Talk:George Floyd

ME's report

Third para of death says the medical examiner noted fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as significantly contributory to his death, though not the cause; I'm not seeing in either of the sources (the ME's report and the press release) what says the drugs were signifcantly contributory. I see in the press release Other significant conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease; fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use, but that doesn't seem the same. Am I missing something? —valereee (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it, as it's minor for a summary of his death. Then there's the WP:OR concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, the guy has fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system, and you remove it from the article? Amazing! WWGB (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

So what did the ME's report say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Other significant conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease; fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use", yet this was considered unnecessary for the article. WWGB (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No, what does it say about links to his killing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it doesn't seem to link those conditions to his death, or at least I couldn't find it in either document. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I know you cant, I am asking those asking this is significant why it is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the coroner said they were significant .[1] WWGB (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

To his death? You have been told it does not say that, you have been asked to say where it says it and you have failed to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, the ME said they were significant conditions. The ME did not say they significantly contributed to the death. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

So what, why would anyone want to withhold significant information from the article? I thought we were meant to respect WP:BALANCE? WWGB (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You think its significant, others disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah, not just me, the coroner thinks it is significant too. WWGB (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

He thought it was a significant condition, not significant in his death, else it would have said so.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is the correct interpretation. The ME's job is not just to establish the cause and manner of death, but also to bring to light any facts that might reasonably be expected to assist in a full investigation. For example, if alcohol is found in the blood of someone killed by a bullet to the heart, that will be reported, even though it played no medical role in the death, because it may be a clue to decedent's movements, or his state of mind if there had been a confrontation, or whathaveyou. So significant simply means "worth noting". EEng 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet "Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" so yes it does say what the cause of death was.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, what I'm seeing is editors saying include the information (and in fact it is currently included) but don't say it significantly contributed to the death. I don't see anyone arguing to withhold it altogether. —valereee (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Actually, that's not correct. With this edit, Bagumba removed any reference that Floyd had multiple narcotics in his body at the time of death. When I tried to restore it, I was promptly reverted by Slatersteven. So, yes, there are editors trying to withhold it altogether. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually my reasoning was you did not have consensus for your edit, and that you needed to make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, but that's not how we do it. You don't just add stuff to the article and then when someone reverts you, add it back. You add it, someone reverts it, and we come here to hash it out, which is what we're doing. You've got 130K edits, you know how this works. —valereee (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

So get consensus and resolve the WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If we mirror the Star-Tribune on how the significant conditions "may have made his death more likely", does that alleviate your OR concern, Bagumba? Anyone else's? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I'm not sure...does that fall under allowing non-medical reporters to interpret medical stuff? I can't remember where the policy on that is...—valereee (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that "significant condition" read as basic English seems different than the intended medical examiner terminology. I still maintain it does not need to be in his bio per WP:DETAIL which is already in the more detailed killing article. However, if it is to remain, it needs a brief explanation in layman's terms to avoid misinterpretation (yet more DETAIL).—Bagumba (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Quotes

