Talk:Murder of George Floyd

BRD - Officers' previous alleged conduct

Starting a BRD for the edits by Gobonobo which I reverted here

It would see to me to be WP:UNDUE as these facts are directly unrelated to the event that is the subject of the article. If, during the course of an investigation, these facts and allegations are later connected to this case by the FBI or others, then we should add them. I think this is similar to when folks tried to add the criminal record of the victim on Death of Ahmaud Arbery. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:EvergreenFir, don't you mean "directly unrelated"? To me, it seems directly related: there is a man who dies of excessive force, and the cop with his knee on his neck, and a cop standing by doing nothing, were known of having used excessive force. How is that not relevant? And there is no comparison with the Arbery case--Arbery was the victim. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean unrelated. Thank you. And in my view, the general exclusion of "past misdeeds" goes for all parties. While I completely understand why it's being reported, I do not think Wikipedia should include it unless it because part of the facts of the case. BLP applies to these officers as well (including WP:BLPCRIME). EvergreenFir (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight over this, and I know the BLP applies, but the facts presented here strike me as directly relevant. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Oppose: A victim's criminal record is not relevant to a case like this. A perpetrator's record is directly related and in this case has been properly reported in multiple reliable sources per WP:NPOV. If OP were taken seriously, we'd have to remove significant portions of Jeffrey Dahmer's early life section because he was never convicted of killing animals or underage drinking. Kire1975 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dahmer is long dead, so that comparison falls flat. I'll reiterate that in nearly every case like this, the histories of both parties are often brought up to attempt to paint a character portrait. Often, for black victims, the intent is to show the victim "wasn't a saint" to justify the killing/murder (especially by white officers). I always fight those on the grounds they are UNDUE unless they come up in court (in which case we should mention it in the trial portion, not the biography portion). But what's good for the goose... this should apply to the alleged perpetrators too. IMO, it's just a matter of time before we add that material but we should wait until the presumptive court filings. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Facts are facts, per WP:CRYBLP. Removing these facts because it reflects poorly on some guys who stood on a guy's neck for seven minutes while he was crying "Mama Mama" and did nothing but say "Don't do drugs kids" until he died before they get a chance to defend themselves in court is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Kire1975 (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

• I've posted on BLPN to seek more input on this. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_George_Floyd_-_Inclusion_of_Officers'_histories. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose; agree with Kire1975 and their reasoning above. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support including Chauvin's history. Amy Klobuchar opted not to prosecute him when she was Hennepin County DA in 2006. This could impact her in the Biden veepstakes. It's getting considerable coverage and seems highly relevant to this case.[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support or Oppose depends on whether the relevance to the article is clearly established and any material complies with Wiki rules for living persons 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:6 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support including Chauvin's history. It is relevant and it is covered in multiple RS. It also helps explains Chauvin's action. It is clear from media coverage that this was not a one-off and this article should reflect that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Racism

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

I'm not condoning what was shown in the video, I think it's awful. But why are you quick to bring up race? You don't know the cop. How do you know he identifies as white? He may look white but what if he's mixed race? What if the victim was white and the cop was black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1A:8AF:4D00:9D18:C437:4F69:2E8C (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is complete race-baiting nonsense. Get the facts first before deciding what to believe. That means use your brain and not be controlled by your emotions. People who act on their emotions have a lot to be regretful about. In this emotionally heated time is exactly when you have to practice self control and eschew knee jerk reactions. 24.139.24.163 (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

--217.234.65.129 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)--217.234.65.129 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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 these views and opinions of the above mentioned be described/elaborated in the 'Reactions' section - with sources. --Lechatmarbre (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly it could just be stupidity and not malevolence, never underestimate stupidity. Lots of bad things happen because of stupidity. Even the Gods strive in vain against stupidity.24.139.24.163 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll check again, but records indicate Chauvin had a history of excessive force with Indigenous people and with African Americans. That signifies he has issues with non-white people, which makes him a racist and unfit for police work. Being that Floyd was African American, it's not speculation that racism was a factor in Chauvin killing Floyd. Look closely at the video again, and understand police departments across the US have been infiltrated by white supremacists. Even the FBI reported on the phenomena - and heavily redacted their entire report. Why is the country revolting if not for these reasons?Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That 100% is still speculation. Perennial Student (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• It may not be obvious to people in the situation (i.e. people living in the society), but from an overseas perspective the killing/murder clearly appears to be racially motivated. It seems that arrests by the police are disproportionately aggravated when it comes to black people - it seems to us over the other side of the ocean that "being black" is almost a crime in the USA. I think the racist element in what this police officer did should clearly be mentioned and included. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhyddfrydol2: You do not speak for others - overseas or anywhere else. I disagree with you - being a European. You are not the preciding judge, and none of us know if this was an act of racism (even though it is easy to think so). Don't jump the gun before evidence is clear. At least not when editing Wikipedia. Lechatmarbre (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Do RS link the two?Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhyddfrydol2 "being black" is almost a crime in the USA. This statement is not true and misleading. Don't you know that President Trump is the least racist person in the universe🤣.// Eatcha (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether the homicide involved racism is an interesting question, and, since Wiki is an encyclopedia, it should be an empirical one. Chauvin has lots of complaints against him. Was any excessive use of force directed toward minorities out of proportion to their involvement with police? Or was he an equal opportunity abuser? Any assumption about this without careful analysis reflects the racism of those doing the assuming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CB81:3770:8D05:E340:71D3:7B60 (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I'm choosing to expedite this move rather than wait the full 7 days due to sizable interest and participation. I note that many of those opposing the move did so before the Hennepin County Medical Examiner had concluded that the death was a homicide. As such and in light of this key argument, I am deeming there being sufficient consensus for moving the title. It is important to note that this assessment on my part was based on the strength of the arguments, not the aggregate tally. It is also important to mention that this expedited close was not a WP:SNOW close. While this was a lively debate, I don't think prolonging it is likely to change the outcome or would be a benefit for the project. I thank the overwhelming majority of participants for their well-thought-out arguments as well as for their civil disposition. El_C 11:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been suggested that I expand on my evaluation of the arguments advanced in this discussion. With respect to WP:COMMONNAME, the mention by reliable sources has been mixed, so that argument was not really weighed one way or the other in my evaluation. With respect to WP:BLPCRIME, as one participant who has changed their preference from oppose to support has noted: killing is not necessarily a crime. The fact is that many participants who opposed asked to wait for the ME report, which, as mentioned, has since deemed the death to be a homicide. The arguments advanced in the discussion whose strength was given most weight in this close neither concluded that this homicide was a murder nor that it was a justifiable homicide. It was rather overwhelmingly agreed that that is a matter for the courts to decide. Those arguments only posited that, for now, the the title should reflect the official finding by the ME. El_C 13:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC) ~~~~

---

Death of George Floyd → Killing of George Floyd – While murder isn't appropriate for an ongoing investigation, "killing" seems an appropriate description of events, and is backed up by a reliable source. On the other hand, other sources call it a "death". As such, I'm neutral myself, but think that a discussion is appropriate.

References

– ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Survey

First convenience section

• Oppose - wait for the autopsy results so that we know whether or not he was killed. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Wait for autopsy per above. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 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) Struck due to both reports terming this a homicide. 05:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Because of the incredibly bad treatment of Floyd I am genuinely sorry to have to make this WP:BLP (particularly WP:BLPCRIME "presumed innocent") and WP:RS, WP:NPOV (WP:DUE) policy argument, but I need to make another point.

  As of 22:29, 30 May 2020 (you may need to click on "tools" on Google to see the tally):

  • Google news search results in title over past 24 hours for "killing of george floyd": 175 (and many of these refer to protests, speaking to the intent of the protests)
  • Google news search results in title over past 24 hours for "death of george floyd": 1410

  We go by reliable sources most of all, and here it is clear the reliable sources are cautiously calling this a death. Many of the arguments below are based on emotion and WP:OR of the video. Again I am truly sorry to have to take the position. I do not want to take it. I am forced to take this position by policy. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I understand why we go by reliable sources. But if common sense tells us that it is a killing, it is a killing no matter what reliable sources are calling it. We wouldn't say the sky is purple just because reliable sources say so. I hope this isn't inappropriate, but I would cautiously say WP:IAR supports my point. This is an encyclopedia, but it also does not simply repeat what sources say with no further examination. I believe if common sense leads us to contradict what sources are saying, that is okay. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, I don't mean to badger, but CNN is reporting that the independent autopsy requested by Mr Floyd's family has found that the death was a homicide.

  ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, since your main objection to the move is now void, with the newly published independent autopsy report, I hope you sincerely consider changing your vote. Bubka42 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bubka42 and Bellezzasolo, my tally of the overwhelming use of "death" in Google news articles still stands as of now, please refer to the links I gave above. I will consider again whether we should simply call a spade a spade in this case and go with "killing" but I have trouble seeing how we can ignore the cautious phrasing of the overwhelming majority of news articles on this topic (assuming my test for that is valid). —DIYeditor (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Explain striking !vote: I will go ahead and stick to what I originally said which was wait for autopsy. I have reservations about deviating from the phrasing used in most reliable sources, but Darouet has conflicting information, and most of all I don't want to be "that guy" who opposed calling a killing a killing. Killing someone isn't in and of itself a crime so we are not accusing anyone of having committed a crime. Two autopsies say homicide. So I am leaving this as a "comment" with no !vote. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Consistency, Articles about similar events are called death not murder or killing. Unless convicted or murder no need to change,Life200BC (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is demonstrably untrue. Category:Deaths by person in the United States contains 212 articles with titles referring to "murder", another two referring to "killing" and a further 31 referring to "shooting" and 11 to "assassination" (which obviously aren't alleged in this case), while only 81 (including this one) refer to "death", of which many of the deaths are not killings of any sort. It is fair to question whether the burden of proof that this death was a killing has yet been met to WP:BLP standards but as soon as the cause of death is established to such standards it is absolutely consistent to refer to it as a killing in the title, if not specifying the type of killing. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Per DIYeditor, definitively describing this as a "killing" would be premature until the medical examiner/coroner's report says so. Ergo Sum 21:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Death is the most neutral language, and should be used until more information is available. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Death of" is the most appropriate term, at least for the time being. If the officer is charged or convicted at a future date, we can reassess. Though it certainly seems likely that he died as a result of the officer's actions, we don't technically know what he died from until we get the full autopsy report. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support — "Killing of..." is commonly used by the media [3][4][5]. 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)

After some time has passed, I find that the case for moving is stronger than before:

WP:RS — The NexisUni database reports over 10,000 newspaper articles in the last week describing George Floyd as having been killed (accounting for duplicates). High quality sources like the BBC and the The New York Times describe the death as a killing, e.g. BBC: 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[6]; NYT: 8 Minutes and 46 Seconds: How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody [7]. While thousands of sources describe Floyd as having been killed, I can find only two dubious sources arguing he may not have been [8][9].

WP:NPOVTITLE — As mentioned by many editors here, the term "death of..." is a WP:WEASEL phrase that obscures Floyd's killing, and by implying the possibility of natural death is non-neutral. As pointed out below, in the English language "killing" does not imply intent to kill and is not equivalent to murder: "...any means or cause which puts an end to life..." The move would therefore result in a more neutral title.

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA In addition to being supported by reliable sources, the title "Killing of George Floyd" meets every one of our naming criteria, including WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:NATURALNESS and WP:CONCISE. "Killing of George Floyd" is linguistically and factually more WP:PRECISE than "Death of George Floyd," and while more death articles are titled "Death of..", many death articles are titled "Killing of..." (e.g. Killing of Latasha Harlins, Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud, Killing of Nicole van den Hurk, Killing of Peter Fechter, Killing of Heidi Hazell, etc), and thus this article if moved would be WP:CONSISTENT with practice here.

WP:CONSENSUS — Recognizing these principles, right now wikipedia editors support a move by a margin of nearly 2:1 (140 in support of a move, compared to 75 opposing, by my tally).

On the basis of descriptions by reliable sources, neutrality, article naming criteria, and consensus, I still think this page should be moved. -Darouet (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Maintain neutral language. KidAd (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Death of Eric Garner, a case that is extremely similar, plus WP:BLP and neutrality concerns. Love of Corey (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose “Killing of...” is sensationalist. “Death” will suffice per Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Maintain factual language. "Killing of" is the common language when the individual's death is the direct result of another individual's actions, whereas "Death of" is more common for natural or accidental causes. The individual in question was killed, I don't think there is any doubt about that. "Murder of" would be prejudicial and inappropriate until such time that criminal proceedings begin/conclude.*BrandonsLe* (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – While I agree with the argument in the case of a fatal shooting, this is too much/too soon for a case such as this. We should at least wait for a finding of homicide by the medical examiner. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Whether or not the police officer is guilty of crime, it is clear now that he caused the death, therefore killed George Floyd. "Killing of George Floyd" is not an appropriate title for this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs: I think you may have typo'd — your !support and "is not an appropriate title" appear to contradict eachother 😊 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks, fixed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Killing" is defined as an act in which someone is deliberately killed. At this time, there is no evidence that Chauvin deliberately intended to kill Floyd. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c67:6e7f:f4e3:d428:6173:4ba6:ee03 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

  @SoWhy: 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)

  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)

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

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

  @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)

• Strong Support In my opinion saying it was a Death violates WP:WEIGHT. Killing is deffonatly more appropriate and WP:COMMONNAME. — RealFakeKimT 09:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per precedent (Death of Eric Garner) and reasons given above. If and when someone is convicted for causing this death - and reliable sources start using another word(!) - we can reconsider. At this point, none of the sources in the article use "killing" (at least in the title) and most sources I can find go with "Death" (e.g. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]). Regards SoWhy 10:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  Reaffirming my opposition. Unless the victim was shot (in which case "Shooting of" is used), basically all comparable articles (see for example the list in {{Black Lives Matter}}) use "Death of" until the perpetrator has been convicted (or found guilty but not criminally responsible).

  Only when there is a conviction the title is or is changed to "Murder of" or "Killing of" (e.g. Killing of Latasha Harlins, Killing of Ilan Halimi, Killing of Tim McLean, Killing of Nicole van den Hurk, [15]).

  This is imho in line with WP:BLPCRIME which explicitly says 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. Neither an autopsy report nor a 3rd degree murder charge satisfy these requirements. When it comes to BLPs, we should err on the side of caution, even if they are credibly accused of killing another person.

  And last but not least, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We should go by the terminology reliable secondary sources use. If one searches GNews for sources that do not mention "killing", one gets ~192 million hits. Searching for sources that do mention "killing", one gets ~104 million hits, i.e. only half as many (also considering that some are only using "killing" in quotes). If the usage is apparently 2 to 1 against "Killing" in news sources, we should go with the majority. Even after the autopsy was released, the apparent majority of such sources still refer to it as the "death" of George Floyd (e.g. BBC, CNN, The Indian Express, Sky News, NYT, Chicago Tribune, WaPo).

  Regards SoWhy 10:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per SoWhy above Ed6767 (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Now changing to Strong Support - clear killing now as more details come out, as well as the 3rd degree murder charge Ed6767 (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support Floyd was brutally murdered in front of a crowd of horrified bystanders as he begged for mercy, resulting in the firing of those four officers, international outrage and violent protests and demonstrations all over Minneapolis. This wasn't some accidental sudden "death", it was a literal killing. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

• Oppose While Floyd was definitely killed, Wikipedia precedent is that the title is 'Death of' rather than 'Killing of' or any similar title. While this was a killing, this is a vote purely on precedent. AlternateHistoryGuy (talk)

*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)

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)

• Oppose. Articles like this go through a name change progression as events unfold in due course, i.e., an autopsy is released that establishes the official cause of death, potential arrests are made, and a possible trial and conviction for murder. Logical RM discussions based on reason can proceed from an informed standpoint as each milestone is reached, with potential titles like "Killing of..." and "Murder of..." etc. But until then, we should follow our usual process of waiting for the right preconditions for RS, BLP, and NPOV policy reasons. Arguments from emotion and compassion may be noble sentiments and "feel right" to some editors, but they are not based in logic. As unsatisfying as it is, patience is required for us to get the article title right at the right time. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support George Floyd was killed, this was caught unambiguously on video, and numerous outlets have described it as a "killing". "Murder of" would be an entirely separate story, because it would be inappropriate until the officer(s) are charged and convicted, but "Killing of" is clearly appropriate, in the same way that the title "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" is appropriate. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's too early for this. Once we get the autopsy and charges/convictions, I think it will be appropriate to move it, but not right now. WP:BLP definitely applies here as well. Nihlus 13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  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)

• Support US English speakers need to be very careful to maintain neutrality, which means political neutrality in this case. If you don't know what that means, or have doubts, then step aside please. Also, it is a great time to look at the international coverage in cases like this. The UK Guardian uses killing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/27/george-floyd-sister-police-officers-should-be-charged-with-murder. It seems very simple: there was a killer and there was the killed, this death was not caused by unknown or other circumstances. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Conservative, minimal assertions are best concerning the title of the article. We should not be aiming for a maximally inflammatory title. The title of an article doesn't aim for maximum sensationalism. Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support. The current title just makes Wikipedia sound mealymouthed to me. Rather than looking for precedent in the title "Death of Eric Garner" (perhaps overly cautious even in that case), our comparison ought to be with Death of Alan Kurdi. The death in question here was certainly caused: causing death is killing. - phi (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. I think that 'killing' is perfectly neutral because that's precisely what it was. Murder is not appropriate yet, and might not be even if the perpetrator in question is found guilty, but killing implies a clear causal relationship in this case that Wikipedia should recognise. 'Death' is too transactional and considering the video footage and aftermath, wouldn't do justice as to WHY this incident has notoriety in the first place. LeoC12 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support. I agree the current article title sounds mealymouthed. A killing is what occurred-- "killing" is a distinct term from "murder"-- and thus the article title should be changed to reflect this occurrence, just like the "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" affirms that particular event as a shooting. Furthermore, I fail to see how calling it a killing influences thought versus accurately describing what happened. I will feel even more strongly about this when the autopsy inevitably confirms the cause of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:9f44:c600:e15d:727c:9243:b05f (talk • contribs) — 2604:6000:9f44:c600:e15d:727c:9243:b05f (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reluctant support- ideally we'd just move it to Murder of George Floyd immediately, but the section above suggests that that wouldn't be possible without a change to BLP, so "killing" is the next-best alternative. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as it is clear this person was killed, and backed by reliable sources, death just implies that it wasn't done by a person (i.e it happened due to an illness, etc., not the case). I hold the opinion that we'll eventually move this to Murder of George Floyd, but of course it's too early to do this until an investigation is done. GoodCrossing (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as the video had clearly shown everything needed, fulfilling the chronology of his death per the previous requests of multiple users here. However, I must say that "killing" is too much of a sensationalized term for me. In replacement for a more neutral-sounding title, I'd opt for a "Murder of____" heading instead of the current suggestion Azurevanilla ash (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. Key words highlighted for emphasis. Until the report comes out, despite with the media is hyping it up to be, it could be anything from murder to alcohol poisoning, drug abuse/overdose, or a stroke/heart attack. 172.101.5.82 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Levivich, what about WP:COMMONNAME? "Oppose for now" makes sense to me I think, isn't "death" what most sources use at the moment? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose due to the lack of information. Nuke (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose until we have confirmation. Spengouli (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support killing or murder, as the event in question is his murder, the act of killing him, not his death. ɱ (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

  Correlation does not imply causation. Regards SoWhy 05:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Lightburst: No it's not. A killing means that someone was killed by the actions of someone else. A murder is when they are legally responsible for that killing. Some killings are not murder, most obviously self-defense --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Gimmethegepgun: Meh. Obviously there is not support for the change at this point. Maybe later. Until then this is a pedestrian argument and it is just quibbling over semantics. "Death" is appropriate until we have more information. Lightburst (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Strong Support - If we want to get technical / semantic, Floyd's death "ocurred" as a direct result of the actions of Officer Derek Chauvin. "Death" implies lack of a living agent whereas "killing" explicitly identifies one. The evidence as currently presented show no doubt as to the fact that Chauvin killed Floyd. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Video footage and multiple sources all corroborate that it was a killing. As mentioned above, leaving it as death likely violates WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore, kill is defined as to 'cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)' - exactly what occurred here. Similar articles are also titled as 'Killing of' so it would be consistent. WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 22:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC).
• Strong Support - Editors such as myself are not arguing on emotion, I am arguing on the merit of the sources that describe it as a killing, and as stated above WP:WEIGHT is in violation. VF01 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. 'Death' seems to be used in similar articles earlier. Seems sufficient for encyclopedic purposes. --Thi (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - Just to be clear, to those of you who are arguing we should contravene reliable sources and call this a "death" until the ME report: are you genuinely concerned about the possibility that Floyd may have died of natural causes while his neck was under an officer's knee for seven minutes, and while he stated that he couldn't breathe and that they were killing him? When someone dies in a shooting, do we usually wait for the ME report to describe the incident as a killing, just to rule out the possibility that the victim may have died of a naturally-occurring heart attack in the split seconds before the bullet impacted? We should follow the reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, we should follow the reliable sources. However, they overwhelmingly use the word "death" instead of "killing". Regards SoWhy 08:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per everyone voted "oppose". 2001:569:74D2:A800:8989:60D4:7D6E:9E52 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The death of Eric Garner and other extremely similar cases use "death of" due to the neutrality of the statement per WP:NPOV. Haydenaa (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support killing refers to the death of someone caused by someone else, not necessarily a murder. This is obviously the case here. Dark-World25 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, changing to "Killing of" is not suggesting a murder, but a death caused by another person. This is both factually accurate and backed by sources which refer to this as a killing. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per RealFakeKim. ~ HAL333 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong supportOccam's Razor means we must assume the strangulation was a reason for his death, not any other cause for which there is so far no evidence (or even indication). Also for what it's worth, 'Killing of' does not violate WP:NPOV. Devgirl (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as this was objectively a killing. The video evidence is right there. "Death" implies a random event without any causal relationship. 00:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmurali02 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose per haydenna. Conformity to Death of Eric Garner Death of JonBenét Ramsey Death of Breonna Taylor etc. Only exceptions are seemingly assassinations &/ animals. That and WP:NPOV due to it not being an inherent intentional killing. — IVORK _Talk 01:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

  "Killing" does not imply intent. According to the OED, the modern definition is 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)

