Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Fentanyl Changes This Whole "Story"

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.


As is now known from evidence heretofore suppresed, Gorge Floyd had a fatal level of fentanyl in his bloodstream at the time of his death. [1]

Therefore this article needs to change.

First it should be the "Death of George Floyd" and not the "Killing of George Floyd."

Second the fact that Floyd was suffering from a fatal dose of fentanyl at the time of his death needs to be prominently reported.

Third, the full report of the medical examiner should be linked, which documents that there was no evidence of physical strangulation.

There is a good case that this article simply should be taken down because it is hopelessly biased in favor of the assertion that the presumed innocent police officers are guilty, in spite of the key facts that have come to light. The article is clearly an editorial which seeks to try these officers in the court of public opinion. It has no place on Wikipedia.

Please bear in mind that likely innocent men are being tried for murder and the substance of this article is such that the chance of a fair trial is reduced. It would be more appropriate for the article to be taken down. Once the trial is over, if the case is not dismissed before it goes to trial, then at least all of that evidence will presumably have come to light.

JAQUINO (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@JzG: KARE (TV) is a local Minneapolis, Minnesota station affiliated with NBC. i dont think its right to call it unreliable. StayFree76 talk 00:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An assertion this dramatic would need to receive coverage by multiple high quality sources. El_C 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the OP needs to read the FAQ and tone down on the polemics. That is not helping anything. Stay grounded on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please. El_C 00:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El_C i agree with you, i just wanted to bring it up since it was also a reason on the close. the other issues can stand on their own. StayFree76 talk 00:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Direct Links To Court Records Regarding Fentanyl, Absence of Physical Evidence of Strangulation

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.


The medical examiner "said that if Mr Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death." [1]

The medical examiner said "no bruising in neck on any muscles or injuries to structures" and "No bruises on back, or evidence of blunt trauma to back." [2] JAQUINO (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So if he had been found somewhere else, and hadnt been on the ground with people kneeling on him the coroner would conclude an overdose.
And lack of bruising or trauma =/= the same as having your death caused by being knelt on in a manner that even the MPD recognise was unsafe.
Despite which, this is still your personal interpretation and original research. Koncorde (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The KARE story linked to above says:

"If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3," Baker told investigators.

In another new document, Baker said, "That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances."

But then Baker added, "I am not saying this killed him."

Kinda forgot to mention that last part. Lev!vich 03:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We generally rely on WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary. The concern stated at your previous post was whether there was enough sources to satisfy WP:EXCEPTIONAL.—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are multiple secondary sources:

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

The article needs to reflect these important developments. JAQUINO (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fentanyl is already in the article and has been for a long time. Lev!vich 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1 and 2 are primary sources. We don’t use them. Nor do they say fentanyl was the cause of death.
3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are claims by the defendants lawyers. These cannot be trusted.
4 says the death was caused by the police and the examiner could not say fentanyl killed him.
5 is a source we do not use.
7 says this was a homicide.
And as Lev!vich says above, fentanyl is already in the article. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
considering the above, shouldnt it at least be mentioned [with multiple RS] the defense is claiming it was an overdose? if that is their defense strategy or a component thereof, i think it is highly relevant, and should at least be included somewhere around the criminal charges section.StayFree76 talk 19:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we could use the WSJ to say something along the lines of 'Lawyers for Chauvin argued the death was due to a Fentanyl overdose. Lawyers for Floyd's family called the statement "a desperate attempt with charlatan tactics."' —valereee (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
attributed statement from both sides of the trial and multiple rs. seems good to me. StayFree76 talk 22:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@JzG: how is this forum? sources were provided, proper discussion has been had. why do you keep closing discussions for WP:RS? is it because i am part of the discussion? StayFree76 talk 22:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update

When are you going to update the cause of death and charges being dropped? Zs004411339922 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zs004411339922: You can propose the text you want changed, citing the reliable source(s) that you used.—Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Significant conditions in lead, alongside manner of death

To simply call it a homicide is misleading (not untrue), especially with all the police brutality and suffocation talk in the lead for context. Drugs and heart problem are precisely as well-sourced as the part on which some editors would rather focus. Not a NPOV, see revision at 19:59 today for better alternative. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone walks up to another person and socks him in the nose and he dies, and the medical examiner rules it a homicide, it is a homicide and that belongs in the lead. Details like prior conditions (e.g. weak arteries, hemophilia, deviated septum) whose presence may or may not have needed to be present for the death to occur belong in the body. O3000 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing "prior" about these conditions (which don't include examples you inexplicably make up), they contributed to the exact same moment of death, per Baker and agreed by the Army, as sources say. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NYTimes[1]:

Shortly after the family’s autopsy findings were announced, the Hennepin County medical examiner released its own findings, also concluding that the manner of death was homicide. The county attributed the cause of death to “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.”

In other words, Mr. Floyd’s heart stopped beating and his lungs stopped taking in air while he was being restrained by law enforcement. The one-page summary also noted that Mr. Floyd was intoxicated with fentanyl and had recently used methamphetamines.

The criminal complaint said that the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” Mr. Floyd, the complaint said, had underlying health conditions, including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease.

The cause of death is quite clearly stated. It “also noted” he was intoxicated. It does not say this was the cause of death. It goes on to say:

The private autopsy concluded that even without evidence of “traumatic” asphyxia, such as broken bones, the compression caused by the officers still led to Mr. Floyd’s death by depriving his brain of blood and oxygen and his lungs of air.

We are not emphasizing the drugs because RS don’t We do include it in the body with more emphasis than the NYTimes as we say these were "significant factors" instead of "also noted". Perhaps that should be changed. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be "significant conditions", technically. Meaning what it normally does, contributed to death. But if you'd rather obfuscate it further with less clear terms, that's your call. Adamant.pwn and JAQUINO provided many reliable sources that include the conditions (mostly fentanyl intoxication) in the headline and lead, though. Seems pretty emphatic. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now you are accusing me of obfuscation. All I am doing is using RS. Don't do that again. The sources I saw presented were poor, and headlines are poor sources. In a case like this, we need top-tier sources. I don't see where the Hennepin County medical examiner say these contributed. O3000 (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're using RS to justify making these conditions harder to see in the article. If that's not obfuscation, what is? Seems weird that you'd find all the sources that emphasize these facts unreliable ("poor"?), but all sources that don't worth following. Page 14 of the Physician's Handbook on the Medical Certification of Death explains what the term always means in every county. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of those ostensibly bottom-tier sources, three (Fox 9, LA Times, WSJ) are already used seven (7) times, in this case. Where was/is the scrutiny there? Nowhere? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IH, you seem to be wanting to take the interpretation by non-medical experts at RS of medical issues as accurate. Our policies at WP:MEDPOP say we can't do that. Interpretation by non-medical experts, even in reliable sources, is not sufficient for making controversial medical claims. We need to find medical experts saying this. This is a convo we've had multiple times at various GF articles. I feel like a broken record, here. You keep saying significant conditions is Meaning what it normally does, contributed to death. Show me some medical expert saying -- very preferably about this case, but even in general -- "significant conditions means contributed to the death." And don't point me at the handbook again, that's not what it says. —valereee (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say we need to hear from medical experts, but not those in the news or handbook. Where else can I look? Not a rhetorical question! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are five who acknowledge Part II's nature, matter-of-factly, as if it were usually real. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the third time that you have lied about what I have posted. How many strawmen will you post? And by now you should understand that your link is completely irrelevant OR. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not talking to or about you here, hi Val! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I will provide another stellar source. The Washington Post[2]:

Two autopsies of George Floyd differ on exactly what caused his death, but they agree on this much: The 46-year-old African American man was a victim of homicide. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner released a report Monday saying that Floyd died of “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” The report notes that Floyd also suffered from heart disease, fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use, but it does not list those factors in the cause of death.

