Talk:George Floyd/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contradicting and counterfactual information

There have been two autopsies performed, both concluding that George Floyd died of asphyxiation. Why is wikipedia perpetuating the right wing conspiracy theory that he died of Fentanyl intoxication? I get that this is the defense Chauvin's lawyer is going with, but having it here is not neutral. Wikipedia should list the charges now, and the verdict once the case is closed. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Because we report what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just because it's said by a reliable source, doesn't mean it should be included. I spent months using this very argument to convince contributors to put the references to Gina Carano spreading far right conspiracy theories back in the controversy section of her article and got rejected because apparently they're not notable enough, despite being reported on by multiple reliable sources. Now I'm being told that Chauvin's lawyer invoking ridiculous and debunked alt right conspiracy theories in defense of his client, is somehow notable? What the lawyer says is not relevant. His job is to defend the client. What will be relevant is the verdict. At least there should be some clarification that the intoxication defense is not supported by established objective facts. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What they do on other articles has no impact here unless they are comparable. Death is not the same as talking crap on Twitter.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No, but how much importance contributors give to reliable sources seems to be very inconsistent on the site. The lawyer's defense of the client shouldn't be given the same weight as the actual evidence against said client, even if they were covered by reliable sources. Especially if the lawyer's defense is based on conspiracy theories. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This was being discussed almost as soon as the reports were released.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussions I've seen in the archived page seem to be about some contributors trying to push the conspiracy theory on wikipedia and put undue weight on the drugs found in Floyd's system. I'm talking about something completely different, namely, that the lawyer is trying to use the same nonsense in his defense of Chauvin. Some lawyers use straight up lunacy to get their clients aquitted, like the "militia" defense in the Rittenhouse case. It was decided there that the defense is complte nonsense and should not be included. This is no different. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant, it is not "just his defenses case", and in fact, this makes it more (not less) imperative we include it, as it is now a case that is has been said at his trial. We have to put both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Per SS above. Because there has been significant coverage over the mechanism of his death we are obliged to report the principle information that is most pertinent. This is not intended to lead credence or weight of a given opinion towards the validity of the argument. If you have some concern over the wording that you think is presented in a non-neutral way, or doesn't summarise the sources correctly, let us know. Koncorde (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

My concern is the undue weight given to a specific narrative that is being pushed by the alt right. At the very least the following sentences are redundant, unnecessary and don't contribute anything to the article besides pushing a very specific, and highly dubious position: For this reason, according to the Associated Press, legal experts say the case will not be a simple one. One such expert made the statement that, "Although he had him pinned under his knee and he's yelling 'I can't breathe! I can't breathe!' there's an argument that (Chauvin) wasn't exerting pressure and his inability to breathe was due to the drugs in his system or something to that effect, or his anxiety". The first sentence is a convoluted mess that doesn't actually say anything meaningful and the second is just a repeat of what the lawyer is saying. And don't get me started on the weasel words. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

We have to give both sides equal weight in a court case, we can't judge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I would have to agree with IP that the commentary by a single expert is speculation about the complexities of the case and seems like a lot of weight in that section to attribute to just one persons thoughts who who us both unnamed, and of no clear significance to the case. I don't agree with the IP that it is an alt-right conspiracy however. There will be genuine legal arguments related to Floyds health as a contributing factor in his death, and as a mitigation of Chauvins culpability - but we are better leaving those to the people actually taking part. Koncorde (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that this bio has too much on the Fentanyl angle when the details are best left to Killing of George Floyd and State v. Chauvin.—Bagumba (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

The full transcript of the conversation that happened on the day https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6985946-George-Floyd-Transcript 103.61.124.45 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail^[✉] 22:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

Remove the word DUMBASS!!!! How disrespectful! I will never use this site again! 2600:1700:4550:9040:DC7D:296D:7535:2CFD (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The vandalism has been fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We can do nothing to prevent vandalism, and it has been undone.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

How he died

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

---

He did not die by a knee on his neck the news lied if you guys would actually read and watch the trials for this you can see the police officers knee was on his back he was already complaining about not being able to breathe before he was even out of the police car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xstsGo5f31s— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenger22 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:or. As well as wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

complaining about not being able to breathe before he was even out of the police car doesn't automatically mean there is 0% chance of him dying from a knee on his neck. starship.paint (exalt) 14:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Coincidence or are we being visited from somewhere? Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, kneeling on someone's back is not exactly conducive to that person's ease of breathing. --Khajidha (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2021 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

A Google Search show George Floyd as 5'11" not 6'7" 100.6.46.87 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Care to link to one source saying this, not a google search?Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be thinking of George Floyd (American football), who is 5'11" tall. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021 (2)

change: "one of four police officers who arrived on the scene, knelt on Floyd's neck"

to: "one of four police officers who arrived on the scene, knelt on Floyd's back"

this change will accurately reflect the circumstances that occurred the day of Floyds death as noted by the prosecution of Chauvin. Cowzzaol (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Rape?

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

---

So I have heard recently that George Floyd did commit a rape, and was wondering if this has any factual evidence. Aiden LaBonne (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There are no sources to say that, his arrests in article don't mention anything indicating this. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:31, 13 April 2021 (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.

Killed

Also where it said he was killed should be replaced with where he died as it's more factually correct to use died. TuLegitOne (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add new requests to old ones, start a new section.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As a convenience, I've moved this from #Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021 above.—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Refer to Talk:Killing of George Floyd/FAQ#Q4.—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Floyd had genetical desease affecting beta chain of hemoglobin

This is just wow. This is from today's court procedings. As I understood that is Beta thalassemia minor. 2A00:1370:812D:178D:AD6F:974E:82FD:EEB6 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he has sickle cell trait not the disease and this has been known since the autopsy. Koncorde (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

Change verbiage “killed” to “died” during police arrest. The trial has not concluded, yet alone a conviction for murder (killing). 76.175.205.0 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see all the other times this has been asked.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Also please see FAQ at the top in regards to killing vs death WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

Change "he pointed a pistol at a woman" to "he pointed a pistol to a woman's stomach"

Source: https://www.economist.com/obituary/2020/06/04/george-floyd-was-killed-on-may-25th

CNTL+F "stomach" in the above article to find it. You will find "He held a gun to her stomach and then searched through the rooms and cabinets, looking for money and drugs" SamPikino123 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done SamPikino123 Thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Changed article to say he "held a pistol to a woman's stomach" to match the source. Holding a gun to someone's stomach is different from pointing a gun at someone's stomach. I can point a gun at your stomach from across the room, I can only hold it to your stomach while in proximity.--Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI: This stomach topic last came up at Talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#Robbery_details.—Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021 (2)

There is no info on the fact he broke into a pregnant womans house and beat the crap out of her? Why is that? 2A00:23C6:220D:8F00:BC7C:74B0:E0CD:F145 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is: In 2007, Floyd faced charges for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; according to investigators, he had entered an apartment by impersonating a water department worker and barging in with five other men, then held a pistol to a woman's stomach and searched for items to steal. Floyd was arrested three months later during a traffic stop and victims of the robbery identified him from a photo array. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Cause of death strangulation

George Floyd was murderer by a police officer who knelt on his neck for 9 1/2 minutes causing the flow of oxygen to his brain MrsSharonNorwoodLewis (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Cannot use murder without a conviction.—Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note the trial will soon be over. then we can report what the courts findings said the cause of death was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit out inappropriate obscenities from article

Could someone who has access please edit out the obscenities? My 10 year old niece uses these articles for school but now I have to block Wikipedia from her white list as no longer safe for children to read! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:ff00:8e:c181:172e:81c9:6b5d (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not what they were talking about.--Jorm (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to install a browser add-on that censors words for you. This will allow your child to view adult reading material like the news without worry. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

2603: Thanks for the report! There are no curse words in the article. A vandal had added several, and continued to do so after being reverted, but we are on top of it. Sorry you got told that you should suck it up.--Jorm (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, I hadn't seen that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021 (2)

Cause of death: Murdered Hadleythopple (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No that is the crime, cause of death was being knelt upon and chocked to death.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"George Floyd/" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect George Floyd/. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#George Floyd/ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

Courtny Ross was George Floyd's Girlfriend of 3 years. There are numerous resources, but I'm citing her testimony in the Derrick Chauvin trial. 47.20.142.33 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

'African(-)American'

Please can we move all instances of 'African-American' to 'African American' since it should not be hyphenated whether adjective/noun per MLA, APA, and AP style guidelines.