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

• Strong Support Our quest for neutrality should not blind us; we can see, on video, an act that led to Floyd's death. Labeling it a killing is no less encyclopedic than labeling Tupac Shakur's death a murder. If anything, calling it simply a "death" is misleading - "killing" makes it clear that their was another human involved, which objectively, there was - no matter the "cause" of death, he would be alive if he had never interacted with the police officer. Furthermore I would assert that death of Eric Garner should also be moved to killing, for same reasons. Thornsie (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would be a break from precedent, and implies a certain level of culpability (if not strictly semantically). — Goszei (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Death is the most neutral language.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support George Floyd was killed, which generated an abundance of reliable media coverage speaking to that fact. The publicity surrounding him is not merely about the fact that he 'died', it is specifically about the fact that he was killed, the manner he was killed, and whom he was killed by. It is the killing of George Floyd that infers notability, not the death of George Floyd. The article title should reflect that. Flip^andFlopped ツ 02:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, since the process by which Floyd died, not the death itself, is the main topic of the article, and it's pretty much crystal clear that Floyd was, in fact, murdered. --letcreate123 (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • My vote is only further enforced by the fact that it's been confirmed recently that Floyd's death was a homicide, thus, he was killed. Coverage on that matter is already available so it's very easy to verify. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the way that George Floyd died, not just the fact that he died, is the subject of this article. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now We should wait for autopsy or a judicial ruling before changing it, as *officially* there is no ruling yet and we really should wait for confirmation Jspace727 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As mentioned many times, "death" is the most neutral language right now. Articles will go through name changes down the line anyways, so we should definitely have this discussion again after an autopsy or pathology report. LittleWhole (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Whether or not you believe his death was fair or not, his life was taken by another human, therefore it was killing. There is no debate. He was killed, that's a fact, he's deceased because of another person. Accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.160.30 (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)‎
• Support The main topic is that he was killed. There is strong support for this view. Wiki5537821 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support George Floyd's murder is on video and is even right there in the first picture in the article. Although I'd prefer calling it a Murder, calling it a Killing seems far more unambiguous than calling it a Death (which implies he died from natural causes). Westindiaman (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  I may personally agree that the officer kneeling on his neck appeared to kill him. However, neither you nor I are pathologists, medical examiners, or coroners and we have not examined the deceased to determine cause of death. To my knowledge this has not been done yet. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose primarily on precedent for similar deaths. May need to be decided on a wider scope, but "Death of" is common to many similar deaths without compromising their accuracy or neutrality. StuartH (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support it doesn't seem disputed that his death was brought on by the police officer's actions, whether the officer intended to kill him or not. It is not likely he would have died otherwise. So "murder" would be too far, as it implies intent, but "killing" does seem appropriate and a neutral statement of fact. Paradoxsociety 04:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose breaks precedent and decreases article navigability Chetsford (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose As per above statements in that it would break precedent, be highly against NPOV, and would allow media sensationalism to dictate articles that are supposed to be objective. --Therexbanner (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support The fact that this man was killed by another person is supported by reliable primary and secondary sources. Either title is fine to me though as both are accurate. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 05:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Or even change to Murder of George Floyd. ——Herobrine303 (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Killing may not be as premeditaded as murder, but I wouldn't be surprised if the legal accusaion would be manslaughter. Alandeus (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There is no reason to change the title of the article when it is serving its intended purpose. CatcherStorm ^talk 06:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose An extremely similar article is titled Death of Eric Garner, therefore precedent has already been set.--Chimino (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose need to wait for a conviction Yodabyte (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• SNOW Close and Oppose. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and cannot make decisions on a fact of a matter that has clearly not been determined yet. The word "killing" denotes intent. That has not yet been proven in a court of law, and therefore must not be concluded as such in the article title currently. While I sympathize with the plight of those championing a cause for justice for the article subject and working against police violence, per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is also not a platform for advocacy, activist movements or personal struggles. "Death" is a more neutral while factual term to describe the event for the time being. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Optakeover: my understanding of SNOW is that it's for when something definitely won't pass. By my count the votes are currently tied on oppose/support, so I don't see how SNOW can possibly apply. There's a good chance it will pass, or that it will be tied, there is no reason I can think of to say this will definitely end on oppose. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  @JustLucas: Who are you to say? What if consensus is for SNOW close? Think about the hypothetical situation. In any case, my reason is based on policy. And that is my point. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Optakeover, this isn't a WP:SNOW situation imo Ed6767 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  We rely upon dictionaries to agree upon the meaning of words. According to the OED, the modern definition of killing does not imply intent, and can include "any means" of causing someone to die, including accident. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  If you don't know what WP:SNOW means, please don't call for a snow close. Clearly not a snowball's chance in hell of this being a snow close. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support As per GorillaWarfare. The officer caused George's death, which is killing. Cthulhu Inc (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now There is simply no need at this moment to draw an inference as to his cause of death when it will likely be conclusive and readily sourced. Without question, he died and that is a completely accurate title. However, that he was killed creates an impression that an intentional act is what killed him. It looks like the kneeling on the neck is related to the cause of death but that can't be known until there is an autopsy and report issued.Tridacninae (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per WP:CRYSTAL. We have yet to get a coroner's ruling. We all saw something horrible and while it's extremely likely it will be ruled a homicide, there's always the possiblity of something else we cannot see. I'll be very suprised if that's the case but there is WP:NORUSH. The title is descriptive of the event. That something looks "obviously" like X still isn't X until it's official. Thinking about it that may be why the four ex-officers haven't been arrested yet. They don't know what the charge will be yet. Bad idea given the last couple of days in the city. They could have always upgraded the charges.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support based on sources, for instance Reuters titles "police killings of black Americans". Inventing our own standards for the usage of the word "killing", such as the presence or lack of a "coroner's ruling" as requested by the comment above, is forbidden by the policy Wikipedia:No original research. Every !vote above which doesn't rely on sources should be discounted. Nemo 09:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support given that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Multiple tertiary sources use "killing", including the Guardian's artcle "George Floyd Killing" and the German DW article "UN condemns US police killing of George Floyd". Sources that do not use this terminology tend to be closer to the event and more likely not to be trustworthy. Althunyon (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Wide variety of RS indicate that it was a killing, because the video indicates that it was a killing, because it was a killing. I'm not sure what more else one needs. We must follow the sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support It is already the general understanding that this was a killing, there is not reason not to reflect that in the name of the article. --Ratherous (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Plenty of sources talk about killing, and it's pretty clear from all available evidence that the officer caused Floyd's death. BeŻet (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the name of the article of Death of Eric Garner a similar case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.Ayana (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOV and convention (Death of Eric Garner) 39.57.145.208 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support – "Killing" is a more adequate term since someone caused the death, "Death" could also mean an accident. Ca1ek (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: This is not a death, it is a clear murder, according to maximum news sources. So It should be moved to Killing of George Floyd The Chunky (speak)12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Killing is what happened he did not die of natural causes (well without help), and as for other stuff, A: that is not valid and B: That is just an argument to rename any other pages, not to not rename this one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Killing" is accurate and how it is described in reliable sources, it's not for us to decide. As for the BLP issues, nobody's saying to call it "Murder of George Floyd" which would be (for now anyway) a BLP issue. Even if the use of lethal force were found to be justified, it would still be an accurate statement to say he was killed. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's not newsworthy that a man died in Minneapolis. It's newsworthy that a man was killed. For comparison with a case where the victim survived, we refer to the Rodney King Beating not to "the wounds of Rodney King". Arided (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as RSs continue to use "death" over "killing" including: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] so it is the WP:COMMONNAME. There are also other reasons stated above including adhering to the BLP and Neutrality policy as well as waiting for more infomation like an autopsy or conviction. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to align with similar articles (such as Death of Eric Garner) per WP:CONSISTENT. Moreover, until there is an autopsy or formal charges, it would violate neutrality to presume this was a murder by using "killing", even if that ends up being the case. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support – The death of George Floyd was caused by another man. That makes it a killing, and we should not deny that. Sembeljaars (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Patience will out. O3000 (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Gorilla Warfare, whose arguments are wholly convincing. Oppose unhelpful badgering by both sides. ——Serial ^# 17:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - and the facts at hand include an attempted coverup, which I take as cause to believe that Chauvin also considered it a killing. However, I like the suggestion from User:Levivich to call it State v. Derek Chauvin, with a few redirects. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support – While I understand that staying neutral is important but neutrality in this case would be a reflection of supporting something that needs condemning at all levels. What needs not be forgotten is underlying connotations of words. Given the involved officer has been charged with third-degree murder according to this source I firmly believe that the page should be renamed to killing rather than "death"NotJuggerNot (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Floyd was killed. We should reflect in the title more specifically what happened to him. We know he was killed. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 03:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support: The killer was charged with murder, the most recent autopsy agrees with the criminal justice system. There is no reason to deny reality. It's only a matter of time before the DOJ agrees this is murder. What more is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.117.9 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support per the autopsy report. Khestwol (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Second convenience section

• Very strong support The videos have made it clear that George Floyd was killed by another person. It is not sensationalist to use "Killing" because this change would not be at the expense of accuracy, while sensationalism does come at the expense of accuracy. This article is about more than just George Floyd's death, the article also talks about the result of the fact that he was killed. Floyd simply dying is not the reason riots are happening right now, it is the fact that he was killed by another person and the title should reflect this fact. MeumInfernum (talk) 13:26, May 29, 2020 (EST)
• Strong Oppose Until there is an autopsy and/or charges are laid the article's name should remain the same. --Partridgepentathalon (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Partridgepentathalon, charges have been filed in case you would like to update your !vote. - MrX 🖋 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Gorilla Warfare and MeumInfernum. ProletariatetsBefrielseOrkester (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now until somebody gets a verdict. But considering that technically nobody is even charged yet, it would be an unnecessary breaking of wp:NPOV which plenty of activists on this site now seem to be all to happy to ignore. 2601:602:9200:1310:B572:A327:336C:45D5 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The general consensus right now is that it is a murder. Unless a source comes out and proves the contrary, it should be labeled as such and only changed if the autopsy proves otherwise. Lbparker40 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support now that the perpetrator has been charged with murder. Plenty of reliable sources describe Floyd's death as "killing".[28][29][30][31]. It doesn't matter if other sources, or even more sources, have characterized the killing as "death". Those are not indicative of disparate points of view. As it turns out, death is the direct result of being killed. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the precedent of other articles like Shooting of Michael Brown, Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, etc. The word "killing" does not imply murder. "Kill" only implies that Floyd did not die from some cause like disease or suicide; it implies that his life ended upon action by another human being. That Floyd died upon action by another person is irrefutable. BirdValiant (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support His death was caused by another individual harming him. Death makes it sound like he died of disease or natural causes. CodingCyclone (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, Wikipedia is not judge and jury and should remain a neutral arbiter of facts as they stand, precedence in other articles is that we use "Death" (eg Death of Eric Garner). If the officers involved are indicted and convicted at trial then will be the appropriate time to discuss renaming the article. Zerbey (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support He wouldn't be dead if it weren't for the knee on his neck. He was murdered. To say otherwise is disrespecting Mr Floyd and dissing the truth. Ms.23 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The Wikipedia article on manslaughter states, "Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied." It is obvious from the video that the Derek Chauvin's actions directly lead to the death of George Floyd which is (at least) manslaughter and therefore "killing" is the correct designation. Kmorris1077 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now until somebody gets a verdict. And then it should probably be "Murder" like at Murder of Jordan Edwards.Oneiros (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support – It's obvious to anybody with eyes that this was a murder, and now that there's a formal charge put forward, there's no excuse left. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The manner in which he died has ample evidence. It was at the hands of another person and it's not a coincidence. I understand the need to have a cited source, but when it's plainly obvious a man had his knee on his neck, what more do you need? There's no ambiguity here. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support A killing is "an act of causing death." His death was caused. Passive voice in describing the events is not neutral but a deliberate stance. Liberte et paix (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support: The page should be moved to Killing of George Floyd as the Cop was charged with third degree murder. --Vegitaboss (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• 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)
• 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 Neurofreak (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

Just saw he’s been charged with murder. Oppose is now a weak oppose. - Koldcuts (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per RealFakeKim. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per semantic arguments given in the discussion section below by Darouet (talk · contribs). -- Pingumeister^(talk) 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per RealFakeKim's arguments. Demoxica (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.[32] --DarTar (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

Based on the consistency argument by Awilley (talk · contribs) I've changed my opinion to Oppose. John Link (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Strong support The video speaks for itself. And I actually want to add that we have this redirect Mohamed Noor (murderer), a black Minneapolis Police officer who accidentally killed a white lady. When the cop is black, we have no problem calling it a murder. --Deansfa (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That redirect was created after Noor was actually convicted of murder. Kablammo (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Until the cause of death is officially established, we should not characterize it. Kablammo (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support He was killed, no source denies that, so let's call it a killing. --denny vrandečić (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support per Nemo + GorillaWarfare + Darouet. – SJ + 02:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support per Nemo + GorillaWarfare + Darouet + MarylandGeoffrey. = paul2520 (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Support: It isn't sensationalist—it's just accurate. Karmos (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - after watching the video, yeah he definitely killed him Urgal (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, since there are reliable sources available for "killing" (some mentioned above; e.g. see Nemo's comment). Ahmad^talk 07:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, but only on a technical level, and somewhat weakly at that. Tentonne (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, given that third degree murder charges have been levied, and to accurately assess the situation. Teddybearearth (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Strong Support per TruthGuardians. Simply watching the video settles this discussion. CrispyCream27 ^(Talk) 09:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support per Nemo + GorillaWarfare + Darouet + MarylandGeoffrey. MacDoesWiki (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Strong Support unless one can prove that the video was doctored or that Mr Floyd spontaneously got tired of breathing of his own volition. In fact "Murder of George Floyd" should be the name of this article by the time this debate is over. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Long Oppose In tragic situations like this when people are filled with anger and despair it is important that we let policy guide us. In this case the relevant policy is WP:Article titles. That policy lists 5 criteria up front: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. Other criteria are discussed later: WP:Commonname and Neutrality. I will try to evaluate the two titles based on these.

  The two names are equally recognizable, natural, pricise, and concise. (Note that "precision" is talking about unambiguously identifying the subject and distinguishing it from other subjects, not the preciseness of the words we use.) That leaves us with Consistency, Commonness, and Neutrality.

  Consistency: If we look at Category:Deaths_in_police_custody_in_the_United_States we have the following constructions:

  "Death of [Name]"

  "Murder of [Name]"

  "[Name]"

  There are no instances of "Killing of [Name]"

  A larger sample of articles is at Category:Filmed killings by law enforcement. That has similar examples of the above 3 constructions plus a lot of "Shooting of [Name]". But again zero examples of "Killing..." So Consistency favors "Death".

  Commonname: There's not a great way of measuring this, but Google Search counts (with and without quotes) both favor "Death". (With quotes the ratio was about 4:3)

  Neutrality: This is largely an issue of WP:WORDS. On Wikipedia we avoid judgemental and non-neutral words that may introduce bias. In WP:SAID, "Synnonyms for said" could be compared with "Synnonyms for death". "Murdered", "lynched", "martyred", "massacred", "slaughtered", "exterminated", "executed", "passed away" all imply different things and evoke different emotions. But "death" is neutral.

  BLP One more consideration is our policy on living persons. It is against our rules to conclude that a living person has committed a crime until that person has been convicted in court. "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." So it would be problmatic to state in Wikipedia's voice that it was a killing. (Obviously if the officer is convicted the article can be moved at that point, probably to "Murder of..." or "Strangulation of..."

I would also like to respond briefly to some common arguments here that are not based in policy.

"It is obviously a killing. Anybody can see that in the video. We should call it what it is." It is not our job to make that judgement. Our job is to follow the best reliable sources and, in this case, the verdict of a jury.

"We should wait and see what the autopsy report says." This is good thinking, and the result of the autopsy report should be in the article, but WP:BLPCRIME is clear that it is the conviction in a court of law in that matters.

"The officer has now been charged, so we can call it a killing." Again, it's the conviction, not the charge, that matters.

Final note: As this is a highly emotional topic that is drawing many new editors, the eventual close of this request should include a detailed analysis addressing the arguments and policy basis of the result. ~Awilley (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, your claim "There are no instances of 'Killing of [Name]' " is false. There are more than 30 articles with "Killing of (Name)".--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

C&C, I didn't claim that there were no articles with "Killing of..." I simply confined my search to categories containing articles similar to this. If you want to do a raw count of all articles everywhere then you should be comparing it to this: [33] ~Awilley (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think C&C's list is the relevant compmarison. The "Death of ..." articles includes the much larger category of people who were not killed, for example the deaths of famous people by disease, accident, or other noteorhty circumstances. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, that's correct. In order to do a meaningful comparison between C&C's list of 52 "Killing of..." articles and the list of 507 "Death of..." articles you would need to comb through and subtract all the irrelevant articles like Killing of animals and Death of Samantha (song) and the articles about people who died of natural causes. This is why it makes sense to use categories to look at a limited samples of people killed by police as I did above. ~Awilley (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, I agree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Filmed_killings_by_law_enforcement is the most relevant precedent, but of the "[noun] of [name]"s there, the vast majority are "shooting". There is no good analog of "shooting" for Floyd, because there's not really any appropriate single word that describes the manner in which he was killed. "Killing" is the next closest thing: less specific as to the method, but still clear that Floyd's death was caused by the police action. No blame or crime is implied. Danstronger (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: As long as the article doesn't imply a deliberate killing. Killing can also refer to simply causing death even if you don't mean it. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Death is not a neutral term in that situation. As per Devgirl, Occam's razor and a ton of evidence point that it was a killing, and. Even though this is not standard practice on Wikipedia, this case is not standard. I feel that omission and labeling as "Death" instead of killing is deliberately choosing to be imprecise. And that implies that there is a reasonable chance that he was not killed. And as per the information available, that is not a reasonable assumption. So death is not "neutral", it is just broader. And casting this shadow of doubt on such an important event is not the goal of Wikipedia. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The standard title format for this situation is Death of (person). KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. I 100% agree that the article should be moved to Killing of George Floyd. I’ve checked on Wikipedia, and from what I see, “Death of” is usually used people like Death of Osama Bin Laden, Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Death of Benito Mussolini, and it is also used for nonviolent deaths and some suicides while “killing of” is used for people like Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Killing of Peter Fechter, and surprisingly, lots of recent prominent animal deaths like Killing of Harambe or Killing of Cecil the Lion. Death of Freddie Gray is listed as “death of”, but I think I’ll try to change that. Yoleaux (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• SUPPORT They were clearly killed. You have video footage of what happened. There is no possible way he would've just died if he hadn't been in that situation. If the jury rules it was murder, this can be renamed against to Murder of George Floyd. It is not original research to look at a video and see what happened, its common sense. Dream Focus 21:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  Dream Focus, that's exactly what original research is. Nihlus 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The most reliable source is the video itself. The video clearly shows that Derek Chauvin was the primary factor in George Floyd's becoming unresponsive. I think this is common sense that the most neutral thing we can do is call it a killing. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Derek Chauvin was charged with third degree murder of George Floyd. At least from the state prosecution's side, killing or even murder is the correct word to describe what had happened. JesseC436 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per JesseC436. L ke (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose results of the autopsy do not show that this was caused by strangulation. Regardless of how you feel about the video, it's best to remain neutral until a trial finds him guilty/innocent, at which point we can change the title if necessary. Anon0098 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Provisionally Oppose The results of the autopsy seems to be inconclusive. I'd wait a few days before moving this page if more reliable sources appear in the meantime. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support because it makes sense with other Wikipedia articles. --Xicanx (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, I do agree that "Death of George Floyd" implies a death due to natural causes. I feel that killing more accurately reflects the situation, especially given the obvious and unjustified police brutality present. Killing does not imply a deliberate intent, "Murder of George Floyd" would be a title that implies that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support "Death" is a passive word, implying "the life just ended". "Killed" is an active word, implying "something happened to stop that life at that point". Except in the most philosophical sense, it is abundantly clear that Floyd would not have died at that time if not for the actions of Chauvin.

  Even in the highly unlikely scenario that Derek's death happened to be due to some unlikely medical circumstance unrelated to the knee on his neck, it would still be the case that he was prevented from seeking aid by Chauvin, that others were preventing from providing aid by the officers on scene, and that none of the officers on scene took action to provide aid, or call for aid. As such, it is clear that, even if there needs to be some distinction that (from a legal standpoint) this may not yet be able to called a murder, it can definitely, and should definitely, be called a killing.