Again, it was a homicide and it “notes”, as a medical report always should, that he had other medically related problems. But, did not list those factors in the cause of death. There is an effort here to place in the lead a suggestion that he was at fault for his own death when the medical reports say no such thing. This is a WP:BLP and requires great care and excellent sourcing. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to think I want to dispute the immediate cause or manner of death. I don't. Just want the other significant conditions added, for a more complete picture. If readers infer taking fentanyl is a bad health choice, that's their opinion. Can't prevent implying things, shouldn't try. Follow the sources! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the fourth time, it's all in the article. Show me where I have tried to remove it from the article. And, I'm am following the reliable sources. They do not say that drugs were related to the cause of death. This is a BLP. Let us not smear a recently killed person. For all I know, he was a complete ass. But, this is a BLP, and an encyclopedia, and a recent event. Be careful. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is about adding these facts to the lead, from where you tried to and did remove them at 20:01 UTC yesterday. You're hung up on the cause of death. All sources agree these were significant conditions which contributed to death but did NOT result in the immediate cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK this is getting ridiculous, You changed standing text during a discussion and are saying I’m the one that “tried” to remove text that you just added with no consensus. Then you state that I am “hung up” on the cause of death, when we are both discussing a subject. I say again, stop these PAs. This is the fourth. As for your statement that “All sources agree these were significant conditions”, I have provided two of our best sources with 199 Pulitzers between them that said nothing of the kind, and you made no comments about either. If you have a real argument, present it and stop these disruptive edits. O3000 (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You asked me to show you where you tried. You keep bringing up how this isn't related to the cause, after nobody said it was. Not attacking you at all, not smearing Floyd at all, trying to explain. The sources agree what significant conditions Baker noted, the medical experts agree on what that means. Many stories feature these contributors, just like many feature the cause or manner. Just print it, it's fit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you made a false statement. The text is still in the body where it belongs and I made no effort or even suggestion it be removed. I removed your edit because it was during a discussion. And no, I gave two sources with 199 Pulitzers and they don't agree that these were significant conditions -- but you have ignored them. As for third hand notes, they don't belong here, and let's not use weasel words like those in your last sentences. Let us use top reliable secondary sources for negative information about a recently deceased person. who every source says died of a homicide and who's killer is under arrest for second-degree murder. O3000 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WaPo says "significant conditions" in more than one story. That it's not verbatim in the one you picked is nothing. The NYT avoids it entirely, but one outlet's omission means little when the majority include it. So yeah, I was literally wrong about "all sources". Thanks for the correction! I have no idea which words you find weaselly. None were intended that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ME's report didn't say that police restraint simply caused the death but said that death occurred while being restrained. [3] Bob K31416 (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The secondary reliable sources say “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression” was the cause of death and that was a homicide. Please follow our policies and use reliable secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hopefully this FiveThirtyEight article will help clear up the confusion of the dueling autopsies. Atsme Talk 📧 01:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O3000, In the next sentence in your NYT excerpt it says, "In other words, Mr. Floyd’s heart stopped beating and his lungs stopped taking in air while he was being restrained by law enforcement," which says "while". The NYT did not say that the restraint simply caused the death. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It said: that the manner of death was homicide. The county attributed the cause of death to “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” That's about as clear as you can get. OTOH, it gave zero indication that drugs caused the death, as some would like to suggest in a BLP about a recently deceased person in an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You left out the NYT sentence that followed and that I mentioned in my last message and that you presented in a previous message.
that the manner of death was homicide. The county attributed the cause of death to “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” In other words, Mr. Floyd’s heart stopped beating and his lungs stopped taking in air while he was being restrained by law enforcement."
Note "while". The NYT did not say that the restraint simply caused the death. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You continue to refuse to deal with MEDPOP, and you're still trying to do OR and SYNTH. Per MEDPOP, we need a medical expert, not non-medical reporters in non-medical publications, to say "The fentanyl in George Floyd's system likely contributed to his death." Or, we need a medical expert to interpret the GF coroner's report and tell us that "other significant conditions means contributed to the death." Using the CDC paper and other non-related documents to try to put those two pieces of information together is OR and SYNTH. Using the WaPo source violates MEDPOP. I'm sorry, but we're just going around and around in the same circles here, and I don't know why you are so obsessed with adding something NOW when it will likely be resolved at some point. This is not urgent, but you're treating it as if it's a BLP violation or copyvio or something. Some medical expert will do an analysis of this at some point and answer this question, as it's clearly a question many people have. I think this question needs to go on hold until some medical expert puts this information together and is reported doing so in a reliable source. —valereee (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I showed you five experts, generally saying what you asked to see, in a scholarly article cited by 99 others. If no quantity or quality of evidence is going to convince you, Bagumba or O3000 that significant conditions are significant in deaths and mean what they have for decades, fine. We'll summarize them when you're ready. Next month, next April, whenever. See you then! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just so we're clear, the urgency (in my mind, as I thought I conveyed in the OP) was a WP:NPOV violation. Omitting stuff can never violate copyright, but selectively excluding a third of the standard info a medical examiner usually announces about a death/killing can be a BLP problem for the four apparent villains in the story, who have a trial pending regarding the exact same killing we're 66% disclosing (in the scope of officially publicized and reported medical information, anyway). Not pressuring anyone, still waiting patiently, just missed that part of your question earlier. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a drawn out thread. Can you summarize your proposed text changes, including citations and supporting text excerpts? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See revision at 19:59 UTC on September 2, same as I said in the opening, before getting filibustered with baseless attack accusations and off-topic quotes about the manner and cause. You might likely still believe "significant conditions" do not "contribute" to death, so disagree with my wording. I accept your disbelief, for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are becoming less and less civil. O3000 (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, IH, I appreciate your willingness to wait until the rest of us feel WP's requirements have been satisfied. —valereee (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, guys; look what I found:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w9GA1RBQ0o

I await your "But, but, but..." counterargument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.64.219 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anyone clicks the link, avoid the large number of racist comments. This is not a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah the good old "I was just following instructions" defence. "Okay, they are in cuffs, now what?" any idea if the next slide says "keep them pinned to the ground for close to 10 minutes"? And does the preceding slide say "LOL, use this against anyone, anytime, in any situation!". Selective analysis is notnonly Original Research, but also intellectually dishonest. Comeback with a reliable source. Koncorde (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'kay: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-new-filing-derek-chauvins-lawyer-previews-his-defense/2020/08/29/22f1038a-ea28-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.64.219 (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, do you the section two above this discussing what to include from the motions? You are late to the party. Koncorde (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A video. Wow.—Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A youtube video to boot.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What, you're not convinced??? But, but, but... Anon0098 (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether you're convinced or not, the information was found to be credible enough to enter the article. EpicMemeGamer (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are saying YouTube is not an RS, if RS discuss this we can have it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not all YouTube sites are unreliable. Court TV is not a deprecated source. There is no reason to dismiss it. WWGB (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already have it. It was added. Other reliable sources said the same thing. Are you convinced yet? EpicMemeGamer (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Convinced of what? If we have it and I have o removed it I am not challenging the content.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, I'm not going to do this with you. Just try to be more respectful and not use passive-aggressive condescending attacks on your fellow contributor. If they turn out to be right it'll hurt your credibility. And with that I'm going to give you the last word and leave the topic. EpicMemeGamer (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paragraph on the autopsies should be amended to reflect the new information

The article covers Floyd's condition as follows:

"An autopsy report by Hennepin County medical examiner on George Floyd stated that he was positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at the time of his arrest. The report also indicates that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system at the time of his death, although this is not listed as the cause of death.[27] An independent medical autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family stated "evidence is consistent with mechanical asphyxia as the cause of Floyd's death", the death was a homicide, and Floyd had no underlying medical problem that caused or contributed to his death.[28][29]"

Given the fact covered by multiple credible sources and backed by direct evidence cited by those sources, it is clear that the potentially fatal level of fentanyl in the Floyd's bloodstream is a more important fact from the autopsy report than COVID. It is true that fentanyl is not listed as the cause of death, but the medical examiner is now documented to have identified a fatal level of fentanyl in the bloodstream. Further, in the discussion above, (User:Adoring nanny) has summarized the reference to the Fox news reference in a misleading way. In reference to the fatal level of fentanyl in Floyd's bloodstream, the medical examiner said "I'm not saying it killed him." This is not the same as saying the fentanyl did not kill him. Further, the autopsy report as cited by Fox above states that there is no physical evidence of asphyxiation, which is contrary to the plaintiff's expert witness position, and the countervailing information in the Hennepin County medical examiner's report is omitted. Finally the autopsy "commissioned by Floyd's family" is not "independent." That is an assertion of which elevates the opinion of the examiner who did not have access to the physical evidence or the toxicology report at the time the statement was made above the opinion of the Hennepin medical examiner.

In light of this, I offer the following to replace the paragraph above:

An autopsy report by Hennepin County medical examiner on George Floyd stated that, at the time of his arrest, he was suffering from a potentially lethal level of fentanyl in his bloodstream, was positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and that Floyd had methamphetamine in his system, although none of these are listed as the cause of death. In addition, “The autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation.” [1] [2] A medical autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family stated "evidence is consistent with mechanical asphyxia as the cause of Floyd's death", the death was a homicide, and Floyd had no underlying medical problem that caused or contributed to his death.[3] [4]

JAQUINO (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources
The positivity rate for Covid in Minnesota is currently over 70%. (It passed 90% a month ago.) [4] It’s meaningless to say he was one of these. And, there is no indication that he had any life threatening symptoms, if any at all. It is also known that such tests can show positivity with exposure too light to cause disease. I don’t see the use of including in the article that he was exposed to SARS-CoV-2. As for the drugs in his system, the medical reports agree that it is a homicide. Unless you are suggesting that someone forced fentanyl into his system, it’s not relevant. And keep in mind that this is still a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI regarding the positivity rate in your reference [5], the chart "Number of Tests and Percent Positive by Week" indicates about 5%, not 70% or 90%. Note that the bar chart part is for the number of tests (axis on right) and the line chart part is for positivity rate (axis on left). Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, thought that was awfully bad.:) Still don't think inclusion serves any purpose in the article. O3000 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:O3000: Please compare the paragraph that is proposed for correction with the text I offered. The COVID reference is in the article already and for that reason I left it there. Perhaps it is inlcuded because the NPR source felt it important enough to highlight. Otherwise I agree with you on the COVID.The homicide conclusion is featured prominently in the first paragraph of the article. If that were not the case then it would be logical to include that information in the fourth paragraph.
Your other comments conflict with the sources cited. WP:BLP: "We must get the article right." You state: "fentanyl...it's not relevant." However the Hennepin examiner found it to be relevant and discussed the topic extensively and sources NPR and Fox both found it to be relevant. The Hennepin examiner found it relevant that there was no physical evidence of asphyxiation, or at least the sourced inclusion of the fact in examiner's report appears to be the Wikipedia standard of its relevance. The fourth paragraph as it stands suppresses the sourced facts regarding Floyd's condition or the findings of the Hennepin examiner's autopsy, while highlighting the contrary assertions of the second examiner. The article is not right.
JAQUINO (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no objections to updating the info, but we need to clear that the cause of death is homicide. I'll request we say a "potentially lethal" dose though. It was not a fatal dose as he didn't die from it. We don't know if it was a lethal dose for Floyd either, just that it could have been based on LD50s and medical evidence.
Pardon the gory parallel, but if someone swallows cyanide and someone else atrangles that person, its still a homicide. And we dont know if the cyanide was a lethal dose either, just that it likely would have been. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better analogy is a drunk driver. When they autopsy his body and say he had a lethal amount of alcohol in his system that if they found him dead in a ditch they would declare it misadventure, it doesnt stop the cause of death being the impact with a tree. Koncorde (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no new information here. Our article accurately reflects the opinions of the two pathologists, without inserting our own interpretation as is being attempted here. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the lead should be straightforward, and not unduly pick which theories to give weight to in the lead. I've removed autoposy details from the lead before it comes bloated with POV to satisfy NPOV.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potentially lethal level of fentanyl seems to be a significant fact here. Whether or not it was the reason of death, it was a significant factor at least, which was highlighted by dr. Andrew Baker, so the fact of the dose being potentially lethal should be mentioned at least in "autopsies" section, as well as "This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy" from the report. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 15:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do the autopsies say that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not something stated in autopsies, but it's related to autopsies and stated by someone related to them. We already cite some "preliminary opinion" in that section, so I suppose that we as well may include the opinion of Chief Hennepin County Medical Examiner. Feel free to suggest some other section of the article if you find it more appropriate there. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 15:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Baker explicitly said that the fentanyl did not kill him. Lev!vich 16:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you provide a source for it? As far as I can find, Baker only claimed that he is "not saying this killed him". Surely it's not same as "it did not kill him". But as far as I'm concerned, the "not saying this killed him" claim may be mentioned alongside the fact that Floyd's fetanyl dose "is fatal level under normal circumstances". I'm also fine with including it with any counter-arguments, such as dr. Michael Baden rationale that fatal dose may be different for different people. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for providing a source for me. Baker said what killed Floyd: another person. Two other medical examiners also said what killed Floyd: another person. Every medical examiner who conducted an autopsy agrees that Floyd was killed by another person. Not by fentanyl. That's what "homicide" means. Lev!vich 19:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I see your point. I don't (and didn't) suggest to write that Floyd was killed by fentanyl. But still doctor points out that his lungs were affected by fentanyl intoxication ("This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy") and that it was "a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances" and it attracted attention of secondary reliable sources as well, so it should be mentioned in the article somewhere. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 20:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is quite possible that the death is by homicide and that Floyd also died from an overdose of fentanyl. See the attached source which finds a drug dealer gulity of homicide for the death of a woman in Florida. [1] It is not my intention in citing this information to draw a conclusion. Rather I am making the point that the homicide ruling does not imply that the police officers are the murderers or that Floyd did not die from a fentanyal overdose. A fatal overdose and a homicide are not mutually exclusive which is the synthesis of the facts one might infer from the comments by User:Levivich. Once again the potnentially fatal level of fentanyl is documented in the medical examiners report and reported my multiple sources, yet the potentially fatal level of fentanyl remain omitted from the autopsies section. Can we amend the article as follows:

