Talk:Murder of George Floyd: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 8) (bot |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{American English}} |
{{American English}} |
||
{{censor}} |
{{censor}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blpo=yes|living=no |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blpo=yes|living=no|1= |
||
{{WikiProject African diaspora |importance=Low}} |
{{WikiProject African diaspora |class=B |importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
{{WikiProject Biography|class=B|living=no|listas=Floyd, George}} |
||
{{WikiProject Black Lives Matter |importance=High|editathon=June 2020}} |
{{WikiProject Black Lives Matter |class=B |importance=High|editathon=June 2020}} |
||
{{WikiProject Crime |
{{WikiProject Crime |class=B |b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Death |importance=Mid }} |
{{WikiProject Death |class=B |importance=Mid }} |
||
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |importance=High}} |
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |class=B |importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Minnesota |importance=Mid}} |
{{WikiProject Minnesota |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=low |gun-politics=yes|gun-politics-importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=low |gun-politics=yes|gun-politics-importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |UShistory=y|UShistory-importance=mid}} |
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=Low |UShistory=y|UShistory-importance=mid}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{ITN talk|28 May|2020|oldid=959318176}} |
{{ITN talk|28 May|2020|oldid=959318176}} |
||
{{press|date=June 9, 2020|url=https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html|title=How Wikipedia Became a Battleground for Racial Justice|org=''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]''|author=Harrison, Stephen}} |
{{press|date=June 9, 2020|url=https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html|title=How Wikipedia Became a Battleground for Racial Justice|org=''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]''|author=Harrison, Stephen}} |
||
{{ |
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
||
{{Copied|from=Killing of George Floyd|to=State v. Chauvin}} |
{{Copied|from=Killing of George Floyd|to=State v. Chauvin}} |
||
{{Old moves |
{{Old moves |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| algo = old(7d) |
| algo = old(7d) |
||
| archive = Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive %(counter)d |
| archive = Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive %(counter)d |
||
| counter = |
| counter = 7 |
||
| maxarchivesize = 200K |
| maxarchivesize = 200K |
||
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}} |
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}} |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
{{Archive basics |
{{Archive basics |
||
|archive=Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive=Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive %(counter)d |
||
|counter= |
|counter=7 |
||
|maxsize=200000 |
|maxsize=200000 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Autopsy - not murdered == |
|||
== '''Frequently asked questions'''; please read before posting == |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 00:02, 5 July 5672 (UTC) --><!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 10:16, 29 December 2033 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2019464176}}<!-- END PIN --> |
|||
;Does it have to say "white" police officer? |
|||
:Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact. |
|||
Facts Trump your feelings. The Autopsy shows ZERO damage to his trachea. He died of a drug overdose. 4X the legal |
|||
;This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)! |
|||
limit in his system. The drugs killed him, not Derek. That’s a fact. [[Special:Contributions/96.8.253.190|96.8.253.190]] ([[User talk:96.8.253.190|talk]]) 15:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:See our [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help. |
|||
:As noted elsewhere, the role of the autopsy is to determine a cause of death from a medical standpoint. Murder is a legal conclusion, which is determined by a jury in a court of law. The jury reviewed the evidence and determined Mr. Floyd was murdered, full stop- so we call it a murder. You can disagree with this conclusion all you wish, and Mr. Chauvin can use all legal means to overturn his conviction(SCOTUS just turned him down) but that doesn't change what we call this case. The results of the autopsies are stated in this article. |
|||
;Why is this article calling it a murder instead of a death/killing? |
|||
:And if Mr. Floyd was on drugs, perhaps Mr. Chauvin should not have restrained him by kneeling on his neck, which is clearly visible in video. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at [[WP:MURDERS]]. |
|||
::Chauvin had no way of knowing Floyd had just swallowed a lethal dose of fentanyl (you can see it in his mouth on bodycam though), and the restraint Chauvin used--the "maximal restraint technique"--appeared on bodycam to be done exactly as Chauvin was trained; you can see it demonstrated in his training manual [https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/minneapolis-police-training-materials-show-knee-to-neck-restraint-similar-to-used-on-george-floyd/89-9f002e3f-972a-4410-86cb-50a1237fc496 here]. When I have time I'll find some reliable sources and expand the article to list the plethora of exculpating exhibits ruled inadmissible at trial. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 17:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please don't engage in [[WP:SYNTH]]. Use your time more wisely than that. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
;Wasn't Floyd killed near a store called Cub Foods, not Cup Foods? |
|||
:::How Chauvin was trained? [[Godwin's law|"Just following orders" didn't work as a defense at Nuremberg]], it shouldn't in Minnesota either. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:The store is Cup Foods, and is not affiliated with the [[Cub Foods]] store chain. |
|||
::::That's not what Godwin's law is. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 17:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I invoked Nazis in an internet discussion. That's exactly what Godwin's law is. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
;Why does the article use such a shocking photo? Isn't it in poor taste? |
