weight and balance, I can only agree on including Floyd's priors if added simultaneously with details regarding the former officers' disciplinary records. Until full transparency of disciplinary records are released to the public any attempt to include a history of wrongdoing of Floyd will be heavily biased against Floyd, due to the nature of criminal records vs the blue wall of silence. Such action perpetuates the state of racial bigotry in the American police and is wholly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that, while it is important to maintain WP:NPOV, any reason to include Floyd's prior arrest records is separate from the choice to include the officer's prior complaints/history. Again, there should be a full and separate discussion of latter. KidAd (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and have said so. We do not need to know about his life prior to this unless it has a direct impact. Anything else smacks of trying to prove a point.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose for inclusion of this history is impugn the character of Mr. Floyd. An example is this astonishing assertion further up the page: "Nobody calls the police on random people who didn't do anything. This person repeatedly committed crimes. Don't invade homes with weapons. Don't use counterfeit money."

No one calls the police on random people who didn't do anything. Has the writer heard of the Central Park Ramble bird-watcher?

Don't use counterfeit money. And what information does the writer have about Mr. Floyd's knowledge of whether it was counterfeit? Certainly the store owner makes no such claim:

“Most of the times when patrons give us a counterfeit bill they don’t even know its fake so when the police are called there is no crime being committed just want to know where it came from and that’s usually what takes place”. Chapman, Reg, “Owner Of Cup Foods, Where Police First Encountered George Floyd, Calls For Justice”, ‘’WCCO CBS Minnesota’’, May 28, 2020.

The motivation for the effort to include Floyd's criminal history is laid bare here: Deflect the attention from the perpetrator, and blame the victim. Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of this material would only serve to blame the victim if the reader can't distinguish between years. But most readers would have no problem making distinctions between years. The death of George Floyd took place on May 25, 2020. George Floyd was incarcerated from 2009 to 2014 for a crime that took place in 2007. Most readers would have no difficulty distinguishing between 2014 and 2020. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine. In general, people don't call the police on random strangers. Note that for George Floyd's 10 (!) previous arrests, they were all peaceful. Lcaa9 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Before I !vote, if I do, what is the reason for including superfluous background on playing basketball, joining a band, losing a job or being a father, but not his criminal history which is connected to him being in Minneapolis (wanting to start over or something to that effect) instead of his home town of Houston where it had happened? I agree that this information tends to be spread to impugn the character of the alleged or apparent victim in a case like this, but how can we include extraneous sentimental information about him and not include what caused him to spend 5 years in prison, a major part of his life? —DIYeditor (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• This article is about the death of George Floyd, there is no relationship between his death and his past. Including that would suggest that there is a relationship. If you want to create an article about Floyd's biography then go create it. It is not related to his death, so it is not going to be included.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, I hope you aren't replying to me, because you didn't reply to what I asked. Also you have this peculiar habit of saying what is going to happen before it happens, like you are the sole arbiter of whatever is in question, before it's been decided. It's very strange. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor—it is not spread to impugn the character of the alleged or apparent victim. Basic facts that are recurrent in the best quality sources should be in the article. People's lives are documented when addressing an incident. Our article is already using some of these sources to support material that is already in the article. It would be a contrivance to pare away the facts that we don't like. Did it have to be an angelic choir boy that was killed? It was a person who may have had flaws. Or maybe not. There are a huge number of Americans in prison at any time. This is a real person. They served a 5 year prison sentence. All we are doing is depicting reality. Wikipedia wasn't created to to present an idealized version of reality. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, I wasn't replying to you, so I will just ignore all of what you said but I will answer your question in my response to Bus stop. Bus stop, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this article is not a news article. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, we assume that the content here would stay relevant to the topic until at least 10 years. Now, the topic of this article is about the death of George Floyd, not George Floyd himself. You cant tell if a content about his past would be relevant or not. Until it is proven to be relevant we can't include it, if it's not, it's not going to be included. Yes, a small biography can be included as to give an insight/introduction for this topic. Tell me how does his past criminal record gives an introduction for this topic??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam: there is no relationship between his death and his past - so playing basketball is relevant to his death but a criminal record for armed robbery is not? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, you see, your argument is flawed. Your argument is only an appeal to hypocrisy. I said we will only include content that serves as an introduction for this topic. Does his past of what you call "criminal record for armed robbery" serves as an introduction for this topic? The answer no. It is not proven to be relevant to this very topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam Does playing basketball belong in the introduction? If so, how is a criminal record less relevant? Do neither belong in the article? I haven't decided whether his criminal record is an introduction to the topic, that's why I'm asking questions. Also you would be more convincing if you cited policy when making arguments. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, stop the whataboutism argument. It will only show that your argument is not based on objective reasoning. Will my answer to your first question change your position? I dont think so. My concern is that we will be attempting to poison the well by adding that irrelevant content. That content about basketball could be irrelevant but it is not harmful, it doesnt add anything and it doesnt poison the well.