Sources:

• https://style.mla.org/hyphens-names-of-ethnic-groups/
• https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities
• https://news.jrn.msu.edu/culturalcompetence/2019/04/05/associated-press-changes-styl-on-race/

—Plifal (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't follow MLA, APA, or AP style guides. We have our own. --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Please specify, because this is counter to all recommended action and considered grammatically incorrect.—Plifal (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any style guide that says hyphenate African American. The biggest clue would be our African American article. Koncorde (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, nor is it specified under WIKI:MOS under 'hyphen', suggesting that we go with broader consensus.—Plifal (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We go with the broader consensus here, and as has been pointed out we do not do it here as a matter of course. Maybe raise this at wp:mos.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Will do, broader consensus here suggests de-hyphenating pending judgement though, no?.—Plifal (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't find a specific guideline about "African American", but we do normally hyphenate compound modifiers. "African-American ___________" would be an example of such. --Khajidha (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

And I can find several articles here on WP (African-American English to start with) and in the wider internet with that usage.--Khajidha (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't. Some people do. Some sources do. Some sources do not. Please stop trying to suggest there is a universal standard. Koncorde (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

The page states that he was saying he couldn't breathe when the officer was kneeling on him. According to bodycam footage, he was already stating he couldn't breathe when he was sitting in the police vehicle. 162.216.245.26 (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the police knelt on him knowing that he was having difficulty breathing? Not exactly smart on their part.--Khajidha (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical changes

The W in white is capitalized when referencing Derek Chauvin but none of the B’s referencing Black people are capitalized anywhere in the article. This strikes me as subtle, intentional racism as it is the exact opposite of what the stylebooks of all major news organizations are currently following. This should be corrected throughout the article. Grahamlone (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia not follow AP stylebook by capitalizing the B? Grahamlone (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Grahamlone: There is currently no consensus on Wikipedia. The latest discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Discussion_about_capitalisation_of_Black_(people). Some pages capitalize "White" if "Black" is capitalized, but that was not the case here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Current guidelines on this are that either capitalizing both or capitalizing neither is allowed, but capitalizing only one of them isn't. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Peoples and their languages.--Khajidha (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Request to link this page to the Physical Restraint page, possibly at the first point that "restraint" is mentioned. MayDown (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The page already mentions him being handcuffed. I think the other mentions of "restraint" are the officers using physical force, not physical devices. Not sure if physical restraint would still be relevant to non-objects, or if this would be MOS:OVERLINK.—Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

Change "This article is about the man killed during a police arrest." at top of page to "This article is about the man murdered during a police arrest." Thecarterclan1 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Not even trough appeals yet, but still we treat Mr. Chauvin as guilty before proven innocent, eh? Good ol' Wikipedia. Accuracy or pertinence of information be damned as long as it is verifiable or reaches consensus. Want another example? Check the FAQ on top of this talk page. The part where it is asked why is the fact that Mr. Chauvin is white pertinent to the case of Mr. Floyd? Well because group think says it is pertinent. That's all thee is. I'm so glad Wikipedia is specifically forbidden as a source for academia where I live. Lucatir (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Though you invest non-academia time here. —Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I was actually going to answer this seriously, but then I noticed you are an administrator and if someone like you can't be expected to argue things by their merits instead of trying to go for a low hanging "gotcha" fruit, then no one can. I'm sure your retort sounded clever in your head the very least, but falls apart under the slightest of intellectual scrutiny. Lucatir (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to understand Wikipedia's core policies, but apparently don't agree with them. That's fine. Wikipedia is not for everyone. Are you trying to improve this page? Wikipedia is not compulsory. There are alternative outlets too. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

He has been found guilty, thus he is now guilty.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of any encyclopedia that is a valid source in academia. Encyclopedias may lead you to sources, but they themselves are not things serious scholars ever cite. --Khajidha (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia doesn't use Wikipedia as a source either. —Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• For that matter, why not "the man murdered by a policeman"? EEng 21:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Changing the cause of death to align with autopsy

The cause of death in Floyd profile does not reflect the released autopsy from the court. Should we update this to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.227.70 (talk • contribs)

Care to link to RS reporting this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, pdf HTH. — Ched (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ched, That's a primary source. Jorm (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Well - Since I'm really not interested in editing the article, I'm not going to search further. I wouldn't think finding some MSM source that reprinted it would be difficult. Someone wanted the report - I provided a link to it. Do with it what you will. Happy editing to all. — Ched (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's a fairly in depth NYT piece: [1]. I don't think it, or the autopsy report itself, contradicts anything in the article as far as I can see. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

MAybe you would care to quote were it says "cause of death" as I see a lot of things there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The cause of death was drugs due tue an autopsy 2601:1C2:101:3480:1CB6:AF0D:8C22:3E3C (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 18 April 2021‎

Did it, source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The autopsy caused the death? That's odd. So why isn't the medical examiner being tried for murder? --Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Reportedly, it's happened [2]. EEng 23:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/04/869278494/medical-examiners-autopsy-reveals-george-floyd-had-positive-test-for-coronavirus Editor8778 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

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

---

Information to add to this article: Floyd acted in at least one film, produced the The Habib Show.com (the character was named "Floyd the landlord"). Why isn't this information already in the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, but it might be because it is wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a persistent rumor that's never been reliably sourced. Archiving per WP:BDP.—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe his acting in this film was covered in news sources. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

True(ish) but just because it can be soucred does not really mean its relevant to our article about him. It is (even if true) selacious cosip.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, they do mention his hip hop career in the article but not his adult film actor career? That seems a bit unfair. I don't think it's gossip that he had a brief career in the professional adult film industry. Sex work is like any other work and it should be covered if we're talking about the different jobs that he had. It also helps everything seem more natural and genuine. —Salaman77 (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure one film a career makes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to mention the word career, just the fact that he appeared in a professional film/video. He also didn't release an album proper but had small appearences here and there, yet they call him a hip hop artist in the article. I think if there is an article on him at all it's important to mention all the different aspects of his life that were public, so the article remains truthful. We could mention that he had an appearence as a film actor in a professional adult film/video.Salaman77 (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

He was active in the hip hop scene for at least 5 years, not one gig.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the article only mentions his having worked in a single album made by a group of people. That seems to be their only release where he was partially involved. Also, I don't think how many years he did a particular work is relevant to the question of adding or not adding public information about all the different jobs he had. We're talking about his appearence in a professional video made by a relevant-enough entity in the industry back then. Salaman77 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is relevant, that is what wp:undue is all about "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". As we have only two lines about five years of his life having even one line about one video is giving it too much weight. This is my last word.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think your reading of wp:undue is necessarily accurate nor is it your logic consistent. Being honest, it comes off as a bit biased rather than achieving the desired neutrality. The page wp:undue mentions "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." A simple mention of his appearance in a main role for an adult film project wouldn't really be too detailed by any stretch of the imagination. However, information channels such as Africa Top Success [3], GNADOE Magazine [4], or AFP Factual [5] have dedicated either paragrapahs or entire articles on the matter. Combined with the fact that The Habib Show counts as a relevant-enough entity in the adult film industry and Floyd was involved in a film project with them, I think it warrants at least a mention of that.Salaman77 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We give due weight to different aspects of the coverage of subjects based on how they appear in reliable sources. The fact that Floyd acted in (what appears to be) one pornographic film is, unlike his hip hop/rap work, effectively not covered at all by reliable sources. So we shouldn't mention it either. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Volteer1 and Slatersteven. The policy WP:AVOIDVICTIM is relevant here and worth quoting in full:

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. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. 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.

Participating in the sex-shaming of this murder victim (intentionally or otherwise) would be ghoulish. Generalrelative (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the mention of his appearence in a professionally-produced video by a relevant-enough entity in the industry counts as sex-shaming since being an adult film actor is an actual profession in the modern era. There would be sex-shaming if we were talking about personal sex videos that he did but that's not the case here as The Habib Show is a pretty public entity. There are many articles on people that mention that job just like any other job in a person's life. Sex work is work, and genuine, honest work at that. Salaman77 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The difference here is that George Floyd is primarily known for being the victim of a murder. We exercise special restraint in such cases. If he were independently notable for a career in pornography that would be another matter, but he is not. Generalrelative (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

But he isn't particularly relevant or notable in hip hop either yet they do mention his involvement in the field. I think The Habib Show is a relevant-enough entity in the field to warrant a mention, considering he was involved in one of their film projects. Salaman77 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to go around in circles with you here. The point of WP:AVOIDVICTIM is that Wikipedia is guided by, among other things, a shared interest in basic humanity. If you don't understand why it's better to err on the side of positivity when discussing a murder victim with relatives who are still grieving then I'm not sure what I can say to convince you. And if you don't understand that there is still a tremendous stigma surrounding sex work (especially for hypersexualized groups like Asian-American women and African-American men) then I am probably not the one to educate you and this is probably not the place. In any case, we will observe WP:ONUS here and refrain from including this material until such time as a clear consensus appears for inclusion. And that does not seem likely. Generalrelative (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It was covered by Agence France-Presse, at least: [6], so it's not just a rumour. I don't think it needs to be included though, especially since AFP is the only RS I can find even mentioning it (and in a kind of "fact check of social media" type piece rather than a news article), and they didn't find anything but the one pornographic film, so it's really not very noteworthy. If other sources mentioned it possibly, but they don't, so it has little place in an encyclopaedic summary of the noteworthy aspects of his life. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2021 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

Change his cause of death, he had 11 ng/ml of fentanyl in his blood system and a lethal dosage is around 7 ng 107.185.84.106 (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Which (both autopsies and the courts have said) was not his cause of death.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Both the two autopsies and the court said that the drugs in Floyd system where not a factor in his death. We can mention it in the main article in the autopsy report that there where found traces of fentanyl and meth, but the main cause of death is and will always be Chavin’s knee on Floyd’s neck for a extended period of time. 89.8.149.166 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Felonies and "various minor charges"