  Even putting all that aside, and focusing on what's been published in the media, there is support for the use of the phrase. The Guardian has an article George Floyd killing sparks protests across the US: at a glance guide. Fox40 has Protests of solidarity surround Stae Capitol in wake of Geoorge Floyd killing. Politico has Nationwide protests erupt over the killing of George Floyd. MSNBC has George Floyd killing highlights toxic police culture. If we need more examples, they are plentiful and not difficult to find. Aawood (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support There are precedents for both ways of phrasing it and the passiveness of "Death of" doesn't convey the perspective that ignited the protests. Everything that's happening as a result of George Floyd's death wouldn't have happened if he simply died. His death was caused by another person. He was killed by a police officer. Whether the killing was intentional or not is irrelevant. Whether he had underlying health conditions or not is irrelevant. George Floyd would not be dead if the police officer didn't do what he did. TJScalzo (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  With the independent autopsy that has been made public, I reaffirm my support for this move. TJScalzo (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support, and per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Floyd, I think ultimately this page should be at George Floyd and expanded to a biography on the subject. In the alternative, a shorter bio at George Floyd with this page as the main section about his murderkilling. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support The whole event hinges on the fact that Gorge Floyd was killed due to use of excessive and unreasonable force by the police. 'Death' plays into the false narrative that he just happened to die while around police. 'Killing' clarifies that the death was caused by the police, which we know to be the case. Melmann 11:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. People do call it a killing so the redirect makes sense. However, because it is not confirmed yet he was killed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, so Wikipedia should keep the title as death to stay neutral. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support I understand the neutral language policy etc. However, we cannot change the reality and nature of an event to support neutral language. This is not the matter here. Right now in this wikipedia if you search 'the killing of' you can see a lot of article titles come up with it. On the other hand, it is clear in the footage that the (former) officer knew what he was doing and he did it deliberately. Police education includes CPR and information about what can kill and what happens if you cut oxygen delivery to the brain for more than 5 minutes. Even if he released pressure on his neck before he died he would acquire significant brain injury. Gharouni ^Talk 15:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: It is safe enough to call the situation manslaughter, so killing would be a proper title. I may partly see why people may choose to leave it as "Death", I lean more towards "Killing", since there was police brutality and non-premeditated homicide in the situation. About full on murder, however, I'd rather not rename it like that. Maese Juan 25 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per sourcing and the Oxford English Dictionary of "kill" not not imply intent. I support later moving the page to "murder" if the cop(s) are found guilty. TJMSmith (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Media worldwide has already used the word 'kill' to describe the event. Chauvin has also been arrested for murder. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above, there's not much more to be argued Leotext (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly and obviously a killing. "Death of" is less precise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Further investigation shows that he was indeed choked to death. No need to kneel on the neck of a handcuffed person.Tinyastro (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Chauvin is shown kneeling on Floyd's neck to the point of being unable to breath & has been charge with third-degree murder. This is not some random death, but a deliberate killing. WakandaForever188 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, maybe later after a cause of death is more clearly determined. Right now the preliminary autopsy report seems to say natural causes, but the officer has been charged with murder, so the official record is muddled. Many such articles are labeled "Shooting of" but in this case the cause of death has not been clearly established on the record. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose While it seems clear he died as a result of his treatment by police, there is no consistent use of "kill" among RS, and per Awiley, "death" is used more consistently in article titles. "Death" is even used as a header in BLPs of murder victims. Also, we should consider the unlikely possibility that he coincidentally died from drugs he may have been on. This is why we should resist the temptation to use OR analysis of the event. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Strong support per autopsy reports. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - There's no shortage of sources describing the death of George Floyd as a killing. I understand that Wikipedia tends to prefer using as neutral-sounding of language as possible whenever possible, but calling it a killing is not not neutral. This is less about neutrality and more about semantics and sources. I can understand why some in this thread have said that Wikipedia should wait until a conviction to refer to the homicide as a murder in the title (as we can't know what charges the suspects will or will not be found guilty of), but it's just a well-documented fact that George Floyd was killed and avoiding describing his death a homicide is an erroneous thing to do. As others have pointed out, stating that he was killed doesn't even suggest that it was purposeful (e.g. accidental vehicular homicide is still killing), it simply provides more specific information. I can sympathize with the viewpoint that using the word "death" could make the article come off as having a more neutral tone, and I share the goal of making the article as neutral and accurate as possible, I simply hold the viewpoint that killing is a more accurate term and that using it does not compromise the neutrality of the article's title. Best wishes  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Video evidence unambiguously shows that the death of George Floyd was indeed a killing in that the police officer directly caused his death. According to the definition of the word, even an accidental killing could accurately be described as a killing (though this was certainly not accidental). Apparently more credible sources use the word "death" rather than "killing," but I wonder how many use words that are closer in tone to "killing," such as "murder." Moreover, virtually all credible sources, including those that use "death," clearly state that the police officer caused Mr. Floyd's death, which is the definition of the word "kill." Even if autopsy results show that asphyxiation was not the cause of death, there are other ways one could die from having someone kneel on one's neck for over eight minutes, and it would still be a killing. Additionally, said autopsy results are questionable given that Mr. Floyd's family is requesting an independent autopsy. Given that George Floyd was literally begging not to be killed, those who oppose the title change are encouraged to explain the mental gymnastics that they must perform to argue that the police officer did not cause Mr. Floyd's death. Lastly, Derek Chauvin is currently being charged for murder. "Murder" is clearly above "killing" in terms of intensity of wording. However, if Mr. Chauvin is found guilty, then the title of this page would reasonably be changed to "Murder of George Floyd." It would be strange to jump from "Death of George Floyd" directly to "Murder of George Floyd" without the reasonable middle level of "Killing of George Floyd." If not now, when there is already clear video evidence, what would be the appropriate time to transition from "Death of George Floyd" to "Killing of George Floyd" before potentially intensifying the wording to "Murder of George Floyd"? EDIT (1 June 2020): The independent autopsy conducted at the request of George Floyd's family has concluded that his cause of death was “homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain.” Moreover, while the preliminary report from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office initially did not find asphyxia or strangulation as the cause of death, the county's full report has ruled George Floyd's death a homicide attributed to “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” Donutzebra (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, used "killing" in her condemnation of the events. Whsun808 (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the key issue at hand here is NPOV vs. WP:Article Titles. WP:POVTITLE states When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title. Here, we have no common phrase on the level of the Boston massacre. Both phrases "killing" and "death" are used in media sources, ruling out the possibility of deciding based on usage. In WP:CRITERIA, it really comes down to the "Precision" point. It is more or less unanimously agreed that this is a killing at this point, even by the more conservative sources (see [34]). Thus this phrase is more precise and at the same time still neutral, as it is a more or less universally agreed upon fact across ideologies. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Move to Premeditated killing/murder of George Floyd. // Eatcha (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose So far, perhaps the most comprehensive examination of Wikipedia's editing norms on this subject is by Awilley above. It seems to me that most other opposition explanations also cite Wikipedia norms. On the other hand, an enormous number of supporting explanations cite "common sense," or the video of GF's death, or the definitions of "killing" from various dictionary sources. Only a few cite the preference of many RSes, and even this is split. This argument at least addresses the Wikipedia editorial standard. After reading a few hundred positions, I am unconvinced that this group has yet surpassed the evidentiary requirement for moving an article under such deep scrutiny. I will continue to call GF's death a murder in my own speech, but this encyclopedia's responsibility is not only to avoid activism, but to avoid the appearance of activism. It's not pleasant and it doesn't make me feel good, but it's the right thing to do to oppose. Rvanarsdale (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support SNOW Support And wait for clearer evidence before moving to Murder of George Floyd. If a man has his knee on another man's neck while the second man is screaming for help while gasping for breath, and then the second man dies of a heart failure, it's beyond dispute that he was killed. Intent is not important. Calling 'Death' a neutral term at this point is an absurdly shallow reading of the situation. Innocent until proven guilty can apply to murder, but not to killing, because killing is not necessarily a criminal charge. Bubka42 (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Changed to SNOW support after the independent autopsy reported homicide, which renders most of this discussion moot now. Suggest we close this as soon as possible. Bubka42 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Look at the Killing of Latasha Harlins. There are other articles which start with "killing of," although for some reason the word is avoided when it comes to killing by the police. Perhaps we should also be looking at renaming other articles in which people were killed by police officers. "Death" may seem more neutral in tone, but in actuality it is not neutral in that it de-emphasizes the role which Derek Chauvin played in killing George Floyd. Killing is more accurate. Arumdaum (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Arumdaum You need to explain why using death "de-emphasizes" Chauvin's role. I wouldn't cite Harlins article for precedent for this article. Harlins case has already run its course with convictions and official reports. At this time, we don't fully know Chauvin's role in Floyd's death; I think it's safe to say he had a significant role, but under WP:OR its not up to us its up to reliable sources. Yes a lot of reliable media sources are saying this is a killing, but some other media sources and some official reports like the autopsy don't say killing they emphasize his health conditions and possible intoxicants. Therefore, under WP:NPOV we need to balance out these two opinions out. Most importantly, what I'm trying to say is that, especially right now, Floyds death being considered a killing is disputed among credible, and it's not wikipedia job to pick a side. Now, maybe later on after everything is said in done we can have this discussion again. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support sanitized wording is not "neutrality", it is just whitewashing. We are not here to cater to people's feelings, we are here to present facts. He was killed. --Calthinus (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We need to stick with Wikipedia's convention of using "Death of" to stick to one our strongest principles of NPOV. I know many people have strong emotions about this article, but using Wikipedia to make a point is not the answer. There is nothing encyclopedic about changing the title to "Killing." It's a political statement that Wikipedia should be avoiding as much as possible. Angryapathy (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support — "Killing of..." killing is defined as "an act of causing death". WHERE IS THE CONTROVERSY? George Floyd wouldn't have died if the police officer hadn't kneeled on his neck for 9 minutes. "Killing of..." we already know it - whatever health conditions he might have had, he wouldn't have died if the police officer hadn't kneeled on his neck for 8minutes 46 seconds where is the controversy?? —Holaholahulahop
• Support See List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2020 where George Floyd is listed. See also Killing of Latasha Harlins and Killing of Peter Fechter. Tvc 15 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as non-neutral and potentially incendiary. We are required by policy to maintain a neutral point of view, and while there is any non-trivial question about whether it's a "killing/murder" or "accidental death" or what have you, we need to absolutely remain neutral, period. I understand there is a lot of emotion surrounding this, and for good cause, I think. However, we must stay encyclopedic. Once all investigations are complete, and the dust has settled, then would be an appropriate time to consider a move such as this, but for now it's too soon. Waggie (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. He died from these actions (see offical post-mortem), also support the title "Homicide of George Floyd" as declared by official post-mortem. Banak (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes will kill them. Per vast numbers of reliable sources, this was a killing. Not describing it as such is a dereliction of WP:N. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support It's clear to anyone that this was a killing. I'm !supporting now because the official autopsy report from the county medical examiner has confirmed that this was a homicide. Davey2116 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Floyd's death was not an accident, as quite a few editors have mentioned already. The murder even looks like a reference to the Kaepernick protests from a few years ago KohrVid (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Adding my voice to the chorus that the evidence has mounted with enough credibility that Floyd's death was a killing, whether intentional or not. Death implies too much passivity or happenstance and doesn't capture the nature of the tragic event. P.S. I would advocate for "Murder of.." but I know how ... conservative the Wiki community is (not politically but editing wise) so this is a reasonable compromise. Anyone who disagrees well... I'll let my Twitter speak on that. Jccali1214 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support I would support it being changed to "killed" because it is absolutely certain that he was killed by a person. "Death" implies that Mr. Floyd died due to natural and/or accidental causes. We know, based on solid evidence, that this is simply not true. If the article title says he was killed, the title would more accurately summarize the event. Ravishsingh00724 (talk)
• Support As per the sourced autopsy report and other previously mentioned sources. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong, speedy, and SNOW support per WP:BLUESKY and autopsy. There is consensus for this move and it should done immediately. With all due respect, WP:NODEADLINE is not applicable on this one. I'm strongly tempted to make the move myself. Feoffer (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, but the word 'killing' is without intent. The offical manner of death is homocide, that is, killing.[35] Therefore I think it is more important to phrase the article as it is reflected in the current official records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabsoluterince (talk • contribs) 06:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Tally

Support	Oppose
150	80

[Latest update: Bubka42 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)]

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)

Is there any robot to tally automatically? --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

• An easy way to see what the generally opinion is. — RealFakeKimT 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the addition of the word "strong" has no actual bearing on the strength of the underlying argument, which is assessed by the editor who closes the discussion and depends on how well-reasoned the arguments are in the context of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly its naming conventions. Mz7 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Having said that, polls play a valuable role in Wikipedia: they highight just how misleading polls can be in identifying consensus. ——Serial ^# 18:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number Does consensus mean you can defy a policy even if that policy isn't changed nor that policy mentions any exception? If yes, what's the point of having policies if people don't need to follow it and saying Wikipedia is not a democracy? Policies are different than guidelines which people can choose not to follow. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor:This is not a vote-only. There were no pure votes and all votes include a statement. It is a discussion with a "support" or "oppose" at the top, it is you that understand it as a vote. --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor: Do you see only votes on this picture? No, they all have a reason. --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The title is "Survey", not "Vote". --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Updated to show current positions. I removed Strongly Support and Strongly Oppose as they have no bearing on anything, so Support shows all supporting votes and Oppose shows all Opposing. I did this by doing a Ctrl F and subtracting all those that were stricken, or in explanation, or somewhere else on the page. AlternateHistoryGuy (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Updated count, it reflects all unambiguous votes so far. (Did not check for duplicate votes, relying on good faith.) Bubka42 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Our policy is WP:NPOV and the language of murder or killing is not neutral - is not based on facts in evidence, and does not square with our policy. IMO it does not really matter how many editors stomp their feet and demand that this title be changed to something that is not yet established and violates our policy on neutrality. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • What is the grounding of neutrality in your opinion? If the majority of reliable sources said that the sky was purple, would we put that on Wikipedia? No, because we are allowed to apply a bit of common sense. The most trustworthy evidence, direct videos of the event, show it to be a killing. To not abide by that bit of common sense would not be neutral. And by the way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia made by editors. To say that the opinions of editors do not matter as much as a policy guideline is the direct antithesis of what Wikipedia is about. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Spirit of Oohoowahoo: We follow policy on Wikipedia, as we did with Death of Eric Garner who essentially died in the same manner. Sometimes a closer has to assess opinions expressed by passionate editors and then weigh those opinions against our policy. I am not sure how to respond to your hyperbole regarding the sky is purple, but I got your point. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Yes, I understand why policy is useful, and why looking at precedents is also useful in deciding what to do. I was using hyperbole to prove my point: policy and precedents are helpful but they should not dictate actions 100% of the time. (I think this is the idea behind WP:IAR.) This is a case where they may be contradicted by common sense, which says that this is at the very least a killing. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose we should be following the NPOV principles set down by Death of Eric Garner or Death of Kelly Thomas etc etc. Alssa1 (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think WP:NPOV should explain this one. Using the words “murder” and “killing” is not neutral. Then again, different political groups use different words to politicize an event like this. RedRiver660 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Support The independent autopsy calls this a homocide, so I think this is safe Syryquil1 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support following two autopsies that found he was killed. – Anne drew 23:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The police were trying to arrest Floyd, but ended up killing him instead despite bystanders telling one of the officers at the dig to "let him go". Hansen Sebastian^Talk 00:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: the official autopsy from the county came out, with cause of death listed as "homicide". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - since this article is primarily about the events that led to his death, which was caused by another person, and meets the definition of "killing", per reliable sources. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think this would go against the previous precedent of other similar articles. It also wouldn't be neutral or unbiased. Herbfur (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support As stated above, there is already precedent in articles such as Killing of Latasha Harlins, for example. The obvious killing is supported by the findings of the independent autopsy report released today. Buffaboy ^talk 03:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Note, though, that in Harlins' case, there was a conviction of the perpetrator for manslaughter. On the other hand, articles like Death of Kelly Thomas and Death of Eric Garner which Alssa1 points out above use "Death". The difference between these articles and Harlins' article? In those cases the perpetrators were not tried or convicted. Regards SoWhy 09:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support Both the public and independent autopsies have concluded that Floyd's death was a homicide and that the direct cause of death was asphyxiation due to the officers kneeling on him. He was killed. The article absolutely must reflect that. Waterfire (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - He didn't just die randomly, he was killed. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 04:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

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

• According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb "kill" does not necessarily imply intent: To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc. By contrast, "murder" implies intent: To kill (a person) unlawfully, spec. with malice aforethought (in early use often with the additional notion of concealment of the offence); to kill (a person) wickedly, inhumanly, or barbarously. Whoever closes this requested move should ignore votes implying that killing and murder are the same, or arguing that a trial and murder conviction are required to rename the article to "killing of..." "To kill" and "to murder" are different verbs in the English language.
• I cannot find a reliable source arguing that Floyd may have died from underlying medical conditions unrelated to the officer pressing his knee down on Floyd's neck, while Floyd begged that he was being killed, and while onlookers exclaimed that Floyd was being killed. Can someone find a source making this argument, or is this pure speculation?
• Many sources refer both to Floyd's death and to his killing, e.g. the BBC, US News, the Chicago Tribune, the Cut, Yahoo News, CNN, NY Magazine, the Guardian, TIME, Al Jazeera, TMZ, The Globe and Mail, Rolling Stone, The Hill, and so forth. At this point "Killing of George Floyd" returns more google hits than "Death of George Floyd."

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

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

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

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

• Agree with the above. The facts of the case have evolved, which renders many of the initial "opposes" questionable and helps explain why there has been a shift to more support votes. Flip^andFlopped ツ 02:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Based on the understanding that this is an encyclopedia, dealing with common knowledge, not a work of forensic/scientific nature, I support. It is not an interpretation of a video, it has become common knowledge that it was a killing and its public interest (what legitimates it as encyclopedic interest) is the fact that it was an act of brutal violence, regardless technical scrutiny.

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

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

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  DIYeditor I do. As I said before, it was just an idea. ~ HAL333 15:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)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)

Statement by Hennepin County Medical Examiner on 5/28 [36]:

"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)

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)

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)

• DIYeditor Did you see Michael Baden's independent autopsy? He concluded Floyd died of asphyxiation. ~ HAL333 19:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

The Coroner just ruled that it was not an asphyxiation-caused death. [37] Nuke (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the full report. [38] Elvis2500 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500

And this is why we wait for reliable information instead of rushing into matters haphazardly. Nihlus 22:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That certainly needs to be added to the article. Perennial Student (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Now that we have the new autopsy report with the homicide ruling, can we please close this discussion and do the move? Bubka42 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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 [39]:

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)

At its core, opposers are arguing that we don't have enough information imply causation at this time, which "killing" most certainly presupposes.I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that other RS articles have used "killing", but that does not necessarily mean it is the most accurate or neutral term. If/when the coroner confirms that the actions of the officer directly caused the death of the Floyd, I'm game for the move, but until then, I would argue that "death" is the most neutral term we can use at this time. Elvis2500 (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500

• 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)

Thin-skull rule means that you take your victim as you find them, as it relates to causation and the actus reus. Thin-skull is important as it can defeat the mens rea element. For example, I might slap my neighbour and he might die because I slapped him on his thin skull; but I do not have the intent to cause death or really serious harm (for the English definition of murder). In contrast, if I kill my neighbour by applying enough force to defeat an ordinarily formed skull, I am more likely to have murderous intent. Perennial Student (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Comment - I already put my oppose in the survey, but I would like to elaborate on it some. We can't seem to agree fully on what the definition of "killing" is; however, we can at least agree that it means for one person to take the life of another. As of this moment, we don't know fully know if George Floyd was killed by that police officer; according to the autopsy section it doesn't appear clear what killed him. In order to remain fully neutral and stay in accordance with NPOV, we need to only base the title with the available facts. I've noticed a lot of the the supports say something like "the video is clear he was killed by that cop," it's not our place under WP:OR to decide if Floyd was killed by that officer. Yes some news sources have said that; however, I don't think those sources can be used in this context only official reports like the autopsy and later convictions. At the very least, this move needs to be closed with no consensus until we get all the facts straight. All we know is George Floyd is dead, and the title needs to reflect that fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I will try to limit this comment to novel arguments—note that I concur with the arguments given above; reliable sources refer to the event as the killing of George Floyd, and it is clear from the video that he was killed. "Death of George Floyd" is not a neutral title. Though it is true that the killing of a man would also be his death, Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, and using the term death when killing is the more common usage draws attention to itself. The title "Death of George Floyd" seems to take a side on the matter as much as "Killing of George Floyd"; though intended as a neutral description, it is distractingly obvious that the word killing has been avoided. Kilopylae (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Kilopylae why is death not a nuetral term? You mentioned that "killing" is what's commonly used by reliable sources, by reliable sources I'm assuming you mean news/media references generally seen as credible. However, under WP:NPOV we are supposed to balance these often bias media sources with more objective sources let say like the autopsy (in my opinion the autopsy/official reports should trump media sources). A death isn't always natural; therefore, killing or even murder would fall under the term death. Therefore, "death" would please people who think George Floyd was killed and the rather minute amount of people who think he may have died from some natural or other unspecified causes. You can't say that using the term "death" is just as much picking a side as using "killing" because it's not, "death" is a broad term that fits pretty much every criteria. Also, we need to take in account precedent (Death of Eric Garner). The dictionary and precedent favor "death" as a neutral term over "killing." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, autopsies are WP:PRIMARY. It's not clear that The Hennepin County Medical Examiner is an independent source. That very issue has been raised by Mr Floyd's family, who have requested an independent autopsy.

Ergo placing this questionable primary source above respected secondary sources I think would be a grave mistake. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And, having just googled the above, I encountered: An independent autopsy into the death of George Floyd found that his death was a homicide and the unarmed black man died of "asphyxiation from sustained pressure." Dedented because I think this is an important development. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the county medical examiner's office just ruled this a homicide. There is not a single source suggesting Floyd died of natural causes, not even fringe sources which should have no bearing anyway. Why is this even still a discussion at this point? Smartyllama (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Source (I'm sure there are others...) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Call for change of vote Most of the oppose votes above hinged on the fact that from neutrality considerations, we should wait for an autopsy report to indicate that the death was not from natural causes. Now that an independent autopsy has established it was a homicide, I request these members to change their votes to support. I also believe this now falls under WP:SNOW, as it is difficult to argue now in good faith that it's not neutral to call it a killing. Bubka42 (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Both the official autopsy report and pathologists hired by the Floyd family, including former New York chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, conclude that homicide was cause of death. Those that argue that we should wait for a jury's verdict are in error, because a jury determines whether a victim of a homicide was in fact murdered in the strictly legal sense (as opposed to, say, an accidental killing). But all homicide victims are "killed." So all who argued that we should wait for the autopsy should change their votes.

