Talk:Murder of George Floyd

BRD - Officers' previous alleged conduct

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)

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)

• 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

The proper term to describe what happened is "pinned by the neck until dead."

To describe his death as occurring "later on" is a misnomer. And you should also include his last words on the page out of respect. 2600:8805:C880:111:85C2:58A:1AAF:55A1 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2020 (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. I can't find the term "later on" in the article, and I'm not sure what you want to be changed when you say "pinned by the neck until dead". Seagull123 Φ 14:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Murder

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

---

Why is the page beating around the Bush? Why doesn't it simply call it what it was - murder. When cops are killed the articles are named "murder" but when cops are the murderers it's not. This is quite a double standard of Wikipedia. Jorge1777 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

On articles where the term "murder" is used in the title, a court of law has convicted the perpetrator of murder. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not actually the case. Jorge1777 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll need to be more specific if you want to further discuss renaming this article to "Murder of George Floyd" at this time. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jorge1777: - unless the majority view of reliable sources is that it's murder, it won't be referred to as murder. I assure you that this is not the case at this point in time. starship.paint (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to add on, murder is a legal term. Nothing is "murder" until has been so decided by a court. "Killing", however, is not a legal term, and accurately reflects what happened here, until and unless a court says otherwise. Ergo Sum 14:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Floyd's family broke their silence on his death publicly demanding the cops to be charged with murder. --93.211.214.147 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We wouldn't put murder in the title of a case like this - regardless of who the people involved were. The case & its participants are being investigated. Jim Michael (talk) 19:16, 27 May 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.

Racism

Racism is not once mentioned!? --93.211.214.147 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone important must say it's racism. A reputable media organization, or a relevant politician. starship.paint (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The "Reactions" section talks a lot about statements made by politicians/celebrities, many of which say or imply that racism was a contributing factor. Stavd3 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipdia has become beyond egregious. --93.211.214.147 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That word means "standing out", "conspicuous", "obvious", "hard to miss". What is it you are actually trying to say?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Here a "relevant politician", Jacob Frey, a lawyer and Mayor of Minneapolis: Minneapolis Mayor Frey To County Attorney: Charge Arresting Officer --93.211.214.147 (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the exact quote where he talked about racism? starship.paint (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't believe racism should be mentioned in the article until the ongoing investigation is complete and it is determined to be a contributing factor. 172.101.5.82 (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you "believe". Belief has repeatedly served to justify acts of organised repression, ranging from discrimination to attempted annihilation. It is therefore of considerable importance to understand why racism persists as a belief system. The mayor of Minneapolis made the connection to Racism unmistakably clear by saying: "that regardless of the investigation’s outcome, it was clear the death of the man in custody, later identified as George Floyd, was unjustified, and that race was a factor. “Being black in America should not be a death sentence,” the mayor said. “For five minutes we watched as a white police officer pressed his knee into the neck of a black man. For five minutes. When you hear someone calling for help, you are supposed to help.” Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police/four-minneapolis-policemen-fired-after-death-of-unarmed-black-man-idUSKBN23234W → Racism in the United States! --217.234.65.129 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)--217.234.65.129 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There is yet no prove it was motivated by racism. Byulwwe (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Campaign Zero, a social justice organization that maps police violence across the US, found that Minneapolis police kill black residents at a rate more than 13 times higher that of white people, one of the nation’s largest racial disparities. --93.211.212.100 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Length of video

Currently the article says knelt on Floyd's neck for over seven minutes. These two sources say the video was nine minutes - knelt on his neck for nine minutes and - the nine-minute video shows a white officer pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck. The video was posted on Facebook, but I can't access it as I don't have an account, here's the link to it on Facebook. Can someone with a FB account check it? Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked the video. The cop is kneeling on him at the start of the video, and maintains the kneel until nearly 8 minutes into the video, at which point the unmoving Floyd is placed on a stretcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18a:c680:7a60:48a0:ed7:72fb:93fd (talk • contribs)

@Isaidnoway: - the video continues even after Floyd is stretchered and taken away. That accounts for the difference in time. starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, I appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Crowd size reports as hundreds

Sources differ unfortunately.[[1]]Mancalledsting (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Another recent source claiming "hundreds"[2].Mancalledsting (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Another source claiming "hundreds"[3]Mancalledsting (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

Demonstrators gathered at the site of Floyd's death on May 26. The crowd, estimated to be thousands of people, then marched to the 3rd Precinct of the Minneapolis Police. Around 8:00 p.m., police in riot gear fired sandbag rounds and chemical agents into the crowd.

Please noted that sources are also claiming hundreds as well

Demonstrators gathered at the site of Floyd's death on May 26. The crowd, estimated to be "hundreds" and "thousands" of people, then marched to the 3rd Precinct of the Minneapolis Police. Around 8:00 p.m., police in riot gear fired sandbag rounds and chemical agents into the crowd. Mancalledsting (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: Most of the sources given say "hundreds"; and anyway better wording is to use only one of the two so I have gone ahead and changed it to only read "hundreds". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayor Frey is now persuing criminal charges

He announced this over 30 minutes ago. Please include this.Mancalledsting (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Here is also a local online source [4] Mancalledsting (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As of yet, no arrests have been made! --93.211.214.147 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Because they need a grand jury indictment first. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Pursuing criminal charges" is incorrect. The mayor doesn't pursue (or have the authority to pursue) criminal charges. What the mayor did (per the cited source) was call on the County Attorney to pursue criminal charges; but the mayor can't order the county attorney to do it. The county attorney doesn't work for the mayor; they are independent parts of different local governments. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2020