When reading the Snopes article I noticed that 3 of the jail terms between 1997 and 2005 were felonies, crimes that are typically seen as more serious crimes. These included the manafacturing of or the delivery of controlled substances as well as theft. Were the felonies objectively relatively minor crimes or should the article be changed? I wouldn't want to make a "bold" change on a controversial topic.Originalcola (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The explanatory note says: "In 1997, at age 23, Floyd was arrested when police caught him delivering less than one gram of cocaine to another person, for which he was sentenced to six months in prison. The following year, Floyd was arrested twice for theft, receiving a sentence of 10 months for one count and 10 days for the other. In 2001, Floyd was arrested and sentenced to 15 days in jail for failing to provide his name, address, or birth date to a police officer. Between 2002 and 2005, he was arrested four more times: twice for drug possession and once for delivering, in each case less than a gram of cocaine, and once for criminal trespassing. He was sentenced to a total of about 30 months in jail for those four crimes." Those definitely sound like minor crimes to me. --Khajidha (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Those are convictions to various crimes, not simply "minor charges." He was convicted, not only charged, is what I mean. Being charged with a crime merely means that the government has formally accused a person of a crime. A person charged with a crime is, by law, innocent. However, being convicted of a crime means that the person has plead guilty or has been found guilty after trial. A person convicted of a crime is, by law, guilty. But since Floyd was sentenced to jail that means he was convicted. Thus, "minor charges" is ultimately misleading since he was indeed convicted. In my view, it should be changed to "misdemeanors" (crimes that require fewer than 12 months of incarceration each). It's not a matter of what "you" consider but what the law ultimately says. --Seguro64 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Seguro64: You were indef blocked from editing George Floyd protests and Killing of George Floyd for disruptively besmirching the man. Maybe consider leaving him alone? Generalrelative (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I'm not sure what that has to do with the inaccuracy and ambiguity problems that @Originalcola is mentioning here. Charges are not the same as convictions. Also, you don't have any right to tell me to go away from a page where I have every right to discuss. Your behaviour is becoming too personal. I provided arguments here which are backed up by the law.Seguro64 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that "Floyd served eight jail terms on various minor charges" is pretty clear as to the fact that he was convicted. I wouldn't stop anyone from changing it to "Floyd served eight jail terms for various minor crimes" or something like that, but it is hardly misleading as written. --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

A person doesn't serve jail time just because he's charged. There has to be a conviction. The language used is euphemistic and inaccurate. Saying "Floyd served eight jail terms on various minor charges" is deceiving because it leaves room for a presumption of innocence by the use of "charges" as opposed to "convictions", when in fact, a verdict was established back then (on each separate misdemeanor). Let's avoid deceiving euphemisms and instead be accurate to law terminology and logic. Accurate propositions could be "Floyd served eight jail terms on account of multiple convictions" or "Floyd was convicted eight times and served a jail term for each misdemeanor." What's important is to remove inaccurate language and logic, like in this case "charges", when in fact they were more than that and it's on record Seguro64 (talk) 21:57 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That is how they are described in the sources. eg. Snopes says According to court records in Harris County, which encompasses Floyd’s hometown of Houston, authorities arrested him on nine separate occasions between 1997 and 2007, mostly on drug and theft charges that resulted in months-long jail sentences and adds Another piece of important context while exploring how, and under what circumstances, police arrested Floyd in the late 1990s and early 2000s when he lived in Cuney Homes: On multiple occasions, police would make sweeps through the complex and end up detaining a large number of men, including Floyd, a neighborhood friend named Tiffany Cofield told the AP. Additionally, Texas has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country, per the Prison Policy Initiative, and several studies show authorities are way more likely to target Black Texans for arrests than white residents. We have to take the full context from the sources in account, which means that if they are skeptical about the seriousness or fairness with which Floyd was treated in those trials, we have to reflect that skepticism. And their wording (which is typical for cases like this) really doesn't support the unusually harsh phrasing you're pushing for. More importantly, as a matter of fact and law, you are actually incorrect when yous state that a person doesn't serve jail time just because he's charged. People serve time in jail when they are awaiting trial (which is included in the figures there); you can end up there simply by being charged. In fact, you can end up there without even being charged. --Aquillion (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Snopes mentions charges in relation to arrests, which is what is needed, meanwhile they implicitly mention a verdict by the obscure wording "that resulted" and a confirmed conviction by "jail sentences". I'm not sure how using conviction or misdemeanor is "unusually harsh phrasing", seriously? You're admitting the language in the article is a euphemism of some sort, then? Interesting. Conviction and misdemeanor are universally applied technicisms in law and they're closer to the technical, non-euphemistic truth that is generally used in these cases. Either way, the language used in the article is not the exact language that was used in Snopes but a watered-down oversimplification of the matter that avoids the conviction aspect. Also, expressed skepticism in the sources that isn't actually proven should be in quotes, since it's not a fact that he was part of those statistics necessarily but a mere speculation. --Seguro64 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Seguro64, Could you elaborate on why you feel it is important that the language be harsh around this?--Jorm (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Snopes is very good at fact-checking and debunking the false. I'm not sure it's all that reliable for presenting the full story that replaces the falsehood. EEng 00:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Jorm Hello, being honest, I don't think there is any "harshness" about stating what happened. Can you explain what you mean by that? Personally, I don't see how being accurate is a negative thing now, especially on a website that is about accuracy and truth. The language currently used is, I think, deceiving and doesn't properly illustrate the circumstances (as explained above). "Misdemeanor" is what the law calls a crime that is served in fewer than 12 months and "conviction" is what it's called when the accused are found guilty of charges or when they plead guilty. In all honesty, there is nothing wrong about this, it's everyday neutral law language and many existing articles dealing with criminal activity make use of the terms when they happen to apply. --Seguro64 (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that Seguro64 has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This comes as a shock to me. Who among us could have seen that coming?--Jorm (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If a single source, Snopes, is the only one itemizing all his arrests, it might be WP:UNDUE to go into such detail. We should summarize in a manner consistent with most sources.—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect this discussion to derail so quickly. I just thought that the fact that he was convicted of multiple felonies that were described as "minor" was misleading, considering that he was convicted possesing and delivering coccaine(at least according to the Khajidha). Those crimes are felonies in the US and felonies are often defined as serious crimes so I assumed that "minor" wasn't the right word, although it appears that the consensus is against me here. Also, the Snopes article didn't itemize his arrests, they showed an image of court records containing all the crimes he was charged and a link to the records. You can see (F) and (M) for felony or misdemeanour. Originalcola (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

By itemize, I meant "to detail", which is possible to do by pictures, not only words. I do agree that "minor" has WP:OR concerns, but my point is whether we should be going into that kind of details with the arrests per WP:UNDUE to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't we just change "various minor charges" to "various misdemeanors and felonies" because that isn't going into too much detail on his crimes and this talk page section is getting really long. Originalcola (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not yet seen a compelling reason why we would want to do that. Khajidha's original response to you really should have been all that needed to be said. Generalrelative (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. It should be changed to something more accurate. I don't think that response is enough. Derek Chauvin's article doesn't just say he was charged. It says he was convicted. Both were convicted for crimes, not simply minor charges. MauriceHardened (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm over the whole "let's make the victim of a horrific murder look like they deserved an extra-judicial street execution" schtick, so no.--Jorm (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That only exists in your biased mind, Jorm. Originalcola has a fair point. MauriceHardened (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, see WP:PA and WP:GF. Secondly, I'm not an American, I'm not promoting any far-right conspiracy or trying to push a political agenda, I'm a neutral party questioning the factual accuracy and neutrality of the claim that a felony like drug possession or delivering drugs is a "minor" crime. I didn't get a chance to respond to Khajida because everyone started arguing about whether "charges" was the right word to use(it is, obviously). I never suggested that he "deserved an extra-judicial street execution", that's obviously not justifiable and sickening. Originalcola (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Great, now drop the stick. Generalrelative (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, buddy. Chavin's article doesn't say he was charged but that he was convicted. Charges doesn't mean anything in itself. You could be charged tomorrow as well but that's not the point. I support your proposition that it should say multiple felonies since it's more exact a description. Not like these ideologues would care, anyway. Their mind is made up. MauriceHardened (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm thinking let's just get rid of the word minor, which unless that's what the preponderance of RS are describing them as is probably editorializing. I'll do that now, see what happens. :) —valereee (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, either way we treat this, it is a fact that George Floyd is no more and cannot defend himself for his prior convictions. Therefore, the right thing to do is to mention that mr. Floyd served time for various minor charges, and adding nor removing nothing 89.8.149.166 (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

The edit request I want is to replace all of the references to it being cops killing George Floyd changed cause that is false this came from news stations which as you know needs drama for views. This information is false so I would like it to be changed to "George Floyd died in the back of the car" This is sby many more trustable sources than news stations trying to create drama. 2603:6080:E300:D3:139:F569:F0AE:46A6 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well the courts say it was.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Given that the police officer was tried and convicted of murder, I don't think it's just the media. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

he was a hip hop artist too

title 178.135.0.111 (talk) sources:

• https://www.npr.org/2020/06/10/874334270/houstons-hip-hop-scene-remembers-george-floyd
• https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/9391100/george-floyd-screwed-up-click-rapper
• https://www.vulture.com/2020/05/george-floyd-houston-hip-hop-dj-screw.html

even google said he was an American hip-hop artist

We say it already.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

122 references down from 124

I merged in a couple dupes but I'm not sure if I found them all, it's hard to eyeball. Anyone possibly have a script we could run to see if the same URL is cited more than once in source? WakandaQT (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Left removal

User:Generalrelative in special:diff/10233051 special:diff/1023305184 you stated it was "not an improvement" to specify which portion of the face was touching the ground.

The face is a big thing and it's basically impossible for all parts of it to contact a flat surface simultaneously, so why is adding this kind of detail a bad thing?

I realize that it's obvious from the photo but I'm trying to keep in mind that this could be helpful for vision-impaired browsers of the encyclopedia. WakandaQT (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@WakandaQT: Thanks for opening up a discussion thread. As a side note, I believe the diff you're looking for is [7]. My objection is twofold.

1) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts (per WP:INDISCRIMINATE). It's not clear to me why the fact that it was the left side of his face adds anything encyclopedic to the article. Perhaps you can explain if it means a lot to you.

2) It's best not to break up a phrase with citations. Best practice is to place citations after punctuation marks (per MOS:CITEPUNCT). So your edit was also "not an improvement" in the sense that it added clutter.

I'm not especially passionate about either of these points wrt this article, but if you wanted to know my rationale for reverting there you go. Generalrelative (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: good catch on the diff, somehow neglected to copy the last 2 numbers, fixed it.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE has four "should not be" bullets, could you explain if "left side" is something you feel falls under one of these?

This isn't exactly something like "Chauvin wore red socks" which has no conceivable importance.

