Jump to content

Talk:Murder of George Floyd: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,012: Line 1,012:
::::::::::::The brief bios of the participants routinely include major aspects of their lives. [[User:Jim Michael|Jim Michael]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael|talk]]) 14:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::The brief bios of the participants routinely include major aspects of their lives. [[User:Jim Michael|Jim Michael]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael|talk]]) 14:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, not in the overall context of someones life. Less so them him being a talented athlete who particularly excelled in football and basketball at school (for example) or the fact he had not been jailed since. But there is no more to be said. No reason has been given as to what this adds to our understanding of the case beyond "it was a major part of his life" and "If he had not moved he would not have died".[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, not in the overall context of someones life. Less so them him being a talented athlete who particularly excelled in football and basketball at school (for example) or the fact he had not been jailed since. But there is no more to be said. No reason has been given as to what this adds to our understanding of the case beyond "it was a major part of his life" and "If he had not moved he would not have died".[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Death of George Floyd|answered=no}}
Floyd might have received the counterfeit note from someone else, without knowing that it was counterfeit, and Friedrich Fiegenwald Coy subsequently suspects that the whole deadly charade was arranged to demonise cash and African Americans per se. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:411F:EB00:D9E8:A600:E184:776E|2A00:23C5:411F:EB00:D9E8:A600:E184:776E]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C5:411F:EB00:D9E8:A600:E184:776E|talk]]) 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:37, 30 May 2020

Template:WPUS50

Protests

Should we go into more depth about the protests revolving around the Death of George Floyd? I understand that a section has been put into place regarding this topic, but I feel that it needs more depth, as at this point, all the information about the main portion of the event, the actual death, has already been completely covered. The only current events are currently the protests, so should we go into greater detail about this? Note: It has been brought to my attention that there is a Twin Cities Protests page, I will link to this page at an appropriate place in the article. JazzClam (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC) It has been brought to my attention that it is already in the article. JazzClam (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Allegations of excessive force are just that: allegations. It does not mean they were "known of having used excessive force". This might be rebutted if the terms of the settlement acknowledged wrongdoing and, specifically, excessive force. However, this is not a necessary aspect of a settlement. In essence, you have unproven allegations which cannot indicate whether this incident is an instance of excessive force. I do think that if the officer's (unproven) past is retained, then it makes sense to have the decedent's past in the article. Both achieve the same end: allowing the audience to speculate about the incident. If we want speculation, we ought to make it balanced. Perennial Student (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
To be clear, there is the possibility that the decedent's history is relevant (as has been pointed out below iirc). This is if it were known that the victim had a violent past to the officers and in turn caused increased anxiousness on the part of the arresting officers to control the victim. This is not known and, perhaps rightly, it ought not be included unless it demonstrated. But it's not true that criminal history necessarily bears no relevance to the incident. Perennial Student (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; agree with Kire1975 and their reasoning above. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racism

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

Someone important must say it's racism. A reputable media organization, or a relevant politician. starship.paint (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipdia has become beyond egregious. --93.211.214.147 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What's the exact quote where he talked about racism? starship.paint (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
The article you allude to seems to be speculating that this was racist. Good, that journalistic speculation might be included in the article. That is not, however, "proof" that this death was motivated by racism. If the incident is found to be criminal (charges are not convictions), even then that is not proof. Incompetence could be the cause before any individual racism in the officer or collective racism in the police dept. Perennial Student (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that it was an incident based on racism or discrimination. Whatever the cause, at this time it is merely speculation and bias. Only if and when a trial is held and e.g. racism is part of the conclusion, then this should naturally be described - in an objective fashion! That journalists/medias/politicians etc. express their biased views is neither a judicial or de facto conclusion. (Extreme) liberal gun laws could be to blame as well. I suggest that for now a section can be included in the article describing the views and opinions of the above mentioned - with sources. --Lechatmarbre (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Frey is now pursuing 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 [3] Mancalledsting (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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.[1][2] On the other hand, other sources call it a "death".[3] As such, I'm neutral myself, but think that a discussion is appropriate. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goyette, Jared (2020-05-27). "Hundreds demand justice in Minneapolis after police killing of George Floyd". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
  2. ^ Sabur, Rozina (2020-05-26). "George Floyd: Protests erupt in Minneapolis after death of black man pinned down by white police officer". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
  3. ^ "Death of US black man in custody sparks clashes". BBC News. 2020-05-27. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
Pinging participants in "murder" section - @Jorge1777, Starship.paint, AzureCitizen, and Ergo Sum:. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • 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)[reply]
  • Wait for autopsy per above. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Due to the preliminary autopsy finding that strangulation and asphyxiation were not the cause of death, I think we must let a jury decide whether this was a killing or not. Less would be a plain BLP violation against the accused at this time. I am open to changing this if more information comes available. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support — "Killing of..." is commonly used by the media [4][5][6]. 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Maintain neutral language. KidAd (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose “Killing of...” is sensationalist. “Death” will suffice per Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    This is simply NOT true. Killing can literally be either accidental or deliberate. Murder is the specific term that precisely refers to deliberate killing. This is why the term "homicide" is so often used in early reports - because it specifies that a death was caused by another person but makes no statement on whether that death was accidental or premeditated. I support changing the article to "the killing of George Floyd," because his death WAS a homicide, full stop. Whether the killing was murder or not is what is up for debate, not whether he WAS killed.
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose - Death seems more encyclopedic and neutral; killing implies culpability. Ovinus Real (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]
"Killing" does not imply intent to kill. According to the Oxford English Dictionary: 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. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Darouet, killing implies that a crime has taken place and that someone is guilty of committing the crime, whether it is manslaughter or murder, and associating that with a living person without a conviction is against WP:BLPCRIME. Nihlus 21:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. There are plenty of ways to kill someone without committing a crime: self-defense, war, justifiable homicide. Kaldari (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not criminality, but intent. If a police officer shoots someone wrongfully, they were using deadly force, which demonstrates an intent to cause death. To the best of my knowledge, the force used against Floyd was not considered deadly force (at least, insofar as it is defined by rules of polce conduct) so it is not our place to prescribe intent to kill. userdude 12:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WWGB's comment above. The fact that some dictionaries define "kill" as implying deliberateness means that "kill" has the connotation of deliberateness. userdude 12:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Death sounds more neutral. Infernape612 (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    @SoWhy: Dude quit being such a condescending smart-ass. You deliberately ignored his analysis and only used his conclusion as though that was the only thing he said without backing up why he concludes that. He clearly stated REASONS before concluding "Looks like a killing to me". Do you not know how conslunsions work? First you state reasons then you conclude by saying what your analysis shows. 94.175.64.92 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing condescending about it. Analyzing a primary source and reaching your own conclusion - valid or otherwise! - is what we call original research. This core policy explicitly states that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Regards SoWhy 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Many reliable sources conclude the very same, describing Floyd's death as a "killing." -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darouet: But the vast majority does not, which is also reflected in the article, which at this time contains 3 sources that use the word "killing" but 45(!) sources (if I did count right) that use the word "death". Regards SoWhy 06:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]). Regards SoWhy 10:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SoWhy above Ed6767 (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)

*Snow 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) [reply]