Death of George Floyd → Killing of George Floyd – While murder isn't appropriate for an ongoing investigation, "killing" seems an appropriate description of events, and is backed up by a reliable source. On the other hand, other sources call it a "death". As such, I'm neutral myself, but think that a discussion is appropriate. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Pinging participants in "murder" section - @Jorge1777, Starship.paint, AzureCitizen, and Ergo Sum:. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - wait for the autopsy results so that we know whether or not he was killed. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Wait for autopsy per above. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Consistency, Articles about similar events are called death not murder or killing. Unless convicted or murder no need to change,Life200BC (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Per DIYeditor, definitively describing this as a "killing" would be premature until the medical examiner/coroner's report says so. Ergo Sum 21:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Death is the most neutral language, and should be used until more information is available. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Death of" is the most appropriate term, at least for the time being. If the officer is charged or convicted at a future date, we can reassess. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support — "Killing of..." is commonly used by the media [5][6][7]. This isn't a proposal to rename the article to "Murder of..." and there's no controversy about why he died in a general sense, even before a pathology report is released. For this reason the name change doesn't depend on whether an officer has been charged with murder or what the specific physiological cause of death was: you can die in many ways when someone is kneeling on your neck. -Darouet (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Maintain neutral language. KidAd (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Death of Eric Garner, a case that is extremely similar, plus WP:BLP and neutrality concerns. Love of Corey (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose “Killing of...” is sensationalist. “Death” will suffice per Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Maintain factual language. "Killing of" is the common language when the individual's death is the direct result of another individual's actions, whereas "Death of" is more common for natural or accidental causes. The individual in question was killed, I don't think there is any doubt about that. "Murder of" would be prejudicial and inappropriate until such time that criminal proceedings begin/conclude.*BrandonsLe* (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – While I agree with the argument in the case of a fatal shooting, this is too much/too soon for a case such as this. We should at least wait for a finding of homicide by the medical examiner. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Killing" is defined as an act in which someone is deliberately killed. At this time, there is no evidence that Chauvin deliberately intended to kill Floyd. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  While I agree with your !vote, that is not a good definition of killing. If you hit someone with a car and they die, you killed them, even without intent. A simple and better definition: 1: the act of one that kills. From Oxford Dictionary of English: an act of causing death, especially deliberately. So maybe in British English it is more considered to mean a deliberate act? ODE only says "especially deliberately" though, not exclusively. OED says only: 1. a. The action of the vb. kill, in various senses. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and snow close until after both autospy and any conviction. Despite the video being as close to direct support that the cops actions led to the complications to his death there may be other factors at play that the cops only made it worst but were not the cause. Even if it was determined if the cops were the direct cause of death, then it is a matter of the circumstances of the arrest that may have given reason to do what they did (very unlikely but we are wikipedia and need to stay neutral here and cannot presume guilt). So until these events happen, this must stay at "Death of..." --Masem (t) 02:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now until an autopsy. I'd think it'd be biased to declare it a killing unless the autopsy clears Floyd of any possible underlying conditions, regardless of opinions on the video. Fernsong (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - true, the death could be classified as culpable homicide or homicide, depending on the autopsy and the policemen’s motives, but "killing" should not be added unless there is proof that the policemen intended to kill him. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 06:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Death seems more encyclopedic and neutral; killing implies culpability. Ovinus Real (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There is absolutely no question that he was killed and that there is culpability. Millions of people have witnessed his killing, recorded in detail on video.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Death implies that it was not caused by another person, while killing is when one person harms another. Tbrechner (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  "Death" implies nothing but that the person is deceased. There is no evidence I can find that "death" is only used for cases without outside causation. Do you have such evidence? In fact, there is a reason why terms like "natural death" and "suicide" exist to differentiate from just "death". Regards SoWhy 10:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now per WWGB. Even if that definition isn't very good, the fact remains that "killing" carries the connotation of deliberateness. However, as this is an American topic, the American definition of "killing" should be used. As such, if the (significant) majority of RS use the term "killing of George Floyd" I support changing the name in the future. userdude 08:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

See my post below: contrary to your assertion, in the English language, murder implies deliberateness, but killing does not. -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Killing most certainly implies deliberateness and intent. Until an autopsy verifies the true cause of Floyd's death, we cannot maintain a neutral POV and at the same time insinuate cause, when we do not know the cause. Elvis2500 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500