538: The Hennepin County autopsy may have mentioned factors beyond police conduct, but it was really just saying Floyd’s heart stopped while police were restraining him and pressing on his neck, said Melinek, Carter and Dr. Michael Freeman, professor of forensic medicine and epidemiology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. It’s not a claim that he died of a heart attack, drugs, or pre-existing conditions, they told me. “The cause of death is police restraint,” Melinek said, just like in the autopsy Floyd’s family commissioned. The reason it might seem like the exams disagree, they said, is because people expect a single cause of death in an autopsy report. But most people don’t die from just one thing. Instead, both death certificates and autopsy evaluations are set up to tell as detailed a story as possible — death happened, as a result of something, complicated by another thing, and maybe with other factors that were present. You’re supposed to compile the full chain of events and all the possible compounding factors. But documenting potential contributing factors isn’t the same as saying that’s what caused the death. Scientific American blog post co-authored by a dozen doctors: On May 29, the country was told that the autopsy of George Floyd “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxiation,” and that “potential intoxicants” and preexisting cardiovascular disease “likely contributed to his death.” This requires clarification. Importantly, these commonly quoted phrases did not come from a physician, but were taken from a charging document that utilized politicized interpretations of medical information. As doctors, we wish to highlight for the public that this framing of the circumstances surrounding Floyd’s death was at best, a misinterpretation, and at worst, a deliberate obfuscation. A timeline of events illustrates how a series of omissions and commissions regarding Mr. Floyd’s initial autopsy results deceptively fractured the truth. On May 28, a statement released by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s office reported ongoing investigations and acknowledgement from the forensic pathologist that an “autopsy … must be interpreted in the context of the pertinent investigative information.” As per standardized medical examination, Floyd’s underlying health conditions and toxicology screen were documented. These are ordinary findings that do not suggest causation of death, yet headlines and the May 29 charging document falsely overstated the role of Floyd’s coronary artery disease and hypertension, which increase the risk of stroke and heart attack over years, not minutes. Asphyxia—suffocation—does not always demonstrate physical signs, as other physician groups have noted. Without this important medical context, however, the public was left to reconcile manipulated medical language with the evidence they had personally witnessed. Ultimately, the initial report overstated and misrepresented the role of chronic medical conditions, inappropriately alluded to intoxicants, and failed to acknowledge the stark reality that but for the defendant’s knee on George Floyd’s neck, he would not be dead today. By Monday, June 1, in the context of widespread political pressure, the public received two reports: the preliminary autopsy report commissioned by Floyd’s family by private doctors, and—shortly thereafter—a summary of the preliminary autopsy from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office. Both reports stated that the cause of Floyd’s death was homicide: death at the hands of another. By inaccurately portraying the medical findings from the autopsy of George Floyd, the legal system and media emboldened white supremacy, all under the cloak of authoritative scientific rhetoric. They took standard components of a preliminary autopsy report to cast doubt, to sow uncertainty; to gaslight America into thinking we didn’t see what we know we saw. In doing so, they perpetuated stereotypes about disease, risky behavior and intoxication in Black bodies to discredit a victim of murder. Star-Tribune: Nationwide, people expressed outrage when prosecutors released the preliminary findings of George Floyd’s autopsy, highlighting cardiovascular disease and “potential intoxicants” in his system, as if those factors might explain his death as police officers pinned him to the ground. * * * The earliest findings from the autopsy were released when Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman’s office filed third-degree murder charges against Chauvin four days after Floyd’s death. Prosecutors cited three preliminary autopsy findings: That there were no physical signs Floyd died of asphyxia, that he had cardiovascular disease, and that his health conditions, plus “any potential intoxicants” and the police restraints, likely caused his death. Floyd’s family and their lawyer cried foul. They hired two pathologists who conducted a second autopsy that concluded Floyd died of asphyxia. A collective statement written on behalf of nearly 20,000 black physicians from around the country called the preliminary findings “misleading,” saying they inappropriately raised doubts about Floyd’s character and undermined Chauvin’s role in his death. The early findings had little medical relevance to the cause of death, said Dr. Derica Sams, a physician in Chapel Hill, N.C., who helped organize and write the statement. It was meaningless to point out that there were no traumatic signs of asphyxia, Sams explained, because asphyxiation can often occur without leaving behind obvious signs of trauma. She said it was irresponsible at best for prosecutors to note that Floyd may have had drugs in his system before the toxicology reports were complete. That merely served to present Floyd in a bad light and indicate that other medical problems may have killed him, she said. The full report Facing a public outcry, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison took over the prosecution two days before the full autopsy was released. Once it became public, Ellison added more severe second-degree murder charges against Chauvin and charged the other three officers at the scene of the arrest as accomplices. Baker’s autopsy report found that Floyd died when his heart stopped as officers subdued and restrained him by compressing his neck. The report lists heart disease, fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as “other significant conditions,” indicating that they may have made Floyd’s death more likely. Listing underlying diseases and drug intoxication in an autopsy report is “usual practice” for a medical examiner, Dr. Sally Aiken, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, said in a statement. “Death is a complex process and often occurs with multiple interacting contributing causes,” she wrote. These kinds of restraint-associated cases are especially complex, said Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in the San Francisco Bay Area with no connection to the Floyd case. Forensic pathologists may disagree over what to include under “other significant conditions,” Melinek said. “But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a homicide.”