Upgrading to Snow support per the murder charge, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:Weight & WP BLP. (BLP per due respect to the victims family, & also as comparing this to an accidental death where the suspect wouldn't let himself be cuffed appears almost borderline defamation to the x cop involved.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Per new evidence my rationale is no longer entirely correct, so striking vote. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Reaffirming my opposition in light of the charges. WP:BLPCRIME is a policy that must be considered. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. As hard as it may be for some people to realize, the officers are living individuals and are innocent until proven guilty. Wikipedia is not a court of law nor is it a platform for righting great wrongs. Nihlus 21:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • I'm going to be a real outlier here: it's now a murder case called State v. Derek Chauvin [12]. "The death of George Floyd" is the murder alleged in State v. Derek Chauvin. Because this is an encyclopedia, I think articles about notable murder cases should be named after the murder case, and not "murder of [victim's name]" or "killing of [victim's name]". So, I'd support a move to State v. Derek Chauvin. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the lack of information. Nuke (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose until we have confirmation. Spengouli (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Correlation does not imply causation. Regards SoWhy 05:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your failure to accept indisputable evidence, a video recording of his murder, shocks me. When Trump finally is recorded shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, I'll remember not to list him as a murderer until he's convicted. ɱ (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a failure to accept evidence to point out that two events happening at the same time does not mean that one caused the other. And yes, per WP:BLPCRIME you would indeed be incorrect to list Trump as a murderer in this hypothetical scenario. I understand the general sentiment behind this request and I truly sympathize but we cannot forget that even those police officers involved are relatively unknown living people for whom our policies require a presumption of innocence "unless a conviction has been secured" (per WP:BLPCRIME). I have not seen any argument so far as to why this core policy should be ignored in this case. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Floyd was killed isn't accusing anyone of a crime. There are loads of legal scenarios in which someone can kill someone without committing a crime. Calling this article the "murder of" would be accusing someone of a Crime, and then I'd agree we have to wait until a conviction happens. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Partridgepentathalon, charges have been filed in case you would like to update your !vote. - MrX 🖋 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/george-floyd-death-live-updates-protests-erupt-200529124843031.html. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Strong Support Derek has now been charged with 3rd degree murder and manslaughter, making this officially a killing by the courts standards of an arrest warrant. I also think that most 'oppose for now' votes prior to the official charges no longer apply because of the official arrest charges, putting the consesnus largely in favor of a name change to "killing". Would like to hear from any past 'oppose for now' voters to see if they agree.Shadybabs (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support It should be immediately moved to Killing or Murder of George Floyd as the cop who kneeled on this man's neck is charged with third-degree murder [1] Neurofreak (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose – “Killing” feels like it’s getting into POV territory considering the controversy surrounding what happened. Also feels like an unnecessary deviation from similar incidents like the Death of Eric Garner, which also uses “Death of” despite being declared a homicide. - Koldcuts (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw he’s been charged with murder. Oppose is now a weak oppose. - Koldcuts (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per RealFakeKim. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per semantic arguments given in the discussion section below by Darouet (talk · contribs). -- Pingumeister(talk) 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per RealFakeKim's arguments. Demoxica (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per all the arguments above. Since the officer involved (Derek Chauvin) has been charged with murder, the title should probably be changed to "Murder of George Floyd". Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now The details of the death are unclear. Killing suggests a motive beyond just wanting to detain someone (regardless of the validity of the reason to want to detain). "Death of" is more neutral. Depending on the final legal outcome a change may be appropriate in the future. Springee (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BirdValiant. "Death" is not more neutral than "Killing", particularly in light of the charge with third-degree murder. Freeman emphasized he and his team would not have moved ahead with the case if they were not confident they had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was guilty. “As of right now, we have that,” Freeman said.[28] --DarTar (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for "Killing", and after the trial another move should be considered WRT "Murder". It is clear that a man's actions resulted in another man's death with just the video alone. The court of public opinion has no place on Wikipedia but this isn't a matter of opinion. "Murder" would be, but "Killing" does not as "Killing" can be state-sanctioned. -- sarysa (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for "Killing" with "Murder" considered in the future, per reasons expressed above by Sarysa (talk · contribs). Calcastor (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This is indeed a killing. Derek Chauvin was charged with "Third-Degree Murder" and "manslaughter". If Chauvin had not knelt on Floyd's neck for that long, Floyd might have survived. I would also like to say that, *I feel like "Killing" is more appropriate than "Murder". Pi=3.14(Nick) (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charging means that investigators think a particular thing. It does not prove that their thinking is accurate. Else, charging would be the end of the matter and we'd have no need to consult those pesky courts. We should wait for the autopsy to determine whether an individual was responsible for the death. It shouldn't take so long; there is no need to rush it. Perennial Student (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Death is a neutral term and does not imply that it was not caused by another person. Although the police officer has been charged with murder, we should wait till the conviction. SignificantPBD (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for "Killing" with "Murder" considered in the future. Here's a link to a page that contains the full complaint against Chauvin: https://www.axios.com/george-floyd-police-officer-in-custody-080da82e-9262-47fd-a52c-3ef7421adb10.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100&fbclid=IwAR3IHDzPMJwi5Oobg6p4z_DkbYnoujgV5UteWUafnkdNWdxGDK4fzf-9U2E John Link (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Mr Floyd was obviously killed by that bitch cop, so "Killing of George Floyd" should be the correct title of this article.Sadsadas (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I agree that Floyd's death was no question a killing, and I hope the cop rots, but like previous people have mentioned, the Eric Garner page is still titled "Death of". Wikipedia must be free of ANY bias, even if we as social beings all agree that this was a killing Thurgoodmarshallisbae (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support If 4 different video angles (possibly more) doesn’t justify this was in fact a killing of an unarmed black man, I don’t know what ever will. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The officer was directly responsible for Floyd's death and has been charged with murder, therefore he killed him. GarethPW (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support The video speaks for itself. --Deansfa (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Until the cause of death is officially established, we should not characterize it. Kablammo (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support "Death" sounds like a natural one. This is the murder we are talking about. Suitable title would be Murder of George Floyd. Mark my words, even if you wont change the name now, eventually it will end up with "Murder" word only. --Naveen N Kadalaveni (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for all the reasons above. It may not have been a murder but it was unquestionably a killing by any useful definition of the term "kill". Lexicon (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if reliable sources are using "killed", so should we. "Killing" doesn't require that a crime has been committed, it simply means that a person's death was caused by another person, which is clearly the case here. Kaldari (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now: Unclear verdict per other oppose reasons. Until a clear verdict on Floyd's death is reached, we should not risk changing the title into something else which throws off other readers. If the title does change, a suitable article name would probably be "Murder of George Floyd," but since a verdict for Floyd is not reached yet we shouldn't tamper with the title yet. Thissecretperson (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He was killed, no source denies that, so let's call it a killing. --denny vrandečić (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The police didn't need to knee on his neck for so long if he didn't want to kill him. Humans need to breathe, if you don't let someone do that, then you are killing him.--Andres arg (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nemo + GorillaWarfare + Darouet. – SJ + 02:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It’s a killing. Death implies ambiguity about how he died. It hasn’t been adjudicated whether it’s a murder but it’s clearly both true and easily verifiable that it was a killing. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nemo + GorillaWarfare + Darouet + MarylandGeoffrey. = paul2520 (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support because of the overwhelming evidence that was filmed and widely published by independent and mainstream media. That officer knelt of the victim's neck for nearly 9 minutes, even after the latter had repeatedly told him he could not breathe, even after passersby pleaded with him to let go of him or he'd kill him. Israell (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support killing as that is what happened. It is not like they died spontaneously and 4 police officers just happened to be holding him in their arms. The problem with such politically charged cases, like trumps weight is one can find physicians to say anything. Wound not user murder. Killing is sort of a middle ground. Death appear to be trying to obfuscate and sanitize what occurred. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It is absolutely true that Floyd died, and calling it a death in no way absolves the officer whose actions caused that death. "Killing" seems accurate but unnecessarily sensationalistic. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a question. Killing doesn't have to be intentional. But what definition of killing do you intend to use. Per one definition it is equivalent to murder, per another it's simply to make something die. It can be used in different situations. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It isn't sensationalist—it's just accurate. Karmos (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - after watching the video, yeah he definitely killed him Urgal (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since there are reliable sources available for "killing" (some mentioned above; e.g. see Nemo's comment). Ahmadtalk 07:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but only on a technical level, and somewhat weakly at that. Tentonne (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, given that third degree murder charges have been levied, and to accurately assess the situation. Teddybearearth (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The preliminary autopsy finding leaves open the possibility of accidental death ("The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death"). I think we need to wait for such a change until either a conviction, or a more detailed autopsy report. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support If 4 different video angles (possibly more to come) doesn’t justify that this was, in fact, a killing of an unarmed black man, I don’t know what ever will.TruthGuardians (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per TruthGuardians. Simply watching the video settles this discussion. CrispyCream27 (Talk) 09:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Going to oppose this one. I understand that it certaintly seems like an unlawful killing of a civilian, and I do agree that it was unfair, unjust, and a blatant abuse of power, however Wikipedia is not the place to be using loaded langauge like that, especially considering the very current state of this news. Maxmmyron (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per RealFakeKim, TruthGuardians and GarethPW. Choosing the passive "death" is PoV; it is also loaded language. Floyd didn't just "die", he was killed. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - especially for now, but even when the autopsy comes out I'm not sure if we should change it. "Killing" is usually defined as intentionally or deliberately taking someones life, unless that police officer says he intentionally took Floyd's life, I think it would be a NPOV issue to say killing. Death will always be a neutral term, in my opinion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - as per naming conventions. As more information becomes available, the title of the article may need to be changed to reflect this new information. CremationLily (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is backed up by multiple sources and the video itself. In the current landscape I do not think Death would be considered a neutral term at all, killing more accurately reflects the general opinion from what I have seen. The police officers intentions also should not effect the terminology, killing does not need to be intentional to still be classified as killing. His arrest has also shown that he is considered to have killed someone by the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubarr18 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nemo + GorillaWarfare + Darouet + MarylandGeoffrey. MacDoesWiki (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Since the officer has been charged, there is now more than enough justification to change the title. Kevin n97 (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support It would be the Death of George Floyd if he was not murdered, since the current consensus is that he was murdered, it should be the killing. But I do agree that it should wait until the autopsy is complete, but once that occurs I strongly support. JazzClam (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (no longer neutral) per GorillaWarfare and Doc James, but also in light of the (questionably independent) autopsy, which nevertheless suggests that the actions of the police officers were partially responsible for the death. i expound on this a bit in the commentary, but it's clear to me that this is a death as a result of the actions of other people, which is a killing (not necessarily a murder, that's a debate for after the trial). Furthermore, more RSes are referring to it as a killing. Some do still refer to it as a death - it isn't not a death. But WP:COMMONNAME applies. In relation to "sensationalism", keeping it as "death" can have an inference of the lack of an external agency, so it's not an WP:NPOV-safe approach. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Since Wikipedia for the most part functions as an encyclopedia and therefore by default must describe any subject as objective, neutral and truthful as possible, Mr. Floyds' death must remain the title of the article until a trial and final investigation of cause of death have been concluded. Any other title is biased and nothing more than a judgmental people's court. We are not medical professionals or judges examining and convicting in this case. If Wikipedia does not entail neutral information, its purpose becomes irrelevant and invalid.--Lechatmarbre (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I further suggest we change the article title to "Murder of George Floyd" since the police officer that committed the murder has been charged with the same. 74.76.172.231 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tally