• Oppose. Death sounds more neutral. Infernape612 (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: We are not a jury to decide whether it was a culpable offense (or not) to the point of a homicide. "Death" is by far more neutral for an encyclopedic article.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: The guy was on the floor with a police officer's knee on his neck, telling them "I can't breathe" and "Don't kill me" until he passed out and died. Regardless of their intention, the police officers caused the death of this man - looks like a killing to me. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  "Looks like to me" is not an accepted scientific method of determining causation, especially not for Wikipedia which relies on reliable sources. Regards SoWhy 10:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Regardless of the wording I used, it should be blindingly obvious to everyone who saw the video: the man did not just die, he died as a result of the actions of the police officers, ie. they killed him. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Many reliable sources conclude the very same, describing Floyd's death as a "killing." -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support In my opinion saying it was a Death violates WP:WEIGHT. Killing is deffonatly more appropriate and WP:COMMONNAME. — RealFakeKimT 09:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per precedent (Death of Eric Garner) and reasons given above. If and when someone is convicted for causing this death - and reliable sources start using another word(!) - we can reconsider. At this point, none of the sources in the article use "killing" (at least in the title) and most sources I can find go with "Death" (e.g. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]). Regards SoWhy 10:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per SoWhy above Ed6767 (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Floyd was brutally murdered in front of a crowd of horrified bystanders as he begged for mercy, resulting in the firing of those four officers, international outrage and violent protests and demonstrations all over Minneapolis. This wasn't some accidental sudden "death", it was a literal killing. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't have the autopsy results & no-one's been charged. It would be inappropriate to say at this stage that he was killed, let alone murdered. We don't want to prejudice any criminal proceedings. Jim Michael (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose While Floyd was definitely killed, Wikipedia precedent is that the title is 'Death of' rather than 'Killing of' or any similar title. While this was a killing, this is a vote purely on precedent. AlternateHistoryGuy (talk)
• Support Hundreds of sources are calling it a killing, including in the title. I see no merit in the precedent argument. An accidental death caused by a choke on someone who wouldn't let themselves be cuffed has no relation to officers killing a cuffed person who on all available videos didn't resist, merely begged for his life & pleaded for his mommy. They mocked him while he was dying. Even the Donald has said justice is going to be served on those guys. Presenting a topic in a way that's considerably less accurate & compassionate than president Trump does is a little disconcerting. He didn't just die, he was killed, current title is almost "fake news". FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Articles like this go through a name change progression as events unfold in due course, i.e., an autopsy is released that establishes the official cause of death, potential arrests are made, and a possible trial and conviction for murder. Logical RM discussions based on reason can proceed from an informed standpoint as each milestone is reached, with potential titles like "Killing of..." and "Murder of..." etc. But until then, we should follow our usual process of waiting for the right preconditions for RS, BLP, and NPOV policy reasons. Arguments from emotion and compassion may be noble sentiments and "feel right" to some editors, but they are not based in logic. As unsatisfying as it is, patience is required for us to get the article title right at the right time. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support George Floyd was killed, this was caught unambiguously on video, and numerous outlets have described it as a "killing". "Murder of" would be an entirely separate story, because it would be inappropriate until the officer(s) are charged and convicted, but "Killing of" is clearly appropriate, in the same way that the title "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" is appropriate. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's too early for this. Once we get the autopsy and charges/convictions, I think it will be appropriate to move it, but not right now. WP:BLP definitely applies here as well. Nihlus 13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support US English speakers need to be very careful to maintain neutrality, which means political neutrality in this case. If you don't know what that means, or have doubts, then step aside please. Also, it is a great time to look at the international coverage in cases like this. The UK Guardian uses killing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/27/george-floyd-sister-police-officers-should-be-charged-with-murder. It seems very simple: there was a killer and there was the killed, this death was not caused by unknown or other circumstances. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Conservative, minimal assertions are best concerning the title of the article. We should not be aiming for a maximally inflammatory title. The title of an article doesn't aim for maximum sensationalism. Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The rioters tearing up several US cities are being described as motivated by a desire for a just response to the killing. While there's no reason to think the anger is driven by Wikipedia, it's the current misleading title that risks being "maximally inflammatory". A change to a more neutral title may be calming. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The current title just makes Wikipedia sound mealymouthed to me. Rather than looking for precedent in the title "Death of Eric Garner" (perhaps overly cautious even in that case), our comparison ought to be with Death of Alan Kurdi. The death in question here was certainly caused: causing death is killing. - phi (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. I think that 'killing' is perfectly neutral because that's precisely what it was. Murder is not appropriate yet, and might not be even if the perpetrator in question is found guilty, but killing implies a clear causal relationship in this case that Wikipedia should recognise. 'Death' is too transactional and considering the video footage and aftermath, wouldn't do justice as to WHY this incident has notoriety in the first place. LeoC12 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support. I agree the current article title sounds mealymouthed. A killing is what occurred-- "killing" is a distinct term from "murder"-- and thus the article title should be changed to reflect this occurrence, just like the "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" affirms that particular event as a shooting. Furthermore, I fail to see how calling it a killing influences thought versus accurately describing what happened. I will feel even more strongly about this when the autopsy inevitably confirms the cause of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:9f44:c600:e15d:727c:9243:b05f (talk • contribs) — 2604:6000:9f44:c600:e15d:727c:9243:b05f (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reluctant support- ideally we'd just move it to Murder of George Floyd immediately, but the section above suggests that that wouldn't be possible without a change to BLP, so "killing" is the next-best alternative. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as it is clear this person was killed, and backed by reliable sources, death just implies that it wasn't done by a person (i.e it happened due to an illness, etc., not the case). I hold the opinion that we'll eventually move this to Murder of George Floyd, but of course it's too early to do this until an investigation is done. GoodCrossing (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as the video had clearly shown everything needed, fulfilling the chronology of his death per the previous requests of multiple users here. However, I must say that "killing" is too much of a sensationalized term for me. In replacement for a more neutral-sounding title, I'd opt for a "Murder of____" heading instead of the current suggestion Azurevanilla ash (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. Key words highlighted for emphasis. Until the report comes out, despite with the media is hyping it up to be, it could be anything from murder to alcohol poisoning, drug abuse/overdose, or a stroke/heart attack. 172.101.5.82 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  According to police, Floyd was in a nearby car and "appeared to be under the influence". A spokesman for the police department said the officers ordered him to exit the vehicle, at which point he "physically resisted".