|||
:::Chauvin lost in court. He then lost in appeals court. SCOTUS then rejected his appeal. The next step in appeals process above the US Supreme Court is not Wikipedia. We do not argue cases. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 18:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:The lead image was determined by the community in a [[Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 3#RFC: lead photo|formal Request for Comment process]]. The RfC reached an "overwhelming consensus" that '''{{tq|"...the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], as it is an appropriate representation of the topic."}}''' |
|||
:AS you are not a court, you do not get to overturn the court's verdict (which is what we go by). [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Slatersteven}} What we "go by" is reliable sources, and an ability to pass [[WP:VNOT]]. Court rulings, and as the IP above has stated, "feelings", are not part of Wikipedia's guidelines. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
;Why was my request or comment removed? |
|||
:::Actually if a court finds someone guilty of murder that would be usable. It may not pass [[wp:n]] but it would pass [[wp:primary]]. As this is not about [[wp:n]] but [[wp:v]], a court finding is usable. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to describe Floyd's murder using other terms (e.g. "death", "overdose") or to change the name of the article accordingly will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and essays, including [[WP:Requested moves]], [[WP:Common name]], [[WP:Article titles]], [[WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)]], and [[WP:Reliable sources]]. Anyone removing such requests should include a link to this FAQ in their edit summary. |
|||
:::You are free to disagree with the conclusion of the jury that heard all the legally permitted evidence, and Chauvin is free to appeal(he did and lost). You are even free to use your social media to promote that view. You aren't free to reargue the case here. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::In fact, discussing whether or not a court case's outcome reflects reality is not infrequently done on WP; it is how we come to have articles like [[Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial]] where editors add information about the very sorts of issues, reservations, alternative theories, public doubts, and so forth, that complicate cases like this. Simpson was, after all, acquitted of the double murder with which he was charged. So how can a WP article "reargue" his case, as it does? This is also how we get WP articles such as the one about [[Anthony Ray Hinton]] who was convicted of murder in 1985 and sentenced to death. Hinton appealed to the Alabama Appellate Court in 1988 who unanimously confirmed his conviction and sentence, and then he appealed to the Alabama State Supreme Court in 1989, who ruled likewise. Case-closed, right? Actually, no. After being on death row for 28 years, Hinton's case was reopened due to demonstrable uncertainty about his guilt, and he was eventually exonerated and released. So "rearguing the case" is par for the course when it is high-profile and there is a possibility of a verdict having been wrongly reached, whether a conviction or acquittal. Lest anyone argue that Hinton's case is irrelevant since he was legally exonerated, there are many examples of those who have been demonstrably wrongly convicted yet <u>never</u> exonerated, such as [[Timothy Evans]] who, despite it having been proved that he was not in fact guilty, the state has refused to overturn his conviction. Indeed, WP articles are frequently works-in-progress which reflect <b>ongoing</b> changes even after acquittals or convictions <u>and</u> subsequent exonerations or prosecutions, such as with [[Trials of Kirstin Lobato]] who was convicted of first-degree murder in 2002 and sentenced to 40-100 years in prison, then was <i>retried</i> in 2006 for the same crime and this time convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 13-45 years, and in 2017 was ordered released, but about whom there are still questions as to whether or not she indeed murdered the victim. So claiming that a conviction (or acquittal) permanently closes the books on a case as far as WP is concerned, is absolutely false. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] ([[User talk:Bricology|talk]]) 00:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
This section is permanently on this talk page and does not get archived. It is for mobile-device users for whom the the normal talk page header and FAQ are not shown. |
Revision as of 21:13, 10 June 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of George Floyd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days ![]() |
Frequently asked questions Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer?
A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact. Q2: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article!
A2: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a reliable source; secondary sources are generally preferred over primary. Q3: This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)!
A3: See our neutral point of view policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help. Q4: Why is this article calling it a murder instead of a death/killing?
A4: As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at WP:MURDERS. Q5: Wasn't Floyd killed near a store called Cub Foods, not Cup Foods?
A5: The store is Cup Foods, and is not affiliated with the Cub Foods store chain. Q6: Why does the article use such a graphic photo? Isn't it in poor taste?
A6: The lead image was determined by the community in a formal Request for Comment process. The RfC reached an "overwhelming consensus" that "...the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an appropriate representation of the topic." Q7: Why was my request or comment removed?
A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to describe Floyd's murder using other terms (e.g. "death", "overdose") or to change the name of the article accordingly will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and essays, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and WP:Reliable sources. Anyone removing such requests should include a link to this FAQ in their edit summary. Q8: Why do we not call the protests riots?
A8: Because most reliable sources call them protests, not riots. Q9: Did he not die of a drug overdose?