Strong Support Support Oppose Strong Oppose
41 59 57 6

100 For, 63 Against as of 11:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC). There will be errors because of the number of votes feel free to edit it. Note I only looked at bold text or text next to a built point and only in the survey section. — RealFakeKimT 11:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RealFakeKim, what's this for? Requested moves go for 7 days and it has been 3. Also this is not a vote. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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. FlipandFlopped ツ 02:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    HAL333 Is there are coroner's report that says he died of suffocation? If that were the case I think we would just go with "killing". Otherwise it's not demonstrated. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone with a modicum of medical training or common sense will recognize that digging a knee into someone’s neck for a prolonged period of time will kill them. Hence Floyd’s cries that he was being killed, protests by onlookers that he was being killed, and RS statements and headlines that he was killed. As GorillaWarfare pointed out, we don’t speculate on whether someone died of a heart attack when they were shot to death. And I can’t find a single RS suggesting that Floyd died of some cause unrelated to the knee digging into his neck. There is none. This argument is spurious. -Darouet (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone with a modicum of medical training or common sense will recognize that we do not know what he died of, and will not know until the medical examiner's report is issued. Just as some examples, we don't know if he passed out because is airway was constricted or if it was the arteries, or maybe it was the chest compression. Or maybe he was poisoned. We don't know. All we're doing for now is speculating based on videos--that is not a medical diagnosis. Anyway, it doesn't matter what we think we saw on the video. All that matters is what RSes call it, and I agree with C&C that as of now, RSes are split on the usage. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darouet What you or I think is common sense is irrelevant. Frankly, I might get blocked if I said what I thought of the kneeling officer and what he did. Most of the RSs I've seen say "died" rather than "killed" but I haven't analyzed a breakdown by percentage. This is not a case where someone was shot, which I think would have no equivocation in the sources at all - it would be described as "killed" in every source! Instead from what I have seen most of the best sources are cautiously saying he died, responsibly waiting for a cause of death to be determined. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When an article covers the "Shooting of John Doe", shooting isn't necessarily the direct cause of death. It might be massive internal bleeding, or a ruptured stomach. Whatever Floy died of directly, suffocation caused it. ~ HAL333 13:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a variety of ways that he could have died as a result of a knee being on his neck for several minutes, which do not necessarily have anything to do with suffocation. The most likely of those alternatives is blocked bloodflow to the brain --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darouet and HAL333 now that an autopsy has been released that indicates it was indeed heart disease and that there are no signs strangulation or suffocation caused it, do you see the problem with the OR assumptions you made? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the titling of these sorts of articles is currently all over the place, and thus potentially subject to biases. For example, try looking up "prefix:Killing_of", "prefix:Death_of", "prefix:Murder_of", etc. in the search bar. Loooke (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hennepin County Medical Examiner on 5/28 [29]:

"The Medical Examiner recognizes the public expectation for timely, accurate, and transparent information release, within the confines of Minnesota law," read the statement released Thursday. "However, the autopsy alone cannot answer all questions germane to the cause and manner of death, and must be interpreted in the context of the pertinent investigative information and informed by the results of laboratory studies."

I understand emotions are running high. I understand what the video looks like. I completely understand how the video makes people feel and that it may seem insulting to say we don't know how Floyd died. The fact is, we don't have a reliable source for how he died and the various reliable sources covering this are not consistent in how they describe the events. As soon as a Medical Examiner's report is in calling this a homicide or something equivalent I will support moving this to "Killing of George Floyd". —DIYeditor (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what someone said above about medical training, this discussion goes to show what we think we see and what is there are not the same thing. How can it be "suffocation" when the man was speaking? He felt like he couldn't breathe. He felt like his stomach and everything else hurt. Cleary he's in fear of his life. Kneeling on the man's neck from the back is not actually obstructing the airway through the mouth and nose--that's what suffocation is. What's going here is something else, like pinching nerves and/or an artery, blood flow, etc. We can't be anywhere near as specific as the cause of death. That's interpretation.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely irrelevant: how does a pinched nerve, blocked blood flow, suffocation, etc. influence the semantic question of whether he was killed? It doesn't. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a debate, he was killed. When you stick your knee into someone who is on the ground handcuffed and unable to defend himself, it is a murder, however we can’t say that until the police officer is charged.