Current:

Other significant conditions were arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use.

Proposed:

Other significant conditions were arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, a potentially fatal level of fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use.

JAQUINO (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • adamant.pwn, you've designed your signature in a way that is making it difficult to figure out how hover over and get context. For the convenience of other editors, it would be kind if you please fix that? —valereee (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Can you please specify, what exactly is wrong with my current signature and what context is difficult to get and why? adamant.pwncontrib/talk 19:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If you sign with four tildes you get the preferred signature tag. JAQUINO (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I do sign with four tildes. It's a custom signature. I use it for maybe a year on other Wikipedia and it never lead to any issues, so I can't understand what is the problem here. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 13:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This was reported as a homicide by the medical examiners. Everyone has other medical factors. I'm sure the 60 dead at the 2017 Las Vegas shooting all had other medical factors. I would assume trained personnel are aware of such. Let us stick with what the medical professionals say killed him. O3000 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Do everyone's other medical factors are mentioned by medical professionals as "contributing to the death" as in this case? In the notes recently made public dr. Baker draws a clear connection between fentanyl intoxication and Floyd's lungs being 2-3x times of normal weight, thus interfering with breathing system. And yet again, nobody suggests to write that it was not a homicide, just to provide some important details to the case. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 03:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @O3000: We are trying to be objective here. As I have stated, this article seeks to render a verdict, which is a serious matter, given that the trial has not taken place. Regardless of your opinion, there is good reason to believe that a not guilty verdict may be returned and may be correct. The coroner's report also states: "Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process. Such decisions are outside the scope of the Medical Examiner’s role or authority." You are drawing a conclusion that the medical examiner has specifcally disavowed.JAQUINO (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • What verdict does it render? What criminal charge do we say is true?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Sorry, but what conclusion have I drawn? Where have I said anything about guilt? How am I trying to usurp anything? This was determined to be a homicide by medical examiners, death at the hands of another. That's all I have said and what the article should say until we have a judicial finding. Incidentally, 94% of Covid deaths list contributing factors. That does not mean that only 6% of deaths were Covid deaths. O3000 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • That as well does not mean contributing factors should be omitted or neglected. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 13:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The contributing factors are not omitted. They're already in the article, and have been for months, which is why this discussion is a waste of time. Lev!vich 15:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Notes where dr. Baker states that fentanyl dose was close to lethal and that it heavily affected Floyd's lungs were only made public recently. Stating that the dose is lethal would maybe constitute original synthesis earlier, but now it's directly backed by reliable sources related to autopsies, so I don't get why providing this context in the article is opposed. Some people here said that the cause of the death was ruled homicide, but suggested info doesn't challenge this rule. Another important point is that RS seem to highlight fentanyl intoxication as the most important contributing factor while our article only mentions it as if the degree of its contribution to the death is completely unknown and may be, for example, the same as recent methamphetamine use (which was ruled to be less significant). adamant.pwncontrib/talk 15:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              No, that's not true. It wasn't Dr. Baker's notes that were made public recently. RS do not highlight fentanyl intoxication as the most important contributing factor. In fact, nobody has ranked the contributing factors in order of importance; it would be impossible to do so. Lev!vich 16:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Those are notes of the state attorney's meeting with Dr. Baker. It's his words regarding autopsy noted there, unless we assume that state attorneys falsified them. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 17:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you read is a press report about a court filing that referenced an affidavit that referenced someone's handwritten notes of what Baker said at a meeting. Lev!vich 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • I'm reading notes submitted by County Attorney Amy Sweasy from her and Assistan County Attorney Patrick Lofton's meeting with Dr. Baker. It's primary source and it's not hand-written, there are as well secondary sources writing about this notes. Dr. Baker's handwritten witness contact form also states that if Floyd "were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes [existed], this would be acceptable to call [his death] an OD [overdose]". So, I don't understand the tendency to disregard the fact that it was actually a "pretty high" (words of Dr. Baker again) dose, not just arbitrary intoxication. There are also some estimates on the importance of these contributing factors in notes, like methamphetamine dose is called "very near the low end" while fentanyl is called "pretty high". adamant.pwncontrib/talk 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t get your point. In other words, if he died of a fentanyl OD, then he would have died of a fentanyl OD. But, he didn’t. He died as the result of a homicide according to what the medical examiners say. So, that’s what we say. We do mention the fentanyl. But, you seem to want to stress it to the point of suggesting the medical examiners were wrong to call it a homicide. O3000 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When a person is intoxicated on fentanyl, it simply makes homicide through normally non-fatal subdual and restraint more likely. It's a contributing factor to his death. It did not cause the subdual and restraint that another human caused, that's all. The police and the drug are both deadly, in tandem. Acknowledging one does not diminish the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do Acknowledge both. O3000 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One far more slightly than the other, as if it should be overlooked. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are just following the lead of RS. One is the cause, the other is one of other mitigating factors. O3000 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aggravating, not mitigating, in lawspeak. Contributing in medspeak. RS cover these as "significant" extensively, you're just ignoring this. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would people stop saying we are ignoring this. It is in the body. And the top sources, not some TV station no one has heard of, do not emphasize these factors. We are following the lead of reliable sources. In a BLP, we must use good sources for such. No RS has stated that he would have lived if he did not have drugs in his system or medical conditions. O3000 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said you're ignoring this. You concentrate on parts of sources which want to frame this as you do. I admit you and others have allowed the fentanyl finding to be buried in the body, in passing. It's significant enough for more, per exact same sources used to emphasize the rest. But whatever, have fun! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's simply false. WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, don't imply I'm "people" blaming "us". I said what I did, based on what I see. If you really aren't ignoring the parts you want de-emphasized, I'm sorry for misjudging. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is also the point I find valid, although I was reluctant to state it, as it attributes to common sense rather than reliable sources or Wikipedia guidelines and policies. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 19:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to line up the article with details mentioned in reliable sources, that is to stress it to the point Dr. Baker himself has stressed it according to the notes. It will as well be fine with me if we directly cite the notes in this part, unless you think that Dr. Baker himself suggests he was wrong to call it a homicide. I disagree that it would contradict homicide rule, I think that it will shed further light on its circumstances instead. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 18:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...but you're linking to primary sources. Notes recording a verbal conversation is about as primary as a source can get. Look instead at the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post... anyone like that... what do they say about fentanyl? Our article should align with those top-quality RSes, not with court filings. Lev!vich 18:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense. Let's take a look on secondary sources. As I see, notes were mentioned by WTOL, KMSP and Pioneer Press. Also there are dozens of explicitly "conservative" sources writing on the matter, but I assume they're not welcome here, so I don't bother including them. Most of sources you mentioned did not cover notes at all yet. Please let me know what you think of these. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 19:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think they're not the best sources available. How many Pulitzer Prizes have those three organizations won, collectively? Compare to the three I named above. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And I would throw BBC and NYT aside in favor of a book published by a university press, or an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, if those were available. Someday I think they will be, and when that day comes, we should replace all the news media sources with academic sources. For today, I think we should stick with the best available sources, which are highly-reputable international news media, the kind that have bureaus all over the world, whose people have won a bunch of Pulitzers over the years, who have large editorial departments and employ fact checkers, and a reputation for correcting errors. BBC, London Times, NYT, WaPo, AP, Reuters, UPI, AFP, CBC... there are more, but those kinds of the sources. "Best in the world/best in the country"-level. Lev!vich 18:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, here's the article from NY Times saying that "According to prosecutors' notes filed into evidence, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker told prosecutors that the level of meth in Floyd's system was low, but that the level of fentanyl was high. Had Floyd been found alone with no other contributing factors, Baker said he could conclude Floyd overdosed, according to the notes". Can we add it to the article now? adamant.pwncontrib/talk 00:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if pigs had wings they would fly. We don't engage in hypotheticals. The report said it was a homicide. O3000 (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was asked to provide a top-quality secondary source for the statement. I've provided NY Times, which was explicitly mentioned as an example of such. I really see no point in further discussing "the report said it was a homicide" thing. I already said several times that I don't suggest to include something which contradicts it being homicide. Dr. Baker simply wouldn't say this if it contradicted his own conclusion that it's a homicide. And speaking about what we engage in, I'd say that we engage in the same stuff highly reliable sources engage in, so... If you suggest that his opinion is so unimportant that it shouldn't be mentioned at all, NY Times doesn't agree with you. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 00:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You wish to add text that suggests just that. No medical authority has suggested that he died of drugs. None. A medical examiner MUST include everything, relevant or not. An encyclopedia needn't. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you're implying now is that NY Times suggests just that by writing about it. I believe it's not true, they've included it because they've found it relevant. They could've dropped it just as you suggest, but they didn't. And we really should stick to what reliable sources find relevant, not to our own opinions. After all, medical reports are primary sources and NY Times articles are independent secondary sources and just some moments ago I was called out to stick to the latter. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 01:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems, the same matter is discussed in "Cause of death" section above, so I'd suggest to move there with it. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 22:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @O3000, @Slatersteven: The conclusions are drawn in this article by the specific recitation of facts that favor the conclusion of guilt and the suppression of facts that favor the presumption of innocence. For example the officers called for an ambulance and discussed the need to elevate the call from level 2 to level 3 while Chauvin was restrained. Those reported facts, drawn ver batim from the complete and suppressed body cam video, are omitted from the timeline. When the clearly relevant information that Floyd may be found to have died from overdose based on the medical evidence came to light after the suppression of that evidence for three months, the inclusion of that information was first resisted, and then when omission could not be sustained, the autopsies was removed from the lead whereas when the misleading autopsy summaries were written they were featured in the lead. Now when I ask simply to include in the article the "potentially fatal" description of the level of intoxication you say "let's stick with what the examiner said" when what the examiner actually documented was three times the potentially fatal level of fentanyl. This continued discussion could reaonably be taken a contuing effort to suppress RS information that is relevant because it does not fit the guilty POV. JAQUINO (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, now you're getting into conspiracy theory and WP:OR area. There is zero suggestion by any medical examiner that an OD caused death. The cause of death was listed as a homicide, death by another human. Your suggestion that these other circumstance are evidence of innocence is your (rather odd) opinion. And, I have no idea where you are getting this "suppression of evidence" stuff. Clearly you are pushing a POV not supported by any RS. O3000 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • We draw no conclusion of guilt or innocence, we report what RS say. And again, guilty of what, the Autopsies say he was died as a result of X< that is what we say. The fact the DA claims something else (the DA, not a medical report) is not adequate to overturn medical reports.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Killing_of_George_Floyd#Autopsies should include what both autopsies claimed, not just edit out information someone believes might make people believe a certain thing. Dream Focus 17:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cause of death