"Follow the sources." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I'm wondering if this is starting to need its own subsection of the death section. I think we need to deal with the fact this was apparently politicized. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Politics has nothing to do with it. Other significant conditions contributing (or maybe contributing) to death, but not resulting in the cause given in Part I is standard in every death certificate's Part II. It's detailed clearly in the Physician's Handbook on Medical Certification of Death, Google for PDF. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

:::RS seem to be reporting that some are arguing in this case the ME's report was politicized. Striking, strongest voice wasn't Scientific American but a SciAm blog post. —valereee (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Strike notwithstanding, important to distinguish between media reports (always spinning everything) and the underlying medical report (almost always apolitical). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, yeah, but currently the source we're relying on for "significant condition" is a press release. —valereee (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

By the ME's office, for the press. Though secondary coverage is preferable. The Star-Tribune piece above looks useful, as it indicates what "other significant conditions" indicates. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, or it indicates what Greg Stanley, an "environmental reporter" for the Star Tribune thought it indicated, and what his editors didn't question, perhaps. —valereee (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Maybe he and his editor are aware of this because it's been featured on every death certificate printed in the United States since their grandparents were children. Not just the US, either, and even their parents' grandparents. I don't know if you're the first editor to doubt the meaning this hard, but you're the first I recall, in news or on Wikipedia. I don't mean that as an insult or a compliment, just an observation. Have you read Page 14 of the handbook yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, sure, it says All other important diseases or conditions that were present at the time of death and that may have contributed to the death, but did not lead to the underlying cause of death listed in Part I or were not reported in the chain of events in Part I, should be recorded on these lines. What I'm saying is that we can certainly report them as "significant conditions", as that's what the report says, but that I'm questioning whether we can report them as "conditions significantly contributing" to the death on the basis of what an environmental reporter for the Star-Tribune reports unless some medical expert words it that way per my reading of MEDPOP, which I'm no expert at interpreting. I just think we need advice from someone expert at interpreting MEDPOP here. The Scientific American post from the physicians isn't something we can quote, but for our own understanding of it, they seem to be saying that just because the ME called those out doesn't indicate they had a role. The 538 source says that, too. —valereee (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That blog post complains about the wording in the police complaint, based on preliminary information from the ME's office, and how it was spun by some sensational or fake news outlets. The final report from the doctor himself is a different thing entirely, though it contains some of the same words. We're talking about the latter now. The 538 source only (rightly) says the other contributing factors didn't result in the immediate cause given, not that they had no role in the death. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We shouldnt have details here in a summary of his death that are not high-level enough to be in the lead of Killing of George Floyd. Per the guideline WP:DETAIL: ... the reader is first shown the lead section for a topic, and within its article any section may have a {{Main|subpage name}} hatnote or similar link to a full article about the subtopic summarized in that section.—Bagumba (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with that. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Me too. Seems this level of detail is more appropriate for the article about his death (in the autopsy section or maybe a subsection of it) than the main biography. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's appropriate for Scott Weiland, Carrie Fisher and Tom Petty's Death sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

They died of drug overdoses. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Fisher didn't, but that's beside my point. They're all biographies of famous Americans who died surrounded by doubt and hooplah. Weiland and Floyd shared the same morgue. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want a black precedent, for some reason, see Ike Turner. If you want a (street) drug-free white dude with "contributed to death" spelled in full, try Robert Reed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, but none of those people's deaths have their own articles...is something going over my head again? —valereee (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how having a separate article factors into omitting these significant conditions. Does it mean we can remove less significant findings, too? Michael Jackson was black and white, bio and event, and his bio's Death section mentions his "other" drugs. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, no, but the point was that if the main article doesn't mention these things, they probably aren't appropriate here. —valereee (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

But Floyd's main event article does mention these things. Has for a while, as of now. If still there tomorrow, probably are appropriate here, or...? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, but it just says The medical examiner's final findings, issued June 1, classified Floyd's death as a homicide caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained" by officers who had subjected Floyd to "neck compression". Other significant conditions were arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use. It doesn't do any interpretation. —valereee (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Basing one body on another article's lead makes no sense to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a classic case of summary style.—Bagumba (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

One lead summarizes another body, it says? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait... so lead was found in his body? EEng 19:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is muddy enough already without you pumping it full of wit! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Somewhat hard to follow all arguments here, but as another editor, I see "fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use" as significant to include and have been reported in numerous sources. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Aua, most of us are arguing not that this not be mentioned at all but the wording of how we're mentioning. It's more or less a matter of "other significant conditions found on autopsy" vs. "other conditions significantly contributing to the death." —valereee (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