In conclusion, it is a killing, so please change the title. 2001:8003:20F0:E700:D4FD:EE78:7ACC:898C (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Coroner just ruled that it was not an asphyxiation-caused death. [30] Nuke (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the full report. [31] Elvis2500 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500[reply]
And this is why we wait for reliable information instead of rushing into matters haphazardly. Nihlus 22:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly needs to be added to the article. Perennial Student (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That article explicitly attributes blame to the police officer's actions, all it says is that he wasn't strangled or suffocated in the traditional sense. It doesn't say he would have died anyway, it says the police contributed to his death. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if he wouldn't have died but for the restraints, the officer is to "blame"? Being a but-for cause doesn't make you blameworthy. Else, the shop owner was to blame for calling the cops, for without that intervention, the incident would never have occurred. It needs to be shown that what the officer did was culpable.
For an act to be criminal, you have to show it was unreasonable and (depending on the offence) dangerous. A knee applied with enough force to effectively strangle a man is, obviously, unreasonable and dangerous. But the less force it was applied with, the less likely it was either of those two things. To be clear, I am not saying this is true. I am merely pointing out that it does in fact change things. Perennial Student (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally kill https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/nov/29/what-happens-to-your-life-after-you-accidentally-kill-someone unintentional killing https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html No killing does not mean intentional or murder.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • After the release of an initial medical examiner's report, the BBC nevertheless announces in the very first sentence of their article on the topic this morning [32]:

Protesters have clashed with police in cities across the US over the killing of an unarmed African-American man at the hands of officers in Minneapolis.

Agreeing with Slatersteven, Doc James, NaveenNkadalaveni, MrX, HAL333, the BBC, and a now very substantial majority commenting and voting on this RfC. -Darouet (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that the autopsy report is out, and we have a charge, some observations.

The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death. The defendant had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in total. Two minutes and 53 seconds of this was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive. Police are trained that this type of restraint with a subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous.

(emphasis added).

I will point out that when referring to the medical situation, the legal principle of Eggshell skull applies - it's not even a legal defence. But we're not currently debating the legal situation of culpability, but the act of "killing" - which isn't necessarily unlawful. The autopsy suggests against "traumatic asphyxia or strangulation" - but Positional asphyxia is not discussed. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. The ME has not ruled on a cause of death. The criminal complaint says that "The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation", and states that several factors "likely" contributed to his death. This is not a final determination of causation and we cannot go beyond these preliminary findings. Kablammo (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This sounds like a reasonable idea supported by WP policies. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please don't use perjoratives. MiasmaEternalTALK 04:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What?—Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that anything similar to the closet hypocritical right-wing celebrities? You know, the ones who talk about how hard it is to work in Hollywood, yet their hypocritical rears *somehow* find a way to get work anyway? If anything, I would think it'd OK to have a section for celebrity responses to the situation. 2600:1700:C960:2270:FC45:5BB4:42BF:572C (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[2][3][4][5][6]
  1. ^ https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-cop-taken-into-custody-over-death-of-black-man-that-caused-widespread-anger-2237530?pfrom=home-bigstory. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Ice Cube, Meek Mill and More Celebrities React To George Floyd's Tragic Death At The Hands Of Police". BET.com. Retrieved May 27, 2020.
  3. ^ "Snoop Dogg, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande & More Speak Out After George Floyd Death". Billboard. May 26, 2020. Retrieved May 27, 2020.
  4. ^ Gunn, Tamantha (2020-05-26). "T.I., Snoop Dogg, Meek Mill, LeBron James and more react to George Floyd's death". REVOLT. Retrieved May 27, 2020.
  5. ^ "Kim Kardashian, Chance the Rapper and More Celebs React to George Floyd Killing: 'This Is Not Okay'". PEOPLE.com. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
  6. ^ Moniuszko, Sara M. "Cardi B, Justin Bieber and more celebrities react to the death of George Floyd: 'We must act'". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
It looks like Boyega has been readded. gobonobo + c 14:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [33] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I don't know if this is relevant at all. https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/police-chief-much-of-riot-damage-caused-by-those-from-outside-minneapolis --Sleepcircle (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

More sources report no attempt of police intervention

See these [34] [35] They make me doubt further that the "riots" are not a publicity stunt.Mancalledsting (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The point of races in the lead

Folks, this article talk page is not a discussion forum. Please restrict comments to improving the article in a manner that is editorially pertinent to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially summarizing what reliable sources say — whatever that may be. The emphasis should be on due weight (i.e. consensus in the mainstream) and not any other considerations, political or otherwise. El_C 20:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(edit conflict)Britannica states that all races (but especially minorities) are targeted by policy brutality;[36] 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."[citation needed] (which requires a reliable source be found for this). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
If you'll allow me to correct the awkward wording. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, "white Minneapolis police officer" seems more awkward to me than the alternative. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • ... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Curious how this is any more or less relevant than the other life details reported in the article - birthplace, association with a musical group, or employment status. None of those are likely to have been known by the officers involved either I'm guessing? DrCruse (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]
Agree with DIYeditor —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please feel free to add it, I can try but I don't understand the context well. John Cummings (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The media has highlighted the differences in aggression between the police response to black protesters in these protests versus the more measured response to the 2020 United States anti-lockdown protests featuring gun-wielding white protesters.[37][38] This sentiment also spread on social media.[39]

@John Cummings, Muboshgu, Shrinkydinks, and DIYeditor: I made an attempt. starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for protests/riots

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

No objection here. Are there equivalent separate articles for other similar situations in the past? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DIYeditor: yeah, see Ferguson unrest or 2017 Anaheim protests or 2016 Portland, Oregon riots. Kingofthedead (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are correct I noticed that too. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Video on YouTube. We need a better transcription. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

See "Medical examiner and cause of death" below. Kablammo (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Some officers "had already been involved in several incidents"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Drmies: Strange that you speak about Klobuchar, this article also mentions the same thing. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Drmies: seems to be drawing close! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 [40] 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 [41] three officers are seen sitting on Mr. Floyd.

As such, I feel that this sentence in the lead fails verification [42], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Kire1975: - I agree that Thao is identified in the viral video. The thing is, he's not identified in the "newly circulated video" (because it hasn't been confirmed that the two videos overlap in terms of time), and I don't think we should be using our own judgment to identify him. starship.paint (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such phrase - "newly circulated video" - in the lede. Kire1975 (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kire1975: - no, it's not in the lead, it's what the CBS source stated. There's more than one video of the incident. starship.paint (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved, the offending sentence has been removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway and Kire1975: - a suitable source has emerged Thao was standing watch, and therefore the other three did hold Floyd down, as none of the three officers moved from their positions. starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: - what was unsuitable about this source again? Kire1975 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kire1975: - that source is suitable for the article but not for the claim that Kueng and Lane held Floyd down. That source only refers to the 10-minute video, not the other-angle video showing three officers holding Floyd down. starship.paint (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split protests section into its own article

It looks like the protests are getting eventful, especially with the abandonment and burning of the police station. That has not previously happened. I suggest a new article be created, on the lines of the Ferguson unrest and 2015 Baltimore protests articles. --Blemby (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it seems like the protests have become notable enough to warrant their own article, similar to the examples you listed. JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no SIZE issue at this point, the riots are too tightly associated with the events of the death and investigation. You can make a new section that highlights the situation more but splitting it was inappropriate at this point. --Masem (t) 06:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video quality and transcription

What has been linked as the "full video" (Video on YouTube) is not the full video and it looks like a cell phone video of a monitor rather than even a true copy of the original which makes it a blatant copyright violation. The title is false, we cannot link that as the title implying it is the full video. The only good copy I have found so far is at 5:00 in this Video on YouTube. This wouldn't be my choice of videos to link given the extraneous content before and after (I apologize for even having to link this source) but it is the best copy I have seen.

If you watch the actual full video you will see a number of problems with our current transcription of what happens. If a movie is considered a RS as a primary source for its own plot, isn't the actual video a reliable source? It is apparently an African-American-sounding man who seems like a bystander who says George should get in the police car. It is clear from the video here at 6:05 Video on YouTube. You can see him someone walk up shortly before that and start talking.

IMPORTANT:

  1. We have been linking to an obvious copyright violation.
  2. We have been misleading readers that the poor copy we linked is the "full video".
  3. We have been misleading readers that is the police who tell him to get in the car when it appears to be and sounds like the African-American bystander who walks up.