The issue of cause of death is obviously central to the case, and Causation (law) is a difficult area, to say the least. I think we should follow WP:WikiVoice on this question; specifically, describe disputes, but not engage in them. There are at least three points of view that should be described: that of the medical examiner (who should come first), that of the family, and that of the defence. I've made a start on that with some recent edits. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We use medical views. The text you added is just a motion from a lawyer. If the defense obtains a statement from an outside medical examination, that would be DUE. Also, the current text is not in WikiVoice and does not engage in any dispute. O3000 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ME did say that the amount of fentanyl in Floyd's system was potentially fatal, but that in his opinion, it was not the cause of death.[6]. Do you agree that would be WP:DUE? Adoring nanny (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with removing the lawyer's opinion. We should not report what a bunch of POV laymen (the defense, the family) claim is the cause of death. What we need is medical conclusions based on actual evidence. We have two such conclusions, they differ somewhat (although both called it homicide), that's what we report. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been following this talk page, and I've found that most of what I wanted to say has been said by someone else. However, I think two subjects have not been addressed adequately: 1) the effects of fentanyl and 2) what the pathologist said about it. So I'm dipping my toes into the water and talking on Wikipedia, something I've never done before. Those of you who are experienced at this, please be patient with me, and I'm open to suggestions.

Fentanyl is a powerful opioid that is about 100 times stronger than morphine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl). The Wikipedia article says, "The most dangerous adverse effect of fentanyl is respiratory depression, or the decreased ability to breathe." Floyd had 11 ng/mL blood concentration, and overdose deaths have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL. (https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf).

These are key facts for this article because Floyd's main problem seemed to be decreased ability to breathe. As has been noted elsewhere in this talk page, in a followup interview Andrew Baker (the medical examiner) indicated that if Floyd's body had been found at home, he would have called it a fentanyl overdose, i.e. Baker zeroed in on the fact that 11 ng/mL is a lot of fentanyl. In my opinion, Floyd's fentanyl intoxication is more important than the fact that he tested positive to SARS-CoV-2 (the autopsy report actually calls it 2019-nCoV), which is currently mentioned in the paragraph about the autopsy.

By the way, I'm amazed that the autopsy report isn't referenced in the article (If I missed it, please tell me where it is referenced). It is by far the most reliable source of information on this issue. I recognize that it is a primary source, which Wikipedia discourages, but the Wikipedia policy on primary sources is "...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) The autopsy report has clearly been reputably published at the Hennepin County website and is the findings of the medical examiner, which, as Adoring Nanny points out, should be the first point of view to present. It is certainly a more reliable source than articles written by news media reporters, which currently are the only references in the paragraph discussing the autopsy.

However, Baker doesn't list fentanyl as the cause of death. Determining a lethal dose of fentanyl (or any opioid) depends on the deceased person's history. People who have been using opioids build up a tolerance for them. If Floyd had been using fentanyl for a long time, he could have tolerated a blood concentration that would have killed the average person. On the other hand, if May 25, 2020 was the first time he took fentanyl, then fentanyl could be the primary cause of death. That's why Baker, when discussing fentanyl, said, "I'm not saying it killed him." Baker would have to know more about Floyd's history of using fentanyl to make a judgment. So far, I haven't seen any discussion of Floyd's history of fentanyl use. Have I missed something?

I propose that the paragraph discussing the autopsy be modified to read as follows:

The medical examiner's final findings were released on June 1 in two documents - a Press Release Report (https://www.minnpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2020-3700_Floyd__George_Perry.pdf) and the official autopsy report. (https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf)[85] The press release classified Floyd's death as a homicide caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained" by officers who had subjected Floyd to "neck compression".[86][87] Other significant conditions were arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use.[83][86] The autopsy report lists Floyd's fentanyl blood concentration as 11 ng/mL, and the "Reference Comments" section of the report states that fatalities from fentanyl have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL. The report also states that on April 3 Floyd had tested positive for 2019-nCoV (another name for COVID-19), but states that positivity to 2019-nCoV can persist for weeks after recovery, and "...the autopsy result most likely reflects asymptomatic but persistent PCR positivity from previous infection." [88][89] Radiochemicals (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i support this. i think its really well written. any "direct" quotes are attributed, it has no fat and no room to misinterpret. though i think the last quoted sentence would be better paraphrased in this case to something like: ...recovery and the autopsy results most likely reflected an asymptomatic ('explain what asymptomatic means here or leave it out as too much detail') previous infection. StayFree76 talk 21:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I wasn't happy with the last sentence either. But Baker's paragraph uses medical jargon, and I was trying to say it exactly the same way as the original source. I have two problems with the existing sentence in the article: 1) the term SARS-CoV-2 is not used in the autopsy report, and 2) the existing sentence seems to imply that the autopsy report doesn't say anything about Floyd's COVID-19, whereas the report explicitly addresses the positive result and dismisses it as not important. How about this revision to the last sentence:
The report also notes that Floyd tested positive for 2019-nCoV (another name for COVID-19) but that that remnants of COVID-19 can persist for weeks after recovery, and Floyd most likely had recovered from the disease.
Thanks, Radiochemicals (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems WP:UNDUE to state the 3 ng/mL bit since that's not only an outlier, but the most extreme known outlier. Consider the difference:
  • "The autopsy report lists Floyd's fentanyl blood concentration as 11 ng/mL, and the "Reference Comments" section of the report states that fatalities from fentanyl have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL."
  • The autopsy report lists Floyd's fentanyl blood concentration as 11 ng/mL, and the "Reference Comments" section of the report states that, on average, 34 ng/mL is the point where loss of consciousness occurs."
Choosing which reference comment to include implies very different things -- the first that the subject's plasma concentration level was nearly four times higher than an amount that has been known to be fatal (so he very well could have died from an overdose), the second that it was only 1/3 the amount required to even lose consciousness (so it is highly unlikely he died from an overdose). I don't think this article should imply either, especially with a primary source as the reference, and would recommend leaving the entire sentence out. Paisarepa (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, it seems what is discussed here correlates with "Paragraph on the autopsies should be amended to reflect the new information" section of this same talk page below. There are some reliable secondary sources which highlight Baker's opinion to back the statement in the article and express it in a proper manner. I'll repeat here the most reliable ones I have found: notes from prosecutors' meeting with Dr. Baker (primary source), articles by WTOL, KMSP and Pioneer Press and, finally, an article by NY Times which expressed Dr. Baker's opinion in the following manner:

According to prosecutors' notes filed into evidence, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker told prosecutors that the level of meth in Floyd's system was low, but that the level of fentanyl was high. Had Floyd been found alone with no other contributing factors, Baker said he could conclude Floyd overdosed, according to the notes