  Here is an illustration

  • X was killed by Y Y OKAY
  • X, who played basketball, was killed by Y. ? Maybe MAYBE OKAY
  • X, who robbed houses in the 1990s and was jailed bluh bluh, was killed by Y. N NOT OKAY

  WP:OR makes this clear and also WP:TOPIC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  So my question is why is basketball possibly ("maybe") relevant but not robbery? (I can think of a specific possible policy based reason but I am more curious about your line of thinking.) If you are going to quote OR or TOPIC it would help if you quoted which part you are referring to. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, that the content should be directly related to the topic. And WP:TOPIC says clearly, The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. I have supported the idea of an article about the biography of Floyd. Also, no, that tick doesnt mean relevant. I was saying what is okay and what is not. I have clarified now and edited the original comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I also think I have clearly said above why basketball is maybe okay. As I said, it doesnt potentially poison the well and imply that Floyd wasnt innocent when he was killed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think WP:AVOIDVICTIM is what applies here. I am not familiar with how that is interpreted though. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  So? What you are saying is ....? We're here talking about whether that content about past "criminal record" is relevant to his death or not. It is clearly not relevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is .... the rule I cited (AVOIDVICTIM) is what applies here, not OR or TOPIC. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  So you think that his "crimial record" content is relevant to his death? Both WP:OR and WP:TOPIC says that the content should be directly relevant to the topic of the article. I am not arguing to include his virtues. I am arguing to remove the irrelevant content about "crimial record" as it is irrelevant to this article and this is the topic of this discussion. This is the only topic of this discussion and it should be the only topic of this discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's a moot point because of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. How are you going to dictate what direction the discussion can take? —DIYeditor (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  His past is relevant to the article. If you think what his past has to do with his death, can you answer "why do we have officers past on the article?". George was a convicted criminal and the officers were abusive. Not including his past is not neutral and has a POV that George was the purest soul possible and officers were worse than Hitler which is not the case. Officers behave according to the criminal history of the convict, he has behind the bars for 5 years for for armed robbery in a home invasion case. // Eatcha (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor—WP:AVOIDVICTIM says don't include "every detail". Minor details obscurely sourced should be omitted. Five years in prison would not be a minor detail in anyone's life. The best quality sources, addressing the same topic that this article addresses, include this point about George Floyd's life. It would be a contrivance and a disservice to the reader to deliberately omit this information—not because it has bearing on his death—it doesn't—but because we don't exercise editorial authority—except to a limited extent. Basically, sources write articles. Basically, sources determine the content of articles. I don't think we should selectively omit information to make the eventual unlawful death at the hands of law officers seem more tragic; it is tragic whether the victim was an angelic choirboy or an "ex-convict". Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. (emphasis mine) My line of reasoning is that it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal, so including facts to support that perception which the officers did not know (as far as we know) is prolonging that victimization. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor—you say "it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal". I have to disagree. It does not appear that he was "killed because of being perceived to be a criminal". You are using figurative and imprecise language—but no offense is intended. We don't even know if he was "killed". Was it Chauvin's intention to kill Floyd? I would doubt that. I am certain that what Chauvin did constituted entirely uncalled-for cruelty. Floyd was handcuffed behind his back. Several other cops were present and apparently unoccupied, just standing around. Therefore Floyd posed no threat. How could he? What was he going to do—break loose of the handcuffs? But did Chauvin intend to end Floyd's life at that moment? It would be unreasonable to think so. But more to the point—do sources say that "it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal"? No, they don't, or at least not to my knowledge. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, those details also should not be included. But that's another argument, so don't base your !vote on this issue upon whether or not those have yet been pulled. Let's decide what's correct in THIS argument. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—what would be problematic in adhering to the general coverage of this incident as seen in the best quality sources? The best quality sources are addressing the Killing of George Floyd. Why would our coverage of the Killing of George Floyd differ significantly from the best quality sources? It is problematic to selectively omit information. This isn't being done inadvertently. This is being done deliberately. The reason for this deliberate omission is stated by several "oppose" votes: They argue that the inclusion of this information "serves to blame the victim". I vehemently reject that. We are writing an encyclopedia. And we have intelligent readers. An ex-convict who is unlawfully killed is not to blame for their death. The inclusion of information that the victim is an ex-convict does not "blame" the victim. That is nonsensical. It is an important fact as evidenced by its presence in coverage of this topic by entirely good quality sources. Deliberate omission of this nature is "political". Wikipedia should not be "political". Wikipedia should lay out the facts. Anything less is a disservice to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is a separate issue form the resat of his life, but (as I have said more than once) the rest of his life is equally irrelevant. Unless it impacts of why he was shot his life before he moved to his new home is irrelevant. Nor does "what a great gut he was" other than (and RS have to draw the conclusion) it is a defence (I.E. "he was not X and so this was unfair").Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we please be real here? Until separate articles are made on George Floyd and Derek Chauvin, which I am fully in support of, people are coming here to learn about them. I think we should give a balanced summary of both of their lives. We are trying to inform people here. Many "no" arguments are saying that including criminal history is an attempt to blame Floyd. I think the article is comprehensive enough that no reasonable person would walk away from it believing that Floyd was to blame in any capacity for his murder, unless they already believed that walking into it. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest we remove all information that isn't directly relevant. The basketball playing & the rap music and number of children and relationships aren't relevant. The previous criminal record isn't relevant unless there's a history of resisting arrest or history of some other behavior that the defense is using to justify using this type of restraint, which would be relevant. —valereee (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree with Valereee. WP should account for the real possibility of deliberate misinterpretation of events, and should exclude unrelated biographies and move them into their own article. I was inclined to go Yes about 15 mins ago, I'm now against it. The past history of police is relevant to show the kind of policing they do. The past history of the subject is not relevant unless (a) the police had a positive ID and (b) WP:RS believe that the criminal history was connected to how the police treat him. As far as I can see, that isn't the case. It is an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE to say we must include the latter just because we include the former. The relevance of each one is completely different. Hence, I support inclusion of the material at George Floyd, but not here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrasinatingReader—the incident leading to death takes place in 2020 whereas the prison sentence ended in 2014. How does one have bearing on the other? Is there a "possibility of deliberate misinterpretation of events"? Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Also see the issue about DOB below, if he was born on the 16th he is not the same man as in the criminal records. Until this is sorted out this is a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I thought Wikipedia compiled multiple good quality sources into uncensored articles. Why would Wikipedia arbitrarily omit George Floyd's criminal past? If the reader wants to know, and if sources such as the New York Times, the BBC, and The Guardian, provide the information, why would Wikipedia deliberately omit the information? I think a reader would want to know who George Floyd is. Wikipedia exists to provide information where needed. Is there some reason we would fail at our purpose concerning this one piece of information? Why omit George Floyd's criminal past? Bus stop (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Because some readers/writers/voters are hypersensitive to what they perceive as victim-blaming, to the extent that they can't trust those who insist this is simply reliably-sourced background information, since some victim-blamers have lied (or seem to have lied) about their motives in unrelated earlier situations. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The bio section on Floyd is presently somewhat awkward, even given the link to his full bio. Why not include a few generalized mentions, such as: he was an athlete, muscian, and father, who had moved to Minnesota _ years ago. At the time of his death, Floyd had lost employment due to the COVID-19 stay at home order. Years earlier, Floyd had had previous interactions with police in _____ ... Maybe end with a mention of his pacifist views expressed in his video. Don't victim-blame, don't fall into the trap of re-criminalising him, and let him be innocent - he served his time, and the police have confiscated the allegedly fraudulent $20. Don't assume Floyd even knew it was counterfeit, if it even was. Remember he remained in his car outside his community store for 8 minutes. That's not what a person passing counterfeit bills would do. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Another point on Floyd: he didn't drive away when confronted by the employees. If consensus agrees, we should handle his so-called "criminal past" lightly and keep it in the past, and in his bio, while perhaps tweeking the info in the 'killing' article. Just offering suggestions. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—you say we should keep his "criminal past" in the past and you tell us not to "victim-blame". I couldn't agree more. I agree that we should keep his criminal past firmly in the past, and I agree that we should not "victim-blame". Therefore our article should say that George Floyd served 5 years in prison from 2009 to 2014 for an armed home invasion that he committed in 2007. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has travelled a full circle again bustop : the points kablammo and so many made cannot be negated by turning the circle again. His past belongs in the bio article. His killing occurred after he was accused of passing counterfeit money, but we'll never know the truth since Floyd is dead and the police have the alleged bill. His past has nothing to do with the killing. For the purpose of deflecting criticism, I suggest adding very light mentions about his life to the section which is presently awkward, in 'People Involved'. With the link to his bio page, the detailed info on his past, where the info you suggest belongs. The suggestion is a NO vote with modifications Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, his criminal activity prior to his death is relevant if this is a biography of George Floyd but only criminal elements that resulted in conviction. This should not be censored. Those wanting to leave it out, are leaving out a major part of narrative and when people 10-20 years from now read this, they will not have the true story of George Floyd. Only the agenda. Nsnodgrass73 (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What agenda? O3000 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer It seems that 30+ of the "Yes" !votes were before 4 June, when the standalone bio of George Floyd was created. The bio mentions his criminal history. It seems that a lot of those "yes"'s wanted the info somewhere, and picked Killing of George Floyd at the time. There are now more options than just here.—Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—we should not be relying on another article to make this article complete. We should be alluding to the criminal past of George Floyd in this article in order to enhance the credibility of this article. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