Dylanexpert (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Violates WP:MOS. Nightvour (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Make the move immediately. We like to say There Is No Deadline, but that doesn't really apply here. We have to choose between two titles, and our editors clearly favor "killing" as more befitting for all manner of reasons, particularl in light of filed charges and medical results. Feoffer (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Comment. The Medical Examiner has come to the same ruling of homicide as the private autopsy. IssaRevol (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Both autopsies conclude that the death occured because of the neck compression by the law enforcement officer. The only difference is that the medical examiner's office claims that the combination of the neck compression with the underlying health problems caused the death. Also the term "death" doesn't disambiguates whether the death occurred by natural causes or not in contrary with the more clear terms like "killing" and "murder".cnn Gnslps (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: I feel that if we start using the word murder, killed, etc. it can be considered incite full even down the road putting us where we are now in this world. I prefer we stick with Death of as we (as a community have previously done on a lot of these types of articles. If this were to be changed as things kinda boil down to cold water and the country gets a hold on this without affecting BLP and what orange guy in the White House decides to do over the next couple of days or weeks based on his statements on June 1, 2020 I feel we need to leave this at Death of for the time being. This is also still an ongoing investigation so there will be other things that come into play I’m sure. 2600:8801:C500:160:DCE6:1063:6089:E5D3 (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm legitimately interested to know what a move for this article would mean for the Death of Eric Garner article, then, since the two cases are extremely similar. Love of Corey (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Just see the Blacl Lives Matter-template See below): except for the Murder of Botham Jean, every victim has a Death of X or a Shooting of X-article. This case is not special enough to break this consistancy. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support if after charges/convictions are made, but Derek literally killed George Floyd. The video footage clearly demonstrates that. One person said "video" is a piece of indispensable evidence, and can be seen by many. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Death of Eric Garner and Death of Jonny Gammage were both asphyxiated by police, both were labeled homicide by the coroner. These 3 cases are exactly the same. Everybody seems to be ignoring these examples when they are mentioned. Are we going to change those articles as well? Dkspartan1835 (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Change those articles as well. Homicide is synonymous with killing, let Wikipedia say things as it is. Phonehead (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Many celebrities condemned the incident

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't use perjoratives. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

I would argue that many celebrities' comments are not too relevant to the article, but if there are celebrities from the Minneapolis area (born or living there), their comments might hold more weight in context. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Shrinkydinks, I'm sorry, but what remote evidence do you have for any of 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.? In my experience that is the exact opposite of the truth, all of it. —valereee (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

• We should have no line mentioning it all. Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. When we have a celebrity (or anyone else, for that matter) being relaibly-sourced as applauding or just "not minding" Floyd's death, then that would be newsworthy. That's not going to happen, so it's merely unencyclopedic trivia. ——Serial ^# 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  +1 —valereee (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see why what some celeb thinks is ever relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Criminal record

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

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

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)

Of course that's correct. The current one-sided version of his bio sanitizes his life history, and unfairly deprives readers of the opportunity to draw their own conclusions - not only about his character, but about the likelihood that he was resisting at the time he was taken to the ground.John2510 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose this content being added per WP:BDP and relevancy, how is this content connected to his death on May 25, how does it help the reader to understand the subject of this article - the death and arrest of Floyd and the actions of the officers, particularly the officer who knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was pleading he couldn't breathe. I don't see any connection, and none has been provided in the article on how it is connected or relevant to this event. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We have at least tow threads on this the other is Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Also noting that at WP:BLPN, there is currently a consensus to exclude the criminal history of Floyd, that discussion can be found here Isaidnoway (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Then it needs to be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I did remove it, again, but it keeps on getting added back. Those who want to include it need to participate in discussion, and make their case for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is against the rules, and those users should do the right thing and remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is writing "His life later took a different turn and in 2007 Floyd was charged with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents." Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please have all of these threads about this merged, it will make figuring out consensus impossible otherwise?Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems very, how shall we say... strange, for us to mention that he "liked basketball" (how is that relevant to his death?) but then completely neglect to mention news reports that he was sentenced to five years in prison in 2007 for his part in an armed home invasion where he put a gun to a woman's stomach. In total he was involved in nine criminal incidents in Texas as a defendant and spent five different spells in prison. This would appear to be significant biographical detail about the life and times of this individual. CrimeChecker (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We have an RFC, comment there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If his High School sports history is relevant to this event then so is his criminal history. The argument that the page is about "Killing of George Floyd" is irrelevant when the "George Floyd" redirects to it. Hiding his criminal history and removing it when anybody posts it is censorship. Is that Wikipedia stands for? The truth is that George Floyd has an extensive criminal history and it's very possible that the officers in this incident knew who he was. And that can absolutely affect how they approached him. Of course that doesn't excuse them of the murder, though it is still important information. Maxtro (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Maxtro—it is "important information" because the best quality sources convey this information to their readers. The BBC writes "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't know about the facedown issue, but I'd argue ExperiencedArticleFixer was correct that this version [40] was misleading. I don't think there's ever been any real dispute that Floyd stopped responding during those seven minutes. Yet that version could easily be read as saying he was talking during the whole seven minutes. Despite EAF's experience, I'm not sure if their edit of the article was the best fix, but they were right to highlight the problem and there was probably nothing wrong with trying to fix it in some way given WP:BOLD etc even if they didn't succeed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Striking the above since it's moot now that we have the criminal complaint which gives us the exact time Chauvin was kneeling on his neck, and the time he was unresponsive. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Which further demonstrates why there was a problem. Even based on body cam footage of the entire incident and not just when someone started recording, he was responsive only for just under 6 minutes while his neck was being knelt on. He clearly was not talking for 7 minutes while someone was kneeling on his neck. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Blake Live And Ryan Reynolds Are Doing Their Part To Help Protest Of George Floyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.120.177 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

DizzyDawn, Wikipedia is not censored. Ed6767 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose: This question was proposed and failed in 2005. Kire1975 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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. [41] -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

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. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm confused by your reasoning. There is no local consensus trying to "skirt around" WP:NOTCENSORED. I cited the Manual of Style, and a specific quote from it, which is a policy. Just because you also found a policy that supports your opinion does not invalidate that the MoS for lead images is also a guideline. No one is saying the image should be removed from the article. No one is censoring it. People are saying it's unfit for the lead image. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow... Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines ...and occasional exceptions may apply. (Emphasis mine). MOS:IMAGES is a guideline, WP:NOT is policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but I think you're misusing WP:NOTCENSORED. The point is that stuff shouldn't be actively omitted, not that a photo which can be placed in the article shouldn't be used as the lead photo if it's a photo of a dead, or likely dead, person. The example given in MOS:IMAGES is explicitly this. How is it that not using a photo of someone dead or dying on the Holocaust article isn't censorship but wanting to do the same here for the same reason is censorship? DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding the usage of a photograph which may contain dead or dying people within the infobox header is largely attributed to the western-centric cultural taboo that such photographs are disrespectful to the dead, and therefore should not be shared; this can be seen from the very first line at the top of this talk page section: 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. Thus, I would argue that the suggestion to remove or relocate images of the dead are, more likely than not, efforts to adhere to this western cultural norm. Making changes in deference to cultural sensibilities and anticipation of potential offence to the reader is one of the categories of censorship, in the same manner that removing depictions of the Prophet Muhammad or replacing the given names of deceased Australian Aboriginals with "auntie" or "uncle" would be censorship.

Now, censorship isn't black and white, and while it isn't as bad as outright removal, I would argue that relocating but not removing would still constitute a softer form of censorship, given that there is the same intention to avoid the aforementioned taboo; I am inferring intention based on the wider context of this talk page section. Of course, I may be misreading the intentions of other editors, however I'm confident that File:George Floyd neck knelt on by police officer.png cannot be considered a shock image akin to images of holocaust victims, and this is why I believe that editors are still subconsciously pushing for the image to be removed from the infobox largely due to cultural reasons, even if they do provide different reasoning. The depiction of the original arrest is visually tame, contains no gore, and doesn't "scare" the viewer; any objectionability is purely of cultural origin.

The wording of WP:NOTCENSORED is as follows: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. The link to MOS:PERTINENCE then describes how to determine whether an image is an important visual aid to understanding the topic's context. With this in mind, I would argue that even if there is discussion to relocate the image away from the infobox (and not remove it outright), such discussion is still done within the context of offensiveness, rather than encyclopedic nature. It would be hard to argue that this image isn't a key cornerstone for illustrating this topic; it is clearly of great significance and importance, given that it depicts the original incident that sparked nationwide condemnation and protests. The image is performing its original intended purpose - illustrating the topic, clearly and succinctly. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If your issue is with cultural implications, fine, but that isn't what I said nor is it my reasoning. It has nothing to do with death being taboo in Western culture or being disrespectful, my concern is that I heavily disagree with it not being a shock image. It's an image of a person actively being suffocated. The issue is not that he's dead but the means of death is violent and disturbing. Two of the factors listed there that make a shock image are something being racist, which this photo is widely considered to be, and something being violent, which this photo also is. There are plenty of other ways to illustrate this topic that doesn't contain those things. If your reasoning is assuming my cultural background (which I don't particularly understand since it's not something I've written about here on Wikipedia), I do believe there's reasons outside of cultural bias for the change. You mentioned something another person wrote at the top of the page to discuss that point. I agree with your sentiment and others that broader consensus is needed on this so I've put in an RfC to hopefully have other editors voice their opinion. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 04:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Would it help if the dying man in the picture wasn't actively being suffocated, as the ME says George Floyd wasn't? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find western-centric cultural taboo in the guidelines and policies. Also, developing consensus on an article talk page for issues pertaining to the article is normal editing. There is nothing here that requires site-wide agreement. I think that is a bit over the top. And DanielleTH has presented a valid point per MOS per shock value. I agree the image is shocking but I also think it is appropriate for this article. Perhaps someone can propose an image to replace the current lead image. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument, my reference to western taboos is within the context of explaining what censorship is, and was not in reference to Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the shock value of the image in question is a subjective matter, and cannot be concretely determined, so it's normal that there would be disagreement as to whether the "shock" aspect of the MOS applies here. For the sake of allowing the discussion to move forward, I'm willing to drop my WP:LOCALCONSENSUS position, however I still passively believe that such decisionmaking works against the general spirit of the policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, western-centric cultural taboo is the straw man in that such "taboos" are not part of guidelines and policies. That is sociology or anthropology but on Wikipedia it is WP:OR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are not here to improve this Wikipedia article, but rather here to "own" me and win an internet argument, given that you're so fixated on the semantics behind my wording, rather than the inherent message behind it. I see no benefit in continuing this conversation with you, since it is objectively non-constructive. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments regarding lead photo

Should the current lead image, which is a screenshot from the viral video showing a police officer kneeling on George Floyd's neck, be replaced?

See above discussion for opinions up til now; the general debate is whether or not it is a shock image, and if should be moved to the article body per MOS:LEADIMAGE or if stay as is per WP:NOTCENSORED, though all opinions are welcome and encouraged. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 04:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep It illustrates the subject near as directly as photographically possible, every article should be so enriched. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep it is directly on point for this article. Passes WP:WEIGHT. It is most likely the most illustrative image for this topic and is in agreement with the coverage of this topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Meets MOS:PERTINENCE, meets WP:NFCC, visually depicts an essential aspect of the topic that cannot be easily and effectively replaced by prose. Does not meet the criteria of a shock image as there is no blood, no gore, no severed ligaments or bones, no skin deformations, no muscle wasting, no nudity, no sexual imagery, and does not serve to scare the viewer. The same still frame is regularly broadcast on local, state, national, and international television; if it were truly a shock image, this would not be possible. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• 'Keep It depicts the event. Simple. ~ HAL333 19:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per pretty much every other vote above. It illustrates the event appropiately and doesn't meet the criteria for a shock image. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• We should remove it. The photo is graphic in that it depicts a corpse. The actions of the police officer in the photo could also be interpreted as a reference to previous black lives matter protests (e.g., Kaepernick's protest in 2018 [42]) so the image is provocative. If this image has caused so much offence (which it clearly has) then moving it to the body of the article and replacing the header image with the photo of the victim (as was done in a similar article) seems like a reasonable compromise. For the sake of clarity, I strongly support the replacement of the lead image. KohrVid (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We know that he is not dead at this point (Though whether it was possible to save him, unclear), but to call him a "corpse" and thus a reason not to include is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 03:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure we do know that. This wikipedia entry describes him as "motionless" and "pulseless" when the ambulance take him away and states that the killer was still kneeling when they arrived. This PBS article suggests that he was dead as far as the witnesses were concerned. KohrVid (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I strongly support the removal of the image. Move it further down the article, replace it, keep it "hidden" as default. This IS a graphic image, this is a current event that has moved multiple countries to protest - it is the shocking active suffocation of a man. This is literally traumatic for Black people who live in and have seen police violence. It is not a historical event that has passed, the friends and family of the man are alive and on the internet today. The news organizations that show the video preface it with "this graphic video may shock you" a warning to people to click away - an internet equivalent is having the image shut by default. DizzyDawn (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not sensationalist, and it is not censored. It is an encyclopedia first and foremost. The point of the matter stands, it appropriately illustrates the event in question, and I have not seen a single support removal vote address that as of yet. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how a show/hide function is in any way censorship. Is it censorship for a movie to give a "graphic violence" warning (sure, restricting the ages is, but not giving a warning). Even moving the photo to lower in the article isn't censorship, you'd be stretching any definition of it. And before anyone says "no disclaimers" you can literally just label the photo. DizzyDawn (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Hard not to bring that up when "no disclaimers in articles" is a legitimate long-standing Wikipedia content guideline... besides, the whole disclaimer matter is already addressed in the content disclaimer page Wikipedia has anyway. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Please also refer to benlin's words on the section above. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Your comment still doesn't explain why simply moving the image to a different part of the article qualifies as "censorship". Also, I'm not sure if this is the intent but you seem somewhat hostile towards User:DizzyDawn. As they have already discussed at length their reasons for supporting the change earlier in the talk page, I'm not sure that your counter-argument adds much value to the debate here. KohrVid (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Censorship does not have a single definition. Like many things, it exists on a spectrum. Hiding something but not removing it outright, based on the justification that it may offend, is a softer form of censorship than book burning, but the existence of harder censorship doesn't mean that lesser forms of censorship are not censorship. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
            • So are all of the other articles about noteworthy homicides that don't use an image of the victim dead or dying as the lead image also examples of censorship? Why is this policy not equally applied to them? KohrVid (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
              • Because Wikipedia is a hobby and not a job, and I can't be everywhere at once, during every major news occurrence, and aware of every single situation. I also do not know the contexts behind those articles, I haven't been involved in any consensus-building discussion for those articles, and I haven't made myself bothered to look into why those articles are the way they are. Other editors are free to look into what's going on for those cases, but as of this current moment, I have no interest in concerning myself with those articles, because I am here. Maybe editors there have come up with a convincing policy-adherent reason to exclude those images, maybe an WP:NFCC-compliant image doesn't exist for those articles, maybe there was never any image used in the first place, maybe the local consensus at the time was in favour of one action or another, I don't know, and I don't need to know. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                • I think you should consider rewording that sort of comment in future. I don't know if you intended to come across as defensive but you do and that seems inappropriate in this context. I've pointed out what is a clear inconsistency in the way that this entry has been handled when compared to other similar Wikipedia entries which don't feature graphic imagery in the header. I've also alluded to the fact that the use of this image might actually serve to glorify the killer in an earlier comment. If you don't know how to counter any of the points I or anyone else has made then that's fine - there's no need to start a fight. KohrVid (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • What I interpret letscreate123's comment as saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the reasons provided for removal so far have mostly fallen under appeals to emotion (e.g. your earlier post It is not a historical event that has passed, the friends and family of the man are alive and on the internet today.) rather than specific Wikipedia policy that governs what is expected of article content. The question is, are there any policy based reasons that you would like to bring forward to encourage the removal or relocation of this image? As of writing, not one person has provided an adequate challenge to MOS:PERTINENCE yet. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • As I and KohrVid said and defended, it is a shocking image. Just claiming no reason was provided doesn't make it true. DizzyDawn (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
          • As of writing, not one person has provided an adequate challenge to MOS:PERTINENCE yet. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep This is a quintessential use of a non-free image that is the subject of the topic that is causing the entire situation. WP is not censored nor do we mask sensitive images. Yes, understandably, it is "sensitive" in terms of what it means to Black Lives Matter, and the current situation around the US, but one can argue this would be similar for images of Auschwitz for Holocaust victims, Hiroshima in 1945 for Japanese natives, and so on. We recognize that sensitivity and respect a modest use of this image as a key image associate with this death, but we're not going out of our way to hide it further at this point. --Masem (t) 03:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Struggling to find examples of wikipedia entries that use images of the victims dying as lead images even in the examples you've given (Aushwitz, Hiroshima, &c.) KohrVid (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - the iconic image, widely used by RS, that represents this event. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep it doesnt look like a shock image and it is used in the TV and newspapers without even a warning.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Move the image further into the body of the article. Clearly the image ls shocking enough for MOS:SHOCK. Speaking from personal experience, I was shocked when I pulled up the page and saw the image of the homicide/manslaughter taking place and that the victim could already be dead. I think the image clearly belongs in the article because it does iconically represent the incident. I just think it would be better to move the photo "below the fold" so it is not necessarily the first item a user sees. If we require a photo in the heading we could use the photo of the victim himself. WilliamsJD (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep it, as it depicts the event the article is about -- ChaTo (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

And no, we are not required to follow the source's wording, just its (encyclopedic) information. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe I've seen sources saying there have been multiple related shootings and physical attacks on people; while there has been destruction there has also been violence. 172.101.5.82 (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

"Violence" seems fine to me, it does not have to be against people, or even living things.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Aye, that's true. Which makes headlines like "violence spreads across America" or "peaceful protest turns violent" particularly great at not exactly lying, while still getting clicks and maintaining the idea that "hurting the economy" is just as bad as shooting people and setting them on fire. Not saying that's why you think it's OK in this context. But CNN is damn sure pissed about its center being "violated", and so are its "media partners". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What's important about using the word "violence" in this case is to not subtly and automatically foist it on the protestors. As hundreds of images and testamonies from verified independent media and twitter sources evidence, peaceful protests in Minneapolis and around the country were met with excessive force and violence from police. Thus, evidence proves the police are repeatedly the instigators of the violence, beginning with Chauvin's and his accomplices' violence. The protesters are responding after the violence targets them, after joining peaceful manifestations, after beginning to protect themselves. This reality needs to be an inherent aspect of all categorizations of "violence". Additionally, the property destruction is a form of rage against a violent system of lethal institutional racism. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OPPOSE Wikipedia doesn't need a trial to report what the video clearly illustrates : Floyd was alive, clearly stated he was being killed, then was killed by Chauvin, Koeng, and Lane, as Thao assisted. It's illogical and inaccurate to devalue then to negate Floyd's own testimony. To do so while claiming to wait for an 'official' determination is senseless in this case. I might add the position of waiting, while negating Floyd's own dying statements including those which detail his organ shutdowns as he's being slowly killed, is also somewhat politicly naive. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

• I believe this is the PDF. starship.paint (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 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)

@Shnappers: You will need to find the news sources which did not "neglected these findings" to have any hope of inclusion. We cannot rely directly on the criminal complaint per WP:BLPPRIMARY etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Einne would it count as secondary source material since the primary source would be the body cameras and the secondary reliable source would be Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension interpretation of that footage? Shnappers (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No; court documents, charging documents etc are primary sources. See the linked policy subsection. Please find reliable secondary sources like reports from high quality media outlets. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

See e.g. [43] Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We can use reputable primary sources for what they say. We need secondary sources for what they mean. Here we can cite to and quote from the statutes and court filings, but we need secondary sources to draw conclusions from them. See WP:PRIMARY. Kablammo (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am fairly confident that this would be considered a secondary source.

I appreciate the example of a secondary source but it's fair to argue this has all the makings of being a secondary source.

From the fact it uses "him" "the defendent" "the officers" and "Mr floyd" the author is not directly related to the incident.

Throughout the complaint it cites the timestamps of other primary sources and builds upon bystander videos.

At no point do I have to evaluate, interpret or analyze anything. It is already done for me.

It is not my original research but rather a reliable source.

There is nothing that directly states everything related to a court case can not be used as a secondary source.

It is the assertion, it is not supporting an assertion. Shnappers (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shnappers: it doesn't really matter what you're "fairly confident" about. What matters is how our policies and guidelines are intepreted. And yes, criminal complaints are primary sources. Feel free to ask about this on WP:BLPN or WP:RSN if you wish, but it's been dealt with many times before and you're not the first one to make the claim it's a secondary sources because it's an analysis by some other party and to be rejected. Also User:Kablammo you're mistaken. We cannot use court filings in that way when BLPs are involved which they clearly are since even if we put aside George Floyd and WP:BDP, all four officers are still living. Again please read WP:BLPPRIMARY as this goes beyond our normal restrictions on primary sources. Unless the details are covered in secondary sources they're out. You can provide the court documents as a backup, but the details themselves need to be covered in reliable secondary sources before we can mention them. If no secondary sources care about such details, then nor do we. Frankly this is a particularly silly case to make a fuss about it. With all the attention this case has received, it's simply not plausible that there will be some important detail in the court documents that every single secondary sources has missed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nil, I disagree. We can use the primary source to state what it says. But we cannot, for example, draw conclusions from it, by, for example, asserting that Floyd was not strangled, with a cite to the source. Already we are seeing instances of the latter. And here, where the primary source is well-covered by secondary sources — which often rephrase it, or make statements which go beyond it — we can reduce errors by direct quotes from the source. Kablammo (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC) And people are already interpreting the complaint, here and elsewhere, to state that he was not asphyxiated, and that is not what the complaint says. Kablammo (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne I've already given you my argument and used the specific wording of the rules as to why this is a secondary source. You are not citing any reason why it is not other than your word at this point and saying that it will be rejected. The only thing that could prevent this being used as a primary source is that it can not be used to support assertions but these are not supporting assertions at all. I am not making any assertions, no one is. Read the rules yourself. Shnappers (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• the only thing that could prevent this from being used as a secondary source* sorry Shnappers (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

That would be a primary source, so no I do not agree with your reasoning.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Netwalker3, I agree with improving the timeline/sequence of events in the article. However, we don't need to use the complaint as a source; there are plenty of secondary sources that provide a timeline (and which, themselves, incorporate the complaint, the videos, and other sources); pretty much every major media outlet has one. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

It certainly does seem that he is resisting (albeit a seemingly mild form of resistance) being pulled out of the vehicle. The NBC news commentator states that "the officer struggles to get Floyd out of the car". So saying that he didn't resist at all is factually inaccurate, as he is putting up at least some resistance when being removed from the vehicle. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Is is resisting arrest? The source does not say that is says "struggles to get him out of the car", which is not the same thing. Is "not getting out" "physically resisting"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If a police officer orders you out of a vehicle and you refuse and he has to pull you out himself, then yeah that's physically resisting. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is mostly academic at this point, because the article here no longer claims that the resisting of arrest is "contradicted by all video evidence thus far released". The NBC video linked above really doesn't need to be incorporated in the article either, now that media like the New York Times and CNN have commented on the prosecutors statements in the criminal complaint. In case there is any confusion here, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension turned over the video and audio recordings from two of the arresting officer's body cameras to the prosecutor, who then described them in the statement of probable cause as follows: "Officer Lane ordered Mr. Floyd out of the car, put his hands on Mr. Floyd, and pulled him out of the car. Officer Lane handcuffed Mr. Floyd. Mr. Floyd actively resisted being handcuffed. ...The officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of squad... Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers by intentionally falling down, saying he was not going in the car, and refusing to stand still." Actively resisting being handcuffed is resisting arrest, as well as the refusal to get in the squad car when directed by law enforcement to do so. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A video shows the police car after Floyd was inside. Off specific topic, but look: https://unicornriot.ninja/2020/new-footage-reveals-moments-before-george-floyds-death/ It's rocking, police are repeatedly reaching in, then it appears Floyd is pulled out, away from cameras. Another video showing the 4 officers is also available in the link. Point? None of the available videos show Floyd resisting arrest.Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC) And, obviously, the statement of probable cause is highly suspect, given the sources. If the bodycam audio & video have not been personally examined, if what is being described is not verifiable, then the prosecutor's statement is inherently unreliable. UR_Ninja states their copy of bodycam footage omits the scenes from inside the police vehicle, as an example.Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The prosecutor's statement of probable cause was filed in court against the police officer, in support of murder charges, and used MBCA-supplied examination of the audio & video from the bodycams to verify that the deceased resisted arrest. The bodycams recorded everything from the time the officers arrived on scene to the time Floyd was taken away in an ambulance. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

