Talk:Murder of George Floyd

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8 as Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times are incorrect—timeline needed?

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ is incorrect regarding homicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are intentional homicides, reckless homicides, etc. Those can be criminal acts (actus reus). That's what we call it here in Wisconsin ([1]). Ohio does too ([2]). But homicide, in these statutes, refers to the direct cause of death of another human.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Floyd’s injuries revealed in new pictures

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 20 April 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved by Swarm (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

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

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

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

 Not done: From the source: [3] Floyd displays signs of distress as officers try to force him into the back of the vehicle, telling them he can't breathe and volunteering to lie on the ground instead. Seems to be supported by the source. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

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

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

Similar article new draft started

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

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

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

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

Picture moved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conflicting content?

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

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