... make this article complete. No, that's a WP:COATRACK: writes too much about background and loses sight of the title. Either way, the existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there.—Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK concerns contrived add-ons. Note the distinction between the "nominal subject" and the "tangential subject". Five years in prison is not a minor factor in who George Floyd was. An article on an interaction between the police and a suspect concerns the backgrounds of the subject and the police. Floyd George was a person who was convicted of a 2007 armed home invasion—also not a minor unlawful act—for which he was sentenced to 5 years in prison. This is relevant background information. Do you think this is a Coatrack article for revealing negative information about George Floyd? No, this article exists because of a fatal encounter between police and somebody suspected of a crime. Not to be too moralistic but prior encounters with the law would not be a contrived add-on. Bus stop (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to let the closer decide which arguments are and are not relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven—omission of expected information only detracts from the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We have all had more than enough say, and any closer (I think we can assume) can read what we have said 50 times before.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven—when we write an article we don't put on blinders. Webster defines blinders as "a limitation or obstruction to sight or discernment." You are studiously arguing to omit information. But omitting this information does not accentuate the horror of what occurred in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020. Omitting this information simply detracts from the completeness of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Bagumba, the situation has changed completely from when this RfC was opened, and I don't know how the closer can accurately assess !votes on either side that were basing their reasoning on the fact bio articles hadn't been created. I'm not sure what the solution is here. —valereee (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1