@Slatersteven: In the charging document. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that's a primary source so it's pointless for us. But it's covered in secondary sources now e.g. [44] [45] [46] Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add it to the article, then. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I added the criminal complaint to the article a couple of days ago. Death_of_George_Floyd#External_links. And under WP:PRIMARY it can be used as a source. We need to rid ourselves of the assumption that primary sources cannot be used-- that is not the policy. Rather, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. WP:PRIMARY

The complaint is from an official source, and we can cite directly to that source for what it says. There is no need to look for a news report on what it says-- we can do that directly, so long as we don't put a gloss on it, interpret it, or draw conclusions. We can say what it says, but not what that means. Kablammo (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the word "claustrophobic" in this Wikipedia article. In fact, this Wikipedia article doesn't even explain that Floyd was eventually placed into the police vehicle (through the rear left door), or explain how Floyd ended up lying in the street to the right of the police vehicle. These are important parts of the story that preceded the choking of Floyd by Chauvin. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

AGREE The movement of Floyd is important to the article. The talk pages indicate he was put into the police vehicle from the driver's side (bodycams as source?) There's a video (ur_ninja link) when Floyd was in the vehicle but not visible; Vehicle sways, officer reaches in and out, then actions begin around the passenger side. Then another brief video (link provided in ur_ninja link) shows Floyd outside of the vehicle on the pavement of the passenger side, held down by Chauvin, Kueng, and Lane. But we need other sources, if I understand the public domain issue correctly. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And relevance? This is not a biography. Kablammo (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree, He had served his time. This has no bearing on this case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't a bio, but the section on GF is. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So? What does this information tell us about THIS incident?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The brief bios of the participants routinely include major aspects of their lives. 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".Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is totally relevant. Without this fact, how does the next sentence have any useful meaning? "Floyd moved to Minnesota around 2014." It is important. In fact, it's not even the whole story; this person was arrested on 8 separate occasions between 1997 and 2005. There's no separate bio page for George Floyd, so this is the most appropriate place right now.Lcaa9 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How, do people in...nope as that may be seen as snarky...please explain your reasoning? It might in fact be rather more significant they had not been arrested for over 5 years since moving.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The sports info is less relevant, because he never did it professionally. Jim Michael (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So? Plenty of things are important to people and they are not paid for it (such as being sports fans, which for some is an obsession). Also was he a "professional" criminal, the source does not say that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A 5 y prison sentence is a major part of the life of anyone who's served a sentence of that length, regardless of circumstances. Playing sport as a hobby, for fitness etc. isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not in context its not, but we are going round in circles. He was not a professional criminal so this was just one aspect of his life he seems to have moved on from. This is my last word here, no valid reason (other then "I like it") has been given here as to why we should have this information and so I still oppose its inclusion, And as I am not alone in should be removed until, there is consensus for inclusion (as per wp:brd. That is my last word on this until I see a valid reason for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Tim Allen has certainly moved on from his (shorter) prison sentence & it has nothing to do with his career other than interrupting it - but we wouldn't exclude it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Jim, you are edit warring. Please stop. Lcaa, his arrest record had nothing to do with this incident which is the subject of this article. Did the officer know of it, causing him to be fearful? No evidence. Any other possible connection between that history and his death? No, and you can't name one. Kablammo (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

His arrest record had everything to do with this incident. Nobody calls the police on random people who didn't do anything. This person repeatedly committed crimes. Don't invade homes with weapons. Don't use counterfeit money. Lcaa9 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I entered the conviction & prison info once - that's nowhere near edit-warring. Jim Michael (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You are correct Jim. I apologize for the error. Kablammo (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 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 🖋 14:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is one sentence in the article about his Texas conviction and IMO it should stay there. It's part of his biography. (Even though it's something that the Minnesota police officers could not have been aware of; there have been no reports that he had any run-ins with the law in the 5 years he lived there. He moved to MN intending to "start a new life" and to all appearances he had succeeded. I'm not suggesting this comment be added to the article, it is OR/opinion.) I have added a better source; the existing source was behind a paywall. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest removing the content in question for WP:BLP concerns (since all content regarding a recently deceased person is covered there), and we have this convo in a month or two... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. BLP doesn't say we mustn't say anything negative about a person. If something is well sourced, as this is, BLP is totally in agreement with including it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Again can we have just one thread on this, please merge all these.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

See the RfC below, where I guess we get to repeat ourselves. Should we link from there to all the previous discussions? Should we ping all discussants in previous discussions? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Why delete George Floyd details?

This article used to include statements, with citation links, of where George Floyd went to high school and graduated, what work and accomplishments he had, like multi-sport athlete, and being a rapper in the group Screwed Up Click. Why were those deleted? <RickRiffel2020 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)>

I believe the reasoning is that they are not directly connected to his death, which is currently the title of the article. This debate also centered around the question of whether to include his criminal record, which may be a part of his life but is not related to the case. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Why include the cop's life details which are not related to the case? <RickRiffel2020 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)>

Under the belief that the cop's previous misdeeds could explain the death; whereas the victim's previous misdeeds could not. Under that logic, Floyd's family life and professional background are irrelevant and hence the distinction made is illogical. I don't make the rules, though. Perennial Student (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Me neither, though I've been around, and "Murderers/murder defendants are automatically more noteworthy than their victims" is a very old unwritten rule. A dozen or so of us have been trying to topple it for years, resistance is somehow futile. I wish I could explain why this "policy" stretches to articles named after the victim, but as you say, illogical. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian writes "His life later took a different turn and in 2007 Floyd was charged with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents."[47] I would have thought this would be in this article. But incomprehensibly in this edit the information is removed that "In 2009, Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison in Houston for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon." Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to him being killed. Unlike another recent case, no one is stating his criminal record meant he was likely to attack someone before being killed. You have video footage showing he was helpless, on the ground and cuffed, with no possible way to be seen as threatening in any manner. Dream Focus 02:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If I were a white cop dealing with a large and apparently lit two-time gun offender, I'd give him less wiggle room than I give some other black guy. Not saying I'd kneel on his head indefinitely like a deaf or cruel idiot. But it's definitely a factor that might change anybody's approach somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there video footage of their initial encounter? Did anything happen to give him cause for concern? Has the police report been released that shows anything at all? I doubt he knew the criminal record of the person beforehand. Dream Focus 03:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't ask me, I'm a hypothethical cop, never ever been to Minneapolis. Entirely possible they met him as a big stranger and followed their guts. They certainly couldn't(?) have learned his heart was weak from dispatch, so intentional killing seems farfetched. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Dream Focus—one doesn't keep one's hands in one's pockets when one feels one is being threatened. Laura Coates explains that here. (Starting at 6:35.) The question is—why the omission of the time George Floyd has spent in prison? Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the article isn't about him, but the incident of his death. Anything not related to the incident doesn't belong here. Mentioning the police officer who killed him had 18 complaints against him, is relevant. Mentioning Floyd's criminal record isn't relevant. Also there is no reason to mention his insignificant garbage hip hop band, or his children. Dream Focus 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What about that he was an athlete? Would mention of that be off-limits too, Dream Focus? This article, by Al Jazeera, mentions, in addition to the standard "Floyd was charged in 2007 with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents", that "At an imposing two metres (6.6 feet), that earned him the nickname 'gentle giant', Floyd became a star athlete in basketball and football at a young age." Can we mention that he was "a star athlete in basketball and football"? Or is that off-limits? Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not think any of that is relevant either. None of it gives us any background as to why this happened. We are WP:NOTMEMORIAL to his memory.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering yesterday if George Floyd shouldn't get his own biography page to include these types of details. Kire1975 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As I see it either both the misdeeds of the cop and victim should be displayed or both should not. Either could have had a part to play in this. From the victims bias in the past and the cops bias in the past could have affected how they both reacted leading up to this. Shnappers (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't distinguish between deeds and "misdeeds". I think that which is prominently presented by good quality sources should probably find its way into our articles; I am asking why we should omit that George Floyd got in trouble with the law for what The Guardian describes as an "armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston". Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is about the crime, not the cop or the victim. As to pages about them, wp:n is clear, we do not create pages on people notable for one event.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not unusual to have an embedded mini-bio for a person involved in an event who doesn't warrant a separate BLP. Floyd's background, including his 5 years in prison in Texas are notable as reliable source refer to these details to that explain he moved to Minneapolis after release from jail to turn his life around, which he apparently did. 173.3.98.123 (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And again, can we please have just one thread on this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Which thread is the one thread? 173.3.98.123 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That is my point we are discussing his biog in at least 2 threads, his crime in 3 (I think). We need only one (or maybe 2 and separate out the question of his criminal history).Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

map of protests

Over in George Floyd protests there's a dynamically updated map of major protests in George Floyd protests#Protests_elsewhere - I think that would be good to include in this article as well, as a quick summary view (this article is getting way more views, and the list of cities with protests is growing by the hour) but I don't want to insert a major piece of map code without some consensus. Thoughts? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I support that. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose. Let's keep this article focused on the event and not the protests. There is no need for duplication. Kablammo (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I support that, it's more info and it could go in the reactions section. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Link to the article with a small amount of text. Why would you duplicate and dilute this article? O3000 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In this instance I think a fork is needed, as its clear the "protests" have moved way beyond just this crime and are now an event in and of themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There's already been a split to George Floyd protests and List of George Floyd protests, so that's already settled. There's a new map at Template:George Floyd protests map that could be included in this article -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump Threatens to Unleash “Vicious Dogs” on Them

• https://globalnews.ca/news/7006850/trump-george-floyd-protesters/

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/30/trump-secret-service-george-floyd-protesters-white-house → “To make a reference to vicious dogs is no subtle reminder to African Americans of segregationists who let dogs out on women, children and innocent people in the south,” Bowser said.

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-claims-protesters-in-dc-risked-facing-vicious-dogs/ → Trump’s reference to “vicious dogs” potentially being sicced on protesters revisits images from the civil rights movement when marchers faced snarling police dogs and high-pressure fire hoses. Muriel Bowser, mayor of the nation’s capital, responded to the president by saying that “while he hides behind his fence afraid/alone, I stand w/ people peacefully exercising their First Amendment Right after the murder of #GeorgeFloyd & hundreds of years of institutional racism.” She also appealed for people in the District of Columbia and across the country “to exercise great restraint even while this President continues to try to divide us.”

• Muriel Bowser : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPK4OBcG1-4 --87.170.195.12 (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well yes, seriously disturbing rhetoric. But, according to The Guardian, the best source you listed, not exactly what he said. Give this some more time to jell. O3000 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, “The rhetoric that's coming out of the White House is making it worse,” (Gov. Pritzker) “shameful, really truly shameful.” (Gov. Cuomo ) → https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-governors.html Trump saying “I am your law and order president” (law and order = code word for racism since Nixon) and threatening to deploy military nationwide, tear-gassing peaceful protesters outside White House so he can walk to St. John's Church - where he has rarely ventured since taking office - and brandish a Bible like Luis Camacho 2019 in Bolivia. --217.234.77.84 (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

info from da report

i copied this from the protest article talk

hi i dont want to get in a fight or dig up the source but i was reading the hennepin da report for the charges against chauvin today and there were two things i noticed that wp doesnt yet reflect

1-

chauvin and thao were not the first responding squad but instead the backup

2-

one of the two original responding officers made three separate requests to roll floyd over during the kneeling incident, but was negated by chauvin each time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.209.131 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:primary.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

oops this was in the da report for chauvins charges, like i said its not about finding a link its about how accurate you want the page to be and when — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.209.131 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

We accurately reflect RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you for adding all these additional details, it really helps the accuracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.209.131 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Derek Chauvin

Making editors aware of the draft Draft:Derek Chauvin recently created via the AfC process. I have declined it as it view it currently as WP:BLP1E. I have advised the user to come here and first build consensus for a standalone article. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Which they will almost certainly not get. Currently the officer's name is a redirect to here and that's where it should be. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be an article on Derek Michael Chauvin asap and there will be one..I`m surprised there isn`t one already..he murdered someone on a city street in broad daylight and was filmed doing it..that`s reason enough 2600:1702:2340:9470:4408:1A12:9A12:309E (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not all murderers get Wiki articles. Perennial Student (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Would this still be considered a WP:BLP1E if he has 17[48] prior complaints? --Joshua (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

DS

Remember this page is under DS sanctions, we have all breached them I suspect but wp:onus means it is on those who want to include something to "win" the argument. If people continue to ignore wp:brd I will ask for intervention, stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

District services? Department of Sanitation? Development syndicate? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I am going to very very polite over this, discretionary sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite. The constant use of cryptic unexplained abbreviations is a plague to modern English. I've been contributing here for years and still have no idea how to find out what those sanctions are, so I suspect most editors would be in the same position. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a link to them in the banner below the talk header. Jim Michael (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In all fairness an inexperienced user can be forgiven for not knowing what a specific abbreviation may refer to.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Not an experienced one? 😭 --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a very good point. This article, like many current events articles, is likely to attract large numbers of inexperienced users. A cryptic header followed by a cryptic reminder doesn't provide enough information to be useful to anyone who doesn't already know what discretionary sanctions are, what qualifies as violating them, and what consequences there are for violating them. —valereee (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

...which is why WP:ACDS have awareness requirements. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And ExperiencedArticleFixer has now been given the necessary alert. So while it's understandable that ExperiencedArticleFixer may not have been aware of them at the start of this thread, they should be now. The awareness requirement also doesn't really discriminate on "experience". Someone with experience is slightly more likely to meet them, but if you don't come under any of the strict requirements you don't meet them no matter what else you've done here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This why Wikipedia is so F----- up..it`s written by a bunch of lawyers..they write the rules that only they can decipher which means..ta da..they always get their way..god forbid any of this stuff get`s written in English 2600:1702:2340:9470:4408:1A12:9A12:309E (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

In the same way you did not write fucked up? NO sometimes if called shorthand.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Gallery photos

I think the gallery section should be taken down entirely. The photos are all of the protests subsequent to the death/murder, for which there is a separate article. Obviously there will be mention of the protests in this article, but I'm really not sure how a photo of damaged buildings in Columbus belongs on this article.

81.108.160.123 (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems valid, why do we need a gallery if images better suited to another article?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Might all be better at George Floyd protests ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 21:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and mobed this to George_Floyd_protests#Gallery ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 21:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Floyd's criminal past

Should we mention George Floyd's past crimes?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes

• Yes of course it should be included because it is notable. If there's going to be a biographical section on Floyd then it is censorship to include only details that tend towards one kind of portrayal. 95.144.47.53 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think so... biographical details about both Floyd and Chauvin are relevant to the case because they are the primary characters. Biographical details includes their personalities, a brief description of their life, including criminal history if significant. Having info on Floyd, both good and bad, is better than having nothing on him. This is an encyclopedia, and details are often relevant even if they are not directly connected by the article's title. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. If we are going to have a biography section for the individual, then the fact that (BLP violation removed) is probably a more important biographical detail than the fact that he liked basketball and hip-hop ("essential facts" which we currently deem important enough to include in the biography section of George Floyd). CrimeChecker (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)— CrimeChecker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  CrimeChecker, how is that relevant to the death of George Floyd?, the topic of this article. Notice that we have a biography of living person policy on Wikipedia and that policy also applies to those who recently died. You are not allowed to make accusations without any evidence. The DailyMail is a tabloid and is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia ever. I have removed your WP:BLP violation. Please don't do that again.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  ^this editor was created today. Their comment should be ignored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  You can verify the Daily Mail screenshot by going to the Harris County Clerk website yourself. However, it requires creating an account and logging in. Lcaa9 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, because it's relevant to even a short account of his life. Jim Michael (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, because it is an important part of his biography and has been reported widely. There is no reason to suppress it, and in fact suppressing it could be considered POV. BLP certainly does apply to him, as a recently deceased person, but BLP says we can include negative information if it has multiple reliable sources. The officer’s previous record should also be included, as it currently is. See my suggested wording under "discussion" below. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. It is important to provide context. If the page mentions Floyd's background as a rapper and high school athlete, it should mention the rest of his life prior to his death. KidAd (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, because whole his life should be briefly described and because this is something noted in RS on the subject of his death [49]. It is relevant because RS say it is relevant. All previous complaints with regards to involved police officers should also be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, unless the biographical summary sticks to the bare basics like at Shooting of Trayvon Martin (birth & where he lived, studied or worked at the time of his death). As it stands we mention Floyd's sporting and musical interests etc, but not this significant part of his life story. Jevansen (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not a reasonable comparison, because Trayvon Martin has his own article, which is why the article on the event only has a small amount of background info on him. Jim Michael (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. If the history of George Floyd is removed, then the police officer's history should also be removed. Otherwise, this page is not neutral. Lcaa9 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, because a reader invests time in reading a Wikipedia article with the expectation of being informed about a topic. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, it is part of his identity and life context explaining his journey that brought him to be in Minneapolis. This is why reliable sources find it notable. I suggest the copy below at the beginning of "Discussion" by Melanie is notable, as a reliable source found it notable. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, the best sources we have pretty much have all written about this. We summarize secondary sources; there is no reason to exclude this from our summary of the incident. However, what exactly to include, and how to word it, are all questions that need to handled carefully, following the lead of the top sources. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, were are doing the same for the accused cops why not for the victim. // Eatcha (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, since people have the right to know and not suspect that Wikisconceals something lkitross (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, especially if we are including other BLP details widely reported in RSs, such as Floyd being described as a "gentle giant" and the officer's previous disciplinary records. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, especially since the current version of this page includes the sentence "he was described as a 'gentle giant' by friends and family" with absolutely no mention of the other side of him—his criminal record. Either take out that sentence to better paint a more neutral picture, or include his other life details. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should not be trying to paint biased portrayals by omitting details that would change a reader's perspective on a person. Filia Pirate (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Not only should the coverage on this topic be neutral, but it will also be useful due to the very reason provided above this. The man was not innocent throughout his entire life, and should not be treated as such, while the officer receives a full-on biography over the incident. 180app (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes; if prior actions by a police officer are relevant and included to establish a propensity for violence (ie. Officer X has been involved in three shootings and was now involved in this fatal incident, so his past actions show he may have been violent here too), then the victim's criminal record, especially one indicating violence, is very relevant when the police argue that he was resisting arrest (which would be an issue of the victim using violence against the police). There is no other reason for including the police officer's history if not to argue for a propensity for violence; an otherwise unblemished career would no doubt have gone unremarked. Either way, for balance sake alone, the victim's criminal history is relevant as long as it is relevant to delve into the background of the officer (or officers) involved, and incident is not being described in a vacuum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.111.153 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - it has large WP:WEIGHT of coverage, is part of his life, and is part of what the Police chief said about him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes; it's a significant part of the story, it's covered by RS, and there is no justification for censorship. That said, WP:BDP would probably apply to any specific additions. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes absolutely. This is likely irrelevant to the court case, but relevant to the whole story for context. The article includes other biographical details on Floyd (music, basketball, kids) and ends up painting a distorted picture of him. Some would suggest that these details need to be removed too but I think many readers would be interested to know who the alleged victim was. Omitting this widely reported information is censorship. For instance reliable sources claim that from 2014 Floyd had turned his life around. Now this information has been omitted too (for it would have raised questions as to what was there to turn around in the first place). Russian Wikipedia includes one sentence about his criminal record and a reference (to an English newspaper article). That would be reasonable here too. BorisG (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - if there is going to be a biography section in the article, which there is, and which draws on such things as his school athletics record, then it should certainly also mention his prior significant interaction with the legal system. For completeness it should also include the evidence that in more recent years he was reformed and spoke out to turn young people in his community away from crime and violence. Include this huge part of his life, or remove the biographies of persons involved from the article. Can't have it both ways. 79.64.157.123 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - it is highly relevant to the death of George Floyd. A significant issue is whether he resisted arrest, and knowing that he had numerous experiences with law enforcement factors factors into the plausibility of this. It would be harder to believe a 46 year old man with no criminal record or history of assault or drug use would be combative with police than someone who does. So in concealing this information, wikipedia would be trying to deceive the reader. It makes the article propaganda, instead of impartial information. It is analogous to if police-supporters tried to delete ex-officer Derek Chauvin's previous complaints, disciplinary record, and shootings. On a human level, it denies the reader to obtain a fuller sense of the tragedy, because Floyd was attempting to turn his life around after being released from prison in 2014, so this facts (and dates) of his criminal past are not entirely negative. They contribute to the big picture of the person who died. Leaving it out would harm the perception of Wikipedia as an objective resource. Walterego (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Walterego: Can you point to RS coverage that he resisted arrest? Regards SoWhy 14:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, but only briefly. I pondered this for a while but in the end, this is something RS have reported widely and thus needs to be included to maintain NPOV. However, one sentence should be sufficient and the phrasing should make it clear that at the time of his death, he was not under any restrictions or actively under investigation, i.e. that him being picked up by the police was not related to prior felonies (and by all accounts, the officers in question had no knowledge of those prior convictions when they restrained him). Regards SoWhy 14:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Just be sure to point out that repeated scrapes with the law are capital crimes in Minnesota. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes This is making Wikipedia look like an unreliable source and people are already making fun of Wikipedia on social media because of this. While the record has been covered by most major news organizations such as BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, ABC News, NYT/AP, Global News, Al Jazeera and local Texas Monthly; and added by numerous unaffiliated people and keep getting removed by the same person, remove-arguers have offered no other real argument except it's too unrelated to the case (even though it's obviously related) and belongs at his "upcoming own article". Where as if you look around the spot where people have been adding it, there are long yawnsome details of athletic experiences and musical affiliations and then of the police officers similar past infractions. There has also been a sentence with citation needed there for a long time! The purpose of this from the start doomed "discussion" is only to play time against something that is extremely well-sourced and clearly more relevant than everything surrounding it.