”reportedly” is my go-to word. “other conditions which reportedly significantly contributed to the death” is a good middle ground imo. Little bit of a mouthful though. Anon0098 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It only works if you're citing a reporter, though. "Doctoredly", this is, and that's even worse a mouthful. If nobody wants to just believe this reasonable paraphrase in a sky-is-blue way, stick your "reportedly" on a real media invention. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No, as no RS (or primary source) has said that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

arbitrary nav section

I'm thinking re: the Star source interpreting what "significant condition" means w/re the death: WP:MEDPOP appears to say we can't use that? —valereee (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I can understand MEDPOP for a pure medical topic like a disease or treatment, and not wanting to give bad medican advice. If we remain as strict about medical sources, even in the context of a common person, we also need to consider not including medical concepts that a regular person will not understand or misinterpret, if a reliable explanation is not available.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm just talking about who is qualified to be a reliable source for this one very narrow specific question of whether the ME calling out 'significant conditions' can be interpreted to mean 'they contributed significantly to the death.' We have an environmental reporter for the Star saying they did. Normally a RS, but in this case I think it's possible MEDPOP would say not for that question. Is there anyone reading here who is an expert in interpreting MEDPOP concerns? —valereee (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I think you mean then that we need a reliable medical source to determine whether "significant conditions" is important enough to include in this article?—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I think we can include it. We just can't interpret it to mean anything more than exactly what the report says, even though the Star-Trib did so and they're normally a RS. I think a non-medical reporter's interpretation of a medical report might be no more reliable than any smart and well-intentioned layperson's interpretation. I suspect there will be coverage of this eventually -- certainly it'll come up at trial, and we'll be able to quote medical expert testimony when it's quoted in RS -- but for now I don't think we should be saying anything more than the report says, and probably we should simply quote the report. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Since it reads like basic English, it should not be includes since there is reasonable doubt that it's not a "significant condition", in regular English, that lead to his death. In a sense, this is WP:WEIGHT: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. The major cause of death was being pinned down and kneed. It can be revisited when the eventual coverage happens.—Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I have no objection to not including it, at least for now, but I'm open to arguments on the other side. The report says it's a significant condition, but we can't know whether it's significant to the death so it may be irrelevant to this section, just as his height and weight are irrelevant to the death and aren't included in this section, even though they were reported in the autopsy report. I'd rather see us err on not including possibly-irrelevant things when we're not sure what the ME's report meant. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee:, The Physician's Handbook on Medical Certification of Death says on pg. 14 that the term 'other significant conditions' refers to "All other important diseases or conditions that were present at the time of death and that may have contributed to the death, but did not lead to the underlying cause of death...". If you read on you'll find examples of how the term is used in case studies. Hope this helps.Big 16:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Olomofe (talk • contribs)