  According to the Minneapolis police, officers "were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress. Officers called for an ambulance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.101.5.82 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's what the police claimed before video evidence came out... which media universally acknowledge directly contradicted police statements. -Darouet (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - We need to wait for the majority of RSes to refer to it as a "killing" before we can. If the medical examiner rules this as a homicide, the RSes will likely start using "killing" instead of "death", at which point we should change the title, but until then, we should continue to follow the sources and use "death". It seems we go through this every time there is a new article about a suspected murder, and I wish experienced editors would take on board that we waste our resources when we make premature move requests or have lengthy arguments like this, especially in the first few days. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the lack of information. Nuke (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose until we have confirmation. Spengouli (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support killing or murder, as the event in question is his murder, the act of killing him, not his death. ɱ (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  Ɱ, do you have access to an autopsy report that the rest of us don't? While it is very likely that the pressure on his neck killed him, there is no way to be certain until that report comes out. Nihlus 20:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLUESKY, the video is sufficient proof-saying he couldn't breathe before dying. It's public knowledge, not disputed by any credible sources. ɱ (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support - Normally I would be neutral on this but there's clear cut evidence on video. That means that I'm supporting it. Jdcomix (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the video is enough evidence and was published, the fact is of public knowledge The article is about the killing, not the death as mentioned before HM7Me (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OR - basing an article title on your own personal interpretation of a video is not acceptable. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my comment above, many reliable sources are describing Floyd's death as a killing, so such a label does not rely upon OR. -Darouet (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now the death looks like a murder. But I will wait until we have all of the facts about the death. There may be some mitigating factor as of yet unknown. WP:NORUSH probably applies to this. We can always change it later. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This proposal is to change the name to "Killing," not "Murder," which is something entirely different. -Darouet (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: That is a distinction without a difference Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support - While it is somewhat premature to call it an act of murder, the general consensus right now is that it is a murder. Unless a source comes out and proves the contrary, I think it is safe to assume that the currently provided evidence is correct. KevTYD (wake up) 20:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The discussion is not about whether he was murdered, as the motives of the officers are unknown so far. However, I believe it is clear from the evidence provided that Floyd's death was purposeful on the part of the officers, and that evidence suggesting he died of other causes is shaky at best. --Lugnutlarry (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - Per Darouet's reasoning in discussion below, arguments opposed have little basis. Further, agree with RealFakeKim above: Saying we need to wait for law enforcement charges saying it was a Death violates WP:WEIGHT and "killing" is more common and therefore better for Wikipedia per WP:COMMONNAME. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Killing implies the article is about a very small subcategory of death--the action of killing. If the article is about the killing, how can we justify putting the protests, lawsuits, etc. in this article? Death, on the other hand, is an all-encompassing title for this topic. Protests are related to the death. (Nobody can protest against the killing which has already been done). Lawsuits are related to the death. Similar articles also start with Death. For example, the Death of Osama Bin Laden, not the killing of. Sherwilliam (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? Please see Killing of Harambe, Killing of Cecil the lion, Killing of Latasha Harlins, Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, and Killing of Nicole van den Hurk. All of those articles cover protests, lawsuits, and the overall impact. Some even devote a majority of the text to it. There is a precedent. ~ HAL333 23:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support - If we want to get technical / semantic, Floyd's death "ocurred" as a direct result of the actions of Officer Derek Chauvin. "Death" implies lack of a living agent whereas "killing" explicitly identifies one. The evidence as currently presented show no doubt as to the fact that Chauvin killed Floyd. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Video footage and multiple sources all corroborate that it was a killing. As mentioned above, leaving it as death likely violates WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore, kill is defined as to 'cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)' - exactly what occurred here. Similar articles are also titled as 'Killing of' so it would be consistent. WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 22:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC).
• Strong Support - Editors such as myself are not arguing on emotion, I am arguing on the merit of the sources that describe it as a killing, and as stated above WP:WEIGHT is in violation. VF01 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. 'Death' seems to be used in similar articles earlier. Seems sufficient for encyclopedic purposes. --Thi (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - Just to be clear, to those of you who are arguing we should contravene reliable sources and call this a "death" until the ME report: are you genuinely concerned about the possibility that Floyd may have died of natural causes while his neck was under an officer's knee for seven minutes, and while he stated that he couldn't breathe and that they were killing him? When someone dies in a shooting, do we usually wait for the ME report to describe the incident as a killing, just to rule out the possibility that the victim may have died of a naturally-occurring heart attack in the split seconds before the bullet impacted? We should follow the reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone voted "oppose". 2001:569:74D2:A800:8989:60D4:7D6E:9E52 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The death of Eric Garner and other extremely similar cases use "death of" due to the neutrality of the statement per WP:NPOV. Haydenaa (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support killing refers to the death of someone caused by someone else, not necessarily a murder. This is obviously the case here. Dark-World25 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, changing to "Killing of" is not suggesting a murder, but a death caused by another person. This is both factually accurate and backed by sources which refer to this as a killing. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support per RealFakeKim. ~ HAL333 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong supportOccam's Razor means we must assume the strangulation was a reason for his death, not any other cause for which there is so far no evidence (or even indication). Also for what it's worth, 'Killing of' does not violate WP:NPOV. Devgirl (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as this was objectively a killing. The video evidence is right there. "Death" implies a random event without any causal relationship. 00:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmurali02 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose per haydenna. Conformity to Death of Eric Garner Death of JonBenét Ramsey Death of Breonna Taylor etc. Only exceptions are seemingly assassinations &/ animals. That and WP:NPOV due to it not being an inherent intentional killing. — IVORK _Talk 01:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the latter article is currently in the process of undergoing a proposal for a page move to Shooting of Breonna Taylor instead, so it should probably not be cited as firm precedent pending the results of that move discussion. Flip^andFlopped ツ 02:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note Humans are animals too. ~ HAL333 02:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support Our quest for neutrality should not blind us; we can see, on video, an act that led to Floyd's death. Labeling it a killing is no less encyclopedic than labeling Tupac Shakur's death a murder. If anything, calling it simply a "death" is misleading - "killing" makes it clear that their was another human involved, which objectively, there was - no matter the "cause" of death, he would be alive if he had never interacted with the police officer. Furthermore I would assert that death of Eric Garner should also be moved to killing, for same reasons. Thornsie (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would be a break from precedent, and implies a certain level of culpability (if not strictly semantically). — Goszei (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Death is the most neutral language.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support George Floyd was killed, which generated an abundance of reliable media coverage speaking to that fact. The publicity surrounding him is not merely about the fact that he 'died', it is specifically about the fact that he was killed, the manner he was killed, and whom he was killed by. It is the killing of George Floyd that infers notability, not the death of George Floyd. The article title should reflect that. Flip^andFlopped ツ 02:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, since the process by which Floyd died, not the death itself, is the main topic of the article, and it's pretty much crystal clear that Floyd was, in fact, murdered. --letcreate123 (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the way that George Floyd died, not just the fact that he died, is the subject of this article. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now We should wait for autopsy or a judicial ruling before changing it, as *officially* there is no ruling yet and we really should wait for confirmation Jspace727 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As mentioned many times, "death" is the most neutral language right now. Articles will go through name changes down the line anyways, so we should definitely have this discussion again after an autopsy or pathology report. LittleWhole (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Almost every "oppose" vote argues that a pathology report is needed to ascertain whether Floyd was killed, or implies that "killing" has the same meaning as "murder."

• According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb "kill" does not necessarily imply intent: To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc. By contrast, "murder" implies intent: To kill (a person) unlawfully, spec. with malice aforethought (in early use often with the additional notion of concealment of the offence); to kill (a person) wickedly, inhumanly, or barbarously. Whoever closes this requested move should ignore votes implying that killing and murder are the same, or arguing that a trial and murder conviction are required to rename the article to "killing of..." "To kill" and "to murder" are different verbs in the English language.
• I cannot find a reliable source arguing that Floyd may have died from underlying medical conditions unrelated to the officer pressing his knee down on Floyd's neck, while Floyd begged that he was being killed, and while onlookers exclaimed that Floyd was being killed. Can someone find a source making this argument, or is this pure speculation?

• Many sources refer both to Floyd's death and to his killing, e.g. the BBC, US News, the Chicago Tribune, the Cut, Yahoo News, CNN, NY Magazine, the Guardian, TIME, Al Jazeera, TMZ, The Globe and Mail, Rolling Stone, The Hill, and so forth. At this point "Killing of George Floyd" returns more google hits than "Death of George Floyd."

Arguments that murder and killing are the same, that a pathology report is needed, or that reliable sources don't use this phrase, are all false. -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair, COMMONNAME in RS is split down the middle. There are just as many sources using either title suggested to refer to the incident. This is a very old dispute on Wikipedia, going back years. Here are some examples that I have participated in:
  • Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery/Archive_5#Requested_move_12_May_2020
  • Talk:Shooting_of_Terence_Crutcher#Requested_move_23_November_2019
  • Talk:Shooting_of_Atatiana_Jefferson#Requested_move_14_May_2020

We may need a bigger RfC to solve this often brought up dispute. While I !voted oppose above, I usually agree with changing these titles to "Killing of". The biggest argument RMs have faced is that there is precedent established by the many "Death of" and "Shooting of" article about police involved killings. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed a shift over the course of this Requested Move from "oppose" to "support". That implies that the facts of the event are still coming out, and this Requested Move was started too quickly. Should this be speedily closed as too soon? Benica11 (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. The facts of the case have evolved, which renders many of the initial "opposes" questionable and helps explain why there has been a shift to more support votes. Flip^andFlopped ツ 02:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Based on the understanding that this is an encyclopedia, dealing with common knowledge, not a work of forensic/scientific nature, I support. It is not an interpretation of a video, it has become common knowledge that it was a killing and its public interest (what legitimates it as encyclopedic interest) is the fact that it was an act of brutal violence, regardless technical scrutiny.