I appreciate any effort to work with me on this. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @DIYeditor: I agree that that copy of the video should be removed. I don't agree that it's an African-American-sounding man who seems like a bystander who says George should get in the police car. I don't know what accent is present. We follow the reliable sources. What sources explicitly say it's a bystander?
  1. Agence France Presse: the officers taunted him to "get up and get in the car."
  2. CBS News: An officer keeps insisting he get in the car
  3. WVLT-TV An officer can be seen insisting Floyd get in the car
  • starship.paint (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: You can see the a man walk up in the video before he starts speaking. He starts talking while he is on camera. Also you can tell that the voice is different from the Asian cop. The video itself is a RS just as a movie is a RS for its own plot. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DIYeditor: - I agree that the voice is different from the Asian cop. I'm not sure that it sounds like the bystander who walked up. I found another source, Buzzfeed News, [43] that states "A person can be heard talking to Floyd, telling him to get up and get in the car, although it is unclear if it is an officer speaking." I will edit that in that Buzzfeed is unsure, but AFP, CBS, and WVLT attribute it to the police. starship.paint (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding that! —DIYeditor (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope this does not sound like I am stereotyping people but as someone who has known and spoken to plenty of African-Americans, I have little doubt that the person speaking is African-American or someone who is very good at affecting that accent and dialect. Also from what he says, he is clearly not a cop. I would be irate if I thought the police were holding Floyd down and telling him to get up, more irate than I already am, and I think it would be a disservice to our readers to make them more angry than need be. I have asked on WP:RS/N what to do in a case like this. Balancing it with the source you've found is a great start! Thanks again! —DIYeditor (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tells Floyd to "get up and get in the car," (which Agence France Presse, CBS News and WVLT-TV identify as one of the officers, while Buzzfeed News states that it is "unclear" whether it was an officer speaking),

This is what I wrote, DIYeditor. I really couldn't find any more reliable sources discussing this (many were reprints of AFP). Otherwise, there were questionable ones like the New York Post, and unreliable ones like the Daily Mail and Metro, all of which say it was an officer, but of course, we shouldn't use those. starship.paint (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's great! I really feel like we have helped our readers with this. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: This is a high-quality addition to the article; thank you! @DIYeditor: Thank you for organizing this effort! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mentions of a protest that happened in New York City

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/more-than-a-dozen-arrested-during-george-floyd-protest-at-union-square/2436965/

At around 4:00 ET, there were protests in Union Square in New York City led by over 100 people. Over 40 people were arrested. There is no mention of this anywhere in the article. This should be added under "Memorials, protests, and riots" subtitle.

Shamaflama (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Shamaflama[reply]

 Done. Added in the "Memorials, protests, and riots" section in the "Elsewhere in the United States" subsection. Thank you for providing a source and specific details! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News just reported that Floyd and Chauvin both worked as security guards at the same Latin nightclub

This is a relevant fact that should be included in the article:

According to ABC Minneapolis news, George Floyd and Derek Chauvin both worked at security guards and had overlapping security shifts at the south Minneapolis Latin nightclub, El Nuevo Rodeo.[1]

This is the club: "El Nuevo Rodeo is the premier Latin Club Minneapolis, Salsa, Merengue, Bachata, & More. #1 Concert venue/dance club in Minneapolis"

http://elnuevorodeo.com/latin-club-minneapolis/ 74.101.202.221 (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to add this but why have so few sources picked it up? Also it should not be "according to ABC Minneapolis news" it should be "according to club owner". —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what if they did. It is not evident that they knew each other. It is just happenstance. WWGB (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's something related to this case. Why would we try to interpret what it means? RS reported it. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Them being co-workers at a tiny business is not relevant? How many people do you think work at that club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.202.221 (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was just reported earlier today, still less than 12 hours; maybe tomorrow it'll be somewhere else--and maybe adding it to this very Wikipedia will cause it to be reported elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.202.221 (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And AP[2] also reported it. That seems reliable. Hope so, it is sure to be incendiary information if true. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lastra, Ana and Rasmussen, Eric (May 28, 2020). "George Floyd, fired officer overlapped security shifts at south Minneapolis club". KSTP.com/ABC 5 Eyewitness News. Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved May 29, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ https://apnews.com/af48a809881976ddd3bf6dbb225eb538

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Stop citing “CBS News” and mainstream media outlets. We can all agree that mainstream news channels will caption things to fit THEIR narrative. Instead, cite these as “video published by CBS News“ or “cell phone video from...” 2600:8803:F100:425:E5A3:4D3B:EFED:5453 (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please review WP:RS & WP:NPOV EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that regardless of your opinion of them, no mainstream news outlet is the original source for any of the videos. They were captured by witnesses at the scene of George's death, and are only carried by different news outlets. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Image of George Floyd up for deletion

We do not allow non-free images of the recently deceased as standard practice in the same fashion as BLP under NFC, on the expectation that free images may be available from friends and family *after* giving them a fair period of mourning, and with the rationale that seeing the individual does not aid in understanding the crime and situation. Link to the XFD is at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29#File:George Floyd.png. --Masem (t) 06:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

The name of the article should be changed to “The Murder Of George Floyd” 173.237.111.84 (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No one has been convicted of murder. WWGB (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Change “Death of George Floyd” to “Murder of George Floyd” Elijah318 (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - this has been rejected immediately above & on the the archive. Jim Michael (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claim not supported by sources cited, and another reason to resist rush to judgment

This is not a website where we sit and speculate what might be. Follow the reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

BeŻet has added the 'context' that "The arrest was conducted after Floyd allegedly 'physically resisted' when ordered to exit his vehicle, a claim that has been contradicted by available video recordings.[2][5]" I have watched both videos and they do not show what happened when he exited his vehicle nor do they have anyone contradicting the claim. Not to say the claim is true or untrue, just that these videos don't support or contradict it. I don't have the wikiskills to handle this myself.

Also, while I think the arrest killed Floyd, here's another reason to withold judgement until an investigation has been done or at least await the results of an autopsy. Despite the apparently clear evidence of our own eyes that he was killed by the knee on his neck, it MAY rather be the weight on his chest that did it. I base this on looking at his airway, and it's important because of the implications for how the police make arrests in future. (Also: I have no idea why my comment is coming out with a blue box around it. I can't find a way to fix it) alacarte 11:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor alacarte (talk • contribs)

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.

CNN TV Crew arrest

Minnesota State Patrol arrested in Minneapolis 5:11 UTC-6 29.5.2020 CNN crew (Omar Jimenez as first arrested) showing journalist credentials during live relation, making de facto censorship and breaking first ammendment of the Constitution of the USA. 6:30 released.2A02:A314:813F:1000:9841:9846:8C23:F295 (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned under Twin Cities riots Ed6767 (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surname:Floyd or Lloyd?

Reports on this seem divided on whether the victim's surname is Floyd or Lloyd. Can anyone definitively settle this matter? M.J.E. (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't divided. "Lloyd" is a typo in some articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some possibility that "Floyd" could be the typo?

I'm not pushing for a controversial view, and have no opinion on the matter - just wondering how one resolves it. I've seen "Lloyd" in more than one publication on line - and heard both "Lloyd" and "Floyd" on A.B.C. radio news in Australia - a source I would usually trust to get names right. So, at present, I don't feel I can tell which name is correct.