Thanks, Big Olomofe! I'm not sure we can use that, it probably qualifies as WP:SYNTHESIS, but for our own purposes of research it helps us know what to look for when some reliable source puts the two together. :) —valereee (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(reset) I tend to agree with others who believe we should not withhold significant information and thus we should certainly include that. It has been reported in secondary sources. Less important, but somewhat relevant to the discussion, Mr Floyd was yelling "I can't breathe" long before he was on the ground being restrained, indicating he was at least impacted by whatever was in his system causing him distress. Pure OR, so make of it what you will, but the secondary sources mentioned it and I find it weird we'd try to censor it on wikipedia. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Aua, I'm not arguing to withhold anything, and in fact the "significant conditions" language is currently in the article. I'm arguing that WP:MEDPOP may apply w/re saying those conditions significantly contributed to the death, which was how it was stated before and what I objected to. Re: the saying 'I can't breathe' before he was on the ground, I'm finding that in the charging documents for Chauvin, but are other sources reporting it other than to quote the charging document/prosecutor statements from May 30? If so, it could certainly be included at Killing of. It's possibly more detail than is necessary in the bio, but I'm open to argument. Please WP:AGF and stop accusing people of trying to censor Wikipedia. Gaining consensus before including something does not equal censorship. —valereee (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How can you acknowledge that the official physicians' definition helps us know what to look for in reliable sources on the 23rd, but still three days later object to a wording that reflects the general idea near-universally agreed and understood between reporters and coroners? MEDRS does not apply, same as it doesn't for relaying the cause of death, time of death, place of death or anything else normally and adequately relayed through plain news. The only "good" that might come of obscuring the true nature of these conditions' significance is potentially confusing readers into thinking they're important in another, completely unrealistic context. Like it should matter to police, lawyers, mourners, protesters, rioters, writers or politicians (et cetera), rather than contribute to death itself. Balderdash, I respectfully exclaim! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk The three sources quoted above seem to show that it's not universally understood. In fact two of them are directly saying that the media were getting it wrong. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult. What I really don't want is for us to write that because the ME said there were other significant conditions that this means they contributed significantly to the death, and some medical communications expert goes "What?! That's not what that means!" and writes an opinion piece for the NYT saying that once again WP got the science wrong. —valereee (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And as I opined earlier, we should not use "significant condition" verbatim, as the technical meaning differs from the basic English which laypeople would interpret it as.—Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Every layperson is different, their interpretations range from "dead on" to "nowhere close". If consensus here is against trusting most to know what significant conditions are in context, put a footnote after the term and tie it to the usual meaning given in the Handbook. That way, it's easy to locate for those who recognize it and flat educational for those who don't. We might define "cause of death" with another footnote. Your earlier opinion suggests you (and maybe others) think it's synonymous with the significant contributory conditions, rather than supplementary, and that there's some contradiction between a majority and a minority viewpoint here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you said what specific change you're looking to make? Change X to Y? (If you've already done taht, apologies; I've lost track.) —valereee (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Just spell it out. These drugs were found in his system but they are not known to have contributed to his death. The point to inclusion is alerting the reader, not articulating a final word on their possible involvement in death. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's true for the caffeine, codeine and a few other drugs, but not for the meth and fentanyl. Dr. Baker thinks they created conditions which did contribute to Floyd's death, just didn't result in the cause of death (the cop-on-neck condition, simply put). If they had, in his expert opinion, this would have counted as an accident, not a homicide. Nobody on Earth knows better about this kind of stuff than a medical examiner with a fresh cadaver, so the recent meth use and fentanyl intoxication (as opposed to the drugs) are as involved as we'll ever possibly know already. If we footnote Page 14 of the Handbook to however we say "other significant conditions", that should clarify everything for everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, what change you want to make? —valereee (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

First choice, back to how it was when this Talk Section started, or equivalent paraphrasing. Barring that, for the third time, attach a footnote to where we mention this apparently confusing term to (in theory) prevent layreaders from misinterpreting it (rather than omitting it entirely, as seems to be Bagumba's plan). That's still the problem, right, the murkiness? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, when this talk section started, the article said the medical examiner noted fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as significantly contributory to his death, though not the cause. You say Baker thinks they created conditions which did contribute to Floyd's death. Where does Baker say they created conditions which did contribute to the death? —valereee (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't accept that factors that are "contributory" can be viewed in isolation. If it takes 10 to cause death and 7, 2, and 1 were present, then they all "contributed" to death. If 1 or 2 were absent, death would not have transpired. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, when this talk section started, the article said the medical examiner noted fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as significantly contributory to his death, though not the cause. You say Baker thinks they created conditions which did contribute to Floyd's death. Where does Baker say they created conditions which did contribute to the death? —valereee (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In the autopsy report and associated press release, not in those exact words, but plainly enough if/when a reader knows what to look for. You seem to want to refuse to believe me, the handbook and the Star-Tribune (goddamn "environmental" reporters, with their hippy crap). So if you ping with me something like the same question again, I won't answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disbelieving you. I'm disagreeing with you about policy. I believe you're arguing in good faith, and we clearly aren't going to agree. I won't ping you again. —valereee (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No drug directly causes a cop to kneel on your neck, this is known. But if a cop kneels on a guy on fentanyl with a bad heart's neck, those may make death by cop more likely (contribute, factor in, whatever). This really isn't debatable, the Handbook was drafted by pretty much every medical association's smartest people, accept it! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, any drug can directly cause a cop to kneel on your neck. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Fuck it, I quit, you teach them. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDPOP_help. —valereee (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It is reasonable to dispassionately describe the report. Cause of death in cases such as this go well beyond the scope of medicine and into law. I would suggest an avoidance of opining at any length prior to the decision of a coroner or judge. The official cause of death gives no opinion other than it was a cardiac arrest with complication of law enforcement i.e. a cardiac arrest is the official medical cause of nearly every death. Many of the news reports make a significant error in assuming that the reports are contradictory. This does not seem to be accurate. The best advice to stay civil is to entirely stick to the official cause of death description and not opine as to the role of factors not explicitly mentioned in the exceptionally brief summary. The official cause of death may be subject to change based on legal proceedings. At this time, it is best to avoid undue weight to findings that the examiner has not explicitly drawn additional attention to. In summary defer entirely to the executive summaries (single sentence) of the medical experts who have reviewed the case (both the official and family appointed forensic pathologists are acceptable). Additional lay interpretation is not necessary since there is expert synthesis in the report. PainProf (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"... I got shot ..."