Notes are more verbose with details like "This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. That is fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances" which I think also may contribute to the article, but since it's a primary source and there are many opposses to it, I'd suggest to directly cite how NY Times covered the case, it doesn't go into excessive verbosity but still says that fentanyl level was pretty high, as noted by Dr. Baker. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 22:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Baker is saying "if the facts were different, my findings would have been different" which does not warrant inclusion. Paisarepa (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Baker says not only that (see the quote from notes), but this is the way NY Times have chosen to convey his opinion. Of course, I would prefer to simply say that the level of meth was low and the level of fentanyl was found out to be potentially fatal, which is consistent with prosecutors' notes ("That is fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances"), but I was told to use top-quality secondary RS, such as NY Times instead of filed notes, so here we are. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 23:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you point me to the "That is fatal level of Fentanyl under normal circumstances" quotation? I'm having a hard time finding it and it conflicts with all the drug information I've found. What I see is a note that 3 ng/mL is the lowest dose known to cause death, and that 34 ng/mL is the mean plasma concentration that causes loss of consciousness. Why is the extreme outlier seen as well worth inclusion rather than the equally prominent mean loss of consciousness concentration? And to point out how much of an atypical outlier a 3ng/mL fatality is, the recommended concentration of Fetanyl for anaesthetic use is 10-20 ng/mL ([7]). Paisarepa (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quote is framed in a few sources as "could be" fatal. Because Bakers next sentence is basically says what is fatal for one person isn't necessarily fatal for someone else (not to cite Fox, but here is Fox presenting that info, and also the National Review. Koncorde (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also didn't realise that those words are not a written statement by Baker, but a memo by county Attorney Amy Sweasy. The NR piece gives a little more context. Koncorde (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dr. Baker doesn't say it "next sentence" in prosecutor's notes, but it's mentioned in the other document, the handwritten witness contact form with Dr. Baker. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 01:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, per my second statement about it not being written by Baker. However it is being presented that way in a few sources. Koncorde (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quotation is from attorney's notes: "Fentanyl 11. He said, “that’s pretty high.” This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. That is fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances". I'm sorry if my comments were misleading at that part, but I tried my best to explicitly say what the primary source here is (notes from prosecutors' meeting with Dr. Baker). adamant.pwncontrib/talk 01:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the context, saying that "that is a fatal level" Dr. Baker could have referred not to dose alone, but also to its manifestation ("This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy"), but I can't know for sure what exactly was on his mind when he said it to prosecutors. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 02:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Of course 3 ng/Ml should not be added. Some people go into shock with a trace of peanuts. Aspirin is a major cause of ER visits and can kill. Including an extreme case is extremely misleading. This is a homicide. Let’s not play medical examiner and focus on drugs that were not the cause. O3000 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree on 3 ng/Ml part, "have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL" provides little to zero information on real fatality rates, it's not even median or expected value of fatal level to draw any conclusions on its distribution at all. And there were only primary sources provided so far that mention it, so "it drawed broad attention of many secondary RS" clause is not appropriate here as well. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
at this rate it wont be until after the conclusion of the trials until any relevant information gets updated... the 3 ng/mL was an attributed statement. its not unlike we dont put clear lies in wiki or contradictory information if that information is relevant and the problems are attributed correctly. secondary sources are never always right. but seriously, i have proposed a rewrite that multiple editors thought needed and nothing has come from it yet. this section is somewhat similar, but with all the other WP:TOO MUCH DETAIL its hard to know what to leave out because it will screw the balance and look like a POV push if "details are left out". we cant have it both ways. there must be consistency in this article. either we care about detail enough to where we literally report down to the minute of the events (where the 3 ng/mL statement matches in detail), or we dont. i personally dont like a majority of the article either reading like a PHD thesis or some screwed up screenplay minus the "camera pans to the right" or "cameras fades out to black". StayFree76 talk 22:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paisarepa, thanks for the reference from Europa ([8]). Saying that Floyd's fentanyl concentrations were in the range recommended for anesthetic use (10 to 20 ng/mL) makes the point that the level is dangerously high but not usually fatal. A nurse friend of mine tells me that to administer fentanyl in our state to levels required for anesthesia requires an anesthesiologist or nurse anesthetist, i.e. even though my friend is a registered nurse with 32 years experience, her credentials don't allow her to do something this dangerous. The anesthetist can have no other duties during the procedure, i.e. can't assist the surgeon or do anything else. The anesthetist's job is to administer the drugs and monitor the patient's breathing, pulse, and blood oxygen levels during the procedure. The anesthetist is prepared to administer Nalaxone (which reverses opioid effects), give the patient oxygen, CPR, shock the heart, or insert an endotracheal tube and help the patient breathe. So, yes, anesthetists administer fentanyl to achieve a blood concentration of 11 ng/mL all the time, but do so with careful controls to make sure the patient keeps breathing.
Your post caused me to look for more information on blood concentrations. I found good information in Wikipedia itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl#Detection_in_biological_fluids). I propose to split the sentence on fentanyl into two sentences, as follows:
The autopsy report lists Floyd's fentanyl blood concentration as 11 ng/mL. For comparison, concentrations are expected to be in a range of 0.3–3.0 ng/mL in persons using fentanyl therapeutically, 1–10 ng/mL in intoxicated people and 3–300 ng/mL in victims of acute overdosage.[1][2]
Note: The source lists the concentrations as μg/L, which is identical to ng/mL, and I changed the units to be consistent with the autopsy report. Radiochemicals (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is OR and would be Synth if used in the article. Using wikipedia as a reference for itself is also not the done thing even if the content is based on a reliable source. Koncorde (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two sentences list facts from two different sources and put them side by side. They don't draw any conclusions that aren't in either source. Please read this section in "Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not" [9] The guideline says, "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't." (emphasis added) And the source of the second sentence is the second reference, "Baselt, R. (2017) Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man, 11th edition, Biomedical Publications, Foster City, CA, pp. 883–886." I just happened to find it on Wikipedia. If you have some other issue with those two sentences, please let us know. Thanks, Radiochemicals (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"For comparison" is the novel conclusion unsupported by the source. The source doesn't mention the subject of this article. The only way our article can make a comparison is if reliable sources make the comparison. Remember, what we're doing here is summarizing secondary sources about the topic. We are not here to prove "what really happened", not to give readers "all the facts". We summarize secondary sources and no more. Lev!vich 01:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Levivich. If this was an article discussing acute overdosage then comparing results A with a source table B may a simple observation of fact (although there are other sources available that provide their own brackets of the different levels). However with its usage in this BLP it is drawing a conclusion that Floyd was suffering acute overdosage as he was 11+ with no explanation as to what acute overdosage is or means. That should instead come from a reliable source about the subject at hand - i.e. the coroners report, and / or subsequent coverage by reliable secondary sources. Koncorde (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without mentioning anything about WP:SYNTH since others have chimed in, this would still be WP:UNDUE. Going into detail with regards to Fentanyl when not doing the same for the methamphetamine and caffeine in his system, or other significant conditions, implies that there is something unusual about the Fentanyl intoxication that demands the extra attention. He also had hypertensive heart disease, but likewise it would be undue for us to go into detail about that fact (e.g., by stating that healthy appearing individuals can suffer sudden death due to the disease) due to the implication that doing so would create. The reader of this article would assume that we are giving the heart disease extra attention for a good reason, would fill in the blanks as to what that reason is, and our article would likely be pushing them to a conclusion that is not stated by the source. The primary source states the cause of death and the significant conditions; we should do the same and with no more emphasis or attention to any of them than was given by the primary source. The specific guidelines around using primary sources can be found at WP:PRIMARY. Paisarepa (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to step away from this discussion for now. I was hoping that I would get some more supporters, but it hasn't worked out. However, as a parting shot, let me say that the reason I'm zeroing in on fentanyl is that it is a significant factor that has been downplayed by the media. And since the paragraph in this article about fentanyl relies solely on media sources, Wikipedia is downplaying it as well. Floyd had low doses of methamphetamine, heroin, and THC in his blood stream, but he had a LOT of fentanyl - he was at a level where people sometimes stop breathing who aren't resisting arrest. Andrew Baker, the medical examiner, has said that he would have classified the death as an overdose if they had found Floyd dead at home. I believe Baker would disagree with you that focusing on it is undue weight. But we probably won't hear from Baker until the trials. Oh well - Keep having fun, guys! Radiochemicals (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the reason for that is because, even if it was a lethal level of any given drug in his system - that does not alleviate the brutality of the police. You are asking us to re-focus the balance against something that, in your own words, is being downplayed. It is being downplayed because, per their coverage with the most generous POV, the important factor is that he died waiting for medical attention while four officers kept him restrained on his chest with an unspecified amount of force - while he cried for help. Focusing on Fentanyl, and reframing it as "he would have died anyway" isn't reflecting the coverage of reliable sources. And lets be clear, Baker was saying absent of every other factor if they found a body he would be within his rights to declare it death due to Fentanyl. Which is entirely different to the context of his actual death. Koncorde (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criminal Court proceedings

I think there's useful information here. It's just a matter of putting it in the article in a proper way. The useful info is that a motion was filed with the court. Here's a possible addition to the article which starts a new subsection.

Criminal Court proceedings
On August 29, 2020, attorneys for Derek Chauvin filed a motion for dismissal on the grounds that Floyd died as a result of drug use and preexisting medical conditions. On the same day, prosecutors filed court documents saying that Floyd was vulnerable because he was handcuffed and held down on the ground.[3]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl#Detection_in_biological_fluids
  2. ^ Baselt, R. (2017) Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man, 11th edition, Biomedical Publications, Foster City, CA, pp. 883–886.
  3. ^ Derek Chauvin, former officer accused in George Floyd's death, wants murder charges dismissed