I believe it's valuable to mention that since that's where the autopsy showed the injuries to the face from the contact with the ground.

I would posit that if you feel how I introduced the data was cluttering, that doesn't so much make it "not an improvement" so much as you think the aesthetic loss is worse than the informative gain.

I guess in that sense of "+1 -1 = -0" you could object that it was not a "net improvement", or perhaps even "+1 -2 = -1" that you perceive it to be a "net loss", but I think it's good to acknowledge that I did improve it in at least one aspect by adding reliable information. WakandaQT (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC at George Floyd protests

I have started a discussion at Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#RfC on Status of George Floyd protests regarding the current status of the George Floyd protests. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Please include his criminal record. I would like to see that included in the facts. 142.129.141.230 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

One wonders why this is important to you. Jorm (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please include the specific information you would like added, point-by-point, including – most importantly – reliable sources to back it up. Consensus would be needed for such a thing to be added, as well. TGHL ↗ 🍁 22:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

George Floyd killer

Was his killer "the police", or a Police Officer. I can't believe I am even having to ask this question, but this is how it is worded in the Wikipedia page?

Apparently it needs discussion to be changed.

It was an individual on trial. Not the police.

The police might be being judged due to issues across the USA, but they were not found guilty of his murder.

RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I can see both sides, yes he was killed by one officer, but more than one was present, and it has been argued it was a systematic failure, and not just one bad cop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

RoverTheBendInSussex, it was "a police officer"; the original phrasing was bizarre, and you were completely correct to change it. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been in the lead for some time and considering there are three other officers on trial for his murder, I'd say it's pretty accurate. Chauvin is the only one with a murder conviction so far but was one of 4 people who contributed directly to Floyd's death. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I would be fine with "murdered by police officers" if others are convicted. Elizium23 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is so obvious I find it hard to fathom the discussion. One person has been found to have murdered George, and I can only assume that lawyers for the others present will be only too happy to find prejudicisl assumptions, even here, as grounds to argue their lients can't get a fair trial. The suggestion that there was a police action intending to kill him is not established. There may well have been a systemic or management failure, but that doesn't change the fact that one person has been

found guilty. The rest of the points here are argumentative. Maybe you feel we should play jury and have a vote on the facts. Dreamwoven (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't vote on facts. Jorm (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia also summarizes what reliable sources say and I think you're confusing the wording "by police" to be an indictment of a larger group than it is. BEACHIDICAE🌊 18:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The cited reference says he was killed by Derek Chauvin. Can you find something from the NYT, WAPO, or the networks, for instance, that say he was killed by "the police"? Dreamwoven (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It's literally in half the sources in the article but sure. These are simply the top few that use the exact phrase, but there's literally hundreds of others.

NPR:At least one person was shot Tuesday near the Minneapolis intersection where George Floyd was murdered by police one year ago, an event that set off international protests over racial justice.[8]

Rutgers UniversitySince George Floyd was murdered by police so much has changed[9]

ABC affiliate George Floyd was murdered by police in Minnesota and Floyd's name remains the focal point for police reform and all-encompassing issues like diversity and inclusion.[10]

I'll be more than glad to add more after dinner. BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "murdered by police" with "murdered by the police". The first implies that all who were involved in his death were police officers. The second implies that all police officers were involved in his death. These are very different statements. The first is factually correct. All the people involved in his death were police officers. This is not, however, an indictment of all police officers. Or even all police officers in Minneapolis. --Khajidha (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah so if the press say something in opinion pieces, that overrules the findings of trials. I seem to remember following the murder of Arkadiusz Jóźwik in 2016, media outlets in the UK laid the blame for his murder at the feet of Brexit and potential racism that had unfortunately come about following the event. Only following witness interviews of shopkeepers, members of the public and the murdered individuals friend was it found out that he'd been killed by a group of youths, who had been subject to an argument by the murdered party. Just because a news outlet words something a particular way, it doesn't make it true. It absolutely does not trump the facts or the findings of a trial which was carried out against one police officer, or possibly police officers. Are people seriously suggesting that the police tasted it's officers with murdering BAME members of the public? That is the only suggestion that could be given to leave this description on Floyd's page? In which case what evidence is there of this? None. The description needs to be changed to "police officer" and "police officers" should the occasion pass where more are found guilty of wrongdoing. [11] [12]. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the wording to "murdered by police officers", I simply see no reason to do so as "murdered by police" means exactly the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I find this conversation utterly numbing. We don't know that he was "murdered by police officers" because only one police officer has been convicted of murder. The others may be acquitted or found guilty of lesser charges. If, as I'm told, we rely on reputable sources here, then someone should find several that say he was murdered by police officers. Plural. Murder has a specific meaning. In case not everybody knows this, it means more than 'killed,' for one thing. Maybe it will be established later that more than one person did murder him. Maybe it won't. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia that recognizes law and civil society, and doesn't rely on people just pulling serious criminal convictions out of some part of their anatomy and sticking them on others because they think they deserve it. Sheesh. How long can this go on?Dreamwoven (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"Dindu Nuffin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dindu Nuffin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10#Dindu Nuffin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. J947^{'s public account} 22:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

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

---

he overdosed on fentanyl, he didnt get murdered at all. he himself was a criminal who was breaking the law when police got called o him 2402:800:6379:F660:4EE:2EC3:9BC5:F6F5 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Reject This edit makes 4 statements all of which are false. It has no merit. Further this request does not specify where this text should be inserted. OrewaTel (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (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.

catagories

Does he really belong in all of these?Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Surely not. Were there any significant references to 'Texas'? OrewaTel (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Murder

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

---

Officer Chauvin was convicted of murder and is, of course, appealing that conviction. There seems to be evidence that the jury was biased or intimidated. If the conviction should be overturned, will the wording of this article be changed so as not to state, as matter of seemingly undisputed fact, that Floyd was murdered?

Of course, we go with what RS say. But this is rather jumping the gun, as in fact he has not appealed yet. By the way, he is no longer a police officer.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2021 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021:

George Floyd was a convicted felon who died of a drug overdose while being arrested. 2601:87:4201:BA00:151C:1548:8BF9:2249 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

See FAQ and all the talk page archives about this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

grammatical error

In the quote "I can't breathe" in the first paragraph, the period should be outside of the quotation marks. Insufficient permissions to fix it myself Kr0ndstat (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Standard grammar normally has the punctuation appropriate to a quote inside the quote marks. As an example consider, "Look at that!" called Jane. The exclamation point obviously belongs to 'Look at that' and replacing the period after Jane would change the meaning of this sentence. "Look at that." said Jane!

In this case, I can't breath, is a complete sentence and should be terminated with a period. And that period goes inside the quotes.

Mechanical grammar rules require a comma before the word 'which' as in: As he was dying, he said, "I can't breathe.", which was used as a rallying cry during subsequent protests.

The convention is that any punctuation inside the quotes supersedes punctuation outside. This is a long way of saying that the current wording is correctly punctuated. OrewaTel (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Related discussions re: monuments

Please contribute on ongoing related discussions at Talk:List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"Allegations"

Was the 'allegation' of the fake U.S. bank note ever investigated? And if so, was the deceased ever determined to be in possession of a fake bill?

We include what "reliable sources" say. You should ask 'them'.--Jorm (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2021

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

---

This individual was killed not murdered. Murdered is defined as premeditation to kill. This article is misleading towards readers. Thank you

Msuares (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I second this: strictly speaking we 100% know Floyd was killed, but we can't know 100% whether he was murdered, or not. It is unclear because we can't know if it was premeditated, we don't know if drugs suppressed breathing, etc. I am not saying the police officer did a good job, I am just saying that "killed" is the correct term here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We know that a court determined that Floyd's death, and Chauvin's participation in same, fit the definitions for the charges of second-degree unintentional murder and third-degree murder. With Chauvin's conviction on these charges, we can state that it was murder. Your understanding of the meaning of the word "murder" is not superior to the legal definition used in the actual charges and trial. --Khajidha (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2021 (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.

Irrelevant Information

Sorry to be incendiary but unless the information included in this article was carefully selected to suggest a certain narrative, then what we've determined is relevant to be included is completely arbitrary. Floyd's great-grandfather and hip-hop career are of no use to anybody and should not be in this article. His previous arrests actually do pertain to the article, but some of them - including assaulting a pregnant woman - are nowhere to be found. Am I to believe that every source which reports this is unreliable, or that no one editing this article has heard of it?