In the released transcript of the cop cams when the incident happened George Floyd seems to had told the policemen many times that he was shot in a similar situation. As far I hadn't heard of any earlier incident, when he was shot [by police]. Transcript here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7070-exhibit-final07072020/4b81216735f2203a08cb/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.205.41 (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Are the any clues about that in his history?

77.6.205.41 (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? User has now supplied a soruce.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing when I read the transcripts. I'm not aware of any sources that shed light on this. But I think give it a few days and the secondary sources will catch up. (Meaning an RS will publish something we can cite.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]}<

sad

This article says George Floyd died in police custody, he died at the hospital. This article says the autopsy report said it was a homicide, I have a copy of the official final autopsy report from HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE, which states that Floyd did not die from any injuries caused by the police, he died from a heart attack at the hospital. I don't see any mention here of the fact that Floyd had methamphetamine and toxic levels of fentanyl in his system, and that the 20 dollar bill found was counterfeit, which is a federal offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.86.23 (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This article doesn't say Floyd "died in police custody", the drugs are discussed in the article Killing of George Floyd, and I don't know what you're looking at but the medical examiner indeed ruled Floyd's death a homicide. EEng 05:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. It's not an offense to use a counterfeit bill if you didn't know it was counterfeit. I happened to me, as a matter of fact, but luckily I escaped with my life.

You can win any argument with words..doesn`t mean it`s true...anyone who can`t see this was a homicide has never looked at this picture..anyone who has ever looked death in the face as I have more then once can see he was dead before he made it to the hospital 2600:1702:2340:9470:E824:60F6:5A7C:F5ED (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh really? Then how come he was "entering cardiac arrest" IN the ambulance? Thankfully, you're just an onlooker and not a medico, otherwise you would just presume death and walk away. WWGB (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll say it again: the article doesn't say he died in police custody, it says he died after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, pressed his knee to Floyd's neck which is unassailable, so this discussion is pointless. EEng 03:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected Status

As George Floyd is no longer a living person, the biography protection should be changed to other types. Jdmdk (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jdmdk: Per WP:BDP, the BLP policy can also apply to those who recently died.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So it should be changed back.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a separate section for George Floyd's legal troubles?

I know that this is already noted under the "Later Life" section but shouldn't there be a separate section for this where it is expanded on? Almost every article on someone who is well known who has a run in with the law has these under their own section. Examples include Matthew Broderick, Keifer Sutherland, Christian Slater etc. Shouldn't there be one for this article as well? I feel it is important to be transparent about all aspects of his life as this article grows. willydrach^talk 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say no. Not comparing the person George Floyd to the person Rodney King, but the latter became notable only after a police violence incident. There isn't a separate section under later life for King specifically for his legal troubles, though those came after the infamous incident. Floyd was not a celebrity or notable person when his legal trouble happened. It seems like his legal trouble is part of his biography, but not requiring a separate section.VikingB (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@VinkingB: Thanks for the feedback and the link to Rodney King's page. My question is this - if I were to expand on more details of his early life and there was a significant amount of information regarding his legal troubles (which is out there) - would it then be viable to have it's own section? The section on Rodney King's page is short - but he had quite a few less run ins with the law then George Floyd did. willydrach^talk 20:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)