A9: No, whilst fentanyl was a contributory factor, his death certificate lists his cause of death as "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression". |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving Murder of George Floyd was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 May 2020. | ![]() |
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Killing of George Floyd was copied or moved into State v. Chauvin. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, when it received 13,505,134 views. |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8
as Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
Autopsy - not murdered
Facts Trump your feelings. The Autopsy shows ZERO damage to his trachea. He died of a drug overdose. 4X the legal limit in his system. The drugs killed him, not Derek. That’s a fact. 96.8.253.190 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- As noted elsewhere, the role of the autopsy is to determine a cause of death from a medical standpoint. Murder is a legal conclusion, which is determined by a jury in a court of law. The jury reviewed the evidence and determined Mr. Floyd was murdered, full stop- so we call it a murder. You can disagree with this conclusion all you wish, and Mr. Chauvin can use all legal means to overturn his conviction(SCOTUS just turned him down) but that doesn't change what we call this case. The results of the autopsies are stated in this article.
- And if Mr. Floyd was on drugs, perhaps Mr. Chauvin should not have restrained him by kneeling on his neck, which is clearly visible in video. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Chauvin had no way of knowing Floyd had just swallowed a lethal dose of fentanyl (you can see it in his mouth on bodycam though), and the restraint Chauvin used--the "maximal restraint technique"--appeared on bodycam to be done exactly as Chauvin was trained; you can see it demonstrated in his training manual here. When I have time I'll find some reliable sources and expand the article to list the plethora of exculpating exhibits ruled inadmissible at trial. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Please don't engage in WP:SYNTH. Use your time more wisely than that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- How Chauvin was trained? "Just following orders" didn't work as a defense at Nuremberg, it shouldn't in Minnesota either. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what Godwin's law is. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I invoked Nazis in an internet discussion. That's exactly what Godwin's law is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what Godwin's law is. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Chauvin lost in court. He then lost in appeals court. SCOTUS then rejected his appeal. The next step in appeals process above the US Supreme Court is not Wikipedia. We do not argue cases. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Chauvin had no way of knowing Floyd had just swallowed a lethal dose of fentanyl (you can see it in his mouth on bodycam though), and the restraint Chauvin used--the "maximal restraint technique"--appeared on bodycam to be done exactly as Chauvin was trained; you can see it demonstrated in his training manual here. When I have time I'll find some reliable sources and expand the article to list the plethora of exculpating exhibits ruled inadmissible at trial. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- AS you are not a court, you do not get to overturn the court's verdict (which is what we go by). Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: What we "go by" is reliable sources, and an ability to pass WP:VNOT. Court rulings, and as the IP above has stated, "feelings", are not part of Wikipedia's guidelines. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Actually if a court finds someone guilty of murder that would be usable. It may not pass wp:n but it would pass wp:primary. As this is not about wp:n but wp:v, a court finding is usable. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are free to disagree with the conclusion of the jury that heard all the legally permitted evidence, and Chauvin is free to appeal(he did and lost). You are even free to use your social media to promote that view. You aren't free to reargue the case here. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- In fact, discussing whether or not a court case's outcome reflects reality is not infrequently done on WP; it is how we come to have articles like Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial where editors add information about the very sorts of issues, reservations, alternative theories, public doubts, and so forth, that complicate cases like this. Simpson was, after all, acquitted of the double murder with which he was charged. So how can a WP article "reargue" his case, as it does? This is also how we get WP articles such as the one about Anthony Ray Hinton who was convicted of murder in 1985 and sentenced to death. Hinton appealed to the Alabama Appellate Court in 1988 who unanimously confirmed his conviction and sentence, and then he appealed to the Alabama State Supreme Court in 1989, who ruled likewise. Case-closed, right? Actually, no. After being on death row for 28 years, Hinton's case was reopened due to demonstrable uncertainty about his guilt, and he was eventually exonerated and released. So "rearguing the case" is par for the course when it is high-profile and there is a possibility of a verdict having been wrongly reached, whether a conviction or acquittal. Lest anyone argue that Hinton's case is irrelevant since he was legally exonerated, there are many examples of those who have been demonstrably wrongly convicted yet never exonerated, such as Timothy Evans who, despite it having been proved that he was not in fact guilty, the state has refused to overturn his conviction. Indeed, WP articles are frequently works-in-progress which reflect ongoing changes even after acquittals or convictions and subsequent exonerations or prosecutions, such as with Trials of Kirstin Lobato who was convicted of first-degree murder in 2002 and sentenced to 40-100 years in prison, then was retried in 2006 for the same crime and this time convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 13-45 years, and in 2017 was ordered released, but about whom there are still questions as to whether or not she indeed murdered the victim. So claiming that a conviction (or acquittal) permanently closes the books on a case as far as WP is concerned, is absolutely false. Bricology (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: What we "go by" is reliable sources, and an ability to pass WP:VNOT. Court rulings, and as the IP above has stated, "feelings", are not part of Wikipedia's guidelines. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- B-Class African diaspora articles
- Low-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Black Lives Matter articles
- High-importance Black Lives Matter articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles
- B-Class Law enforcement articles
- High-importance Law enforcement articles
- WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
- B-Class Minnesota articles
- Mid-importance Minnesota articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- B-Class gun politics articles
- Low-importance gun politics articles
- Gun politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class United States History articles
- Mid-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report