References

No

• I can see no relevance to this. It tells us nothing about why this happened or how it could have been avoided. It is just a bit of title tattle.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• It's not relevant to the Death of Georgy Floyd (the arrest for forgery made zero mention of priors). What's more, George, who was killed by Derek, has no recourse to appeal his past convictions, and the police are notorious for making false arrests on the back of bigoted policing. Police records should not be considered as a reflection of reality. --Shadybabs (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see any relevance whatsoever to the article subject, which is Death of George Floyd. This is not a George Floyd biography article. If it becomes a notable part of the death (e.g. the US President starts tweeting about Floyd's criminal past), then it can be reconsidered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• No, and why are we discussing this again? Isn't this the third go-round? His past had nothing to do with this incident, and did not affect in the least the behavior of the police or anyone else. It is offered here, and promoted elsewhere, for the purpose of prejudicing the public against him. The incident happened 13 years ago and is not relevant to this event. Kablammo (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - I can't see the relevance of his past crimes to his murder. I also question whether this would meed WP:DUEWEIGHT. I've been following this story pretty closely in the news and I haven't heard anything about it so far. - MrX 🖋 22:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• No It is not at all relevant to the situation and only serves to blame the victim. Adding this attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE serves only to blame the victim. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• No It is irrelevant to this topic and Floyd's death. Such information would contravene DUEWEIGHT and introduce a FALSEBALANCE, essentially a rationale for blaming the victim. I think we need to impose a moratorium on this question. It seems editors have been over it enough.times already. This might be going into WP:DE territory. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• No - Irrelevant to the context behind the murder. Adding it would only create a false sense of balance and a sense of blame against the victim, which is a WP:BLP policy violation. --letcreate123 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote withdrawn after further looking into the situation, particularly on the Discussion section down below. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• No the scope of this article is his death. Not his life. --Calthinus (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Narrowly-defining "the scope of this article" is entirely the province of those arguing to omit information found in virtually all good quality sources addressing the same subject as our article addresses. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Death of George Floyd", so its about his death.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You say below We do not need to know about his life prior to this unless it has a direct impact. Anything else smacks of trying to prove a point. What point, Slatersteven? Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I suspect the point is that 1. he's a nice regular guy, look at his friends who say he was a gentle giant or his athletic record; therefore he's an innocent victim OR 2. he's a career criminal, look at the fact he's been arrested and jailed before this; therefore he likely deserved this or brought this on. These are the kinds of thing people look for to excuse or condemn the behavior by the police toward a citizen. —valereee (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly all of this is about saying either "Innocent victim" or "a villain, and a jailbird". We do not know if he was passing bad cheques, or id he was if he knew, we do not know if he was running a Muckiness Battle horn smuggling ring or if he was in fact the worlds second nicest man. Only (and only) if what he did led to this is it relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

He won't ever be convicted of passing counterfeit bills because a dead man can't be tried, but we do know what crimes he was convicted of, and this is relevant to people who are debating his character or the morality of the police. It isn't right for wikipedia to omit relevant details out of a political agenda.Walterego (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Nor to include it for the same reason, to imply he was a criminal even thought he had no convictions for 5 years. This is precisely why we cannot include it, we would be implying something about his character, and that violates wp:crime and wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Walterego, his character has zero to do with how he died unless it led to his death. A previous conviction for armed robbery, a high school football career, and friends who loved him had nothing to do with how he died, which is the subject of this article. If he had previous charges or convictions for resisting arrest, it could be argued to be relevant because resisting arrest could contribute to his death. By the same argument, the morality of the police is only relevant if it could be argued to have contributed to his death. Previous complaints of undue force could be argued to be relevant. Previous complaints of accepting bribes, probably not. —valereee (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—The New York Times writes "Floyd was charged in 2007 with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents". Some of the "oppose" votes in this thread are saying that mention of this "only serves to blame the victim". That makes no sense. Good quality sources such as The New York Times don't try to "blame victims". And a 5 year period of time in prison is hardly an insignificant event in a person's life—that is the reason the best quality sources are mentioning this, not to "blame the victim". We should be following the many good quality sources carrying this information. We should be adhering to the general outline of coverage of this topic as found in the best quality sources. That serves the reader's interests. The reader does not come here to read political propaganda. They read an article such as this to get up to speed on the basic facts surrounding this incident. It does the reader a disservice to selectively omit basic facts. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, that information belongs in George Floyd (biography), but it's irrelevant here and WP:UNDUE. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, not relevant to the incident. I would support relevant material being included in an actual biography of George Floyd. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include only details that could have contributed to leading to the death, which is the subject of this article. This is not a biography of Mr. Floyd or of any of the police, it's an article about Floyd's death. His athletic career, the fact his friends loved him, and his arrest record are trivia unless they have some relevance to the death. If he was ever charged with resisting arrest, that could be relevant. Otherwise it's WP:UNDUE to include them. Ditto biographical details on the cops other than as relevant to leading to the death. Charges or convictions of using undue force are relevant. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• No, only include irrelevant stuff that portrays him in a good light to push your agenda, his prior dealings with law enforcement should be hushed up. Also make sure to mention all four policemen were white. 85.238.90.27 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—the selective omission of information that is found in most sources addressing the same topic as our article addresses can constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. And we don't wear blinders when we write about a subject for which there is ample sourcing to set an example for how we should address that subject. This isn't a creative writing project. That would include the creative omission of information that editors dislike for non-germane reasons. We adhere to the findings of the best quality sources. For instance the BBC writes "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on including record

Can we please now discuss this issue here and here only? We need to gain some kind of view as to who think what.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that WP:OTHER maybe relevant, just because we include trivia is not a reason to expand the trivia so much as trim it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Suggested wording: There was a sourced sentence in the article, but it was removed, and this article moves so fast I can’t find it now. It was along these lines, and this kind of thing is what I am suggesting/supporting: In 2009 Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison for armed robbery. Following his release in 2014 he moved to Minnesota, intending to “start a new life”. (continuing with "He lived in St. Louis Park…" etc.)

Sources

The reference is already in the article, it's the AP/Atlanta Journal Constitution reference (#33). IMO this is well sourced and important to understanding him, even though there is no way the officers could have known about it; he appears to have had no brushes with the law during his six years in Minnesota. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I say its not relevant, as there is no indication he was a villain, sir. Or a jailbird. at the time of his killing. It tells us nothing about him other than at the time he was not a wanted felon.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither does his high school football playing, or his rap band, but we include them. It is typical to include basic biographical information about notable deaths or crime victims, whether or not it relates to the event for which they are now known. Examples from recent articles about similar deaths: [50] [51] [52] (By the way, I'm not a "sir". 0;-D) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Then we would need to include far more background information on the officers, details of each civilian complaint, the police response to said complaints, the nature of their past killings, disciplinary records, etc. Also more details for Derek's violent behavior at his security job. That's far more material to the case at hand and necessary for balance.--Shadybabs (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Not opposed to that, but another discussion will need to be established on including that content. One step at a time. KidAd (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

For DUE weight and balance, I can only agree on including Floyd's priors if added simultaneously with details regarding the former officers' disciplinary records. Until full transparency of disciplinary records are released to the public any attempt to include a history of wrongdoing of Floyd will be heavily biased against Floyd, due to the nature of criminal records vs the blue wall of silence. Such action perpetuates the state of racial bigotry in the American police and is wholly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that, while it is important to maintain WP:NPOV, any reason to include Floyd's prior arrest records is separate from the choice to include the officer's prior complaints/history. Again, there should be a full and separate discussion of latter. KidAd (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and have said so. We do not need to know about his life prior to this unless it has a direct impact. Anything else smacks of trying to prove a point.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose for inclusion of this history is impugn the character of Mr. Floyd. An example is this astonishing assertion further up the page: "Nobody calls the police on random people who didn't do anything. This person repeatedly committed crimes. Don't invade homes with weapons. Don't use counterfeit money."

No one calls the police on random people who didn't do anything. Has the writer heard of the Central Park Ramble bird-watcher?

Don't use counterfeit money. And what information does the writer have about Mr. Floyd's knowledge of whether it was counterfeit? Certainly the store owner makes no such claim:

“Most of the times when patrons give us a counterfeit bill they don’t even know its fake so when the police are called there is no crime being committed just want to know where it came from and that’s usually what takes place”. Chapman, Reg, “Owner Of Cup Foods, Where Police First Encountered George Floyd, Calls For Justice”, ‘’WCCO CBS Minnesota’’, May 28, 2020.

The motivation for the effort to include Floyd's criminal history is laid bare here: Deflect the attention from the perpetrator, and blame the victim. Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of this material would only serve to blame the victim if the reader can't distinguish between years. But most readers would have no problem making distinctions between years. The death of George Floyd took place on May 25, 2020. George Floyd was incarcerated from 2009 to 2014 for a crime that took place in 2007. Most readers would have no difficulty distinguishing between 2014 and 2020. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine. In general, people don't call the police on random strangers. Note that for George Floyd's 10 (!) previous arrests, they were all peaceful. Lcaa9 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Before I !vote, if I do, what is the reason for including superfluous background on playing basketball, joining a band, losing a job or being a father, but not his criminal history which is connected to him being in Minneapolis (wanting to start over or something to that effect) instead of his home town of Houston where it had happened? I agree that this information tends to be spread to impugn the character of the alleged or apparent victim in a case like this, but how can we include extraneous sentimental information about him and not include what caused him to spend 5 years in prison, a major part of his life? —DIYeditor (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• This article is about the death of George Floyd, there is no relationship between his death and his past. Including that would suggest that there is a relationship. If you want to create an article about Floyd's biography then go create it. It is not related to his death, so it is not going to be included.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, I hope you aren't replying to me, because you didn't reply to what I asked. Also you have this peculiar habit of saying what is going to happen before it happens, like you are the sole arbiter of whatever is in question, before it's been decided. It's very strange. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor—it is not spread to impugn the character of the alleged or apparent victim. Basic facts that are recurrent in the best quality sources should be in the article. People's lives are documented when addressing an incident. Our article is already using some of these sources to support material that is already in the article. It would be a contrivance to pare away the facts that we don't like. Did it have to be an angelic choir boy that was killed? It was a person who may have had flaws. Or maybe not. There are a huge number of Americans in prison at any time. This is a real person. They served a 5 year prison sentence. All we are doing is depicting reality. Wikipedia wasn't created to to present an idealized version of reality. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, I wasn't replying to you, so I will just ignore all of what you said but I will answer your question in my response to Bus stop. Bus stop, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this article is not a news article. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, we assume that the content here would stay relevant to the topic until at least 10 years. Now, the topic of this article is about the death of George Floyd, not George Floyd himself. You cant tell if a content about his past would be relevant or not. Until it is proven to be relevant we can't include it, if it's not, it's not going to be included. Yes, a small biography can be included as to give an insight/introduction for this topic. Tell me how does his past criminal record gives an introduction for this topic??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam: there is no relationship between his death and his past - so playing basketball is relevant to his death but a criminal record for armed robbery is not? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, you see, your argument is flawed. Your argument is only an appeal to hypocrisy. I said we will only include content that serves as an introduction for this topic. Does his past of what you call "criminal record for armed robbery" serves as an introduction for this topic? The answer no. It is not proven to be relevant to this very topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam Does playing basketball belong in the introduction? If so, how is a criminal record less relevant? Do neither belong in the article? I haven't decided whether his criminal record is an introduction to the topic, that's why I'm asking questions. Also you would be more convincing if you cited policy when making arguments. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, stop the whataboutism argument. It will only show that your argument is not based on objective reasoning. Will my answer to your first question change your position? I dont think so. My concern is that we will be attempting to poison the well by adding that irrelevant content. That content about basketball could be irrelevant but it is not harmful, it doesnt add anything and it doesnt poison the well.

  Here is an illustration

  • X was killed by Y Y OKAY
  • X, who played basketball, was killed by Y. ? Maybe MAYBE OKAY
  • X, who robbed houses in the 1990s and was jailed bluh bluh, was killed by Y. N NOT OKAY

  WP:OR makes this clear and also WP:TOPIC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  So my question is why is basketball possibly ("maybe") relevant but not robbery? (I can think of a specific possible policy based reason but I am more curious about your line of thinking.) If you are going to quote OR or TOPIC it would help if you quoted which part you are referring to. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, that the content should be directly related to the topic. And WP:TOPIC says clearly, The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. I have supported the idea of an article about the biography of Floyd. Also, no, that tick doesnt mean relevant. I was saying what is okay and what is not. I have clarified now and edited the original comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I also think I have clearly said above why basketball is maybe okay. As I said, it doesnt potentially poison the well and imply that Floyd wasnt innocent when he was killed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think WP:AVOIDVICTIM is what applies here. I am not familiar with how that is interpreted though. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  So? What you are saying is ....? We're here talking about whether that content about past "criminal record" is relevant to his death or not. It is clearly not relevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is .... the rule I cited (AVOIDVICTIM) is what applies here, not OR or TOPIC. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  So you think that his "crimial record" content is relevant to his death? Both WP:OR and WP:TOPIC says that the content should be directly relevant to the topic of the article. I am not arguing to include his virtues. I am arguing to remove the irrelevant content about "crimial record" as it is irrelevant to this article and this is the topic of this discussion. This is the only topic of this discussion and it should be the only topic of this discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's a moot point because of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. How are you going to dictate what direction the discussion can take? —DIYeditor (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  His past is relevant to the article. If you think what his past has to do with his death, can you answer "why do we have officers past on the article?". George was a convicted criminal and the officers were abusive. Not including his past is not neutral and has a POV that George was the purest soul possible and officers were worse than Hitler which is not the case. Officers behave according to the criminal history of the convict, he has behind the bars for 5 years for for armed robbery in a home invasion case. // Eatcha (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor—WP:AVOIDVICTIM says don't include "every detail". Minor details obscurely sourced should be omitted. Five years in prison would not be a minor detail in anyone's life. The best quality sources, addressing the same topic that this article addresses, include this point about George Floyd's life. It would be a contrivance and a disservice to the reader to deliberately omit this information—not because it has bearing on his death—it doesn't—but because we don't exercise editorial authority—except to a limited extent. Basically, sources write articles. Basically, sources determine the content of articles. I don't think we should selectively omit information to make the eventual unlawful death at the hands of law officers seem more tragic; it is tragic whether the victim was an angelic choirboy or an "ex-convict". Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. (emphasis mine) My line of reasoning is that it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal, so including facts to support that perception which the officers did not know (as far as we know) is prolonging that victimization. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor—you say "it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal". I have to disagree. It does not appear that he was "killed because of being perceived to be a criminal". You are using figurative and imprecise language—but no offense is intended. We don't even know if he was "killed". Was it Chauvin's intention to kill Floyd? I would doubt that. I am certain that what Chauvin did constituted entirely uncalled-for cruelty. Floyd was handcuffed behind his back. Several other cops were present and apparently unoccupied, just standing around. Therefore Floyd posed no threat. How could he? What was he going to do—break loose of his handcuffs? But did Chauvin intend to end Floyd's life at that moment? It would be unreasonable to think so. But more to the point—do sources say that "it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal"? No, they don't, or at least not to my knowledge. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, those details also should not be included. But that's another argument, so don't base your !vote on this issue upon whether or not those have yet been pulled. Let's decide what's correct in THIS argument. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—what would be problematic in adhering to the general coverage of this incident as seen in the best quality sources? The best quality sources are addressing the Killing of George Floyd. Why would our coverage of the Killing of George Floyd differ significantly from the best quality sources? It is problematic to selectively omit information. This isn't being done inadvertently. This is being done deliberately. The reason for this deliberate omission is stated by several "oppose" votes: They argue that the inclusion of this information "serves to blame the victim". I vehemently reject that. We are writing an encyclopedia. And we have intelligent readers. An ex-convict who is unlawfully killed is not to blame for their death. The inclusion of information that the victim is an ex-convict does not "blame" the victim. That is nonsensical. It is an important fact as evidenced by its presence in coverage of this topic by entirely good quality sources. Deliberate omission of this nature is "political". Wikipedia should not be "political". Wikipedia should lay out the facts. Anything less is a disservice to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is a separate issue form the resat of his life, but (as I have said more than once) the rest of his life is equally irrelevant. Unless it impacts of why he was shot his life before he moved to his new home is irrelevant. Nor does "what a great gut he was" other than (and RS have to draw the conclusion) it is a defence (I.E. "he was not X and so this was unfair").Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we please be real here? Until separate articles are made on George Floyd and Derek Chauvin, which I am fully in support of, people are coming here to learn about them. I think we should give a balanced summary of both of their lives. We are trying to inform people here. Many "no" arguments are saying that including criminal history is an attempt to blame Floyd. I think the article is comprehensive enough that no reasonable person would walk away from it believing that Floyd was to blame in any capacity for his murder, unless they already believed that walking into it. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest we remove all information that isn't directly relevant. The basketball playing & the rap music and number of children and relationships aren't relevant. The previous criminal record isn't relevant unless there's a history of resisting arrest or history of some other behavior that the defense is using to justify using this type of restraint, which would be relevant. —valereee (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Also see the issue about DOB below, if he was born on the 16th he is not the same man as in the criminal records. Until this is sorted out this is a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Minneapolis allows police use of neck restraint.

It is notable that the neck restraint is allowed in accords with section 5-311 of the Minneapolis Police manual: [53].

According to USA Today:

The way a Minneapolis police officer restrained George Floyd before he died — placing his knee on Floyd's neck while the man lay on his stomach — is widely discredited by law enforcement experts because it can cause suffocation. But the technique is allowed in Minneapolis. ... the Minneapolis Police Department allows the use of two types of neck restraints as "non-deadly" force options for officers who have received the proper training.[54]

This should be mentioned in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems valid, but I seem to recall that the way this was done was not in accordance with even Minneapolis' procedures.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The article should mention as a qualifier Paragraph C of PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.: "Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)", and note that the victim did not appear to be resisting for the duration of the neck restraint. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And various doctors are completely discrediting the so-called prone restraining position, which will cause physiological harm. Also, doctors and nurses agree that constant pressure to the major artery at the neck by Chauvin - and possibly in the hip by Kueng and leg by Lane - can also definitely cause murder. So, there's a discrepancy between medical professionals and USAToday/MinneapolisPD. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

USA Today isn't endorsing the procedure and cites criticism of it. They are saying it is allowed according the the police code--not that it should be allowed. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think more sources are needed before this is placed in the article. One source in isolation does not seem sufficient. Are there other sources that discuss this? Steve Quinn (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc:. I removed the material from the article [55]. Even in this thread it has been mentioned that this might not be correct. Multiple independent reliable sources are needed to place this in the article, especially because it is controversial (or contentious). So, there needs to be consensus for restoring this material. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn:The knee-to-neck move is banned by several major metropolitan police departments, but Minneapolis police allow police to restrain suspects' necks if they're aggressive or resisting arrest. [56] Jason from nyc (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: But Floyd wasn't aggressive or resisting arrest according to RS and according to a video when he was first handcuffed. So saying Minneapolis Police allows this maneuver in this Wikipedia article is misleading at best. There is no reason for placing this in the article that I can see. It doesn't carry sufficient WP:WEIGHT. So, we will need a consensus for placing it in the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what reliable sources are saying. The neck restraint is allowed but the officer wasn't right to use it in this case. It's not my POV or yours but what the reliable sources are saying. They believe we need to know that this method isn't categorically ruled out but wrong in this context as you just said. Put it back and improve it if you believe more needs to be said. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the CNN source seems to indicate the policeman who had his knee on Floyd's neck did not do it correctly. In the article it says, "The method used to restrain Floyd doesn't fit neatly into either of those categories, Stoughton said. "This is not a neck restraint," he said of the position Floyd was held in during his arrest. "It's not just putting pressure on someone's neck. It's really dangerous.". So this is another reason for not uncritically putting this information in this article. This makes that information even more WP:UNDUE and misleading. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine, explain that reliable sources say the next restraint isn't categorically disallowed but this isn't how and when it is done. They are explaining that it can be used. Your surprise seems to indicate that it is important and RS are right to report it. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a significant fact. How is it I am indicating this seems important? I am indicating the opposite. That it does not belong in the article. It is UNDUE based on the nuances presented: Floyd was not aggressive or resisting arrest. Where does it say he was aggressive and resisting arrest?

"Surveillance video from outside a Minneapolis restaurant appears to contradict police claims that George Floyd resisted arrest before an officer knelt on his neck." [57]. Evidence points to the contrary.

And it doesn't matter that it can be used because there is a lot of other stuff that goes with it. Only those who are properly trained are allowed to use it. It only supposed to be applied for a very short amount of time. Also, when placing a detained person in the prone position it is only supposed to be for a minute or two, otherwise there is a danger of asphyxiation.

Please read the article that you posted. All this is right in there. It is not supposed be prone position for nine minutes and not with a knee to the neck. How is it that we are supposed to place the information you are proposing in the article, without all the nuances surrounding this? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, it has been widely condemned according to the source you posted [58]. So, really, we need to have a consensus on including it or not including it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Video doesn’t appear to show George Floyd resisting arrest as cops claimed" [59] along with 5 and 1/2 minutes of video showing that he did not resist arrest and according to the article:

Surveillance video does not appear to show George Floyd, who died after being pinned down by Minneapolis cops, resisting arrest — which police had claimed — in the moments before the deadly encounter. Floyd, who was black, can be seen on footage from a nearby restaurant Monday complying with cops as he’s led from a vehicle, CBS News reported. With his hands cuffed behind his back, he appears to be ordered to sit on the ground, which he does, video shows. The footage contradicts police accounts that Floyd “physically resisted officers” after he exited his vehicle. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then that should be in our article. I gave two reliable sources that devote whole articles explaining that a neck restraint can be proper and why the Floyd case is not one of them. You repeat the discussion. That this is an improper use of a neck restraint should be explained in the article. Why are you arguing with me that it is improper? I never once asserted it was proper? You are attacking a straw man to leave out info from reliable sources just because you don't like it. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that none of the sources depict Floyd resisting arrest, making a restraint hold another form of excessive force. In this case, excessive force lethally applied. If the exact restraining technique used by Chauvin, Kueng, and Lane is not allowed, then it is misleading to include the language unless the language is very specific in explaining the technique's improper and lethal use. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not categorically disallowed so it has to be explained why it is not allowed in this case as you just explained. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really a strawman. I fail to see the need to have this in the article at all, which I probably said already. Just because some RS covers it, doesn't mean it needs to be included. The topic is about the death of Floyd not about "neck restraint". What difference does it make that "neck restraint" is permitted for Minneapolis PD, when "neck restraint" was not was implemented? This was the cop's own version of restraining a detainee. This was not a by the book "neck restraint".

This should probably not be called a "neck restraint" because that is not what it was, according to procedures and training prescribed by Minneapolis PD - and according to input from experts in the RS that has been presented. My only question is, why is it so important to have this in the article? Just answer me that.

