Jump to content

Talk:Derek Chauvin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unauthoress (talk | contribs) at 10:27, 3 September 2022 (→‎Let this article, at least on its talk page, reflect that:). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spouses' names

I've reverted Fijipedia's edits per the presumptive privacy we afford non-notable people specified in WP:BLPNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her name has been intentionally revealed to the public. My edit does not defy any BLP policy. Fijipedia (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Get consensus. There's no reason to list her name EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding in the former spouse's name, especially so prominently in the infobox, does not improve the article. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BLPNAME. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chauvin’s former spouse is not a notable person. We don’t need to mention her name. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I have protected the page on the version which does not include the non-notable person's name per WP:NPF and WP:EDITWAR. Iff there is a clear affirmative consensus to include it, ping me and I will revert. In the absence of such consensus, anyone who adds this again will be blocked. If I don't get to it, any admin should restore the previous semiprotection once this issue is resolved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion regarding full protection, which has since expired
  • This warranted a full protection? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Diplomatic option. Personally, I'd have blocked the editor that kept re-inserting the material (and had been warned about warring before).—Bagumba (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough to warrant a ban? I think it's clear by my edit summaries I had no bad intentions nor broke any policies. Fijipedia (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On your 2nd revert, you said in your edit summary that no one listed objections in the "K. Thao vs Kellie Thao" section, when you knew three editors were objecting in this section. That's a form of bad intentions. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Full is warranted when extended-confirmed editors are trading reverts instead of discussing, especially so on high-profile BLPs. A rule of thumb: if you're using the edit summary to justify your edit (instead of just explaining what you're doing) you're probably better off going to the talk page. I'll drop the protection back to semi once I see a discussion here about whether or not Chauvin's spouse's name should be included in the article. What I see here is one discussion treating as a foregone conclusion that we will not add it (above) and another assuming we will (below). You all need to put those two together, and talk to each other.
    And to be clear, Fijipedia: the policy you're violating is WP:CONSENSUS (explained at WP:BRD). You made a bold edit, you were reverted, now you discuss. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is no one seems to care enough to discuss about this minor issue. While Fijipedia's edit may have been in law considered edit warring, I think he made it in good faith and a ban would be a disproportionate punishment. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid any confusion here, nobody has suggested Fijipedia be banned, only potentially blocked again if they ignore WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR, etc. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"When you knew three editors were objecting in this section." They did not list their objections in the "K. Thao vs Kellie Thao" section, and instead listed them in the section which I am typing in right now. Your statement is simply factually incorrect. Fijipedia (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "this section", I meant this section, the one we are typing in right now. My edit summary was also very clear, referring to the Talk Page section "Spouses' names". You knew that three editors were objecting here on the Talk Page to what you were doing, yet you ignored their objections and claimed in your reverts that there were no objections. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed there were no objections in this section, I said that in an entirely different section. The two sections "Spouses' names" and "K. Thao vs Kellie Thao" were completely unrelated until an editor put the latter section under this one. Fijipedia (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary at 22:12, 23 March 2022 incorrectly claimed: No objections on talk page about changing name to Kellie Thao. At any rate, a relevant policy is WP:ONUS:

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

There has no been consensus for inclusion.—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed consensus because in the section I created, there were no objections. Fijipedia (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except the subsequent reverts by others were, in fact, objections.—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there were zero objections in the section that I created. That's why I assumed consensus. I clearly stated this in my edit summaries. Fijipedia (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K. Thao vs Kellie Thao

Do you think the spouse name of "K. Thao" should be changed to the actual name "Kellie Thao"? Fijipedia (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is RS for Kellin Thao. We don't typically censor a persons spouse in the infobox. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there much in the way of RS coverage? I'm seeing a small smattering. Not enough, I think, to counter the strong presumption of privacy for non-notable family members. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is reliable coverage.[1][2] Fijipedia (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His wife's treatment of him post-Floyd's murder is somewhat significant to this biography. She divorced him, ostracized him, etc. It's covered in RS with her full name, I'm struggling to see the compelling reason to depart from typical biographical norms, which is to include the non-notable spouses name. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to biographical norms, we see the spouses of notable people listed on their BLPs all the time, but those articles do not have the odious context of listing an otherwise non-notable ex-spouse's name in an "Infobox criminal" template, sandwiched between "Criminal Status" and "Convictions" (that's where the template forces the spouse's name to go). More importantly, WP:BLP states "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." The fact that Chauvin has an ex-wife is certainly relevant to having a complete understanding of the subject and the article currently includes that content in the "Personal life" section without using her name. To add her actual name, however, requires a consensus that including her name is also relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Is it? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name is relevant to the article and the average reader's understanding of it. Chauvin's ex-wife is mentioned multiple times in the personal life section (which is important) and as I mentioned, she has reliable coverage. I don't see a reason to not add her name. Fijipedia (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing anything in your response to substantiate why including her name is necessary for readers to have a complete understanding of the subject, Derek Chauvin. Every known relevant fact about her is already conveyed in his "Personal life" section (his ex-wife is a Hmong refugee from Laos who won a beauty pageant in 2018 and works real estate agent and photographer; they have no children and she divorced him before his trial). Since she's not notable in her own right, why exactly do readers need to know her actual name in order to have a complete understanding of who Derek Chauvin is and what his circumstances are? That's the question you need to answer. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She's notable in her own right and multiple RS have mentioned her in articles. Fijipedia (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, she's not notable in her own right. Do you need assistance in understanding Wikipedia's policies regarding what makes a subject notable? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't need help in understanding policies. WP:NOTABILITY might be of help to you. Fijipedia (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you read up on policy today. Would you like to try presenting your best argument now as to why you think she's notable? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She meets the WP:GNG and WP:NOT guidelines easily. It's really simple to understand why she's notable. She also doesn't defy WP:BASIC. Fijipedia (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY is not applicable to page content:

These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you're using this as an argument when other users were mentioning notability first. Also, my point is Chauvin's ex-wife would easily fit the guidelines to have her own article created. Fijipedia (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an argument. It's merely a recital of policy.—Bagumba (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON?—Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "False claim targets wife of officer charged in Floyd's death". The Washington Post. 30 May 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2022.
  2. ^ "Chauvin, ex-wife plead not guilty to tax evasion charges". ABC News. 5 November 2021. Retrieved 25 March 2022.

Citations with links to paid subscription resources should be removed as there is no way to verify (short of paying for a subscription) what is actually said in the article. Having citations with links to paid subscriptions also represents a conflict of interest where there is a current topic that wikipedia readers may wish to view and the only way to do so is to pay for a subscription. This is IMO almost tantamount to a sales pitch for signing up for a particular subscription. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:8000:BB:D1B9:3739:779C:B0D6 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence structure and grammar

This sentence under the heading ‘Civil Rights Violations Case’ currently reads as, “Chauvin, also on May 7, 2021, was also indicted by the same grand jury for violating the civil rights of the 14-year-old boy he arrested in the aforementioned September 2017 incident.”

“Concurrently, Chauvin was indicted for violating the civil rights of…” flows more smoothly and is less wordy with repetitive information.

Thank you for reading my suggestion! 2603:8001:3E00:5BFF:C40:C54B:926D:6AB6 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

In the last paragraph before the drop-down sections, it says his plea was excepted and it should say accepted. 72.75.247.201 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I removed that whole sentence as unnecessary detail for the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Hi, I am quite new to wikipedia. Anyway here are some recent articles can anyone incorporate them in the article: https://www.complex.com/life/corrections-officers-color-barred-guarding-derek-chauvin-settlement https://www.huffpost.com/entry/officers-of-color-barred-from-guarding-derek-chauvin-due-to-race-get-15-million_n_62f50e45e4b0da517ef6511a https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/09/us/derek-chauvin-correction-officers-lawsuit-settlement/index.html https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/08/10/minnesota-officers-barred-guarding-derek-chauvin-settlement/10285001002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.128 (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let this article, at least on its talk page, reflect that:

Hennepin County prosecutors in the case met with Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker the day after Floyd died and after Baker had completed his autopsy. Baker told the attorneys there was no physical evidence Floyd died of asphyxiation. TT-4929. Baker said Floyd’s heart condition was a major contributing factor in his death. Baker said outside the circumstances of this case, he would have concluded that the manner of death was a fentanyl overdose. TT-4932. Finally, Baker admitted that the placement of Chauvin’s knees on Floyd’s back would not have cut off Floyd’s airway–i.e., Floyd did not die from Chauvin cutting off Floyd’s airway. TT4935-36. In his autopsy, Baker found in addition that Floyd’s lungs were two to three times their normal weight. Id. Floyd had cannaboids, fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system. Id. Floyd had recently been ill with COVID-19 and tested positive in his autopsy. TT-4879. Floyd had arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, hypertension, and sickle cell trait. TT-4880. Floyd’s had an enlarged heart due to high blood pressure and 90% and 75% constriction of his right and left coronary arteries–all of which Baker admitted could cause sudden death. TT-4904-05. Floyd had no neck injuries. TT-4919-4920. The fentanyl amount in Floyd (11.3 nonograms) was three times the amount considered fatal. TT-4926-4929. Baker admitted the methamphetamine in Floyd’s toxicology report caused Floyd’s heart to work harder thereby increasing risk of heart failure. TT-4909. Baker admitted Floyd had no evidence of asphyxia and no neck or back injuries at all–i.e., no strangulation. TT-4818-20;4929.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Chauvin&oldid=1108252109"