Evidence of the victim's past will not be in evidence, full stop. That past has nothing to do with his death, and will not be in evidence. The culpability of the defendant will not in any way be affected by Floyd's record. Kablammo (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC) [This and the following four posts moved from !vote section above by User:Snow Rise]

Kablammo It seems like maybe you meant to put this into the "No" section, but put it here by mistake? Also, not that I disagree with you altogether, but it is worth noting that what you are discussing is a criminal law standard, and not a Wikipedia standard: there are many things that would not enter into evidence at a trial which we can and will discuss in an article. Inexperienced editors sometimes make the mistake of thinking that that Wikipedia maps the content it allows directly to what a court allows in cases where articles cover criminal offenses, but that's just not so, and wouldn't even be workable in a majority of cases, for a great number of reasons. Now that doesn't necessarily mean we will discuss this or that fact (Wikipedia has its own concerns about prejudicial content in the form of BLP protections) after-all, but its important that anybody particpating in this discussion understands that the standards we apply here are our own internal policies, not the laws and rules of criminal procedure that will govern the court case, whenever it goes to trial (which may be some time yet). Snow ^{let's rap} 03:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Snow Rise, thank you for the ping. I have weighed in before, and oppose mention of his prior record, just as I oppose mention of prior allegations of misconduct of the police which did not result in discipline or were for unrelated conduct. You are correct that I address a criminal law standard (or, more properly, a rule of evidence applicable to all cases); that was prompted by your mention of "those accused of his murder may use it [Floyd's record] to ameliorate their culpability as a legal or public matter". No doubt that is one of the reasons many on and off Wikipedia are emphasizing that record, but it will not matter to the officers' legal culpability. Kablammo (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. I misunderstood your meaning there, as you seem to have surmised. I've moved your indentation in one, since I now assume the comment was meant to be a response to mine; if it wasn't (if it was meant to be a more general comment) by all means, outdent again. :) All of that said, though, I'm afraid you are actually mistaken about this point of evidentiary procedure in American courts. There is no general prohibition against introducing past criminal behaviour of a victim by the defense in a criminal case. You seem to be conflating a couple different rules of evidence: in a prosecution, evidence of previous criminal activity can typically not be submitted as against the defendant. Actually there are numerous exceptions to even that rule, but it they get quite convoluted, so it suffices to say here that generally one cannot admit evidence of previous criminal acts against the defendant. But the defense absolutely can provide evidence of previous criminal record on the part of the victim, in general. Again, there are exceptions to this rule, but that is the default. Now, any evidence has to go through what is called a probative value analysis (meaning its ability to shed light on an issue of fact or law must outweigh any prejudicial value that it might have). But in a murder trial, courts quite frequently allow evidence of past criminal convictions for violent crimes of the victim in. If any of the defendants here asserts that he knew of the victim's record, and the court has reason to believe that is true, then the past record would almost certainly be admitted as evidence of the defendant's state of mind (which goes to a critical element of a murder charge). And even if they can't prove that, the court may still allow the information to be entered if it rules that the jury may find that information relevant to any determinations about the conduct of the victim before the video started recording.