So, if not 'killing of...' then perhaps it would be more clear to express the idea of 'brutal death circumstances of ...' HM7Me (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment In other cases, the way the person died is often used in the title, hence "shooting of...". How about Suffocation of George Floyd as an alternative. Just an idea. ~ HAL333 02:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Support: Whether or not you believe his death was fair or not, his life was taken by another human, therefore it was killing. There is no debate. He was killed, that's a fact, he's deceased because of another person. Accept it.

Many celebrities condemned the incident

I'm sorry, but so what? This seems un-encyclopedic.198.161.4.41 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree, especially as most of the celebrities listed have no political influence and have little pertinence to the subject. BanjoZebra (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The list (if there is to be a list per se) should be limited to celebrities that are specifically mentioned in WP:RSs and should not be based on any primary sources. I can't tell which are cited to what, someone should go through it. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a reasonable idea supported by WP policies. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We already know what closet SJWs celebrities are, and it just adds undue weight to the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What?—Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Actors/Musicians' opinions about anything outside their field are not notable and not encyclopedic 2600:8801:B04:2000:505E:2340:7AD3:1818 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with the idea this information is unencylcopedic. Celebrities are usually slow to take political positions because they stand to alienate parts of their audiences. Celebrities' comments lend significant credence to the idea that this was a significant cultural moment across the United States. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This is from the section that was removed from the article:

Many celebrities condemned the incident, including Ice Cube, Chance the Rapper, Debra Messing, Chelsea Handler, Jeffrey Wright, W. Kamau Bell, Meek Mill, Common, Snoop Dogg, Ariana Grande, Ice-T, Justin Bieber, Madonna, T.I., LeBron James, Talib Kweli, Kim Kardashian, Ava DuVernay, Demi Lovato, Naomi Campbell, John Boyega, Cardi B, Sean Combs, Candace Cameron Bure, Cynthia Erivo, Viola Davis, André Leon Talley, Mandy Moore, 2 Chainz, Zoë Kravitz, Polo G, DJ Khaled, Stephen Curry, Janet Jackson, and Jamie Foxx.

It looks like Boyega has been readded. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• The TL;DR list of 35 names doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. A reasonable compromise might be limiting the list to one name per source and the list present here should be of diversified names (ie not all black rappers for example). Personally, I'd pick one name from each source and link the source to the name. If people really want to see all the other names, they can always follow the link to the source. 172.101.5.82 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think the list of celebrities is relevant to the article but I would like to see at least one citation immediately after each celebrity's name so that the reader can easily access their comment(s). I think celebrity names without citations immediately after them should be removed. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should have 1 line that says roughly "many celebrities have condemned the polices actions [citations here]"--Hiveir (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Even a WCCO report casts doubt acknowledges how police did not intervene to prevent the fires and looting

Lack of police intervention makes the reports of fires and looting very questionable [13] If you ask me, it's like the looting was politically allowed. I am not seeing no need for a National Guard, which at this moment would clearly a publicity stunt if activated.Mancalledsting (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to this Wikipedia article? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

One change that could be made to the "Rioting, looting, and violence" section is that "devolved into" could be changed to "gave way to", or something similar. The current wording sounds like the looting and rioting are the same group as the protesters, but the source does not make it clear if the group of arsonists were originally associated with the protest. Clearly the protests and looting are associated *events*, but not necessarily the same people. 73.227.132.130 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Law enforcement section

I've filled out a Law enforcement subsection in the Reactions section. Apparently quite a number are speaking out on this topic, keep an eye out for more. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: thank you for starting the section! I started working on prose a bit. It seems to have become a rather long list of Police Chief names condemning the action. Any thoughts on how to make the prose more wieldy? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good as of now, trimming the actual names was a good idea, as well as providing the support offered by the local police union. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, looks great. Thank you for your help! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

More sources report no attempt of police intervention

See these [14] [15] They make me doubt further that the "riots" are not a publicity stunt.Mancalledsting (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion can't move forward without other editors knowing specifically what change to the article you're proposing. Neither of the sources you link to propose anything like the events in Minneapolis being a "publicity stunt," so that's not a tenable addition. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The point of races in the lead

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.

---

Apparently when at least one officer is non-white, it is still necessary to include the races of people in the lead, and I am being told to seek consensus for removing them. @Isaidnoway: please explain the other side to me; why is it necessary? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney—are you referring to this edit? If so, why are you removing the reliably-sourced information that George Floyd was an African-American person? What is your reasoning behind that? Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that including the race of the victim is fine but it is not neccessary to include the race of the police officer since it will only create more anger and divide people. It can also be clearly seen in the photo that the cop is white. It also isn't scientifically / grammatically correct to say "white" or "black" when introducing someone. Frozenranger (talk) 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We can't assume everyone will see the photo. There are plenty of people who access Wikipedia with vision impairments who rely on screen readers or similar. While the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images provides a method to convey the essential information of the image, we shouldn't rely on images as the sole method to convey important information that should be in the article, unless we absolutely cannot avoid it. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images. Edit: I should clarify I was not intending to expressing an opinion whether the ethnicity or race of any of the participants is important (although my gut feeling is mentioning that George Floyd was an African American is important). I only wanted to point out is "people can see it in the image" is a poor argument for whether we should mention the information. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The point of the article is not to "shine light on police violence". We follow sources. If sources say "black", we say "black". If sources say "white", we say "white". Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Frozenranger: That is not what we do as an encyclopedia. We shine no lights nor consider any consequences. We only aggregate reliable, neutral information. Ergo Sum 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: @Bus stop: Including race definitely divides people, your claiming that your part of the encyclopedia which I am also just as much a part of, thus that sentence is not helpful to me or anyone who is a member. If we are including race as the leading point then we must also accept that we are insighting anger and rage into people that otherwise isn't neccessary. When you introduce someone to your friends and family do you say "This is my black/white friend john"? Most likely not. That information is irrevelant and not neutral. Neutral information doesn't contain race or sexuality Frozenranger (talk) 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There shouldn't be any races that should be mentioned at this stage because it should be all races or none. Currently, only the "suspect/victim" and one officer are being labeled and not the other three officers giving WP:UNDUE weight and making this appear to be a white cop on black victim racial hate crime. The available information indicates there are other races of officer including the asian officer and what appears to be a black or hispanic officer in the videos. 172.101.5.82 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@172.101.5.82: I agree with your statement, race shouldn't be included at all. Frozenranger (talk) 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is an overwhelming consensus in the reliable sources used in this article that identify the race of both Floyd and Chauvin. I can start a RfC if editor's feel it is necessary to establish a firm consensus one way or the other to include their races in the lead. Obviously I support the inclusion per RS, V and NPOV. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree that at this point, mention of the races in the lede may be undue. The crux of the matter was the killing. Reliable sources tend to mention the races as a segue to inferences. I think it's proper that they be mentioned in the main body but not necessarily in the lede. Ergo Sum 16:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: Yes as an editor please consider removing the race of the cop because it adds no value in terms of objective reasoning. Maybe we can include if further down or in a different section but not as the leading sentence. Thank you Frozenranger (talk)