I tried adding it [10] but it was reverted with the suggestion that I discuss it here. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob, that certainly works for me. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also agree. In that context, that amount of detail is fine. However second sentence also feels incomplete. I get what it is trying to say, but it feels like a correlation whereas the paragraph reads like causation (i.e. they filed their document in response to the other) and lacks an explanation of what "vulnerable" means in this context. Is the argument because he was vulnerable something should have been done differently, that this creates culpability? Koncorde (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i don't think we can be so lucky as to get a complete definition of every word that is stated that may be interpreted differently depending. also, when it comes to legal matters, people like to keep things vague so they don't pigeon hole themselves and can change it up as needed later down the road. the same reason why preliminary reports exist. StayFree76 talk 00:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, if you mean well then can you at least read the words and stop going off on unrelated tangents.
  1. . This is a legal submission to court by the Prosecution for a reason, not a vague 5th amendment claim made by you about the police department misleading statement - both unsubstantiated speculation and unrelated forum content, please stop shopping around your personal theories.
  2. . I am not asking for a definition of every word. I am asking for the context that explains what vulnerable means in this proposed statement "prosecutors filed court documents saying that Floyd was vulnerable because he was handcuffed and held down on the ground" to be included. The context is that they are seeking an "upward sentencing departure"[11] as a result of the following: At the same time, prosecutors in the case against Chauvin and three other former Minneapolis police officers said they plan to seek stiff sentences if the men are convicted. They said in court documents that Floyd was vulnerable because he was handcuffed with his chest pressed against the ground and he was treated "with particular cruelty.""Despite Mr. Floyd's pleas that he could not breathe and was going to die, as well as the pleas of eyewitnesses to get off Mr. Floyd and help him, Defendant and his co-defendants continued to restrain Mr. Floyd," the prosecutors wrote. Koncorde (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that the article doesn't give more context about that word. I think it's saying that because he was handcuffed and held to the ground, there was a greater chance of dying if something else went wrong. But that's me, not the source. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we find one that does like I did above? If a statement lacks any context, and we present it in a paragraph we are verging on synth by placing two disparate elements together. It also creates the potential for false balance, where adding information afterwards is challenged because the other viewpoint only has one sentence. Koncorde (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koncorde: are we really going to require a RS explaining what vulnerable means to include it? its a well known word that can vary immensely based on the situation. ill list some, cuz why not? emotionally compromised, robbed while pants down (literally peeing), too drunk (for consent), preexisting health conditions (like aids, then get sick), oh i know.... tons of drugs in system that inhibit breathing while in a position that may also inhibit breathing (handcuffed, knee on neck). i think you are taking this type of stuff overboard. in other discussions you go way off the deep end into WP:too_much_detail on the other you want a RS for the most basic stuff. StayFree76 talk 22:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There already is a reliable source saying what it means in this context which I have already provided above. I am saying that it needs to be included in some fashion in order to make sense of the statement. First Adoring Nanny completely overlooks the fact I quote the necessary context and now you. I am beginning to worry about all of your reading comprehension.
And yes, using a word out of context so that anyone can speculate on what it actually means (per your list of nonsense) is exactly the point behind using RS to ensure we are not creating WP:SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
im just going to state what has already been stated. "we say what the sources say". if they say "vulnerable" then it means whatever they wanted it to mean and having a RS explain what they think it means is no better than letting the reader make their own sense of the word. StayFree76 talk 23:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me: "Can we include the context of why someone is using the word vulnerable. It is not an action but a statement of condition which would suggest they mentioned it for a reason, and that reason is probably the significant factor for inclusion"
You: "Nobody will define what vulnerable means!!!!!!! Blaaargle blaaargle 5th amendment word salad"
Me: "It isnt about defining a word, but about the contextual meaning." Provides source, quotes entire paragraph of why the vulnerable thing is being mentioned i.e. it is part of the prosecutions motion to increase the potential sentencing decision. Bob creates his second version of suggested text below and includes then context. This is added to the article.
Nanny: "No source will explain it"
Me: "But I have already pointed it out and provided the source where it is explained"
You: "Do we really need to define the word meaning. Cue more word salad about the meaning of a word, off topic speculation, and unrelated gibberish."
Me: "But we already have done so, and yes it's critical to known what the motion the prosecution was submitting actually intended when it mentioned vulnerable. See already linked article above."
You: "But we can only say what the RS says" and further reading comprehension fails.
Me: Read. My. Words. The context and meaning is in the source from the Prosecution. I have quoted that context and source above and provided a link. Bob has already updated his suggested content update to include the actual reason the word vulnerable was used, and this has already been added to the article. You are arguing against the thing that has already been done in the way your are protesting is the only way that it can be done which is the way I said it should be done, the way I provided the sources for, the way that it has been done.
Please, stop. Koncorde (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i feel like you dont understand me. my most recent point was not about what to include or not to include, it was a statement of "why is something so basic as the context of the word vulnerable being questioned so much. didnt you go on record saying i like to waste peoples time? you just went to extreme lengths of analysis about a common, well known word... and that is not something i think should happen in general. i dont care about the outcome of discussion as i am merely a small voice among others just voicing my thoughts and staying at the mercy of "the great consensus". StayFree76 talk 23:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have explained why it is important above repeatedly. You are either still not reading, or purposely being obtuse and wasting my time, repeatedly, which is your MO at this point. Please stop. Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a version with a revised second sentence.

Criminal Court proceedings
On August 29, 2020, attorneys for Derek Chauvin filed a motion for dismissal on the grounds that Floyd died as a result of drug use and preexisting medical conditions. On the same day, prosecutors filed court documents asking to increase the possible sentence length above the guidelines, arguing that Floyd was vulnerable while being held down on the ground in handcuffs and treated cruelly.[1][2][3]

Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motions are commonly filed by defense attorneys to dismiss cases on some argument. This is not an article about a trial. Let us see if the motion succeeds and add it in (the incredibly unlikely) case that the judge thinks a lawyer has more medical knowledge than the medical examiners. WP:NODEADLINE O3000 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, there is actually more that could be included if we were to include everything. The actual motion to dimiss appears to be per following: "Defense attorney Eric J. Nelson filed the motion in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court on Friday, claiming prosecutors have failed to show probable cause for charging Derek Chauvin with second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter." by only referencing the drug use we appear to be missing out a good chunk of the arguments made about why it should be dimissed. Koncorde (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely we won't include every such motion. Pretrial motions to dismiss are as common as (fill in your favorite quote). O3000 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but it can help to accurately characterise the positions that are being taken pre-trial. Particularly when those motions are themselves highly controversial, or particularly notable in the case of the prosecution seeking to raise the maximum potential sentence. Koncorde (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is anything slightly unusual about such motions. Motions to dismiss are de rigueur. If not presented, even if they'll obviously fail, the defendant can later declare incompetent counsel. If a motion succeeds that substantially changes the course of the case, we can add it. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said anything about them being unusual. I said controversial or particularly notable (i.e. they are featured in RS and discussed to the extent that they are a significant point of view). The mere act of pleading a particular way, or making a particular argument, can in and of itself be the subject of analysis by reliable secondary sources. That doesn't mean we waffle about it, but it does give it relevance. Koncorde (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not a newspaper. They publish far more detail than we. We are more interested in what will stand the test of time. 19:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)O3000 (talk)
Yes, and? The [equivalent content is included on dozens of articles covering similar topics because it is recognised as relevant, often with less controversial or notable claims / counter claims. Koncorde (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it shouldn't, or the circumstances were different, or it was a summation of many motions. But, we don't discuss two articles at once. I see no relevance to a motion that is always made and nearly always rejected. If it isn't in RS, it can't be used. If it is in RS, it may or may not be used. We don't include every detail. WP:OTHERSTUFF O3000 (talk)
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a universal get-out clause to reject content present in other articles - my argument is not that we should include it because other articles do, but that the argument we don't include it as a matter of policy or practice (be it NOTNEWS, or 10YT) isn't supported by the volume of it out there on wikipedia. "We don't include every detail" is subject to what is pertinent. You might not think any of this is relevant but it clearly can be relevant in other situations, and maybe even this one depending on consensus, and can be reliably sourced. Koncorde (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far there doesn't appear to be anything in the article from Chauvin or his lawyers about his defense. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O3000, Would you care to add the above item (in my 01:23, 31 August 2020 message) to the article yourself? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously not. O3000 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, so far it looks like one editor supports you and three support me. Would you like more editors to weigh in? Bob K31416 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the inclusion of the recent update material. It is concise and keeps the reader up-to-date and informed. WWGB (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the inclusion so long as it better summarises the motion to dismiss, the submission by the prosecution. The current two sentences are okay, but could be better. Koncorde (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also support Bob's version. I think it's better than my own. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not about the trial, So what does this tell us about the killing?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is not about the killing, it tells us about the trial(s). Two facts, for now, but it'll certainly grow. Happens in every killing article with named defendants, nothing weird or wrong here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent reversions of ClueBot archived content

See

SO, Stayfree76, let's DISCUSS your actions here, on the talk page, which you should have done first instead of reverting my & ClueBot III's actions. Shearonink (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To address the issue of double-archiving, I have undone the archiving. This should cause the sections to be archived only once.
However, ClueBot will re-archive the sections if there is no activity! @Stayfree76: If you're concerned the discussions are unresolved, it might be a better idea to "bump" the threads by adding a comment to the bottom, even if it's a placeholder-ish "Any other comments?" type remark—and do it before the time limit for archiving hits. That will change the last date stamp and keep the thread open. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@C.Fred: normally i would. i wasnt actively monitoring what has been going on lately on the talk so i just came in this morning seeing some archives and that is why i reverted them. didnt think it would be a problem saying woah, bot shouldnt have done this. was i wrong to think that way, and if so, what is the standard procedure for recovering a discussion? StayFree76 talk 19:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
also to quickly add. a 7 day timeout is a pretty bad idea on an ongoing current event. StayFree76 talk 19:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was five days. I have boldly increased it to ten. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks. i dont think it was bold though. there have been problems with other related topics talks and archiving before. there is so much going on here people need time to go over it so they can speak their mind, or respond accordingly. considering the amount of content that is currently on this talk, it might take someone that long to catch up on the discussions. StayFree76 talk 19:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just wanted to mention that the size of this page is getting to be pretty darn big, ran the Page Size tool to be sure and we now have...
Document statistics (more information):
*HTML document size: 269 kB
*Prose size (including all HTML code): 23 kB
*References (including all HTML code): 437 B
*Wiki text: 109 kB
*Prose size (text only): 16 kB (2587 words) "readable prose size"
*References (text only): 109 B
10 days for auto-archiving... Ok, so be it. Shearonink (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the timeout from 10 to 7 days. 5 was fine, but compromising on a week. With the amount of people monitoring this page, a stale conversation is unlikely to get consensus or has become to bloated and should reset. Making it too long encourages people to manually archive, and bad faith accusations of bias typically follow. People can IAR and undo individual archiving when warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"begging for his life" in lead