I don't normally come to Wikipedia to complain about political bias but I think that when an article goes out of its way to mention that Floyd "mentored young men" and "delivered meals to senior citizens" while pretending he never exhibited violent behavior, things have gotten out of hand. Gasolineman3 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a section on his arrests and crimes. If there are extra items that should be in the article then please add them – suitably cited of course. If you cannot add them yourself then make an edit request. An edit request should detail the precise wording to be added and should include all relevant citations. OrewaTel (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gasolineman3: I second OrewaTel's response. ––FormalDude talk 04:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm more interested in what's included here than what's missing. Why is it important to this article that we know Floyd participated in meals on wheels? Gasolineman3 (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not, by itself, important but within the context of saying, "This man is trying to reform." it is not an unreasonable statement. There are only 4 examples of him being an angel and 9 of him being criminal. I don't think the article is unbalanced. OrewaTel (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Change.org Petition

Hi all! Not sure where to put this, so I'll ask here on the talk page and let the community decide. I was hoping to add a source to the "Change.org Petition" part of the George Floyd article, so that readers of this article could see the link to the primary source of the petition that garnered nearly 20 million signatures (19.7M to be exact!). I tried pasting the link here, but I was not able to! So please google "Justice for George Floyd" petittion... When I try to add it, it is "flagged" because the source is considered generally unreliable I imagine? Also, I am aware that on the wiki we generally like to use secondary sources over primary. However, I feel in this case it makes sense to cite and provide the primary source in addition to the secondary for the sake of completeness and traceability of information for new readers of this article. That said, I leave it to the admin, since I do not have permissions to add this link then even if I wanted to. Thanks! Th78blue (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Not in this article, as it is not really about him. Either in the trial article or the protests article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Brithplace in the lead

The guideline MOS:BIRTHPLACE states: Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability ... @Dreamwoven: You reverted it's removal citing "no reason to omit his place of birth". Can you elaborate on how its notable to the lead, when he moved by age 2. It remains in the "Early life" section, which seems sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree to omit. His POB was irrelevant to his shooting. WWGB (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about his Birthplace, but this article is not about his shooting.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Revent vadlasim

I can't revert the page as it keeps on coming up with a blacklisted source added.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

'Fatal' levels of fentanyl

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

---

An edit was recently made stating that the medical examiner found 'fatal' levels of fentalyn. There were three problems with this. First the citation was from an unreliable source. Second, the supposed source documents had the word fatal in quotes - when does a medical examiner do that in an official document? Third, the source said "he thought there were" whereas the edit said 'he found there were". The edit has been reverted twice by two separate editors. In my book that requires discussion on the Talk page. OrewaTel (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no discussion to be had. You just said it all as to why that isn't going to be included. Jorm (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@OrewaTel: Please provide evidence for your claim that my citation of //www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/new-court-docs-say-george-floyd-had-fatal-level-of-fentanyl-in-his-system/89-ed69d09d-a9ec-481c-90fe-7acd4ead3d04 is "an unreliable source". Deicas (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The late Mr. Floyd had a blood fentanyl level of 11 ng/mL [1] and "the median peripheral blood concentrations have tended to be about 10–20 ng/mL" for fatal fentanyl overdoses [2].

Ref.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200629011808/https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf

[2] "... there are no clearly defined minimum fatal concentration of fentanyl with concentrations contributing or causing death from as low as about 0.2 ng/mL, although the median peripheral blood concentrations have tended to be about 10–20 ng/mL"; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6609322/? Deicas (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

We are not in the job of Original Research so unless you can provide a reliable source that says that any of this is relevant in any way, it's not going in.

Spoiler alert: You aren't going to find one.

Spoiler alert for the previous spoiler alert: It wasn't brought up as a defense in the trial, so if it's clearly not important enough to include there, then it's clearly not important enough to be in a reliable source, so it's not going into the article.

You can drop this stick. It isn't going to happen. Jorm (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm & @OrewaTel: As you are both still claiming that KARE11.com [1] is not a reliable source then I again challenge you to provide the evidence and reasoning for your claims. I remind you that the definition of WP:DE includes the actions of an editor who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits".

Ref.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Floyd&oldid=1055297753#cite_note-64 Deicas (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not yet investigated KARE11.com and currently have no information as to its reliability. The original edit, that I reverted, cited Fox News which is not a reliable encyclopedic source. As well as an unreliable source there were two other pointers that the edit had problems. OrewaTel (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: Above you assert that "We are not in the job of Original Research". Would you please quote that portion of the disputed edit that you believe to be "Original Research" or strike out your "Original Research" claim? Deicas (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed this many times before. The courts found it was murder, not an overdose.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Please note that the issue here is not "The courts found it was murder". The issue under discussion is "The late Mr. Floyd had a blood fentanyl level of 11 ng/mL" and "the median peripheral blood concentrations have tended to be about 10–20 ng/mL" for fatal fentanyl overdoses. Please see citations to that effect above. Deicas (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not going to happen. You need to drop the stick. It is very likely that sanctions will soon be escalated onto you unless you do. Jorm (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: You cannot merely declare "This is not going to happen. You need to drop the stick." YOU reverted the edit. YOU need to provide evidence and reasoning constant with Wikipedia policy for your edit reversion; please provide said evidence and reasoning.

Please note @Jorm that under WP:DE an editor who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is engaged in disruptive editing.

Your "It is very likely that sanctions will soon be escalated onto you unless you do", @Jorm, is or is close to a violation of Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS. I suggest that you strike out that claim. Deicas (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ke Akua pu. Jorm (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Deicas, I agree with Jorm that you need to drop the stick now. You're coming across very poorly because of both the nature of the content you're seeking to add and the way you're speaking to others. And regarding policy, it's actually the person seeking to add disputed content who has the WP:ONUS to build consensus for inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm & @Generalrelative: Your "you need to drop the stick now" is not a legitimate reason for deleting well-sourced text from a Wikipedia article. Claiming "you need to drop the stick now" is just disruptive.

If you believe that information should be deleted from a Wikipedia article then you need to support that claim with a reason(s) consistent with Wikipedia:Editing policy. Deicas (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

And why do we need this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Your "The courts found it was murder, not an overdose" is not a legitimate reason for deleting well-source material on George Floyd's blood fentanyl level. You need to cite a reason(s) consistent with Wikipedia:Editing policy. Deicas (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to give a policy based reason why it needs to be included, as I do not see what this tells us.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "[T]his tells us" that George Floyd died with a potentially fatal blood fentanyl level. My supplied citations prove that assertion. My edit, in dispute, here is consistent with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in an article. See Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia. Deicas (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually verifiability is not a guarantee of inclusion (WP:VNOT), what does this tell us? I know what the words say, but what does this add to our understanding?Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "[W]hat does this tell us?" The disputed edit tells us that at the time of his death George Floyd had a fatal/potentially fatal blood fentanyl level of 11 ng./l. These facts "add to our understanding" because they provide facts casting light on the circumstances of George Floyd's death.

Does that address your "what does this add to our understanding" question, @Slatersteven?

-- Deicas (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No as the courts fond he did not die of it. he died by being choked. We say he has drugs in his system, and that is all we need to say.Slatersteven (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: A jury does not decide the clinical medical question of what fentanyl blood level range constitutes fatal overdoes/potentially fatal overdoes levels. Neither does a jury's decision bear on a decadent's measured blood fentanyl level.

Again, @Slatersteven, "[t]he disputed edit tells us that at the time of his death George Floyd had a fatal/potentially fatal blood fentanyl level of 11 ng./l. These facts 'add to our understanding' because they provide facts casting light on the circumstances of George Floyd's death." Deicas (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: @OrewaTel: you can start a discussion on the reliability of kare11.com here. I'd classify it as unreliable, however I believe that it's worth opening a discussion in the noticeboard. Karl Krafft (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Also @Jorm:, the overdose claim was actually brought up as an argument by the defense in the Chauvin trial. [13] Karl Krafft (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... I said "brought up" when I should have meant "wasn't successful" but the point is the same. Jorm (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: Please note that the trial testimony as to George Floyd's fatal/potentially fatal blood fentanyl level falling to produce a not guilty verdict, for Derek Chauvin, does not meet any Wikipedia policy criteria for deleting the disputed edit.

-- Deicas (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@OrewaTel: Are you still claiming that kare11.com is an unreliable source? Deicas (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@OrewaTel: If you are still disputing the reliability of kare11.com then I remind your of your WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH obligation. If you dispute the reliability of kare11.com, in this matter, then I suggest that you follow @Karl Krafft advice, above, and "open[] a discussion in the [reliable sources] noticeboard".

-- Deicas (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I stated clearly that I have no idea whether kare11.com is reliable and I have been very careful not to express an opinion on this matter. @Deicas please do not put words into my mouth. The edit I reverted used Fox news as a source. Fox News is not a reliable encyclopædic source. OrewaTel (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@OrewaTel: I am unclear as to what your previous reversion of a Fox News citation has to do with the edit under discussion. Above you asserted "First the citation was from an unreliable source". That claim is FALSE or, minimally, totally unsupported. Would you please strike-out, above, all your claims that reference a non-germane, not-referenced Fox News citation. Deicas (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The article already states ... though fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death, which is concise enough already.—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Merely stating ... though fentanyl intoxication ... may have increased the likelihood of death

is materially different from the deleted, well-sourced statement, that George Floyd had a fatal/potentially fatal blood fentanyl level.

-- Deicas (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Deicas, we are done here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2021 (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.

Improper closure of the 'Fatal' levels of fentanyl section

I note that @Drmies has closed the discussion of Talk:George Floyd#'Fatal' levels of fentanyl unilaterally, without discussion or explanation. Such an attempt at terminating the discussion is disruptive for reaching consensus.