Frozenranger—you say "it adds no value". Nothing adds any value because you don't know the interests of the readers. We should be reflecting reliable sources. If reliable sources say an individual is black, we dutifully convey that information to the reader. If reliable sources say an individual is white, we dutifully convey that information to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Thank you Frozenranger (talk)

Given the seeming rapidly developing consensus of the above that this is not neutral and undue, I have as an uninvolved editor boldly gone ahead and removed the mention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The point of mentioning races in the lead is to cover the most important aspect of this event. How is it not neutral to mention their races? How is it undue? Whether or not the impetus for the officer doing what he did was racial, the reaction to it is. We can't deny how important the racial component is to this story, and it has to be demonstrated prominently. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that race should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but as pointed out by Ergo Sum, "The crux of the matter was the killing. Reliable sources tend to mention the races as a segue to inferences." Thus, it being mentioned immediately as such in the lead is a bit too much detail on what is possibly not the actual factor behind the incident. As the IP points out, mentioning it in the lead makes "this appear to be a white cop on black victim racial hate crime", which is not what any of the sources say. The Guardian, for example, only mentions the officers' names and makes no mention of race except for saying the victim was "a black man" or, alternative example from the same source, "the black man killed by police in Minneapolis". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This Guardian article begins with The FBI and authorities in Minnesota have launched investigations into the death of an African American man after an incident, captured on video, in which a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck as he lay on the ground. This Guardian article has the sub-headline Protesters clash with police, who deploy teargas and stun grenades, following death of black man at hands of white officer. The Guardian prominently features race in their stories. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• That the man who died was black and the police officer with his knee on the man's neck was white is mentioned in the headlines and/or leads of the RSes, and thus should be in the lead (in the first sentence really) of our article. The crux of the matter isn't the (alleged) killing, but the (alleged) killing of an unarmed black man by a white officer. There is not a single RS that discusses this event that doesn't prominently discuss race. The races of the other officers should also be in the lead (but not the first sentence), as they're significantly covered by RSes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) If the races of the other three officers are known/published with WP:RS, then I have no argument with including them all. They should be all included in a single WP:NPOV verified sentence, and there is no reason to link the races. 172.101.5.82 (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• The crux of the matter is the death of a civilian due to police incompetence. Regardless of the source, wikipedia can always disseminate information in the most neutral and objective way possible, since it is an encyclopedia and not a private news company. Race does not matter since "all lives matter". If you want to create a politically polarizing article then include race, sexuality... etc, however as explained by @Ergo Sum:, the point of an encyclopedia is not to shine light or drive a narrative on politically sensitive topics. Wikipedia is a place for objective presentation of events, not the subjective bits that make up the event. Again, people should not be defined by race. Thank you Frozenranger (talk)

Frozenranger, see WP:RGW. We are not here to right great wrongs. People should not be defined by race. I agree! However, we can't ignore how race factors into events like interactions with police, and ignoring it is whitewashing an integral part of the story. The story isn't the death of a civilian due to police incompetence, the story is an African American civilian dying due to the overuse of force by the police, and the officer with his knee on Floyd's neck is white. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu "the story is an African American civilian dying due to the overuse of force by the police" I agree, however the part about the cop being white is irrevelant in the lead. It can be included in the other subcategories of the article. White cops using too much force isn't the problem, its the overuse of force by all cops. Frozenranger (talk)

Frozenranger, so the race of the victim is relevant, but the race of the alleged killer is not? You don't find that strange at all? Drmies (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Britannica states that all races (but especially minorities) are targeted by policy brutality;[16] and that African-Americans have typically been the worse affected. Whether this kind of information should go directly in the lead is still open to question as in this case the other officers were not just "white" so it complicates the matter. Readers might be better served by having a more thorough discussion on race and police brutality later in the article, or simply with a link to the article on this topic, rather than blanket labeling the races of the involved officers in the lead without any further context on this obviously complex US political issue. Maybe a sentence of the kind "The incident has been described as an instance of police brutality targeted at African-Americans." (which requires a reliable source be found for this). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Frozenranger, User:RandomCanadian, User:Ergo Sum, I trust that none of you will consider removing "who is white" again. It is a ridiculous proposition to take out this one fact that every single reliable source agrees is relevant. This plain and relevant and well-sourced fact has been here since the beginning, of course. That some of you can come here and claim that somehow this is not important enough to be in the lead is mind-boggling. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If you'll allow me to correct the awkward wording. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, "white Minneapolis police officer" seems more awkward to me than the alternative. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Drmies: I haven't removed anything. Nor am I arguing any of the merits here. I really don't have much more to say beyond what I did above. Ergo Sum 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Some editors here need to be smacked with a few trout. Frozenranger, to suggest that mentioning race "only create more anger and divide people" and "[r]ace does not matter since "all lives matter" is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV. WP:RS overwhelmingly highlight the races of the involved people. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• All lives matter is as neutral as it gets EvergreenFir. Why should people be defined by race? Why should we lower our standards to subpar reporting? The crux of the article is police incompetence, not war on blacks. Also your attacking me with a trout? please grow up. Frozenranger