Do you settle it by a majority vote of all the different sources that report on this? Or is there some source that gives the correct name beyond any possibility of dispute? M.J.E. (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to his facebook page it's spelt 'FLOYD'--Olatunde Brain (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder of George Floyd" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Murder of George Floyd. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 29#Murder of George Floyd until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 15:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The murder in know (29.05.2020) custody. Derek Chauvin is in custody charged with on third-degree murder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FixWRJIdH0 --93.211.217.53 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Justine Damond ‎

Shooting of Justine Damond was removed under the See also header as "loosely related". In that case it was a white woman shot by a black cop. The cop was sentenced to 12.5 years, in the other shootings in Minneapolis and environs the cops were not charged or not convicted. Someone Not Awful (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am not seeing then link.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the 2015 incident with Jamar Clark is included in See Also section there is no reason to exclude the 2017 shooting incident with Damond. Both were fatal shootings done by police in the Minneapolis area. No reason to keep this out because of race of the victim in the incident. Yodabyte (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...If it's not already obvious, then yes. This article is about yet another case of an African-American fatality caused by police brutality, the see also section should list other cases that are related, such as having occurred in the same area. Please take to talk and explain why the Damond incident should be listed before reinserting it again". Furthermore, basically all sources and reports do center around the race of the victim, and this is treated as a race-related incident both domestically and globally, thus the previous listings are more appropriate. QuestFour (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably correct but there is no rule that says because a victim is of a different race they are to be excluded from the see also section if that same incident occurred under similar circumstances in the same city (i.e. Minneapolis police unjustifiably killing a civilian).Yodabyte (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The incident did not occur under similar circumstances, however, and there doesn't always have to be a "rule", as per MOS:SEEALSO, common sense is at times sufficient. All sources and reports treat Floyd's death as a race-related incident, and the article, including the see also section, should reflect that. QuestFour (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect, the incident occurred under very similar circumstances in the same city (i.e. Minneapolis police unjustifiably killing a civilian). Stop edit-warring this, you are violating 3RR. What Kablammo said below is correct and relevant. We don't know the motive yet of the officer. He could just be a brutal sociopathic cop without a racial motive to kill Floyd. Based on comnon sense and Wikipedia rules, as well as the reasons discussed above and below, there is no reason to exclude the Damond shooting.Yodabyte (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race is not the only issue. Other issues include the training of police officers and the culture of the department (militaristic? command and control? the answer to these is "yes"). It is interesting that the officer has now been charged with the same offenses of which the officer involved in the Damond incident was convicted. This is not just or only race related; it reflects a longstanding problem with the department itself. And who are we to judge the actual motivations of the officer at the time? How do we know they were race-related? Believe me, some MPD officers are equally capable of mistreating and abusing suspects of any race. Kablammo (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Affected Neighborhoods...

I have a few sentences, with relevant links built in, that I am going to insert. BUT I'm not sure of the best location. So, if anyone thinks of a better location, feel free to move this:

== Affected Neighborhoods of Minneapolis == Minneapolis has a eleven identified communities, each of which has a number of neighborhoods within it. The 3rd Precinct Police Station is located on the eastern side of the Longfellow neighborhood (which is inside the Longfellow Community). The destruction has since expanded elsewhere, locally to the West, in Phillips Community (north side of Lake Street) and Powderhorn Community (south side of Lake Street), as well as to St. Paul's Midway area and possibly elsewhere.

The confrontation/Death of George Floyd took place in the Powderhorn Park neighborhood (which is inside the community of the similar name). The area covered by the 3rd Precinct (MAP) includes both the Powderhorn and Longfellow Neighborhoods.

LP-mn (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Please consider changing the image to one of George Floyd alive. If you have trouble finding one please e-mail me to request one at (Redacted). 2601:1C2:1601:4DC0:74ED:97C1:95E7:11E5 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. - QuadColour (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the Aftermath section

It seems like the Aftermath section should be trimmed to summarize information but not duplicate details that can be found in the newer article: Twin Cities riots. TJMSmith (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Barack Obama

This statement is generating significant press and should probably be mentioned in this article. [44][45]. TJMSmith (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate

The current lead says that he was pined down while talking for 7 minutes and while he was unconscious for another 4 minutes. I don't think the total was as much as 11 minutes. Also, the sources never say that he was face down for all 7 minutes. You can see his face to his right, not down, in our current photo. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it to say that it's 3+4 minutes, not 7+4. See the sources. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sentence and it is accurate - Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for at least seven minutes while Floyd was handcuffed, lying face down on the road. Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for at least seven minutes, he was handcuffed for that seven minutes and he was lying face down on the road for seven minutes. There is nothing inaccurate about that sentence whatsoever. And the current photo shows his face down as well. You said You can see his face to his right, yes you can, and his face is down on the pavement. You need to explain why you keep changing that sentence to your preferred version, when reliable sources support the sentence as it was written. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the sentence when I wrote that it was inaccurate, and the sentence was inaccurate when I wrote so. You are simply quoting the sentence after more hours of editing. Wikipedia is continually edited, specially on hot issues, and one cannot simply take a version and use it to answer comments on a different version. The current version seems ok. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Twin Cities riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Header/main Photo

I know that is the incident in question, but maybe a photo of Floyd and the officer instead? It's literally a photo of a man being murdered, we could be more respectful of Floyd and the people who want to look up this incident. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DizzyDawn, Wikipedia is not censored. Ed6767 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be obtuse. The man could literally be dead in that photo, we don't post pictures of corpses or active killings in every article, do we? Just because the tech makes it possible in this case doesn't mean it should be done. You have a real twisted idea of censorship DizzyDawn (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is all you really have here, based on Wiki guidelines. Comment on the sources, not the editor, who didn't personally insult you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.50 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — 50.111.48.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
DizzyDawn, the man could literally be dead, yes, but if it is the best photo that illustrates the incident (in this case the officer on Floyd's neck) then Imo, it stays. Yes, it might not be respectful, but this is what happened and people should see it. We shouldn't censor it purely to be respectful. Ed6767 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is very illustrative, but I can see this being objectionable to some. We could do as we do on the Pornhub article and collapse the image by default. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ed6767, you can put the image somewhere else in the article, I'm asking for it to be removed from the header, again hardly censorship. Again, we don't put images like that in every article about a killing, just because it's available doesn't mean we should shove it in people's faces. This is literally traumatic for the black community. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not used to using the talk pages, I figured out where the info was to do it. I usually just clarify articles. @Ed6767:. Anyway, what @Thjarkur: said sounds reasonable. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DizzyDawn, I'll let other people reach consensus but it is traumatic for everyone, but this is what happened. I don't think it should be moved elsewhere as of yet, and while a collapsible section as Þjarkur suggested may be okay in some other articles, here I don't really think so. Like articles regarding horrific historical groups and events like Einsatzgruppen have disturbing photos too, but these are not censored, yes because they are historical but shouldn't this be too? Ed6767 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This question was proposed and failed in 2005. Kire1975 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kire1975: That was 15 years ago, Wikipedia has far expanded public use since then - maybe it should be re-evaluated. But the proposal was to make it a policy to automatically do it for all "disturbing" images. This is just one image in this case on an ongoing issue that many people may want to look up on wikipedia. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If your argument is "that was 15 years ago", then by all means open up a new discussion at WP:PUMP and gain new community WP:CONSENSUS with a new proposal. Consensus can definitely change, however you still have yet to demonstrate that such change has actually been established. Until then, you could argue that it was 30 years ago, 80 years ago, 300 years ago, or 800 years ago that Wikipedia made X, Y and Z decisions, and it would still not matter from a policy perspective. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that photo even kosher for us to publish? Has anyone looked at its provenance to see if we are allowed to use it? It look shaky to me. [46] -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, I'd say so under the fair use rationale provided. Ed6767 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support a change. I'll repeat what I wrote about a similar image being used on the Ahmaud Arbery page: So per MOS:LEADIMAGE, a lead image "should be of least shock value", and the example given is opting for images of Holocaust victims being deported rather than images of them being abused or their dead bodies. Currently, the lead image is one of Floyd being suffocated, and I personally feel this is too shocking for the lead image. I realize this is an article about a killing and the image won't be pleasant, however,there are other images that can visualize the article that do not subject readers to the image of a dying man. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 03:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:!VOTE that takes place here would be tantamount to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which in my perspective would be unacceptable. If change is desired, it should be a community-wide decision to change existing Wikipedia policy, rather than a local consensus to skirt around WP:NOTCENSORED policy. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

MOS:BOLDLEAD: "The death of George Floyd occurred on..." rather than "George Floyd died on...", because this article is explicitly about his death, it is not a biography. ——Serial # 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Include the Chief of Police of Detroit in the other cities listed under Law Enforcement 74.115.237.100 (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 19:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these photos may be PD

https://www.voanews.com/gallery/minneapolis-protesters-demand-justice-black-man-who-died-police-custody

Two of these images appear to not be watermarked, and may be by a voa employee which would be PD Victor Grigas (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filmed by?