If we are willing to show this was not by the book and show all the flaws and deficiencies that have been noted above in this particular scenario, in a section of the article, then finally I say OK. Would you mind presenting a version here so we can go over it? I'm sure you'll cover all the bases. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources are explaining to the general American audience that a neck restraint is allowed in Minneapolis, something that is surprising to the reader as I was surprised. Thus, it is the details of context (he wasn't resisting) and manner that makes this an improper use. We might need a whole section or paragraph to explain the opinions of experts in the sources of what was wrong with its use here. The wider question, of why a progressive city like Minneapolis allows any usage of this restraint that has been abolished and discredited, is a question that has not yet been discussed in the sources. I wish we knew. It is important that while such a barbaric restraining method is on the books, our sources still support the charge that it was improper to use or improperly used. We should reflect the sources for a complete picture as they currently possible. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I agree that a section, or a paragraph, or a couple of paragraphs are needed for a complete or concise explanation to cover all the basis. I agree with how you summed up the situation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll be away for the rest of the day. Would you mind proposing a paragraph? I tend to be very terse, which is why I think that I am sometimes misunderstood.Jason from nyc (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Another reference with stats on Minneapolis usage of neck restraints: [60] Jason from nyc (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is shocking as well! I'm thinking we could go ahead and create a separate article on Minneapolis PD use of neck restraints and the surrounding commentary about it. Of course we will include the actions that led to Floyd's death. We can have a summation of sorts in the article linked to that new article. Heopefully, I will be able to get to it today. Besides regular stuff to take care of, I pulled a muscle in my arm so I have to be circumspect about typing on keyboard. I will see what I can do. Too bad it happened now. Actually I started feeling it yesterday. Too much keyboard typing seems to ultimately cause more pain. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• OK. I have started a new article in my user space here. Of course the title can be changed, I just wrote one that seemed relevant to get it started. Feel free to present sources or add content. We have flexibility because it is in the user space right now. However, I am thinking of simply creating a stub to begin with for the main space. And add more there. I don't know we will see. I can feel it my arm right now. But maybe it's worth it!. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Well, I'm going to back up a little bit. There may not be enough for an article, at the moment. However, I will go ahead and write blurb for this article. In the sub-sub-subsection below will be my proposed text. Here goes. Ouch! (no pain, no gain) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Neck restraint

• Note: "Neck restraint" could be the section title.

• Note I'm not finished yet. The source I am citing for the below paragraph is this: [61]. I'm guessing you will recognize it from above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note There are plenty of sources via Google search [62]. Here are three more sources at the moment USA Today, CNN, PolitiFact. I am guessing the proposed text will be at least two paragraphs, maybe three. Two of the sources are from the above section.

Proposed Text:

• This first paragraph (below) needs to be paraphrased - however, not WP:close paraphrasing. This is the source [63]:

Minneapolis police officers have a record of administering neck restraints at least 237 times since the beginning of 2015. This includes 44 people who were rendered unconscious. Several law enforcement professionals said the number of unconscious individuals as a result of this maneuver seems remarkably large. Neck restraints are defined by police "as when an officer uses an arm or leg to compress someone’s neck without directly pressuring the airway." As depicted on video, a policeman named Derek Chauvin applied his knee to George Floyd's neck while Floyd was handcuffed and lying prone on the ground. Such force was applied "for eight minutes — including nearly three minutes after he had stopped breathing."

The use of the choke hold maneuver known as a "neck restraint" has been derided by more than a dozen law enforcement officials, who were interviewed by NBC News. The news organization provided a summation of their views: "the particular tactic Chauvin used — kneeling on a suspect’s neck — is neither taught nor sanctioned by any police agency." A Minneapolis city official said, "Chauvin’s tactic is not permitted by the Minneapolis police department." In general, police departments' application of assorted types of neck restraints, described as choke holds, are decidedly circumscribed - if not plainly illegal. However, the online version of the Minneapolis Police Department’s policy manual authorizes the application of neck restraints "that can render suspects unconscious." Also it seems this protocol was last updated eight years ago.

Applying a knee to the neck of a man lying on his stomach is widely rejected by law enforcement professionals because it can cause suffocation. At the same time, keeping a man in a prone position, with hands cuffed behind his back is meant to be of very short duration and is seen as dangerous because breathing is immediately restricted in that position. "Someone in that position can draw enough breath to gasp or speak in spurts, but they can't breathe fully, so they gradually lose oxygen and fall unconscious." The individual has to be quickly rolled on his side, sat up, or stood up. Pressure on a detainees neck can "cause fatal damage" so the maneuver must be monitored closely for the well-being of the detainee. According to the Minneapolis department's manual, specialized training is required to use this maneuver. According to Minneapolis police policy this maneuver can only be used when as a last resort when there is no other way to subdue a suspect who is belligerently resisting arrest. Chauvin's actions exceeded his purview. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's excellent, quite impressive. This gives excellent background and context, as well as describing the details of Floyd's death. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: Thanks. For your information it is now posted in the article [64]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Straw man

And, where is the strawman that you are seeing? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You are arguing that it is improper with which I wholly agree. I'm not saying it is proper. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Results of 2nd Autopsy

It has been almost 3 days since the second autopsy was conducted, has there been any release of information yet from citable sources? RyanLB (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What second autopsy was conducted 3 days ago? AFAIK Hennepin County Medical Examiner conducted one autopsy. Although our article claims "preliminary autopsy" as do some other sources, I believe this is misleading. There are no plans for another autopsy. Rather they are still waiting more test results before reviewing the information issuing their final conclusions. The family are planning an independent autopsy. They announced who will conduct it etc on 30 May (US time) about 27 hours ago, but there's no indication any autopsy has been performed. Indeed reports from when it was announced suggested it would be conducted over the news few days. AFAIK, Michael Baden doesn't live in Minneapolis (not sure about Alleca Wilson), and it's mostly been the weekend and to be blunt, the situation is a bit chaotic right now plus the family need to get access to the body so it seems unlikely it's been conducted. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@RyanLB: Just noticed that [70] says Baden will travel to Minneapolis on Saturday. But even if this happened and he reached it on Saturday, there's a fair chance he hasn't performed it. And if he has I'm fairly sure it hasn't been announced that it's happened. The Fox News source also says Baden will discuss his findings early next week and while by some definitions Sunday is early next week, I think it's unlikely they'll be revealed then so it's likely we still have at least a day and maybe more before any results from the family's autopsy. Definitely I cannot find any indication any second autopsy was conducted 3 days ago. Since it's clearly not the family's one, who conducted such an autopsy? Is it on behalf of one of the officers? Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Change "White" to "Caucasian" in the description of this following sentence located in People involved. "Police officers Derek Michael Chauvin (born March 19, 1976), a 44-year-old white man" DR333AD (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It makes more sense and is technically accurate RyanLB (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please explain. The way I see it "Caucasian" is not only less accurate but also a very rare term. I do not see why we should be using it. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I fail see see why it makes "more sense" and wp:commonname means we do not usually call a cat a Felis catus (even though its technically correct).Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No. I have already changed it once from "Caucasian" back to white. For a simple reason: that's what the sources say. At Wikipedia we follow the Reliable Sources, not our own preferences or opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No. That's a racist term! A passé, obsolete racial classification. --217.234.70.17 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31—May—2020

Insert two sentences in paragraph after bodycam comments and before quotations from Floyd as he was being killed : "A surveillance camera shows Floyd was in the police vehicle as an officer repeatedly reached in and the vehicle rocked. Floyd was then pulled out of the police vehicle on the side away from the cameras, where he was held face down by the three police officers with Chavin's knee on his neck." 81.185.163.252 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to the source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 On hold until source provided. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Provided the source in the same but simplified edit suggestion made after signing in. It's called "Add video..." Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this help? It appears Floyd did not resist arrest - "Video doesn’t appear to show George Floyd resisting arrest as cops claimed" [71] along with 5 and 1/2 minutes of video showing that he did not resist arrest and according to the article:

Surveillance video does not appear to show George Floyd, who died after being pinned down by Minneapolis cops, resisting arrest — which police had claimed — in the moments before the deadly encounter. Floyd, who was black, can be seen on footage from a nearby restaurant Monday complying with cops as he’s led from a vehicle, CBS News reported. With his hands cuffed behind his back, he appears to be ordered to sit on the ground, which he does, video shows. The footage contradicts police accounts that Floyd “physically resisted officers” after he exited his vehicle.

Here is another source: [72] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That does not seem to support "A surveillance camera shows Floyd was in the police vehicle as an officer repeatedly reached in and the vehicle rocked. Floyd was then pulled out of the police vehicle on the side away from the cameras,".Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I agree, which is why I added this to this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reports of George Floyd's criminal record

In this article, we have biographies of the individuals involved, however, it currently misses out from the relevent section George Floyd's extensive criminal record from the before he moved from Houston, Texas to Minneapolis. I feel this is pertinent to add. If we can mention complete cruft such as the fact that he liked basketball and hip-hop, surely this needs to be in here.

According to this news article, Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison in 2009 for his part in an armed home invasion with a weapon. According to the Harris County, Texas District records, Mr. Floyd entered a home of a woman with a gang, pointed a gun to her stomach and searched the home for drugs and money to steal, before making off with jewelry and her mobile phone. Mr. Floyd had already been a defendant in eight other criminal incidents before this stretching back to 1997 and has had five stints in prison. CrimeChecker (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :*Your point?... Mr. Floyd had a criminal record but that past behavior that he paid the price for in the legal system shouldn't have been a death sentence. Was he committing a capital crime when he was handcuffed? No? Ok then. (Also, the Daily Mail is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC.) Shearonink (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The section of the article this pertains to is his biography section. What did where he was born, where he went to school, the fact he liked basketball and hip-hop have to do with this death? We include all of that. If the article is going to contain a biography of this individual, then his extensive criminal record which includes a five year setence for armed home invasion is probably worth mentioning. This isn't just mentioned in the Daily Mail, but numerous other articles, linked further up on this talk such as the Guardian. CrimeChecker (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A: We have an request for comment above, please comment there. I will not bother with B yet.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

CrimeChecker, Daily Mail is not a reliable source and thats irrelevant to the death of George Floyd.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone then please explain how the fact he liked basketball and hip-hop is relevant to his death? Jevansen (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not, but two wrongs do not make a right.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Hi. Multiple errors as follows:

1. In 'Events' section : change order of bystander video account and police account. Police account has already been proven as inaccurate, and should not have top billing in this section.

2. In 'Events' section, preliminary autopsy: delete "found no indication" and edit sentence to "preliminary autopsy alleges", which is more accurate.

3. In 'Events' section : delete inaccurate idea that Chavin didn't move until paramedics placed Floyd on stretcher. Add "Chavin removed his knee to drag Floyd's body towards the paramedics. The officers then dumped Floyd's body onto the stretcher, and the paramedics adjusted Floyd's body to lay flat." Just watch the 9+ minute video again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

4. In 'Events' section : delete word "sobbing" since Floyd was not sobbing.

5. In 'Events' section : add, "When a witness tried to approach Chavin after Floyd became unresponsive, Chavin removed his hand from his pocket and appeared to mace the person, as the person also states on the video recording." This is in the 9+ minute video. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not analyse, we report.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 On hold until you can cite sources for these edits Pasdecomplot. They appear to be original research which is against Wikipedia policy. - MrX 🖋 18:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the suggestions are correctly interpreted:

1. 1. is not analysis but content rearrangement.
2. 2. is more accurate reporting since public medical examiners in similar cases have been found to be biased towards police versions of events. Thus "alleges" is better and not biased in favor of the police/prosecutor/city attorney version of the cause of death.
3. 3. corrects an inaccuracy, as illustrated in video.
4. 4. is another correction to an innacuracy. Floyd was not crying or sobbing. Pleading is more accurate.
5. 5. is information from the video. If we're quoting from the video's audio track, then a reference to the macing is not analysis. If you prefer, after "unresponsive,..." edit suggestion to add "the witness accused Chauvin of macing him."

It's very important to be accurate. Do these explainations help? Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, as there is no source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is the video for 3,4,5. The picture of Floyd and Chauvin is from the video, and quotations are provided from the video. Thus it's already an approved source. Item 1 is a format suggestion, doesn't require a source. Item 2 we're discussing in another talk thread. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tou Thao's role needs to be clarified

Currently, the article states that "Officers Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng, and Thomas K. Lane participated in Floyd's arrest, with Kueng holding Floyd's back, Lane holding his legs, and Thao looking on as he stood nearby."

However, this is not completely accurate, in light of the fact that, in one of the eyewitness videos, while the other three are holding Floyd down, Thao takes time to open the rear of the police SUV, look for and retrieve an object from the SUV, then hand it to Lane, who reaches out his hand and takes the object.

If it has not been reported what this object is, mention of Thao's action should be added to the article, since it is clear that he was not simply looking on.

173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do RS mention this?Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any as of a few days ago. IMO the current wording is fine. IIRC Thao also talked to bystanders a bit and put his hand up and other stuff at various times. It's clear that what's described in the lead is a simplified description of what went on and there's nothing at the moment to indicate Thao did anything significant, the criticism of him seems to focus on his inaction. Even if we did want to add more details from reliable sources, these would probably go in the body rather than the lead anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Add video of Floyd in police car (link here)

Here's a link to a video where Floyd is in police vehicle, before being pulled out onto the pavement.

Add sentence to opening description (between language about bodycams and language about Floyd's pleas) : "Another surveillance video reveals Floyd was in the police vehicle when officers repeatedly reache in and the vehicle shakes, after which Floyd is pulled out of the vehicle away from the cameras, and held down by the three officers with Chavin's knee on Floyd's neck." Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Needs WP:RS to verify and we'd need a free copy of it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't we copy it from UR_Ninja? Indie media for non-commercial use only, and Wikipedia meets their standards. They gained lots of respect as a solid source during Standing Rock, and have been working rather fearlessly for 5 years. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, misspelled reach and Chauvin earlier. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you know Floyd was pulled out of the police vehicle on the right side of the vehicle (the opposite side from the side he was placed in the vehicle)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen two versions of the video, the other without a verified source. There's movement from the passenger side on the pavement, away from the sidewalk and only shoulders and heads of Chauvin and Lane are visible, while the other two are still on the sidewalk. Floyd ended up on the pavement. It's a logical conclusion. But the issue is posting the video. What's being done? Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait for RS to draw the same conclusions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, the video isn't in the public domain. Only the video's copyright holder can place it into the public domain. Even if UR_Ninja is claiming copyright, we have to both 1. believe them that they actually hold that copyright and 2. see that they're offering it as free-use, which they don't seem to be -- they seem to be offering it only for noncommercial use. We've got a single frame of another video posted on the article, and that's about as far as we can go. Unless there's some single frame of this video that is a better representation of the subject of this article, which you can suggest, we can't post this video to the article. —valereee (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll follow up with UR_Ninja, or Unicorn Riot, about the public domain issue of the minor video, which does not include a better image for the article. So, if the author of the major video, from which the screen shot was made, offers their work as public domain then that too could be ...linked as a reference? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this standard police procedure?

Can some information be gained as to whether it is normal for police to arrest a person who uses a counterfeit bill to buy something or deposit it in a bank? Firstly, the bill in question was relatively modest, $20.00. Secondly, is it the standard practice of police to take the word and identification of a store clerk that said bill is indeed counterfeit? Thirdly, I know from personal experience that just because someone uses a counterfeit bill that doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she was aware of it let alone actually printed it. I once took a cash deposit to our company’s bank and was informed by the teller that a $100 bill a customer gave to us was counterfeit. (In truth, I have no idea if that was true or not. It looked fine to me.) The bank didn’t call the police on me, thankfully. This whole thing seems peculiar to me and ought to scare all of us as anyone could be given a counterfeit bill and innocently attempt to use it elsewhere. So is this standard police practice regardless of the race of the alleged culprit? Or was something else going on regarding Mr. Floyd? Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but somehow when I added a new section a link provided by the editor just before me got under my post and away from his or hers. I attempted to correct this, but when I clicked on edit the link doesn't appear at all so I couldn't cut and paste it back where it belongs.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you about this. I had a similar experience once, where a deposit I was making included a $10 bill that the bank said was counterfeit. All that happened was that the bank kept the bill, and the organization whose money I was depositing was out the $10. This was clearly not a situation that called for an arrest, and my hunch is that you or I would not have been arrested in similar circumstances. But this is all just your and my opinion, WP:Original research, and can't go into the article unless Reliable Sources start saying it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN, my favorite admininstrator, we meet again! I agree, but it just pains me to think that the death of Mr. Floyd and the destruction that has followed in its wake was caused by such a piddling thing as this. I was hoping that someone would know if this was standard operating procedure. In California, the police generally don’t arrest people for shoplifting unless the amount taken is over a certain amount far greater than twenty dollars. It would seem logical to me that at most a citation be issued so that the police could ascertain if there had been more instances of this by a singular individual and then, if so, investigate the person for actual counterfeiting or buying counterfeit money from someone else at, of course, a steep discount to the face value. As I said, this could happen to anyone as you and I can attest to. By the way, I assume it was you who fixed the errant link issue. This has happened to me before for reasons I have no idea of. Thanks for that as well as your input. I hope you and yours have been well during this current health crisis. Best wishes, as always.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

When RS discus this so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has a story, but I don't think that counts as an RS. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding banner from Berlin to gallery

File:George_Floyd_memorial_banner_Berlin-Kreuzberg.jpg was just uploaded to Commons. Any opinions on adding it to the gallery section? I personally feel the gallery section doesn't represent the reception of the event by the wider world yet, and perhaps this would help. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 20:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Having said that, and read Talk:Death_of_George_Floyd#Gallery_photos perhaps all of these images belong on George_Floyd_protests ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 21:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I moved the gallery to George_Floyd_protests ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 21:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Chauvin the first white officer to be charged with death of black man in Minnesota

Per [Vox] Chauvin is the the first white officer to be charged with the death of a black civilian in Minnesota. I believe this information would be relevant to the article and would like to see if added (there may be other interesting and relevant bits to add from that article as well)--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:B0AF:3DB2:BE89:D986 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Y I just added it. Thanks! The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, don't forget to mark the requests as answered! Ed6767 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this! Much appreciated. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically, that's per the Star-Tribune, Vox just yoinked it. But yeah, hardly matters anymore. Online journalism is all about yoinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's alright though, I cited both. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup of "See Also" section

Adding on to this - to avoid the continued addition of loosely related examples of police brutality (of which there are many), should we give a short description after each link as to how each incident relates to the death of Floyd? For example, we can say the shootings of Castile and Damond were in the Minneapolis area, and the death of Eric Garner played out in a very comparable way.

This would be similar to the Bayonne mosque shooting article. Mrsmiis (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Grandfather too much?

The article is already too long. I think talking about the family tradition and the grandfather of one of the arresting officers is excessive. --82.37.129.75 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Removed, irrelevant. WWGB (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct statement on public autopsy

Please strike the words "found no indication" and replace with the word "allege", then rework sentence as follows:

Corrected : 'Preliminary results from the official autopsy allege that Floyd did not die of strangulation or traumatic asphyxia, but ..." This correction is more accurate, since medical professionals viewing the video strongly disagree that the findings of the public medical examiner could be accurate. Also, this correction has been suggested before, but in a list of 5 suggested corrections and might be overlooked. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, it is not an allegation, it is a medical statement.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, we will not characterize an autopsy report from the medical professional who physically examined the body as an "allegation" on the grounds that other people who watched the videos are sure that he must have been strangulated. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then we should quote the statement directly, with quotation marks, then it would qualify as text from a medical statement. It does not qualify as that presently. A detail but we need to be very careful to not be biased in favor of institutions which are biased. In cases of wrongful deaths by police or in jails & prisons, municipal medical examiners are found to skew their reports in favor of their municipal co-workers, unfortunately. So, medical statements can be politicized in certain cases. The Floyd case is definitely vulnerable to political manipulation. Thus, the statement "found no evidence", etc is definitely problematic in this case especially since Floyd had all of the same health conditions before meeting Chauvin that day, while still alive. These are the points. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then we should quote the statement directly, with quotation marks, then it would qualify as text from a medical statement. It does not qualify as that presently. A detail but we need to be very careful to not be biased in favor of institutions which are biased. In cases of wrongful deaths by police or in jails & prisons, municipal medical examiners are found to skew their reports in favor of their municipal co-workers, unfortunately. So, medical statements can be politicized in certain cases. The Floyd case is definitely vulnerable to political manipulation. Thus, the statement "found no evidence", etc is definitely problematic in this case especially since Floyd had all of the same health conditions before meeting Chauvin that day, while still alive. These are the points. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then we should quote the statement directly, with quotation marks, then it would qualify as text from a medical statement. It does not qualify as that presently. A detail but we need to be very careful to not be biased in favor of institutions which are biased. In cases of wrongful deaths by police or in jails & prisons, municipal medical examiners are found to skew their reports in favor of their municipal co-workers, unfortunately. So, medical statements can be politicized in certain cases. The Floyd case is definitely vulnerable to political manipulation. Thus, the statement "found no evidence", etc is definitely problematic in this case especially since Floyd had all of the same health conditions before meeting Chauvin that day, while still alive. These are the points. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hum, three replies posted... Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

For azurecitizen: I detect a definite bias in your response. Have you watched the video? Closely? The "other people...who are sure", as you say, are also medical professionals that know the difference between restraining positions and lethal restraining positions. Dr Rob Davidson, a twenty-year ER doctor has a very informative testimony. If you're interested in better understanding the issue and not falling for bias due to naivete, look at the link which I'll post. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Although it might seem contradictory, the reliability of the public autopsy report is at issue in these cases. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So do any RS question its accuracy?Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've twice posted a source for the points I've made, but they aren't showing. Do you know why? Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you post link to were you added these, as I can find no external links in any of your posts to this thread.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying this https : // twitterdotcom / dr rob davidson / status / 12666894168972288 ?s=20 Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/drrobdavidson/status/12666894168972288?s=20

Comes up with "Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!", so I have no idea what you are tying to link to. But at this stage I would point you to wp:primary.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a tweet from an ER doctor who writes "As an ER doctor for 2 decades I know that #GeorgeFloyd was killed... He did not die because of heart disease or intoxicants, he died because Derek Chauvin killed pinned [sic] him... ...We have to look deep inside to acknowledge the role we all play in perpetuating racism that allows such killings to continue."