  We just report the sources. If the sources mention race, we do. If there is a controversy about race, we mention it. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Frozenranger, from All Lives Matter: All Lives Matter (#AllLivesMatter) is a slogan that has come to be associated with criticism[1] of the Black Lives Matter movement.[2] How is that "as neutral as it gets?" It's not. Neither is "war on blacks". Mind talk page guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Muboshgu: I'm just replying to a comment thanks. I have no intention to associate all lives matter with a slogan. Let me rephase then: Everyone's life is of equal importance on earth. Is this irrational? Do you not see how we are leading the reader on to a narrative? Frozenranger

      You are likely heading toward a topic ban. Please refer to WP:NOTFORUM. I repeat, we just report the sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Race and RS

I feel like I've had to do this a dozen times before on other articles, but here we go again (emphases added):

• "The video, captured by Darnella Frazier, begins with the man, who is black, groaning and repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" to the officer who has his knee on the man's neck. The officer is white." - CBS
• "Floyd, 46, died after a white Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeled on his neck for at least seven minutes while handcuffing him." - The Daily Beast
• "An FBI investigation is underway and four officers have been fired following a fatal encounter Monday between Minneapolis police and an unarmed 46-year-old black man named George Floyd. ... Overnight, video of the attempted arrest circulated on social media. Posted by Darnella Frazier on Facebook, the nine-minute video shows a white officer pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck behind a squad car. While lying facedown on the road, Floyd repeatedly groans and says he can’t breathe. “He’s not even resisting arrest right now, bro,” one bystander tells the white officer and his partner, in the video." - CBS Local
• "The bystander video that circulated widely on social media Monday night shows a white Minneapolis police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck during an arrest, as the man repeatedly says “I can’t breathe” and “please I can’t breathe.” - NYTimes (archived version to avoid paywall)
• "Four Minneapolis police officers have been fired following the death of an unarmed black man in police custody Monday night." KMSP Fox 9
• ""We are once again traumatized by the tragic scene of a black man pleading for his life at the hands of a white police officer," Smith said in an emailed statement. " - KSTP local news
• "Video of the incident shows that a white police officer had a black man pinned to the ground next to the back tire of his patrol car with his knee on the man's neck." - NBC News
• "...after a viral video showed a white police officer putting his knee on the neck of a black man, who later died." - Washington Post
• "Police officers near the Minneapolis 3rd Police Precinct on Tuesday during protests against George Floyd's death. Floyd, a black man, died after a white officer, Derek Chauvin, knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes." - Insider
• "In widely circulated cellphone video of the subsequent arrest, Floyd, who was black , can be seen on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back while Officer Derek Chauvin presses him to the pavement with his knee on Floyd's neck. The video shows Chauvin, who is white , holding Floyd down for minutes as Floyd complains he can't breathe. The video ends with paramedics lifting a limp Floyd onto a stretcher and placing him in an ambulance." - Boston Globe
• "The mayor of Memphis said Thursday that he shares the frustration of protesters angry with the death of a handcuffed black man during a confrontation with a white police officer in Minnesota." - Star Tribune

These are from the first 15 or so sources in the reference list (plus one linked from one of those sources). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah we just had to deal with this on the Ahmaud Arbery page a week or two ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• ... Mr. Floyd, a black man, who died after a white police officer pinned him to the ground with a knee to the neck. WSJ
• ... the killing of an unarmed black man by a white police officer. BBC
• ... George Floyd, a black man who was seen pinned down in a video by a white police officer and later died. ABC News
• ... the white police officer seen on video kneeling against the neck of a handcuffed black man who complained that he could not breathe and died in police custody. AP News
• ... the death of an unarmed black man seen in a video lying face down in the street, gasping for air and groaning, 'I can’t breathe,' while a white officer knelt on his neck for several minutes. Reuters
• ... George Floyd, a black man who died after a white officer pinned his knee against the suspect's neck as he struggled to breathe ... Fox News

It's all of the RSes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:01, 28 May 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.

Other Videos

The video of him being removed from the vehicle (possibly resisting) can be found at: https://twitter.com/i/status/1265409119843954694 172.101.5.82 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

Include a link to a wikipedia page regarding Derek M. Chauvin, which includes his history on the force. Prior controversies regarding his conduct are relevant. 76.65.30.150 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article, and probably won't as a WP:BLP1E. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s relevant and it should be included in his life since it’s one of the reason why he was in Minnesota in the first place. And we might as well remove that he was a father and that he lost his job as well. Also as you already stated it’s not clear if police knew about it or not. Political and social issue have nothing to do it. Byulwwe (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

About the man who was shot and killed during ensuing protests on May 27

Should that be mentioned in the infobox as an additional indirect death? Pizzaguy875 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Criminal record

As I'm sure it will come up, we should WP:BRD here about this edit. The Houston Star also reported on the aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. WP:AVOIDVICTIM says we should avoid victimizing someone who is already the victim of the actions of another person, but it does explicitly say this applies to a "living individual". Since the prior sentence only refers to person I am not sure whether or not the general provision that BLP applies to the recently deceased applies in this case. When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. At some point in the future of this article BLP will definitely no longer apply. Clearly this information is associated with a certain narrative that attempts to discredit the victim in this sort of case. I have no opinion on whether this should be included or not. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we went through this on the Arbery page, and some of the other BLM-protested deaths. Did the officers involved know about Floyd's record? If not, I don't see how it is relevant here. It can be weaponized as an attack against the recently deceased, and BLP does still apply as he is "recently deceased". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of treatment of George Floyd and majority white armed anti-lockdown protesters by police

Many news sources are comparing the very different treatment by police of the George Floyd protests and the majority white anti lockdown protestors

• https://www.vox.com/2020/5/27/21271811/george-floyd-protests-minneapolis-lockdown-protests
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-minneapolis-protests-photos-black-racist-a9536901.html
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-us-police-responded-differently-to-protesters-demanding-justice-for-george-floyd-and-anti-lockdown-rallies
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-us-police-responded-differently-to-protesters-demanding-justice-for-george-floyd-and-anti-lockdown-rallies
• https://www.indy100.com/article/minneapolis-george-floyd-protests-anti-lockdown-racism-police-9536626
• https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/george-floyd-is-police-violence-in-the-us-a-black-and-white-issue-36710
• https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/george-floyd-death-protests-minneapolis-lockdown-salon-trump-a9535561.html
• https://www.salon.com/2020/05/27/i-cant-get-past-the-differences-between-the-minneapolis-blm-protest-and-anti-lockdown-protests/
• https://www.dailydot.com/debug/protests-george-floyds-death/

I'm not sure sure how to include this in the article.