-- Deicas (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you define "disruptive" as contrary to your wishes - you've tried to frame the words and actions of every administrator and editor with whom you've interacted over the past week or so in that light. Acroterion (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it had been reached, no one supported your addition, that is called consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing improper here, Deicas: there was no consensus for what you wanted. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reviewing this close as an administrator: Based on the amount of time for which this discussion had been carried out, and the clear absence of consensus for the contested proposed change, the close of the discussion was correct both in timing and in the evaluation of the discussion. This was not an RfC, for which a different time period would have been applicable. BD2412 T 01:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• The consensus was already 7 experienced editors opposed to your suggestion, with zero support for it and with no sign of anything likely to change, and a considerable amount of WP:Bludgeoning, WP:IDHT and WP:TE on your part. The discussion had been open for 12 days. Wikipedia is not required to tolerate endless wastes of the community's time and attention. If you fail to drop the stick this second time (and third, now on Drmies' talkpage), you will likely face a sanction for it. A word to the wise, then: Drop it and move on, and prove to the community that you are here to build an encyclopedia rather than push your personal POVs. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI, the OP has already been indeffed [14]. Nothing to see here. Generalrelative (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Missing information

Please include his history of violence against others, how many times he was jailed, and how much back child support did he owe? 2600:1700:8FC0:2210:C505:B29D:49F4:9F05 (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Floyd's criminal history is already covered in this article. If you have anything new to add, please provide a reliable source to support it. See Q2 in the FAQ at the top of this page. clpo13_(talk) 07:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. You have not provided links to any reliable sources for the chamges you want to add. You need to explain why the relatively minor and irrelevant crimes of an adjudicated murder victim deserve more emphasis in this article. Most people have committed minor crimes. I confess to having driven above the speed limit and having smoked marijuana before decriminalization. So what? Do Floyd's misdeeds deserve murder? The courts said "no". Cullen328 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Color of the skin

Why is the color of the skin of the people involved pointed out through the article if there were no hate crime charges involved? I've seen many other articles like the recent Waukesha car attack where a black man ran over a bunch of white people and color is left out (as it should if there's no source for a hate crime IMO) so why is this pointed out here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:7CB:66F3:D06D:3646 (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Because RS did.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

But it is pointed out constantly in Wikipedia that just because something is RS doesn't mean it has to be included or it's relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:7CB:66F3:D06D:3646 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Also the sources of that information seem to be dead now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:7CB:66F3:D06D:3646 (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Source number 48 goes to dead link and that's the source where is quoted that Chauvin is white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:7CB:66F3:D06D:3646 (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Now its sourced (and a lot of other sources said it as well). It is true we do not have to have it, but wp:consensus was this was relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Where was the consensus reached? can you link the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:7CB:66F3:D06D:3646 (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There is not one, there are about 3 or 4.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit lede/lead

IMO somebody on top of this text might usefully incorporate the second paragraph into the body of this article, which would make it more mobile-friendly. The first and third are the best set-up. Biohgraphical backstory isn't needed up at the front as it is now, I think. ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamwoven (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Dreamwoven, I'm not sure what you're proposing. Are you saying the biographical paragraph doesn't belong in the lead section at all? Why would that make it more mobile friendly? It's a biography article, so normally we'd include biographical details in this section. valereee (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a biography, and not just a rehash of his murder, even when it is unfortunately a main part of his notability.—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Change: "George Perry Floyd Jr. (October 14, 1973 – May 25, 2020) was an African-American man who was murdered by a police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest after a store clerk suspected Floyd may have used a counterfeit $20 bill, on May 25, 2020.[3] Derek Chauvin, one of four police officers who arrived on the scene, knelt on Floyd's neck and back for 9 minutes and 29 seconds.[4] After his murder, protests against police brutality, especially towards black people, quickly spread across the United States and globally. His dying words, "I can't breathe," became a rallying cry.

Change to: "George Perry Floyd Jr. (October 14, 1973 – May 25, 2020) was an African-American man who was murdered by a police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest after a store clerk suspected Floyd may have used a counterfeit $20 bill, on May 25, 2020.[3] Derek Chauvin, one of four police officers who arrived on the scene, knelt on Floyd's neck and back for 9 minutes and 29 seconds while onlookers recorded his dying works, "I can't breathe".[4] After his murder, protests against police brutality, especially towards black people, quickly spread across the United States and globally. His dying words, "I can't breathe," became a rallying cry. " Abracadmbra (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Whilst the request has been closed, I would like to re-open it if we can achieve consensus. The proposed wording is better than the current wording. I also feel that demanding a consensus before being allowed to request an edit is setting the bar too high. We normally make good faith edits without waiting for permission.OrewaTel (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume that the edit request contains a typographical error where it says "his dying works" and the intent is to add "his dying words". If I am correct, then I oppose this proposed change, since that three word phrase "his dying words" already appears in the lead section. Once is OK but twice comes off as hackneyed and clichéd. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use it twice, but I do like the other part of the edit. How about

Derek Chauvin, one of four police officers who arrived on the scene, knelt on Floyd's neck and back for 9 minutes and 29 seconds while onlookers recorded his dying words, "I can't breathe". After his murder, protests against police brutality, especially towards black people, quickly spread across the United States and globally. His dying words became a rallying cry.

valereee (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Generalrelative (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "his dying words" is still repeated.—Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

His last words? valereee (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think mentioning his "words" more than once in the lead is excessive.—Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin, one of four police officers who arrived on the scene, knelt on Floyd's neck and back for 9 minutes and 29 seconds while onlookers recorded the scene. After his murder, protests against police brutality, especially towards black people, quickly spread across the United States and globally. His dying words, "I can't breathe", became a rallying cry. valereee (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

So is the addition of while onlookers recorded the scene the only change? I am OK with that.—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! OrewaTel (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's what it boils down to, yes. valereee (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Appearance in an adult movie

I'm wondering why Floyd's appearance in an adult movie isn't included in the article? Is it a policy issue or is it due to a lack of good secondary sources? By searching for the relevant terms, including his partner in the movie called Kimberly Brinks and his apparent stage name, Big Floyd, I was able to find nothing but scraps. The most compelling of which being this article on a Brazilian website: https://www.polemicaparaiba.com.br/polemicas/18-george-floyd-trabalhou-como-ator-no-porno-segundo-informacoes-de-site-adulto/ The video itself is much easier to find, would that be considered sufficient as a source? --Bahati (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No it certainly would not, per e.g. WP:PSTS. If you're curious you can search the talk page archive for the previous instances in which this was discussed. Suffice it to say that the consensus is against inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

While it is true, there are still no reliable sources to support the fact. See also Talk:George Floyd/Archive 1#George Floyd a film actor. WWGB (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion in music related categories

Does this article really belong in categories for musicians? Yes, he dabbled in hip hop briefly in his life, but he is not notable for that. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit Hatnote ? -- It seems unnecessarily ambiguous

Would it maybe better if the introductory 'about' hatnote would either be changed to:

• ".. a man .." / or
• ".. a U.S. American man .." / or
• ".. an African-American man .." ----- instead of just
  

".. the man .." ?

• Or alternatively: ".. the George Floyd who was.."

---

Reasoning: George Floyd was far from the only person who was ever murdered during a police arrest on this planet...

Mentioning neither his name, nor any other disambiguating specifics, seems peculiarly unbefitting of the WP encyclopedia to me !? --84.106.97.242 (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there another George Floyd that was murdered by police? —Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The hat note is solely there to define the article. By the time you read it, you know that you are reading about George Floyd so all that is needed is to distinguish this George Floyd from the other three people. OrewaTel (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

OK - so by that logic, would you have no objection to replacing "the man" with "a man" - considering: 1). that's more concise; and 2). he's not the only one shot while arrested ? --84.106.97.242 (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

A reader arrives here looking for a George Floyd, and this is "the" one who was murdered.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Porn actor

It has already been debated here whether to add it or not, since there were few reliable sources back then. I understand this, but, since the publication of “His Name Is George Floyd”, we can all agree that there is indeed a reliable reference now. (And, since it is included in Floyd’s biography, there are truly better reasons to believe it should be included in Wikipedia as well.) I quote the passage where it can be read in the book:

‘Man, I feel bad,’ Floyd finally let out.
‘You feel bad about what?’
Floyd pulled his phone out and handed it to Cains.
‘Man, I done this porn,’ he said.
Floyd was feeling a sense of regret over a decision he had made to chase some quick money, and perhaps some measure of fame, by agreeing to appear in an amateur pornographic video. He had been approached by adult filmmakers while working out at the gym one day and had decided to take them up on their offer.”

Robert Samuels and Toluse Olorunnipa, His Name Is George Floyd: One Man’s Life and the Struggle for Racial Justice

ContaAtiva2906 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't in doubt that it happened, there were RS provided in previous discussions, regardless the WP:CONSENSUS was to exclude it. There is ALOT included in his biography as it is a full book, but every detail does not need to be included here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is a biography article. Why exactly an atypical detail about one’s life should not be added here? (I already got what you meant by the consensus.) And it was in fact in doubt that it happened. Better sources were to be provided. I quote:

Administrator note unless it receives widespread mention by reliable sources, I am deeming this addition to be a BLP violation. In fact, I had already revdeleted it from the article earlier today on those grounds. I won’t remove this article talk page section for the simple reason that I predict the matter will be brought up again anyway (so in that sense, to avoid a timesink). But unless the aforementioned conditions are met, further unsourced or poorly-sourced mention of this are prohibited and will be summarily removed henceforth.

Having seen the entire video, in which he introduces himself as Big Floyd from Third Ward, Houston, Texas, I understand your frustration. However, Wikipedia requires that content be supported by reliable independent sources, which we do not have. In the current climate, I doubt that any newspaper or magazine would publish such a counter-positive story. It may appear at a later time but, for now, we do not have the secondary sources to support inclusion.