For Pasdecomplot: I'm sure you saw the welcome message that was posted on your Talk page by another editor (per your response there). Check out the lower left hand portion of the chart, where it says "Policies and Guidelines," and start reading through the policies Neutral Point of View, Reliable Sources, Verifiability, Citing Sources, and No Original Research. If you're "interested in better understanding" as you said above, you'll find a lot of good information there. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So in fact it does not (even assuming it was an RS, and I am not sure a tweet from an A&E doctor counts) it contradicts the Autopsy as the autopsy does acknowledge that that Chauvin's actions were a contributory factor.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved since info on the independent autopsy is now included in article. So, for future reference when establishing reliability, the point I was making - that the official autopsy report is unreliable and language should reflect its unreliability, or its allegations - has been proven as solid by the independent autopsy report. Good for editors to remember for future articles. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)— Pasdecomplot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The only point proven here is that you do not understand Wikipedia's policies; we will never use the word "alleged" to characterize an official autopsy. Instead, when we get a second autopsy report, we include its results too. Tuck that away for future reference, because that's what we'll be doing at those future articles too. Be sure to read WP:ALLEGED as well, you'll learn that we use that word when wrongdoing is asserted but not determined by a criminal trial (not the situation here with the autopsy report). You'd also do well to avoid insinuating that experienced editors are biased or naive for following policy, but you'll learn more about that the longer you edit here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Pleas add the statements below in the section -> Reactions -> Political

(Redacted) Bakabana~enwiki (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How many statements from foreign leaders are necessary? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I Can't Breathe and I Can't Breathe (disambiguation)

Hi. The former links to the Death of Eric Garner with a hatnote pointing here. There's also the I Can't Breathe (disambiguation) page. Should "I Can't Breathe" now become the disambig page? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I would think yes, now that the disambiguation page specifically leads with explanatory comments about Garner and Floyd. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been bold and moved it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Chauvin put his full body weight on Floyd's neck"

@Shadybabs: You've added "Chauvin put his full body weight onto Floyd's neck" directly into the lead, based on a comment in a local City Pages article, not stated in any mainstream reliable sources. That's materially misleading and would have only been possible if Chauvin had knelt with both of his knees on Floyd's neck (to put his full body weight on it). As seen in the video he has one knee on the pavement and one knee on Floyd; you have to sort out sources for NPOV, verfiability, and in this case, WP:WEIGHT (no pun intended; this is not funny stuff). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I've tagged it. If someone can't produce better sources, it will be removed. - MrX 🖋 15:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

While I strongly believe that the article should address all aspects of the police misconduct, it should do so accurately, and should not use other wiki pages as sources. Either cite an external source and reword or remove. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It would also have been possible if he had managed to balance himself on only one knee and having his other leg off the ground, but that obviously didn't happen either. A physical impossibility definitely needs good sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging. Circling back just now, I see another editor has conformed the text to a better source as seen here, so the problem is resolved. I was initially drawn to this issue because the original editor added the unsourced content "Chauvin would continue to forcefully grind his bodyweight directly onto Floyd's neck as he struggled" here and here two days ago. Editors should not be making stuff up like that, especially with people's perceptions inflamed right now. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk)

The second autopsy is saying asphyxiation.[73] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

In general, that's not exactly true. You could put 90 percent of your weight on one knee, with the other knee positioned just for balance. But sourcing is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

90% is not "full body weight", but the thrust here is that an editor was seeking to characterize the event from their POV, then looking for a source to fit that POV. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But if you're only using the second knee for balance, it could be well above 50 percent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is this rated low importance?

This is page is rated low importance. Shouldn't it be rated higher? There's a curfew where I live, and multiple people have died in the protests. This is arguably the most important article as of now (June 1), and it has about 4.6 million total page views. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 15:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If this were a one time incident, I might agree with the rating. When there is a long string of murders by police of citizens with a particular skin color, then it becomes a critical issue that should be, and has not been, seriously addressed. No, I am not one of the targets, but I am outraged. This is an important article. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How does one push the rating up? Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 15:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to the ratings at the top of this talk page, those are ratings from varying Wikipedia:WikiProject's, – groups of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area. I wouldn't worry about those ratings. The total page views for this article that you mentioned indicate that the article is important to our readers. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Surrounding

It seems to me that all the images and videos do not show those two police vehicles surrounded (until after they drive into the crowd). Can we have a source that confirms they were surrounded?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd History

Why is there nothing in the GEORGE FLOYD bio section of this article about his past criminal history? He was convicted of multiple things, most notably ARMED ROBBERY which is pretty significant. Why is he presented in an incomplete manner. All across Wikipedia in the personal section OF ANYONE i HAVE EVEN LOOKED UP THERE IS FULL DISCLOSURE, ESPECIALLY ABOUT ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH BREAKING THE LAW. I think that there is deliberate omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiaSmi64 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reason that it's omitted is because this is about the death of George Floyd, not about George Floyd. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 18:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then why is there information about his athletic accomplishments? Elvis2500 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500

There is an RfC about it above [74]. And of course good RS specifically about his death, such as this article in Guardian and many others, do mention this episode. We should significantly expand his biography section and include this info. As you noted, there is no logic to selectively hide any important biographic information. We just say what RS say on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that BBC has also acknowledged this aspect of Floyd's past (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52871936). Elvis2500 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500

Someone will probably remove it. I would wait until the closing of the RfC. But just to clarify, according to your BBC source,

His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison. He became involved in his local ministry, Resurrection Houston, after his release and was intent on making changes in himself and his neighbourhood, says Mr Lillard. "While he was embracing his own life change, he was looking around at his community" ...

This is an important info to include if anyone wants to understand what kind of person he was. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, is what kind of person he was important to understanding this incident? —valereee (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is all in the BBC source. One should just read it further: "A video of Floyd decrying gun violence, believed to be filmed in 2017, has circulated on social media, in which he implored young people to "come home". His family told the Houston Chronicle he moved to Minnesota in 2018 after being encouraged by friends through a Christian work programme. Christopher Harris, a friend and former classmate, told US media Mr Floyd "was looking to start over fresh, a new beginning". "He was happy with the change he was making," he added.

So, basically, this is someone who was capable to understand his mistakes and make life better for himself and others. This is highly commendable. But without telling that he made mistakes, there is no real person, there is no character. That's why journalists from Guardian, BBC, and other sources described it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, commendable, but the question I think was "how is that relevant with regards to his death?" Did any of that contribute to his death? Regards SoWhy 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

I request that you change the term "died" to "was murdered" because that is what happened. He didnt die, he didnt get to go peacefully. Instead, he had his life forcefully taken away from him, he had that right taken away and that's not fair. 88.201.105.170 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

See above discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Please fix the photo reference in the section "Memorials and protests". 72.138.20.20 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Which reference? – Thjarkur (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd described as criminal on Spanish wiki

Hello, I am not an American and know little about Floyd. Just wanted to point out that somebody at the Spanish wikipedia described Floyd as a criminal (”delincuente habitual”), which doesn’t quite match the description of him here… I left a comment on their talk page. Could somebody with a more precise knowledge of the situation – and good knowledge of Spanish – maybe correct the Spanish article? https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muerte_de_George_Floyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.195.78 (talk)

I speak Spanish natively, and I just skimmed over the section about Floyd and can find no mention of him being a criminal. I assume the edit that added that in was vandalism and/or POV and was duly reverted. Either way, situations like these are to be brought up in the talk page directly instead of doing it cross-wiki. Thanks for the notice though. --letcreate123 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Dont have an insensitive image on the page. Have a picture of him instead, reflecting in a positive light. 86.14.43.104 (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the correct venue to discuss the pictures in question, you may be looking for File talk:George Floyd.png. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not sensationalist, and this picture more than suffices its purpose which is to provide basic insight on the victim. --letcreate123 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a "Request for comments regarding lead photo" section above, easy to miss. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth

What was the Date of birth of George Floyd? GrimRob (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

From screenshots of previous convictions found on several news sites, 14 October 1973. Perennial Student (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I mention "several news sites" and allude to previous convictions only because I don't wish to cite The Daily Mail, unless I really have to. Perennial Student (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

We have anew thread on this below.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

June 1 press release from Hennepin County Medical Examiner on cause of death

I have added a link to this new document to External links. Kablammo (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added this to the article text.[75] It is also being reported in the media but I am out of time now. Kablammo (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know if we'd get a full autopsy report now? I would think that the family could request and this might be revealed by the family attorneys in due course? Not too familiar with how US local governments do it. Perennial Student (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Change of location.

Toronto is in Ontario, Canada. It's not an State from U.S.A. LaIslaNegra2021 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@LaIslaNegra2021: Thanks for the heads up. Could you tell us where it is? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the only mention of Toronto doesn't imply that it's in the US. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_George_Floyd#cite_note-136 LaIslaNegra2021 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_George_Floyd#cite_note-136 It mentions Cities around the U.S.A , riots , ...Toronto 136. Toronto isn't in the U.S.A. LaIslaNegra2021 (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ontario is fairly large compared to most US states. It runs at least from South of Detroit (Windsor), East of Detroit (London, Paris), Northwest of Michigan and North to Hudson Bay. Toronto is on Lake Ontario, Northeast of Detroit. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing comparison with other exceptionally cruel torturing/execution methods.

German Nazis used slow strangulation by piano wire as the most cruel death, yet many of their traitors killed this way died significantly faster than George Floyd. Middle Eastern countries which use short-drop/no-drop hanging are criticised for their cruelty, even when most executed people keep their consciousness for just 1-3 minutes. But the page on George Floyd's death mentions just murder, killing and homicide, there's not a single word on sadistict torture as of now. I think this should be fixed (preferrably in bold).

→ Would you like it to be done in CAPITALS as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.81.84 (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sticking to WP:NPOV, this event cannot be ruled as torture due there being no apparent intent to harm/kill — IVORK _Talk 02:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

"Derek Chauvin" should probably be written in bold in the lead 188.192.230.236 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:BOLDLEAD only the name / aliases of the main subject are bolded. — IVORK _Talk 02:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

OK thx 188.192.226.47 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Darnella Frazier video

While multiple sources say she livestreamed the video on Facebook, it seems like she uploaded it a couple hours later. Should we correct this?The lorax (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The Devil is in the details. Are sources retracting their original stories? How many sources still say live streaming and how many say several hours later? Are there other data bearing on this? If there is a conflict among sources, you could cite sources for each version. If there is a clear consensus that the original reports were incorrect, then the claim should be corrected. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The video was not live-streamed confirmed that from her Facebook pageOlatunde Brain (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

There should not be a photo of the murderer in George Floyd’s wiki . The man and his family already suffered enough and this is even more shameful of the media . Remove the photo of the cop and leave a photo of George Floyd only 137.25.101.239 (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That photo is part of the story. It helps in judging the murderer's state of mind. Only if the family requests it should it be removed. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, for more info, please look through the info-boxes at the top of this page. — IVORK _Talk 04:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record, WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply where BLP mandates removal (which is why NOTCENSORED explicitly says Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) [...]. (emphasis added)) In this case however, the image has been circulated so widely that no further harm can possibly come from having it on this page. Regards SoWhy 13:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd's Date of Birth

His criminal record from Harris County state his DOB as October 14th 1973, whereas the wiki article says the 16th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.111.58 (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

OK we need an RS for his date of birth, and one that muszt be him as if he was born on the 16th he cannot be the same person as on the Harris County criminal record.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot of his record from Harris County District Clerk's website https://imgur.com/eSg9ri5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.111.58 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That is just proof someone called George Floyd born on that date has a criminal record (Including George Perry Floyd, George Lee Floyd as well as George Perry Floyd).Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you read the few news stories that dare mention Floyd's criminal history, you will see it does match https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/29/george-floyd-who-was-he-his-friends-words — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.111.58 (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No mention of DOB.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if, WP:SYNTH forbids taking the criminal record and the Guardian article and using them to establish the DOB from that. Regards SoWhy 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Change "man, died in the Powderhorn" to "man was murdered by Derek Chauvin in the Powderhorn" 118.102.107.165 (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not until a court does so. starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How is the new autopsy independent when the pathologists were hired by the deceased relatives?

First it says "On May 30, Floyd's family's legal team confirmed that they had hired Baden and also Dr. Allecia Wilson to conduct an autopsy.", and then "On May 31, the independent autopsy was conducted.". How is the autopsy independent? By that logic, the first autopsy was also independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anetherion (talk • contribs) 10:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Wlilson is the director of autopsy and forensic services at the University of Michigan Medical School. That's independent. The county medical examiner is not independent as they work with the police. O3000 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"they had hired" as in they were paid to do that. How can you say that is independent? For it to be truly independent, it would have to be performed and paid for by a third party, unrelated to the whole ordeal. Anetherion (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, neither are independent.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Independent is used in the sources and has been used in such cases as long as I can remember. The Michigan Medical School is independent, unless it can be shown that they are paid to lie. O3000 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"they had hired Baden and also Dr. Allecia Wilson", they had hired them personally, how is their workplace relevant? 1.) "sources" are not always correct, 2.) it being that way "for as long as you can remember" still does not mean it is the right way. Like I wrote above, unless it is conducted and paid for by a third party, it is NOT independent. Anetherion (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We go by sourcing, not by personal opinion of editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Its all rather academic as the second "official" autopsy has called homicide as well.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that "independent" is probably the wrong word for it. By definition, the autopsy comes from an interested party. A "private autopsy" was used by the BBC makes more sense, imho. Perennial Student (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what the majority of sources call it. Try to understand that when the media speaks of an independent autopsy, they just mean a private autopsy independent of the official autopsy conducted by the jurisdiction's coroner, and not independent of an interested party who is paying for it. If there's a concern that this Wikipedia article is misleading the reader, we can ameliorate that by using expanded language like "an independent autopsy paid for by Floyd's family," or even "an independent private autopsy" with cites to both descriptions from the media. The only other thing I would note here is that under state law, the county medical examiner is a "neutral and independent office and is separate and distinct from any prosecutorial authority or law enforcement agency," so we wouldn't say that they aren't independent because they "work with the police," but calling the official autopsy "independent" in the article would probably just cause confusion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If the sourcing says "independent", then that's what the article should say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The law may state that medical examiners must be “neutral and independent”; but there have been scandals related to medical examiner results when police are involved. That’s one reason some people pay for independent autopsies. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, there have been scandals in the past, this is why legislatures have added those laws to put ethics restrictions in place. My only point there was that we can't imply here that the county medical examiner "works with the police." AzureCitizen (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that someone swapped out the word "independent" with "private" 30 minutes ago, so I've added "independent" back to the lead, such that it reads "An independent private autopsy." At this point, I think it would be preferable to just include both words rather than editors pushing to have their preferred word used while trying to exclude the other. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Private is an odd word since the results are public and the autopsy was performed by a public school. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL, which in the UK mean a private school. But it is off as whilst it was privately funded it was not "private".Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What we've got going on here is a conflation of terms. Whether or not a school is public or private is a different concept (in use of terms) in relation to whether an autopsy was an official autopsy (conducted by the authorities) versus a private autopsy (conducted by anyone else). AzureCitizen (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Private has many different senses; we shouldn't conflate them. To clarify the claim "the autopsy was performed by a public school". Are we sure the autopsy was performed by the University of Michigan? The media reports seem to suggest that Dr Baden and Dr Wilson were hired by Floyd's family's attorneys. Do we know it was done in the official capacity as faculty members of University of Michigan? Or that it was done pro bono (see: "hire" in numerous news outlets). For example, I might hire a moonlighting police officer to bodyguard me; it would make little sense to claim that my bodyguarding needs are met by a "public body". Perennial Student (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, as others have said, lets go with what RS say, and not our own suppositions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

$20 bill

The article should state whether or not the bill in question was counterfeit. Jim Michael (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a good source yay or nay? Kire1975 (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Death of George Floyd" category

Per the closing of the Move discussion, I have posted a Category Move discussion for Category:Death of George Floyd. Others who contributed to the Move discussion (on both sides) may wish to contribute to the category discussion. The discussion is here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove mentions of white/black from the article.

This discussion has already been concluded (here and here) and consensus has been established. El_C 12:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the current article layout, where it is explicitly stated each time that white policeman killed black innocent guy, with all the links of the same below, the article becomes a horn of racism movement. This easily provokes hatred, unjustified vandalism and more crimes on streets. I would recommend to remove it from the article as irrelevant. And tidy up supporting links, adding all other cases where black policeman killed innocent white person, Chinese killed Latino etc. Violence in police is what needs to be targeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.81.84 (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose Kire1975 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC) The BLM protests mentioned in the article would make little to no sense if we did not mention anyone's race. Perennial Student (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests into Killing of George Floyd (withdrawn)

More appropriate for the 'Reactions' tab of the actual article, reduces confusion, not a news article.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This has nothing to do with his death.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note Upon further reading I redact this merger   Kadzi   (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hand In Pocket -- Not

Current content: "Chauvin is seen on video applying pressure with his knee to Floyd's neck while his hand is in his pocket"

Chauvin's left hand is wearing a black glove, and his pants are also black. It may appear to many that his hand is in a pocket. But, on close watching of the entire raw video from bystander smartphone (in the first few seconds, for example)[Video], it is clear to me that Chauvin's left hand is in a fist and resting on his upper thigh. I have heard several commentaries that cite the hand in pocket while lamenting an apparent casual demeanor of this officer.

This inaccuracy should be corrected. Clutterslave (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have added this fact to the article, with a citation to the video. WWGB (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Add Chauvin maces witness (on video)

Since links to FB video are now added in article, can we add the macing incident to Arrest and Death/Timeline ? At 4:32 in video, "Chauvin grabs a canister from his belt and sprays towards a witness approaching Floyd, and another witness says 'He just got maced'. Chauvin later returns canister to belt.(at 4:55) Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The link in question is to the primary source without commentary and accompanies the text talking about the primary source being created. What you want is original research, i.e. using the same primary source to add a fact ("witness got maced by Chauvin") which the source does not support (you cannot actually see that). As such, we need a reliable secondary source that actually says so. Regards SoWhy 14:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Test Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

But the source supports these facts. The actions are audible and visible: Chauvin unclips canister from belt, moves hand towards sidewalk, audio sound of spraying noise commences, Chauvin continues to hold canister while kneeing Floyd's neck, then puts canister back on belt. Why would a secondary source be necessary? Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If so then why have no RS noticed and commented on it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Very good question. I wonder about it as well. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that ends this, as that is virtually an admission this is just your interpretation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe... the macing incident can be interpreted by legal professionals as evidence of an intent to kill, and creates a possible liability issue for a published secondary source... Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not an admission to an interpretation. Sorry. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

See "At one point Chauvin reached for his mace to threaten the bystanders while continuing to kneel on the man."[76] QuackGuru (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that is an RS, certainly not for a wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unicorn Riot is definitely not an RS —valereee (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

See "Chauvin keeps his knee pressed into Floyd’s neck and Floyd stops talking. About four minutes into the video, Floyd becomes unresponsive. Bystanders approach Chauvin and the officer draws something, causing one of the people off-camera to say, “He’s got mace.”"[77] QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be barley enough to say "and one person said he had drawn a mace can", in no way does it support "Chauvin maces witness" or even" Chauvin drew a maces can".Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I made this change. There could be more sources that discuss it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I will not revert it, even thought I said it is barely enough to pass muster (see wp:unue). I would suggest finding a few more sources before someone else does.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Add Chavin drags Floyd's body (on video)

Since the FB video is sourced, can we add the incident where police drag Floyd's body? "Chauvin and another officer drag Floyd's unresponsive body (at 7:56) across the pavement and put him on a board near EMT personnel." Then the EMT lifts the board onto the stretcher. A witness says, "They just dragged him" (at 8:00) while another witness says later to Chavin, "You could have at least lifted him off the ground" (at 9:02). BTW, these time stamps are from the YouTube posted video, since our archived video requires a sign-in on FB (is FB a conflict for archived sources?) Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. All I can see in the video is them trying to lift Floyd on the stretcher but needing two attempts to do so. Dragging imho implies deliberately pulling someone over the ground. In the end, it's not really relevant, none of the secondary sources cover this as "dragging", so we would be left again with choosing our own narrative based on the primary source, which is not allowed per WP:OR (see section above as well). Regards SoWhy 14:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The source does support it : you can see Chauvin grab a canister from his belt, move his arm, and the audio track has a definitive spraying sound. Then you see Chauvin continuing to hold the canister in his gloved hand while not moving his knee from Floyd's neck. Then you can see the canister in Chauvin's hand being returned to his belt. All visible and audible. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, that is your interpretation of the source, please read wp:v and wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(The last reply was to another talk topic that mysteriously was sent here, please disregard. Tech problems) So, I examined the video closely, stopped and re-reviewed the information several times. The dragging of Floyd is on the video, confirmed by audio comments. Look again more closely. The issue is the text saying EMT lifts Floyd's body onto a stretcher is not completely accurate, since it omits the dragging and the board before the stretcher. They are clearly included in the video. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Also read wp:rs, you are not one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You do and I don't and that is precisely the reason why WP:PRIMARY says Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you've been directed to the guideline/policy explanations at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Original research multiple times by multiple experienced editors; have you read those pages? —valereee (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Add in the Red Summer under See Also 45.48.146.151 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please explain why this is relevant. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit "misinformation targeting Chauvin" section

The article is so much better than before. But, there's an odd defense of Chauvin for 27May which is also inconsistent with the section entitled, Aftermath. Consistency would dictate mention of Chauvin's arrest, "On May 29, Chauvin was arrested." Then fold into same paragraph the fleeing of Chauvin's accomplices using the same date. In the next section, County Charges, details of Chauvin's arrest can still be provided. Additionally, mention of misinformation about Chauvin should be balanced by misinformation about Floyd. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - Pasdecomplot, please use this template as directed, i.e. change X to Y. However, in your case I suggest you contribute to other parts of Wikipedia and wait until you meet the criteria to be autoconfirmed. Then, you can make these changes yourself (within Wikipedia's policies ofc). Ed6767 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What "misinformation" do we have (or is there) about Floyd?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, there's a number (I think the BBC did a good article), but nothing that I can tell as false is in the article currently. Ed6767 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Care to link?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767 There's an "add z to x" in the suggestion: "...the section entitled, Aftermath. Consistency would dictate mention of Chauvin's arrest, "On May 29, Chauvin was arrested." Then fold into same paragraph the fleeing of Chauvin's accomplices using the same date." I appreciate your response. The details in the article are very important. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you are misinterpreting the directions. "Change X to Y" means you quote the sentence or paragraph here, then you rewrite it with the change made exactly the way you want it made. It means YOU do the work. What you're doing is asking people to read your mind. —valereee (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Typo/Broken link under Reactions -> Political -> Federal in the first paragraph. The Insurrection Act of 1807 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807) is written as "Insurrection Act of 1847". Please change to link to the correct page and display the correct year. 222.166.230.144 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done —valereee (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent death template more appropriate

Hey, Would the recent death template be more appropriate than current related template?

Smithr32 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2020

Killing of George Floyd → Murder of George Floyd – With the autopsy report and murder charges, the article should now move. The move aligns with other articles, even articles where there isn't a conviction yet. For example, see Murder of Seth Rich. 17:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Casprings (talk)

• Oppose for now - While I do agree with the reasoning behind this, it feels too early to be opening another move request after the last one was just closed with consensus to move to the current title. --letcreate123 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• That really isn't a policy rationale to oppose. If it is logical to do this move, it is logical.Casprings (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME, there is no conviction of murder yet. I agree that there are articles that violate this policy. Murder of Tessa Majors, is one of them. I have always said that the article title shouldn't contain "murder" until there is conviction. I have requested move there by the way.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - This page has literally just been moved. There's no point in moving it again. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 18:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Clear WP:BLPCRIME violation. — Goszei (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)