So in fact, it's quite possible the defendants will introduce this information at trial. They may choose not to (because their legal team may find it a bad strategy to try to blame the victim in this particular case), or the court may keep the criminal record out on the probative value analysis, but it's very much up in the air, which is why I make a note of it above. Further, even if they do not introduce such evidence at trial, others aligned with their defense may introduce the same information elsewhere in the public sphere--in fact, the article already contains just one such example of this being done. This ended up being the critical factor that tipped me into the "yes" category here: initially (although it was a very close call), I was going to !vote "no" on this one. What changed my mind is that I don't think there is any pragmatic way to keep all discussion of Mr. Floyd's past criminal status out of the article (attributed statements about Floyd being a "violent criminal are likely to be quoted in the article in numerous locations, regardless of whether we discuss his actual record in Wikipedia's voice). So therefore the BLP considerations flip, and it now becomes necessary to perhaps discuss that record in some small detail--for multiple reasons, but certainly including that he is not maligned as a victim without some effort to contextualize the fact that said record is not really particularly relevant to what transpired when he died in custody, as per the majority of the sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Kablammo Since our little side discussion here is getting a little voluminous, I decided to move it down here: I hope that's alright with you--feel free to move it all back up if you prefer it to remain in its original location/context. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The relocation is fine. I've not had time to peruse your points above, but this is the controlling rule (and this may come into play as well), and I don't see an applicable exception. Kablammo (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is the relevant rule and essentially works exactly as I summarized above. You cannot introduce prior criminal record as character evidence to prove conformity therewith. However, the defense can introduce it to go to state of mind of the defendant and the question of whether he acted reasonably under all the circumstances, among a number of other purposes, as Minnesota's version of Rule 404 expressly says. Trust me, though there is no context for it in a majority of instances, it still happens quite constantly in homicide cases where the victim has a criminal record, and is considered completely above-board (again, provided that it is relevant and the court rules the probative value outweighs the prejudicial influence, but that's true of literally any piece of evidence). In fact, there's a lot of black letter law on the principle as regards the defendant's constitutional right to present such evidence as part of a valid and complete defense, leaving states somewhat constrained in how much they can impinge upon this right.

Anyway, this is somewhat moot for now: it will be a while before the accused are submitting such evidence, if ever. But in the meantime, other parties (such as their union reps) are already raising Floyd's criminal record publicly, and you can bet certain media outlets are promoting it widely. And some of that discussion has already leaked into the article (understandably enough). So even if our objective is to afford Floyd the benefit of our BLP principles (which certainly must be one of our objectives here), then we may need at times to discuss his criminal record, if only for the purpose of reflecting what the relevant sources say about it: that it really has little to no bearing on the manner in which he died. That's pretty much the reason I moved from my initial impulse to oppose any mention in this article: we can't really keep out the commentary of others labeling him a criminal (whether the defendants choose to/are allowed to raise such an argument at trial or not). And even if we could, discussion of it would still be out there, alive in the world of media coverage at large. So even those very concerned about protecting Floyd from slandering probably ought to be in favour of allowing some controlled discussion of his record in this article. We just can't ignore it or hide it from the average person's field of view, so we should do what we can to contextualize it appropriately and responsibly. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal: 8'46"

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)
  • 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 SoWhy 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 SoWhy 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 SoWhy 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. pbp 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. —PaleoNeonate – 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)