Since there is now a new source, and a reliable one, and since “the current climate” is over, or at least minimized, I think we should consider again whether to add this information, at least in the article’s infobox. I insist that someone being a porn actor is indeed notable and worthy of being added on Wikipedia, and the mere fact that this information cannot be added with the source that exist now is a sign of prejudice against this profession. ContaAtiva2906 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The "current climate" has never had anything to do with it. If it is a necessary detail to understand why the person is notable, then include it. If it is just trivial information, then it doesn't warrant inclusion. Not every fact about person needs to be in an encyclopedia--only the relevant details. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Folks, being in one video having sex is not the same thing as making a living as a porn actor. The event is a minuscule moment in his life and including it would be WP:UNDUE. MarnetteD|Talk 23:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Murder? + Detail

Nothing but WP:IDHT here. Generalrelative (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow, it's better then when I came back her a while ago, but to start, I don't think there was a lot of evidence that he was murdered. He was certainly a victim of police brutality but not murder. According to the video footage minutes before his death he seemed to be rather high on drugs as he exhibited confusion, Delirium, and over the top defensiveness. In the clip, one of the officers (I believe Chauvin) told Floyd to put his hands on his head. Floyd put his hands on his head in a defensive manner before letting go and seemingly speaking at an enhanced rate like he was on drugs which could slow the breathing in the Human Body. When Chauvin grabbed Floyd the 3 traits he had shown started to go at a more enhanced rate due to the drugs. When Chauvin put his knee on Floyd's neck, Floyd said the memorable sentence "I can't breathe" which probably means the drugs were starting to kick in. Chauvin wasn't helping and probably sped up the time Floyd was going go die and he should've called an ambulance, but is it really necessary to say he was murdered by the cops physically? I don't know but I would like some elaboration to support that claim. Thank you. Signed, (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Considering his killer was convicted of murder, it is safe and accurate to say he was in fact murdered. The rest of your comment is speculative nonsense that's been repeatedly addressed here. Feel free to go through this talk page and it's archives. There are plenty of sources to support the statements that he was in fact murdered, I suggest you take a moment to read them before soapboxing here. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC) The closest complains he has gotten were misconduct complains and it is in no way similar to murder. And that first sentence is counter productive to my argument because he was only convicted after the Death of Floyd. It's like saying the army shouldn't have accepted Hitler's enlistment in World War I because he would be responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews. So saying that he was a convicted murder isn't answering my question. Thank You. Signed, (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC) He was convicted of murder, did you not read the actual article or the article we have on his killer, Derek Chauvin? On March 8, 2021, Chauvin was put on trial for unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter before a jury in the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court. On April 20, he was convicted of the charges. On June 25, he was sentenced to 22+1⁄2 years in prison (minus the 199 days of credit he received for time served), with possibility of supervised release contingent on factors such as good behavior after serving two-thirds of his sentence (the sentence before any deductions of time), or 15 years for this second-degree murder conviction. He was convicted of the murder of George Floyd. Are you trolling or missing the lead of both articles? PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Further your complaint was that he was not a murder victim, yet the article and the law both prove you to be wrong. So, stop gaslighting and soapboxing and find another hobby because it's clear you're not here to actually improve in the article itself when you're denying basic fact as reported by reliable sources, including the court that convicted Chauvin. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC) We seem to have opposing views. You have failed to both convince me and answer my question. You have just sourced yourself and accused me of being a troll with a bad attempt at sassyness. I generally don't look at Wikipedia as a prime source so I have read different articles about this situation from both political and social spectrums. This article also fails to accommodate the fact George Floyd held a gun to a pregnant woman as he robbed her house. They did one good thing by erasing the fact his Death was a result of racism in the categories, but it's fair to say this article is biased. I wouldn't have a problem with that if this platform openly states it's a politically neutral platform. Signed, (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Between your statements in this thread and your previous post on this talk page there is ample of evidence of trolling. There are plenty of places on the internet for you and your ilk to post - this is not one of them. MarnetteD|Talk 21:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC) So statements made by someone who disagrees with you can be considered a troll? Does that mean you can be a troll because I disagrees with you? Nice to know. Signed, (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC) wouldn't have a problem with that if this platform openly states it's a politically neutral platform* I meant *wouldn't have a problem with that if this platform didn't openly states it's a politically neutral platform. Signed, (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Where does it state that wikipedia is politically neutral? You wont find a thing about that here Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. BTW none of your statements have anything to do with neutrality. MarnetteD|Talk 22:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Nor does yours. When I bring up points in my previous posts a couple months ago. You immediately call me a troll just because I don't fit your view. And yeah, Wikipedia does claim to hold neutrality. In this article on Wikipedia, it clearly states; "Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic." Wikipedia constantly states that despite the majority Liberal audience, Wikipedia should strive to have a neutral point of view to add credibility. Signed, (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Race

Why is the policeman who supposedly killed George described as a "white" man, and George himself is described as an "african-american"? That doesn't really seem fair, and also gives off a racist vibe, doesn't it? Shouldn't this be fixed to describe the cop as caucasian, or George as black etc.? Anetherion (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"supposedly killed": He was convicted. —Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Age?

The article states that Floyd was 46 years old at the time of his death. However, if the data is correct, then George would have died at 48 instead of 46. Because October 14 1973 - May 25 2020 equals 48 years old. 2020 - 1973 equals 49, but the dates make it 48 years old. His age of death should be changed to 48 years old. Daniel J. Clark (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

2020 - 1973 = 47. —Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Floyd would have turned 47 on October 14, 2020 but he died in May at age 46. All correct in the infobox. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry. Daniel J. Clark (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

Please include George Floyd's prior criminal records/arrests for full disclosure of his actions 96.19.7.244 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Please see George_Floyd#Adult_life EvergreenFir (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I Can't Breathe Slogan

Introductory paragraph states "I can't breathe" became a rallying cry after George Floyd's death in 2020. This implies that it was not a movement slogan beforehand, when in fact "I can't breathe" had been a Black Lives Matter slogan since 2014, as it was also uttered by Eric Garner, Elijah MCclain and others in the events proceeding their death.  2600:1700:17C9:8090:FB35:3B2C:EFB0:9530 (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be more more clear if it said: His dying words, "I can't breathe," were the same as those of Eric Garner, Elijah McClain and other victims of police violence, and continued to serve as a rallying cry for those protesting his death. 2600:1700:17C9:8090:FB35:3B2C:EFB0:9530 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Eric Garner said, "I can't breathe." whilst he was being killed and that became a rallying cry in the protests that tried to bring his killers to trial. Elijah McClain, however, was not heard to say anything of the sort. Instead he was drugged. These and other cases were (and are) very important but they did not get the World-wide publicity that characterised the George Floyd case. That the slogan "I can't breathe." had been used before should be noted but not in the lead paragraph. OrewaTel (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT?

Is George Floyd notable outside the circumstances surrounding his death (which there is already an article on)? I was tempted to AfD, but after looking at the templates at the top of the talk page, not so much. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 16:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Per ONEEVENT: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Or, he is notable. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm interested in that too. What does "highly significant" mean? George Floyd's death was highly significant in my opinion, but how do we Wikipedians decide such things? editeur24 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

We discuss it and come to WP:CONSENSUS. Valereee (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023

George Perry Floyd Jr. (October 14, 1973 – May 25, 2020) was an African-American man who was murdered by a police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest made after a store clerk suspected Floyd may have used a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill, on May 25, 2020.[3] Derek Chauvin, one of the four police officers who arrived on the scene, knelt on Floyd's neck and back for 9 minutes and 29 seconds which caused a lack of oxygen.[4] After his murder, protests against police brutality, especially towards black people, quickly spread across the United States and globally. His dying words, "I can't breathe", became a rallying slogan.

Change terminology “murdered by a police officer” to “killed during an altercation with a police officer”

Change terminology “murder” to “death” in reference to how he died throughout article.

Source: Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office Autopsy Report.

Report states no life threatening injuries detected. Toxicology report shows methamphetamines and fentanyl in amounts sufficient to kill a full grown man multiple times over. 2600:1702:1D30:A50:F875:36BC:996F:8F0D (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of the page: As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the the official community guidance at WP:KILLINGS Tollens (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Also there was no altercation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrewaTel (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Porn actor

Floyd's personal life did porno for Habib show. Should.be included in personal life, work etc 47.157.177.73 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

See talk page archive, this is not new. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Cause of Death

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

---

A number of edits have stated that the cause of death was murder (or synonyms of murder). This is not the case. The cause of death was Cardiopulmonary arrest. That it was murder is not in question but murder is the way he died not the cause. The article states very clearly that his death was murder. OrewaTel (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The article currently reads: The medical examiner found that Floyd's heart stopped while he was being restrained and that his death was a homicide, caused by 'cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression'... If you have a specific change in mind, please specify the exact wording you want changed, and supply one or more supporting reliable sources for the change. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't want any changes. I was politely asking people not to make certain changes so that we would not have to revert them. OrewaTel (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This is false information. As George Floyd had overdosed on fetynal right before being arrested. As he was put in the cop car, he had already started stating he could not breathe. BEFORE police officer placed his knee on his back shoulder blades. Which is commone for police to use for restrain during an arrest. 2600:8806:910E:F000:9F5:B275:BEFD:4B02 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As always, WP:RS is needed. Also, your statement contradicts all legal sources EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. Fentanyl is an opiate, so an overdose would look like him becoming nonresponsive, not panicked. Further, Chauvin's knee is clearly on his neck. 151.111.138.53 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Very true, he was on fentanyl. He was made innocent because the media only points out that he was a black man killed by a white officer. I am definitely not racist I have a black son and am engaged to a black man. But what is facts is facts he murdered himself by overdosing on drugs. 2600:1006:A124:1B91:6444:D84:D779:6663 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is correct that fentanyl was found in Floyd's blood stream, but incorrect to state that he "overdosed" on fentanyl. An overdose implies the need for treatment (e.g., administration of naltrexone) to counteract risk of an adverse medical outcome. Do sources reference that this was done or that the COD was fentanyl? Insofar as I'm aware, it was concluded with credible citation weight that the COD was cardiac arrest secondary to physical restraint. 2603:7080:AF01:7E74:74D2:ADFE:C103:DD5B (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

He was clearly on drugs committing a crime with an extensive background of violence and crime. Great job police another scum bag off the streets. If only we could do this a couple thousand times a day. 71.17.244.113 (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

your point is that we should state the medical reason of his death and not the legal one? Michael H (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"That it was murder" is most definitely in question. Murder is a legal term where there is an "intent to kill" whether spontaneous or with aforethought. Although manslaughter might be appropriate for one of the policemen and accessory to manslaughter appropriate to the other three, that charge too is clearly marginal in the circumstances where a drug crazed giant of man who, a long-term major criminal engaged in minor criminal activities at the time of arrest, violently resisted arrest literally tossing 3 policemen around during their struggle to restrain him [reference: the video recordings conveyed to the public]. Likely, all convictions will be overturned on appeal due to the excessive presentation of prejudicial video at the trial and testimony by police officials directly contradicting earlier official statements to the public by these officials. 2601:343:201:8C60:70D8:73EA:A1C6:8AF4 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The courts have said otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

At the time of death George Floyd was Covid positive, suffering several medical complaints including hypertension and heart failure. He was under the influence of several strong and illegal substances. 2 separate post-mortems failed to agree on a cause of death, with the state medical examiner listing a cause of death as heart failure. however prosecutors agree that there was no evidence of traumatic asphyxia. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/04/869278494/medical-examiners-autopsy-reveals-george-floyd-had-positive-test-for-coronavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Dave davidson (talk • contribs) 07:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

He was murdered. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes by himself with illegal drug overdose. 2600:1006:A124:1B91:6444:D84:D779:6663 (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Not according to the courts who found he did not commit suicide (which is what killing yourself is) but was murdered by another. So (with that) this is over. Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

This talk page is for discussing how the article can be improved. It is not a general forum to air personal theories and original research. If editors have new facts then they should add them to the article. But unless these facts are cited by a trustworthy reference, they will be removed. Normally we don't edit or remove other editors' contributions to a talk page but inappropriate uncited comments here will be reverted. OrewaTel (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2023 (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.