Is whoever filmed it really notable? I don't think the cameraperson really pertains to the event itself. Ed6767 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I don't really think it belongs there. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 22:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will rm from infobox for now, Thanoscar21 love your name btw lol Ed6767 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nice picture of Kings Cross, Ed6767! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 22:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanoscar21, thank you :) Ed6767 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Violence" is misleading

Yes, in some contexts, it can describe a big boom, crash or smash from an unfeeling object. But protest is inherently related to people, so the word naturally suggests the sort of unrest that brings blood, physical pain and death. "Destruction" or the like are way clearer, and less counterproductive to the spirit of raging against violence. So be mindful. Or don't, if you'd rather not. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that people who disagree with your proposed edit are refusing to be mindful is not a helpful assertion. Stavd3 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I said, not what I meant. Mean you're all free to mind this advice (had already made the edits) or disregard it. Trying to get across how I'm not demanding this reasonable style, just suggesting it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And no, we are not required to follow the source's wording, just its (encyclopedic) information. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to call things like that "violent", but as of now, the article calls spraypainting walls and stoning cars "violent". The lead used to say smashing windows, setting fires and looting/expropriating stores is violence. Now calls such mischief a "riot", much more accurate. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race of police officer

Again, as mentioned in my closing of the thread here, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources write (with due weight in mind). If, for example, there is widespread criticism of the mention of the race of the officer by some reliable sources of other reliable sources, that is also something which Wikipedia may mention. Such a scenario may, indeed, affect whether Wikipedia itself mentions the race of the officer. But that scenario needs to exist first. Original research toward that end is not permitted. El_C 00:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 fact that the police officer was white so prominent in the lead? It's literately a black and white story to mention that so clearly. It's BIAS. Why is the race of Tou Thao not mentioned? Why is in the article Death of Eric Garner not mentioned that Daniel Pantaleo is Hispanic?

I also have an objection to mentioning the name of the perpetrators, that's not relevant. --Wester (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The white guy in control seems to have killed the black guy in custody, it writes itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the narrative, but would it made a difference if the arresting officer was black? If a white officer arrest a black man and something goes wrong it's racism and manslaughter, if a black officer arrest a black man and something goes wrong than it's just a fault. That's double standard and anti-white racism. There is no place for that on Wikipedia. Wikipedia just be neutral and not participate in those oversimplified black and white stories.--Wester (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wester: This is not the place for you to opine on "anti-white racism". Either adhere to WP:NPOV or edit elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I react to the fact that on this page the race of the officer is mentioned in the lead and in the article Death of Eric Garner (where the officer was Hispanic) not. That's double standard. That is a significant discussion. There is no place on Wikipedia for reverse discrimination. I completely support a neutral point of view, but that does not mean the race should be mentioned so cleary in the first sentence. It's exactly not neutral to mention it so clearly in the lead, that BIAS. --Wester (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We got with what reliable sources say and emphasize. We aren't going to change this article because you don't like how it relates to another article. That's not Wikipedia policy, and it never has been. If you don't like it, I would suggest take this elsewhere. Stavd3 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This story has these facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wester, you're joking, right? The guy was just charged with murder. Also, race is clearly important here per 90% of the RS on this (see Talk:Death_of_George_Floyd#Race_and_RS). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the media narrative poor black man versus evil white police officer. But should Wikipedia participate in that bias narrative?--Wester (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "bias narrative", the dude was pretty clearly intentionally killed. But regardless, we go with what reliable sources indicate, and they indicate that race played a significant role in this case. It seems like you're here to Right Great Wrongs, and not to help build the encyclopedia, in which case I would strongly urge you to take this up on a non-Wikipedia site.
Manslaughter, technically, but yeah. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: Both! 3rd degree murder and manslaughter. But I suspect they're aiming for a plea to the latter. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are synonyms, no? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try to keep on topic guys Ed6767 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Varies by jurisdiction and attendant circumstances. But no, not exactly the same. 3rd degree murder here is "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life" and (2nd degree) manslaughter is "caused the death of a person by culpable negligence, creating an unreasonable risk and taking a chance of causing death or great bodily harm" according to the charging document. Minor differences in mens rea requirements, attendant circumstances, and the associated sentencing. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, an alleged sicko as well, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Since it's clearly really important to mention the race of perpetrators I also updated to article Death_of_Eric_Garner to bring cohesion in wikipedia. That now states ' Daniel Pantaleo, a Latino New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer', exactly the same formula used here. But I suspect that edit will be reversed quickly. Like I said: double standards.--Wester (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wester, (a) don't discuss other articles on this article's talk page, (2) assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has given an proper argument against my double standard argument. Why should Wikipedia participate in an oversimplified black versus white narrative? If an African American commits a crime than overemphasis on race would also be called racism. The emphasis on the race of the officer implies racism while that's not proven. Wikipedia should be neutral.--Wester (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wester, Wikipedia reflects what is in reliable sources. And, that's a white cop kneeling on a black man's neck until he died. Wikipedia is neutral by including their races, and would be engaging in POV by ignoring it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are needed for facts. The phrase 'white Minneapolis officer' is a formulation. Like I said: the inclusion automatically implied race was a factor in the death, while that's not proven. Wikipedia should be careful with that kind of formulation, because it creates narratives. It's not because the media loves this kind of things that Wikipedia should participate in that.--Wester (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wester, give it a rest. This talk page is about what to put in the article. It is not a forum for your personal views. Both Reliable Sources and consensus agree that mentioning the race of the officer and the victim is important to the story. It is particularly important because it has become a pattern in Minneapolis. (For more information, check the three articles listed under "see also" in the article.) If you keep this up I will hat the discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I literally just searched for the victim's name. Here is the top search result:[47] It says, "Government officials and Minnesota locals alike expressed outrage after a video surfaced showing a white police officer kneeling on the neck of a black man and ignoring his pleas for help until first responders put him, unresponsive, on a stretcher." Wester, it is time for you to move on. - MrX 🖋 23:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

$20 bill

It was confirmed later on the $20 bill was legitimate Cluckpoof (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Cluckpoof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sounds good. What's the Sauce? Kire1975 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cluckpoof, have a source? Ed6767 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing one...I think that's just speculation. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 23:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still the true root of all evil, counterfeit or otherwise, IMHO. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk, I agree but let's not turn this thread into a forum for discussing this atrocity. Ed6767 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, just seeing if that was still common knowledge in this "new normal", thanks for setting me straight. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medical examiner and cause of death

From the criminal complaint:

The full report of the ME is pending but the ME has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.
Complaint — State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin, Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District, File No. 27-CR-20-12646, p. 3. May 29, 2020.

Cause of death will be a major point of contention in the trial. Kablammo (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems so contrary to what everybody saw happening that it will probably - unfortunately - touch off another round of protests, just when it seem like arresting the guy might have calmed things down. I hope the family asks for an independent review. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot that is not said in that statement. There's many other possibilities (hypoxia, cervical nerve damage, etc.) but we'll need to hear the official ruling. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. No toxicology report, no BCA report, no mention of microscopic analysis of tissues. It looks like the complaint was put together with what was available in order to bring charges as soon as possible. But right now, we do not have even a preliminary determination that this was a homicide, and a statement that a number of factors "likely" contributed to his death will be argued at trial to not constitute proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard needed for conviction.
Wikipedia should not be calling it a "killing"; there is no official determination yet that this is a homicide. Kablammo (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Change the title of the article to “Killing of George Floyd” 96.248.84.106 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section above at Talk:Death of George Floyd#Requested move 27 May 2020 where you can make a "support" comment in that regard. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Also Section Needs More Links.