John Cummings (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Some mention of this in the aftermath section would be appropriate, perhaps a subsection "Comparisons to anti-lockdown protests" or something like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with DIYeditor —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Separate article for protests/riots

It's pretty quickly becoming a major thing. Kingofthedead (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No objection here. Are there equivalent separate articles for other similar situations in the past? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: yeah, see Ferguson unrest or 2017 Anaheim protests or 2016 Portland, Oregon riots. Kingofthedead (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

This sentence may be incorrect: The policemen taunt Floyd to "get up and get in the car,"[29] to which Floyd replies: "I will ... I can't move."[30] In the video, it sounds like a bystander actually says this to Floyd. Whichslued1 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You are correct I noticed that too. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "it sounds like a bystander actually says this" is your your own interpretation of this. Given that it's unclear and that it's a controversial topic, if we quote this WP:PRIMARY source, it would be better if we could cite a WP:SECONDARY source which describes this. Or at least, this is my take on things, if some of you are fine with stating in Wikivoice that this is actually what was said... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There are two police officers around the side of the car pinning George Floyd's legs. It was my understanding that it was these officers who told George to get into the car, not any bystanders. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not accurate. It's a black man who tells him to get in the car. There are a lot of omissions and inaccuracies in our transcription. That's a notable one. It's the bystanders who told him to just get in the car. What we have linked as the full video is not the full video. You can see it starting at 5:00 in this youtube video. We need a better transcription. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible im no expert but just putting it out there for consideraton just in case. Not sure why but fist time on wiki and to make my account I got two words to prove im human as you do the whole gdyee3H my words were cahnlungs and wailssum so I did. Because I believe I'm onto something and just for George and for the 0.5 percent chance they don't check. I don't even know if they do MRI as part of autopsy but I believe in this case they should. Wikijude75 (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Unicorn Riot Coverage

During the protests the media site Unicorn Riot did live coverage of the protests and interviewed people apart of it. I'm not exactly sure how to add this to the article but here is the link to their Youtube Channel where the livestreams are up. Unicorn Riot Youtube Channel Eons of Mollusk (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death

At c4 and 5 vertebra and the spinal cord in this area house the nerves and control of the diaphragm. I believe the pain he felt in he stomach and the fact he could not breathe was because the nerves in this area were being pinched . I know from experience and after my spinal cord was cut off and I couldn't walk the paramedics said was lucky c4 and 5 keep you alive . I'm commenting because I hope they do an MRI as part of the autopsy healthy men don't just die but with the neck restricted and pressure on spinal cord at c4 and 5 they do . RIP George Floyd . Wikijude75 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That is quite interesting, but please do not use this page to speculate on Floyd's cause of death. We need to wait for autopsy and coroner and medical examiner's reports. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The cause of death is important because the page needs to be changed from death to murder. If we leave as death its the same as saying its not murder and that is taking sides, the side of Derek Chauvin. Ty78ejui (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Murder" is only acceptable if the accused party is found guilty by a court of law. Until then the incident is a "death" or "killing", and if/when there is an official autopsy the cause of death from that can be added. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead incorrect on death of Garner

Eric Garner had carotid compression of the neck, not "suffocation." The article incorrectly states that suffocation was the cause of death. This is important because carotid compression is likely relevant here while suffocation is not based on knee position and ability to speak. Cutting off blood supply to the head with a carotid choke hold used against Garner killed him, not suffocation. Lead should be correct to the cited cause of death2600:8800:1580:20D3:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Per your observation and the cited source, the corresponding statement in the lead has been changed from "while being suffocated" to "after being placed in a choke hold." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The official cause of death for Eric Garner was "compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police" as detailed at Death_of_Eric_Garner#Medical_examiner's_report_and_autopsy. It does not mention "carotid compression". I'm fine with AzureCitizen's changes though. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir As I said, it was a carotid choke hold. We have an article on it specifically w/ section on how Law Enforcement uses it Chokehold#Use in law enforcement (lateral vascular neck restraint). Choking off blood supply is different than suffocation (choking off air supply) though both can lead to death. The coroner report does state the airway was ininjured. Persons that have their air supply choked off can't speak. 2600:8800:1580:20D3:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Some officers "had already been involved in several incidents"

• Evelyn, Kenya (28 May 2020). "George Floyd killing: two officers involved previously reviewed for use of force". The Guardian.

Notes that:

Two Minneapolis police officers captured in video footage restraining George Floyd were previously involved in other violent incidents while on duty, according to a database that documents instances of police brutality.

While making cautious statements about the implications of this regarding the appropriateness of police internal review and race relations with law enforcement in the state. Since I'm not interested in another unwarranted trip to WP:Dramaboard if one of you wishes to investigate this and add something about it in the lead or the body of the article feel free to do so. Cheers (but a bit less cheerful than usual), RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My main objection to adding this info is exactly as you said: "implications". We cannot make implications on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir, I think you mentioned the term "eventualism" somewhere? We're getting there, and Yahoo just published a story about Klobuchar declining to prosecute the main cop, what's his name, for a previous violent incident. All of that content will no doubt be worked into the article in the next few days--how's the BLPN thread going? RandomCanadian, there's been talk about this before on this talk page; please check that, and the thread on BLPN. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Strange that you speak about Klobuchar, this article also mentions the same thing. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not strange at all--I saw the Yahoo post on Facebook, and there are no coincidences. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead: "Officers Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng also helped restrain Floyd"

Our lead states: Officers Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng also helped restrain Floyd, while officer Tou Thao stood nearby and looked on. However, this is not backed up by the source cited [17] In this newly circulated video, three officers have Floyd pinned on the ground, while another stands over him ... the officer who pressed his knee to Floyd's neck has been identified as Derek Chauvin ... the other officers involved have been identified as Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng, and Tou Thao. The source does not specify which are the other two who pin Floyd. I searched for other sources, but they too do not identify the officers, just saying [18] three officers are seen sitting on Mr. Floyd.

As such, I feel that this sentence in the lead fails verification [19], but User:Isaidnoway disagrees. Note that the "newly circulated video" may have occurred earlier than the original viral video, we don't know if the officers switched positions. We must have care in handling WP:BLP, there is potential harm if we accuse Lane/Kueng of restraining Floyd if they did not (even though they likely did). Therefore we need a source explicitly backing the sentence, I don't think it should be left up to editors to judge the video, but the sources. What do you think? starship.paint (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thao is identified as the officer who stood in this previously posted source. He was looking the other direction arguing with witnesses about how they shouldn't do drugs so I have removed "and looked on" from the lede. Kire1975 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)