Criminal record

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

---

George Floyd’s criminal record consisted of several of possession of illegal drugs, including intent to supply, fraud and home invasion - where he held a handgun to the stomach of a pregnant lady Big Dave davidson (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Big Dave davidson If you have independent reliable sources that discuss crimes Mr. Floyd was convicted of, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/NoticeofIntent08282020.pdf Big Dave davidson (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Government documents/websites- including those from Chauvin's defense- are a primary source. We need independent reliable sources that discuss his crimes. Many are already mentioned in this article, "Between 1997 and 2005, Floyd served eight jail terms on various charges, including drug possession, theft, and trespass."; "In 2009, Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal". I'm not clear on what is missing here. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

A government source is independent and reliable Big Dave davidson (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s also relevant that as part of a home invasion he held a firearm against a pregnant woman’s stomach Big Dave davidson (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The government has Mr. Floyd's killer in jail, it is not independent. And it is documents from Derek Chauvin's defense, which had an interest in painting Mr. Floyd as unsavory an individual as possible. Are you here to improve coverage of this article or here to make Mr. Floyd seem as bad a person as possible? If there are things missing about his criminal record, those should be here, but they need to be discussed by independent sources. Again, what exactly is missing from the convictions that are already mentioned? 331dot (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The judicial system should be impartial. Georgie Floyd couldn’t be painted in such unsavoury a man or had he not committed heinous crimes. It adds to the overall picture of the entire event and allows all sides to be taken into account Big Dave davidson (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not discuss "all sides" equally if reliable sources do not. Mr. Floyd was not a saint, but Derek Chauvin shouldn't have turned him into one by murdering him. I again ask, what specific crimes are missing from this article, and what independent sources do you have that discuss them? Not court documents from his murderer's defense. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This was not a court document for the defence, it states offences Floyd was convicted of. The state handled the case poorly, failing to even establish an actual cause of death, so murder is very much debatable Big Dave davidson (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That Mr. Floyd was murdered is not debatable- Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder and related crimes and is so until a court throws it out. You are free to disagree with the conclusion of the jury, but it is not a matter of debate. It is also demonstratably false that an actual cause of death was not determined. It's also on video. I am not here to debate your views about this case. Happy to see any independent sources you present that contain information missing from this article. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so which of the two pathologist’s cause of death would you agree with? To be fair it’s an example of mob justice Big Dave davidson (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what an individual editor agrees with. It's a matter of what most independent, reliable sources say and providing due weight. As far as I can see, the article already mentions two autopsies. Unless you have specific improvements to propose for the page, article talk pages are not a forum for our personal opinions on Floyd. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"A government source is independent and reliable" That statement is laughable at best. Government sources specialize in producing self-serving propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you source any references backing this up? Big Dave davidson (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, you mean you want those specific words to be mentioned in the article? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did the authors leave out the fact that the woman he held a gun to her stomach was pregnant. According to the articles own cited facts this line should read "held a gun to a pregnant womans stomach" Leaving out the pregnancy fact makes it appear as though the writers of the article are intentionally leaving out facts to lessen the impact of Floyds criminal history. 204.80.242.67 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

We already have details of his criminal history, what do you wan t us to change? Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Big Dave davidson Once more, if you have independent reliable sources that discuss crimes Mr. Floyd was convicted of that are not mentioned here already, please offer them. Otherwise, there is nothing more to do here. This isn't the forum to debate the conclusions of the jury or if you feel they are correct or not or the evidence. You may do that on social media, not here. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note Big Dave davidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA whose only posts were to this page and all of them were on Apr 28. This thread could be hatted or archived. If others disagree leaving it as is works too. MarnetteD|Talk 21:01, 25 May 2023 (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.

Damon Fish

Seems to be weird trolling resolved. Nothing to see here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the second paragraph of the preview, I believe Derek Chauvin’s name is misspelled as ‘Damon Fish’. “ Damon Fish was convicted on two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter on April 20, 2021, and on June 25, 2021, was sentenced to 22.5 years in prison.” 24.199.254.186 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Han blev dræbt fordi han var sort😔 83.137.121.206 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Ja desværre, det virker sådan. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) It does? Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Jeg er enig men ... This is not the place for this discussion OrewaTel (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Det er rigtigt. Hatting. Generalrelative (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: FWIW, this was true at the time the OP commented, but was reverted 5 minutes after their comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin, my mistake. I should have checked. Generalrelative (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

Please reconsider the statement "murdered by a police officer" in lieu of the new evidence and another subsequent trial that will develop because of the evidence of purgury and lying on official documents to align with the narrative they needed for a conviction. He did not die from asphyxiation. Lolyfe1966 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Cause of death

As new evidence has come forward. it's clear that the trial was fixed, because the evidence did not fit the narrative needed. Its not only a shame that the man died, but that a movement was built on a lie that has further ripped apart this country. Lolyfe1966 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Also read wp:rs and wp:blp, untilt556t you produce sources backing your claims, there is nothing we can do, so stop. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Autopsy report

I notice in the article George Floyd's death is referred to as a murder and do not see a section showing how his autopsy came back with fatal levels of fentanyl in his system. I am confused why none of this information has been added? 4.20.17.202 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The premise of your question does not appear to be correct. Reliable sources considered so far (in the many previous discussions of this issue) seem to agree that Fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death, which is a much more limited claim, and one that is already present in the article. See Murder of George Floyd#Autopsies for more detailed information. With regard to why refer to it as a murder, that's simple: George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, as determined by a court of law. See the FAQ above. Generalrelative (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The conviction ignored the eggshell skull defense resulting from Floyd illegal meth and cocaine use.--2601:C4:CA00:E0D0:2196:4910:8C5E:5BC2 (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it did not consider it relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(1) The eggshell defense holds that a tortfeasor is liable for the harm caused by their actions even if a "normal" person would not have suffered like harm;

(2) It is a rule of tort law, not criminal law, but the principles of causation still apply. Here, the jury found that Chauvin caused the death of George Floyd. Kablammo (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Chauvin wasn't a saint. I know about actus reus, mens rea, and causation. However, in the Minnesota climate in summer of 2020 (United States racial unrest (2020–present)), shop owners had their property set on fire even without a connection to the case. Any juror who dared to not go with the flow wouldn't have been immune from harm themselves. I can easily see a different venue (Forum shopping) convicting Chauvin of manslaughter as opposed to murder. If you want to see the impact of forum, look back at Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in 2008 in Florida while there was a subsequent prosecution (in violation of double jeopardy) for the same federal crime against him in 2019 in New York City.2601:C4:CA00:E0D0:25B0:2ADC:8D82:F6C0 (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not about Esptine or Florida or New York. What goes on in those articles has no relevance here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The request for a change of venue was the basis for the appeal to SCOTUS. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/us/derek-chauvin-supreme-court-appeal/index.html A different venue might have given more weight to the toxicology report and health history. 2601:C4:CA00:E0D0:25B0:2ADC:8D82:F6C0 (talk)

Which was rejected so this just reenforces the idea this claim is without any legal merits. So everything you have posted remains OR. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Video evidence of the truth of the arrest of George Floyd.

Watch "THE FALL OF MINNEAPOLIS" on YouTube and correct this false information. 216.71.237.96 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I doubt its an reliable source, what false information? Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hm? Sebbers1010292929 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

the autopsy report

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

---

no injuries were found to be on the neck. chauvin's knee could not have been on floyd's neck 74.88.99.109 (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The verdict said otherwise, we go by what the verdict says. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2023 (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.

This article does not reflect the normal Wikipedia standards of accuracy

This article seems very slanted toward one narrative of events in the opening remarks, rather than meeting the standard Wikipedia accuracy benchmark. For example, there is no mention that drugs were not only involved but were likely a contributing cause of death (ref coroners report). Additionally, while the article states Floyd was murdered it does not mention that Floyd was resisting arrest, nor that Chauvin employed a standard restraint technique used by the police department to subdue violent criminals.

Wikipida should be dispassionately present the facts, all the facts. This is well done in covering the overall life of George Floyd. But the opening remarks seem to be opinion based in both the way they are worded and the omition of certain key facts. 162.246.196.228 (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024

This article either needs to be completely and truthfully rewritten or outright deleted as many paragraphs discussing his "adult life" and subsequent murder contain nothing but very obvious bias and countless incorrect uses of words. NH51907646 (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to say what it is, not leave us to guess. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

He died of an overdose, and being too stupid to just being arrested yet another time. Lolyfe1966 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)