Split proposal: Reactions to the killing of George Floyd

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

---

Support split - This article is over 100 kB, and part of it should be split to a new article entitled Reactions to the killing of George Floyd. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support It's only going to get bigger. I think we'll eventually need Trial of Derek Chauvin too. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the reactions section instead. George Floyd protests is the article about the reaction... or at least, the reaction that is notable or significant enough to record in the encyclopedia. What media outlets have to say about the killing, what pundits have to say, what politicians have to say, what world governments have to say... none of that matters. I mean, "the world was horrified and condemned the killing"... duh... that's really all there is to say about "reactions". The protests, the legal cases, if there are any resulting changes to the law or police procedure.. these are the significant reactions; what everyone thinks about it is not significant. Second choice, support splitting. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think everything in the article is obvious, there is a lot of really significant stuff in there, like Floyd's family's reaction, Trump's comments, etc. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current readable prose size is 35 kB 31 kB. Per the rule-of-thumb guidance at WP:SIZERULE, "Length alone does not justify division". The current length is hardly unmanageable for readers. I would probably oppose at anything below "Probably should be divided", or 60 kB. Just for comparison purposes, Shooting of Michael Brown is at 61 kB and I don't recall any split proposals (that is, beyond at least one split that has already occurred, Ferguson unrest). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Updated RPS. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There has to be more of a reason than mere file size (I know of many articles with more than 100 kB size and no one had been complaining about their length), and I don't think "reaction" to the event should have its own article - that doesn't seem like the kind of thing someone would search for, amd if it isn't then why are we asking them to find a whole separate article? I do think that the Trial of Derek Chauvin would make sense though, when it comes. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose current article size does not seem to be a valid reason for splitting, per sizerule and sizesplit. And I think the "reactions section" has been managed well, so another rationale for not splitting - the content is under control. The section contains information directly relevant to this topic. So article management and topic relevance has been maintained considering the amount of editing that has happened with this article. So for now, it seems to belong with this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The section contains too much trivial and predictable detail ("the leader of Foobar said ..."). Such content is better placed in a separate article, so that it does not dominate the more important content of the main article. WWGB (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I notice there isn't a ton of material in the Reactions section and it is not over bloated, which again is a surprise considering the amount of editing and the number of editors. Anyway it is all relevant at this time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Idk, it looks to me like the reactions section is maybe 40% or 50% of the entire article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Idk, So, like I said, there isn't a ton of material in the Reactions section, it is not over bloated. Also, @Levivich: please do not directly respond to me on any talk page. It would be much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• SUPPORT As the tag at the top of the article reads "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings." That section can stand on its own. Category:Reactions Many articles split off their reactions to things. Dream Focus 03:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. We already have a protest article. I think for the time being we should decide what are the most significant reactions and place them here and/or in the protest article. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I support Darouet's proposal. Really good. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support of the split. I think it’s too soon but there is now a butterfly effect of major (even unprecedented) events happening because of it so, inevitably, it should be split. Trillfendi (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: since the article will grow. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support- I think we should give main articles to Floyd and Chauvin. These are now globally known individuals. George Floyd alone was the individual who’s murder startled worldwide protests. He deserves his own article because his life will be discussed in history books years from now. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support like trillfendi, for sure this article gets split at some point in the future, but do we need to do it today? As for now it is all in one nice place. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is very tightly related to the subject matter itself. So, unless this section becomes way too large (which might eventually happen), keep it here. --nafSadh ^{did say} 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:SIZERULE uses readable prose, not page length. Readable prose is just 31k characters. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, this falls into the category of "Length alone does not justify division". Splitting may be required in the future, but currently it would be very premature. Other premature splitting related to this event has caused information scattering, so I think some of these closer splits/merges need to wait until we better know where this is going. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for all of the reasons stated above. As a side note, I think you should stop trying to split articles for the time being with no other justification other than size, which as mentioned above, "Length alone does not justify division." DTM9025 (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think the reactions section can reliably be assumed to be growing quickly, particularly international observers (anecdotally, three more countries have made statements since I last checked a few hours ago). For major international events--which, by nature of the protests, this clearly meets--there's of course plenty of precedent; Reactions to the ROKS Cheonan sinking comes to mind for its comparable length. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional observation: the International reactions section of the George Floyd protests article I think shows that a third one is necessary. First, the international reactions are not very pertinent to protests per se, since they contain mostly statements by government bodies, heads of state, etc. Second, there is information there that does not appear to be in this article, and vice versa, even though both sub-sections nominally cover redundant content. A third article seems useful. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Wikipedia:Article size and WP:SPINOUT. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support due to article size and expected continued flow of reactions and comments. Juxlos (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support since it would help increase clarity. All the other reasons above are also very valid. DoggieTimesTwo (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support The incident has a wide coverage and there are possibilities that the development of the George Floyd incident to get bigger wide attention. So I unanimously support to split main article. Abishe (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mandruss above. Split decisions are always based on readable prose, and this articles' readable prose is 31kB. Per WP:SIZERULE, that length (alone) does not justify division. This article is a long way away from even the "may need to be divided" recommendation at >50kB. This article is not unwieldy at this time, and it would be premature to split it. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose also per ProcrasinatingReader: A negative consequence of splitting would be information scattering. The strength and breadth of these reactions are one key thing that makes the killing of George Floyd so different from other killings of black people by police. We should avoid that split until it's necessary. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted the section about "International community leaders"' reactions should probably be re-formatted as prose, and not bullet points, to avoid becoming a trivia-like list. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support due to the large size of the section The creeper2007^Talk! 18:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