I believe it would be relevant to put down Black Lives Matter, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, and police riots in the United States in the See Also section.

It's relevant because BLM often comes up whenever law enforcement kills black people (BLM has been seen on protest signs, graffiti, and news media reporting on this event so I can't see why it's not relevant). The list of killings by law enforcement is also relevant due to the event (a police officer killing a black man). The police riots are also relevant due to the event sparking riots are against the Minneapolis police for Floyd's death (as of writing this, the twin city protests have been going on for ~4 days). (If there's anything else directly relevant to the topic, please add it).

I think it would also be wise to put more advanced protection on it due to vandalism (or at least extend the current one to some point in the future (presumably June 30th, longer if necessary) since due to how events are unfolding, the protests aren't going to slow down and people will come on and edit the page in a way which violates the neutral point of view policy, presumably white supremacists trying to slander Floyd's reputation). This is a suggestion. If it's not necessary, then there's no need for further protection. If it is, then there is and should be put in place if there is.

I can't edit the article directly due to my account being new so if someone can put in, that would be helpful. Any directly relevant information that gives extra context to anyone who's reading about this event would be useful.

Lord-of-Midnight-18 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Lord-of-Midnight-18[reply]

@Lord-of-Midnight-18: A lot of those links are included in the BLM template below the External links section. TJMSmith (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Please change the picture of initial photo of floyd. The picture can be used later on in the article but as a sign of respect towards him as a person at least change the picture to a photo of him. 64.231.174.10 (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As this article is about the death of Floyd, the still from the video is much more relevant than a regular photo of Floyd. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BWC official documentation

I would like to request that the current results of the body watch cameras be included in this article. For as far as a majority of the news and such goes most sources have neglected these findings.

http://mncourts.gov/media/StateofMinnesotavDerekChauvin.aspx

Here is a link which leads to the pdf file for such. I am most troubled by how there is no mention that George did resist and he had been saying that he couldn't breath before he was on the ground. There was no point where police officers actually got him into the car. Shnappers (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please follow the instructions when using the edit request template: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". If you want to propose new content, you can simply start a new section or post in a section where the material is already being discussed. - MrX 🖋 11:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

please exchange 'depraved-mind' to 'depraved-heart' Espiee (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
eraser Undone It was correct. Minnesota's 3rd degree murder statute uses the term "depraved mind", though the more common term appears to be depraved heart. But since this is Minnesota specific, we should use its language. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir, The source used "depraved heart" first, though it also mentioned "depraved mind", [48], the statute itself was not cited, but I'm content to keep it the "depraved mind". Though I do somewhat question if we need to mention that at all? Seems a bit WP:SYNTH to me, unless one of the RS covering the issue have taken the time to point out it is a depraved mind murder. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: I've found some articles that go into the details ([49], [50] for example). This phrase seems to have some history in Minnesota and charging police ([51]). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

"Looking at his racist ideologies, people got angered" Donald Trump personally asked for the enquiry to be investegated by the FBI and he was referring to the people looting target stores, this is not a protest and setting fires to buildings which could of killed many people. This is a very biast piece of writing. Prometheus onex (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Prometheus onex (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a Reliable Source for improving the article in some fashion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.5.65 (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Speaks for itself. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence of events in complaint document

I'm tempted to add the sequence of events from the complaint (charge) document. This seems to me the authoritative secondary source; the county attorney has integrated all the witness statements and bodycam footage. But before I start an edit war, are people OK with that? -- Netwalker3 (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a primary source, so no I do not agree with your reasoning.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a secondary source. The videos are primary sources, and they are what the article is full of, right now. But I can see that I would have an uphill battle, so I'll pass on the idea. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To quote wp:primary "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Thus a charge sheet is a primary document as it is written by people involved with the case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "this claim is contradicted by all video evidence"??

"A spokesman for the police department said the officers ordered him to exit the vehicle, at which point he "physically resisted". This claim is contradicted by all video evidence thus far released of the encounter.[9][10]" Neither of the sources provided say anything about whether he resisted exiting the vehicle?

This video - with footage - says that Floyd DID resist exiting his car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiSm0Nuqomg&t=55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas6785 (talk • contribs)

YouTube is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That particular video is a reliable secondary source, having been posted by NBC news and narrated by NBC reporter Emmanuelle Saliba. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

41.250.86.114 (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Blocked Floyd down by pushing his knee down on his neck for 9 minutes and not Kneeling on his neck

Do you have a source?Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Please follow the instructions when posting an edit request: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 11:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the object?

In this newly released video, the one police officer who is not pinning Floyd down spends some time looking for something in the back of the police vehicle on the right side of which Floyd is lying, then Thomas Lane (the officer pinning Floyd's legs) reaches out, and the officer at the rear of the vehicle hands him the object he has retrieved from the back of the police vehicle. Have any news sources reported about what this object was? If so, this information should be added to the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:or and wp:rs, we do not speculate we report what others say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd's work in MinneapolisCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

There isn't much written about the jobs he held:

The native Texan followed some friends there about five years ago and landed a job working security at a Salvation Army store downtown.

Soon thereafter, he had picked up two others gigs: one driving trucks and another as a bouncer at Conga Latin Bistro where he was affectionately known as "Big Floyd."

Reference: https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-is-george-floyd-minnesota — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbenton (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what relevance this has.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: it was reported that, while officers were trying to get him into the police vehicle, George Floyd told officers he was claustrophobic. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it reported?Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

He was convicted of a home invasion with a deadly weapon. That’s not a burglary in an empty home. That’s a break in while the occupants are eating dinner and then robbed at gun point. 32.213.170.152 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And relevance? This is not a biography. Kablammo (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, He had served his time. This has no bearing on this case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't a bio, but the section on GF is. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? What does this information tell us about THIS incident?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance? How does a criminal history in the past, a thousand miles away, and which by all accounts he had left behind, inform us in any way about his death? Kablammo (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sections on the participants isn't limited to what's relevant to the incident. It's relevant to his death in that he moved to MN soon after being released. Jim Michael (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not seeing the relevance of that, if he had moved to NY or England he might not be dead. That does not explain anything.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're major parts of his life. Also, the police would have been able to quickly find out about his convictions. Some mainstream media sources say that he & Chauvin knew each other before the incident. Jim Michael (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a major part of his life, he was convicted 10 years ago. Also does the US have the concept of spent convictions? Or is a man a criminal all his life (and even if they do not, so? why dies this explain why this happened even criminals have certain rights).Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You think that a 5-y prison sentence isn't a major part of a person's life?! Even if it were his only conviction (which it wasn't), I wouldn't have thought something as serious as that could ever be spent. Jim Michael (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is NOT a biography. This is about the death of George Floyd, that content is not relevant to his death.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The brief bios of the participants routinely include major aspects of their lives. Jim Michael (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in the overall context of someones life. Less so them him being a talented athlete who particularly excelled in football and basketball at school (for example) or the fact he had not been jailed since. But there is no more to be said. No reason has been given as to what this adds to our understanding of the case beyond "it was a major part of his life" and "If he had not moved he would not have died".Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Floyd might have received the counterfeit note from someone else, without knowing that it was counterfeit, and Friedrich Fiegenwald Coy subsequently suspects that the whole deadly charade was arranged to demonise cash and African Americans per se. 2A00:23C5:411F:EB00:D9E8:A600:E184:776E (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_George_Floyd&oldid=959769623"