i support this epic dubs woopwopp — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrailVenks (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support split some stuff listed on the article are either to big to be kept in the same article or doesn’t make sense to be on this article at all.BigRed606 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support No brainer, its a darn big section, and it is providing undue weight at the moment. Alternatively, if not split, it will need to be cut down to size to focus on just the most notable reactions. Though the article itself is not yet too big, the section is overwhelmingly large compared to the rest of the article, and seems to be growing much faster than the rest of the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - in present state of this section. For the reasons of readability. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Way too many noteable reactions to be squeezed into this page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support — agreeing with Levivich that the protests are the more tangible reactions, and they should not be given less weight in this article by simply being linked. Mouthpity (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Utterly predictable reactions by public officials, heads of state, celebrities, college presidents, corporate executives, and the pope, of the form "Our heart goes out to the family, sad commentary on our times, shocked and saddened, we pray for justice" etc etc and so on and so forth, enlighten the reader not at all and should be banished to a separate article where they will remain accessible for those doing statistical studies on the linguistics of mourning and consolation. In this article we should pass on a few RSs' brief summary of worldwide reactions; only reactions especially noteworthy for their stupidity (e.g. the Finnish "Pink Floyd" moron, and whatever Trump said) or their effectiveness of expression, or whatever, should be presented here. EEng 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The reactions and outrage isn't going to slow down anytime soon, splitting now is a good premptive step. Aza24 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support it's to big to navigate effectively Blindlynx (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for many reasons, including that this article is already far too long. Geo Swan (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support it's too big and to hard to read 21928namtran (talk) 15:34, 11 June (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't see any reason to create a new article about such a specific topic. Articles about reactions to certain terrorist attacks have been deleted for similar reasons. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose For a few reasons. 1) The article is not that long in view of its importance and I don't see how it affects the "readability" of the article at all. 2) Reactions to George Floyd's death is largely the reason why this article is so important; 3) probably most important: there is already a very substantial article George Floyd protests (and subarticle progeny) that is directed to the presumptive growth other statements assume will be needed by the response section. It is unclear where proponents of moving the "Reactions" content want to put this material. They are not arguing this information is irrelevant. Instead, I believe that it is incredibly relevant to this subject--"the killing of George Floyd" and should not be divorced from this article. Msherby (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: according to the DYKcheck tool, there are approximately 32200 characters of readable prose. According to WP:SIZERULE, that corresponds to about 32 kB of readable prose. WP:SIZERULE also says that for things less than 40 kB of readable prose, "length alone does not justify division."  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support The killing of George Floyd had a chain reaction which deserves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leahedits (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel like a lot of that section's excess in content comes from the international section, which can be compressed to a few sentences summarizing international world leaders' reactions. We don't need verbatim statements from every single world leader; it's redundant and beats the dead horse. Love of Corey (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:SIZESPLIT. Krakkos (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - per nom; also the article itself is too big. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 17:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - We have yet another bloated reactions section that should, by now, be given its own page of sorts. RopeTricks (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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. EEng 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)
• 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. EEng 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 (see 8′46″), 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.) EEng 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. pbp 18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - prosecutors now say it's 7:46, not 8:46. [13] 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)

Use other video frame to replace lynching photographs

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??? EEng 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. EEng 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. What next -- and RfC? EEng 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)

Missouri Republican candidate conspiracy theory

The fact that a candidate for Congress promoted a conspiracy theory about George Floyd's death was quite notable. It was picked up by quite a few sources: The Daily Beast, Salon, The Sun, Newsweek, The Hill, just to name a few. Banana Republic (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are already well-covered in the article, there is no benefit in naming individuals or political parties. WWGB (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well covered? It's a single sentence.

No benefit to naming individuals or political parties? then it leaves open the question of who is promoting the conspiracy theories.

Banana Republic (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's still early, but if any one theory gets called out more than the others, it should have some sort of specific mention. Nothing extensive, but we go where the sources go. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Big picture in the centre

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. EEng 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? EEng 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. EEng 14:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

-EEng

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