I'm wondering if we need to use a quote here. This phraseology seems a bit NPOV. —valereee (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"begging for his life" seems to be a WP:NPOV summary. The BBC reference in the section Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck stated, "He was also pleading for his mother and begging "please, please, please". At one point, Mr Floyd gasps: "You're going to kill me, man." A Google search of 'Floyd begged for his life' shows dozens of news sources using that phrase. Ward20 (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google searches aren't particularly useful. But, I think the RS is overwhelming on this, starting from the first contact with police. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tweaked, see what you all think —valereee (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Begged" or "begging for his life" appears in a bunch of sources, but I don't think we need to quote it. I think we can say that in wikivoice. Ordinarily, yes, it would be NPOV or at least a big red NPOV caution flag, but in this particular case, I think "begging for his life" is the just an accurate way to describe five or so minutes of someone saying "please, please don't kill me". I think the phrase is widespread enough for us to say in wikivoice without quotes. Lev!vich 17:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Levivich, I can totally go with putting it in quotes, totally go with saying what he actually said, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with begging for his life in wikivoice. I mean, IMO he was definitely and obviously begging for his life. But in wikivoice...I'm just not sure. —valereee (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think begging for his life is better. It can be easily attributed to a RS rather than Wikivoice. I can go with quotes, but as it reads now there may be some ambiguity about pleading and calling for mother. I think he was pleading for the police to let him breathe or not kill him, but I would have to research more to find out. Don't have time at the moment. Ward20 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i think it should be in quotes and +1 Ward20 to attribute the statement of "begging" (pick one of the RS). this would make it clear that the reports characterized it this way [and was inferred from what GF was saying]. i think with words that can mean different things to different people, attributing makes it easier since no one can say its "wrong" based on their "interpreted or used" definition of the word and it would not cause any problems if another RS partially contradicts it (whether using a different word or suggesting he wasn't begging, etc.). StayFree76 talk 22:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Valereee, I'm good with your tweak, showing v. telling. Lev!vich 02:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Valereee, I don't know, the eyewitness accounts make it pretty clear that he was begging/pleading for his life - one of the two is rather obviously justified. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JzG, totally willing to go with consensus. It's bothering me, but it's clear it's not bothering most of us. I'll go along with whatever y'all decide. —valereee (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Valereee Your changes here... I think it is useful to go to the source and use quotes if possible. Yes, Mr. Floyd was begging & pleading, sources state this is so but keeping it in his own words makes the subject's statements completely verifiable. I suppose readers can make up their own minds as how to characterize his words. Shearonink (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moderate proposed change to lead

I don't believe the lead wording sufficiently describes the scope of the protests, "Floyd's death triggered subsequent protests against police brutality...' The word "subsequent" is redundant, and propose, "Floyd's death triggered national and international protests against police brutality..." as referenced in the article. Ward20 (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd propose simplifying to "worldwide protests". I dont think one would confuse it to mean that local and national protests did not also happen.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except they literally were not "worldwide". WWGB (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of George Floyd protests outside the United States disagrees and is well-sourced. Paisarepa (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about, "Floyd's death triggered protests across the globe against police brutality..."? [12] Ward20 (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CNN reports protests in 20 countries. That is just 10% of the nations in the world. Let's not get carried away. WWGB (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about "around the world"? From Fox News: The widespread protests that were sparked after the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police are getting support from others around the world.[13]Bagumba (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of George Floyd protests outside the United States stated "over 60 countries", but I couldn't find the source. Maybe an editor counted the countries listed? IDK. Ward20 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I counted about 80 flags listed there. Ward20 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with the change. There are veritable ton of RSes that describe the protests as "global", "worldwide", "international", and similar. I agree that "national and international" is redundant; I'd support "international protests" or any similar construction. Lev!vich 17:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree —valereee (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ward20, seems fair - and I'm OK with "worldwide" because I can't recall another single death that has resulted in protests in quite so many countries. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Went with 'worldwide' as simplest. Ward20 (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

Autopsy reports actually told that George Floyd's death was caused by a fentanyl overdose. 71.161.222.246 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: That is not what reliable sources state are the cause of death: either asphyxiation or cardiac arrest. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's another confusion between what the autopsy says versus how lawyers interpret what that the autopsy says.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to modify first sentence of lead

The lead as it currently stands begins with the date of the incident -- I propose moving the date later in the sentence, instead beginning the article with Floyd's name. I also propose changing the phrasing at the end of the sentence from the indirect 'during an arrest' to 'while being arrested'. I personally prefer this wording as it is more direct and removes the small amount of ambiguity -- we shouldn't assume that the reader is aware that George Floyd is the person being arrested, and the first sentence in the article is the most important place to be specific, precise, and unambiguous. These are the changes:

1. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old African-American man, was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, 2020, during an arrest for allegedly using a counterfeit bill.

2. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old African-American man, was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, 2020, during an arrest while being arrested for allegedly using a counterfeit bill.

I'd appreciate any thoughts and opinions regarding these options. Thanks, Paisarepa 03:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went and changed to "while being arrested" to remove any doubt if he was just a bystander.—Bagumba (talk)
I have no preference on the date. FWIW, the leads of the non-bio titles at Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States aren't consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

These four sentences in the third paragraph of the "Arrest and death" section are written in present tense: "Lane taps his flashlight on the window, startling Floyd. He asks Floyd to show his hands, and taps again when he does not abide. Floyd apologizes as he opens the car door. Lane instructs him three more times to show his hands." They should be changed to past tense for consistency with the rest of the article: "Lane tapped his flashlight on the window, startling Floyd. He asked Floyd to show his hands, and tapped again when he did not abide. Floyd apologized as he opened the car door. Lane instructed him three more times to show his hands." 2601:985:301:BE06:BC10:489B:3E92:8F4F (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thank you for the heads-up. Paisarepa 04:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming of street

I already added the following text to George Floyd but I'm not entirely sure about putting it here.

On September 18, 2020, the Minneapolis City Council approved designating the section of Chicago Avenue between 37th and 39th Streets as George Perry Floyd Jr. Place, with a marker at the intersection with 38th Street where the incident took place.[1]Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Navratil, Liz (September 19, 2020). "Minneapolis to name stretch of Chicago Avenue for George Floyd". Star Tribune. Retrieved September 20, 2020.

Random Sentence in Section

in the section "Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck" it says the following:

note: (not all cases, but enough for discussion)
1. A witness asked, "Did they fucking kill him?
2. A passerby yelled to Floyd, "Well, get up, get in the car, man"
3. Another told the officers that Floyd was "not even resisting arrest right now"
4. One witness pointed out that Floyd was bleeding from the nose.

i feel like having the article list all of the things a random "passerby [or witness?]" said makes the section much more complicated that it should needs to be. i can barely follow the events since the entire section is just listing off events as they happened on video (in very shorts sentences) instead of giving a more Wikipedia-like summary. with that being said, i think they should be removed or at a minimum moved to another section titles "on scene witness comments" or something. StayFree76 talk 20:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. If we were writing this article after ten years had passed, we'd never be including these. We'd just be summarizing to 'while multiple passersby objected and criticized the continued knee restraint multiple times' or something. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should remove, not just these witness comments, but the constant repetition of what Floyd said. Surely we can summarize that rather than making a transcript out of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per MOS:QUOTE: While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. I think sometimes editors are wary of being accused of a POV summary and resort to quoting verbatim.—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whats the plan on this? shall i propose a new paragraph here? StayFree76 talk 15:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. If you do it in the format of Change "X" to "Y" it'll be easier for the rest of us to understand what you're proposing. —valereee (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read First

based on the convo above i decided to rework the first 2 sub sections, the third should follow (but im tired now). this is going to be long. one thing i noticed is that the current state bounces back between past tense, past continuous tense, and present tense. I tried to convert it all to simple past tense, but i might have missed some. please fix, edit, whatever you think since this is just a recommendation of what i think it should be something like. i am not hard set on anything in particular, and just want to make the article actually readable. in many cases i removed extra details from sentences that seemed WP:Too_much_detail. examples of this were listing per minute timestamps, number of police cars, restating officers names/ specific officer every time (one of them did it should be all that matters, imo), paraphrased what people said if it was relevant, random details eg. (across the street, next to the store, direction someone was looking).

Initial events

request to change this: Killing of George Floyd#Initial_events to:

On the evening of May 25, 2020, at about 8:00 pm, Floyd purchased cigarettes at Cup Foods, a grocery store at the intersection of East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue in the Powderhorn Park neighborhood of Minneapolis. A store employee believed Floyd had paid with a counterfeit $20 bill.[11][15] Two employees left the store and approached the Floyd's vehicle.[11]:1:25[15]:1:33[47] The employees asked Floyd return the cigarettes, but he refused.[15]:1:43[2] Soon after, a store employee called the police to report that Floyd had passed "fake bills", was "awfully drunk", and "not in control of himself".[11]:1:33[15]:1:51[c] The interaction was filmed by the restaurant's security camera.[11]:0:49[15]:1:24[48][b]

A few minutes later, Kueng and Lane briefly entered Cup Foods before approaching Floyd's vehicle.[11]:1:41[15]:2:00 Lane tapped the window with his flashlight,[50][51] asking Floyd to show his hands. Floyd, not compliant, apologized as he opened the car door. Lane then drew his gun and ordered Floyd to show his hands.[50] Once Floyd complied, Lane holstered his weapon.[2][52] Following a brief struggle,[11]:2:10 Lane pulled Floyd from the SUV and handcuffed him.[15]:2:20 Floyd was sat down on the sidewalk [11]:2:22[15]:2:33 and was asked if he was "on something", to which he responded "No". The officers mentioned he was acting erratic, and inquired about the foam around his mouth, but he said had been "hooping"[d] earlier.[53][55][54] The officers initiated Floyd's arrest and walked him to their police car.[9] Once there, Floyd fell to the ground. He was picked up and placed against the car's door.[11]:2:42[15]:3:00 While they attempted to put him in the car he said he couldn't breathe and offered to lay on the ground instead.[9][56][57] Soon after, Chauvin and Thao arrived on the scene[11]:3:32[15]:3:27 with Chauvin assuming command,[8] asking if an arrest had been made.[53] After a struggle, according to The New York Times, Chauvin pulled Floyd across the backseat.[15]:3:56 Then, according to NPR, Floyd exited the vehicle, but it was unclear whether he was pulled or pushed himself out[60] before falling to the pavement.[2]

According to prosecutors, Floyd said he was not resisting and stated he was recovering from COVID-19, he was claustrophobic and had anxiety, and that he did not want to sit in the car.[8][9][15]:3:10[56] During and interview, Lane said he saw Floyd bleeding from the mouth and attributed it to him thrashing around in the car and hitting his face on the glass.[58]

Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck

request to change this: Killing of George Floyd#Chauvin_kneels_on_Floyd's_neck to:

While Floyd was on the ground, Chauvin knelt on his neck.[60] Floyd stopped moving a few minutes later, though he was still conscious.[11]:4:10 Multiple witnesses began to film the encounter and their videos were later circulated widely on the internet.[2][15]:4:06 Kueng applied pressure to Floyd's torso, Lane applied pressure to Floyd's legs, and Thao stood nearby.[11]:4:13[15]:4:11[2] While restrained, Floyd repeatedly said "I can't breathe", "Please", and "Mama";[2][11]:4:44[15]:4:28 Lane requested and ambulance for bleeding from the mouth.[55] Floyd continued to say that he could not breathe up to 16 times.[15]:5:46 Chauvin told Floyd to relax in response to him saying he was "about to die".[62] The ambulance request was escalated to emergency status.[11]:4:50[15]:4:42 Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd's neck.[15]:5:15 The officers stated Floyd was talking so he is "fine". Observers argued with the officers restraint, stating that Floyd was not resisting and he was not "ok".[66][67] Soon after, Floyd appeared unconscious, confronted the officers asking for a pulse check.[11]:5:22[15]:6:53[2] Chauvin pulled out mace to keep bystanders away.[69][70] Floyd's wrist was checked for a pulse, but it was not found.[2] The officers did not provide Floyd with medical assistance.[15]:6:46

StayFree76 talk 21:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


are there no objections to this change then? StayFree76 talk 16:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would recommend making a new section to propose these changes. This talk page is huge so stuff gets lost easily, especially when it isn't clearly marked. The title of this section is 'Random Sentence in Section' so finding this proposal to rewrite four paragraphs at the end of the section was a surprise to me. I would make a section on this talk page for 'Changes to Initial Events' and another for 'Changes to Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck' and post the proposed changes there.
It is also difficult to see what changes you are proposing. I recommend using strikethrough to indicate what current text would be removed, and italics or bold to indicate text being added. Paisarepa (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i made them sub sections under the main discussion because that is where we talked about doing it, so if its not together it would seem out of place. as for the striking out and the reason it isn't clear on what i proposed to change, that is because the current state is 8 paragraphs, where i condensed it down to 4. i didn't feel it would be a good idea to inject all that in here when ultimately, you will have to cross reference with the current in a new tab to make scrutiny remotely manageable anyways. that is what i did, btw. it took me along time to write this and figure out how to make it say not contain any less details minus any superfluous info (mentioned above), or refactors to accommodate the change. as a recap:
this was proposed because multiple editors agreed it needed to/ should be done. it is so substantial because the entire section has the problem i/we are trying to address. StayFree76 talk 23:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm asking for the strike-out + bold or italics precisely because otherwise every editor who wants to review this will have to attempt to cross reference your proposed changes with the article, which very few are likely willing to do. Valereee asked you for a similar format earlier in this thread. Burying these at the bottom of a section with an unrelated and not-descriptive title and without formatting them in a way that allows others to actually identify your changes defeats the purpose of the talk page. Not to mention the thread up to your proposed changes talks only about the use of quotes, but your proposed changes are significantly more comprehensive than that. Let me give a quick example of formatting that allows editors to quickly and easily see your proposed changes:
On the evening of Memorial Day, May 25, 2020, Floyd purchased cigarettes at Cup Foods, a grocery store at the intersection of East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue in the Powderhorn Park neighborhood of Minneapolis. A store employee believed Floyd had paid with a counterfeit $20 bill.[11][15] Just before 8:00 pm, two Cup Foods employees left the store and crossed the street to an SUV parked in front of a restaurant; Floyd was in the driver's seat and two other adults were in the vehicle. approached the Floyd's vehicle.[11]:1:25[15]:1:33[47] The employees demanded that asked Floyd return the cigarettes, and but he refused.[15]:1:43[2] The interaction was filmed by the restaurant's security camera.[11]:0:49[15]:1:24[48][b] At 8:01 Soon after, a store employee called police to report that Floyd had passed "fake bills" and was "awfully drunk" and "not in control of himself".[11]:1:33[15]:1:51[c] The interaction was filmed by the restaurant's security camera.[11]:0:49[15]:1:24[48][b] Paisarepa (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i think your suggested format looks good, but it just isn't possible. to meet you halfway i have 2 diffs, which emulate what the wiki editor would show. that is the best i can do. i will start a new section that piggy backs off of this section. StayFree76 talk 18:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of most quotes in main sections

discussion continuing Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Random_Sentence_in_Section.

proposed change: [14][15] (images of diffs)

info: reworked first two sub-sections in the section "Arrest and death" to remove most quotes. also removed hyper specific details like: per minute timestamps, number of police cars, restating officers names, and modifiers like "across the street", "next to the store". i tried to make sure nothing vital to the event was lost. StayFree76 talk 18:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm... looks like there's a fair amount of tone change, not just removal of quotes. You changed 'the employees demanded...and he refused' to 'the employees asked...but he refused', you added 'after a struggle' but removed 'Floyd said that he was scared', etc. Those kind of changes shouldn't be mixed in with a re-write that is represented as just removing quotes and hyper-specific details. Paisarepa (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well i mentioned that im not glued to the proposal, and did my best not to change anything important. the change in tone for the first one seemed fitting as "demanded" is a charged word and isn't very neutral. as for the "Floyd said he was scared", well that is because that is what i set out to do... remove things people said which lessen the encyclopedic nature of the article. in 10 years from now, if i read that i would be confused why it was there. there was a lot to cover so i expect there to be places it can be adjusted. the current state is not great, and at the end of the day, it needs fixing. personally, i would rather get it fixed sooner than later. StayFree76 talk 20:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Demand' is the word used in the source and is not synonymous with 'asked'. Whether you believe these changes are fitting isn't relevant; the point is that you are portraying your proposed changes as more routine and uncontroversial than they actually are. Paisarepa (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. 'Demand' is peremptory, 'asked' is conciliatory - when editing this article editors need to keep in mind WP:TONE, WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. Since the source used the word 'demand' it should not be changed in the article, WP always has to rely on the published source and not engage in apparent editorializing.
Also, what was said & done and when those things were said & done by all parties involved are at the very heart of this matter, of George Floyd's death and of the subsequent demonstrations and civil unrest. I don't think Mr. Floyd's recorded statements that he was scared (or when he was talking about his mother or when he said "I can't breathe" etc) should be removed as unencyclopedic at all - his statements before he lost consciousness and died are part of the historic record and should be retained in the article. Shearonink (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i did not remove all the quotes though. the ones about i cant breathe are still included if you look at the diff. as for the demanded, i was just following my interpretation of WP:SAID. As i said, i dont care either way and just want this done. if you look at the original 3 other very active editors [on this page] including myself stated this should be changed... so i am proposing the change. tell me what to fix and ill fix it so we can move on. if this doesn't make any progress i will just start making smaller, slower edits to the main. StayFree76 talk 22:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't you propose smaller changes here, rather than threatening to just go change the article? Your proposal is a full re-write of eight paragraphs and simultaneously changes three major components of the section: the volume of quotes, the level of detail, and the tone. It is too complex to present the changes here on the talk page; instead you've had to link images. Your initial complaint (that other editors agreed with you about) was regarding the inclusion of comments made by onlookers -- I encourage proposing a change that deals with that concern specifically and narrowly. Paisarepa (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Paisarepa. Personally, I have never seen linking to an image to set out proposed changes to an article and, frankly, I found that presentation method impossible to follow. But that's just me, perhaps others were able to figure it out. And whether or not editors were previously active on this page or not is immaterial - Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, anyone can and will drop in on a discussion and contribute as they wish. As to the apparent timetable of "i...just want this done", there is no deadline on improving or working on an article, improvement around here is a constant process. Shearonink (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sandbox is the answer. Koncorde (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shearonink: it is exactly what the diff of wikipedia would look like... i literally used "diff" to generate the picture. if you cant understand that, then you shouldn't be able to understand any other wiki change. i will just start slowly changing things if this is too much to handle. it was agreed that it should be fixed and there is a lot of problems. so, when the "alot of problems" gets worked on, of course there is going be a lot changed... there is no way i can simplify a problem that is literally entangled with the entire section. that is how it was originally written, at its not encyclopedic. sometimes its easier to just rework entirely then pieces at a time, but if its too much to handle, thats fine, i will do the needful in pizza rolls style instead of full pizza. @Paisarepa: as for proposing the changes, there has already been consensus on this issue. it will happen. if there is a problem with what i do, ce it or revert, and we can discuss that particular component. i just find it weird that 4 very active editors of the page suggest/agree on something (and we rarely all agree), then after its in motion people pop in and delay its implementation. its like.... its been 10 days since the last editor chimed in on the decision and 9 days since i proposed a change. this post even got archived and i had to pull it out because no one said anything about it for 5 days. why now? StayFree76 talk 21:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh man...you really know how to work with folks don't you? "then you shouldn't be able to understand any other wiki change. i will just start slowly changing things if this is too much to handle." Listen, I didn't disparage the images or that method, I simply said "I found that presentation method impossible to follow. But that's just me, perhaps others were able to figure it out." The image was tiny on my screen, I could not figure it out. For me the amount of changes was not the issue, grasping all the changes was - capisce? As to why am I here now? Because. That's why. Neither myself nor any other named or IP editor need to explain our presence here on this talk page. I'm not asking you why you're here am I? Koncorde's suggestion of composing the changed version in a Sandbox would make it easy to compare but whatever. Shearonink (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mind pointing to that consensus, specifically? I see general support at one point for proposing a change that reduces or eliminates the bystander quotes but I see no consensus with these much broader changes you've actually proposed. In fact, I don't see a single editor that has agreed with them. Again, if you create a proposal that only changes one thing at a time and you don't try to hide controversial edits you're much more likely to experience constructive conversation here on the talk page. Abandoning the talk page and just making changes because others aren't agreeing with you, especially after making threats, is risking a topic ban. Paisarepa (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shearonink: i didn't mean that as an insult to your intelligence and if that's how you took it (or that's how i came off), i apologize. i must have misunderstood, but it just seemed off because the format is identical to wikis change management system. also, to be clear, i was not challenging your presence, but your strong opinions after so many opportunities to discuss were provided before hand (like 3 or 4 over 10 days).

@Paisarepa: its the first part of this discussion. i didn't just throw changes out willy nilly. see: Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Random_Sentence_in_Section. as for changing the tone, i already mentioned that was not my intention, but i also stated this:

"based on the convo above i decided to rework the first 2 sub sections, the third should follow (but im tired now). this is going to be long. one thing i noticed is that the current state bounces back between past tense, past continuous tense, and present tense. I tried to convert it all to simple past tense, but i might have missed some. please fix, edit, whatever you think since this is just a recommendation of what i think it should be something like. i am not hard set on anything in particular, and just want to make the article actually readable. in many cases i removed extra details from sentences that seemed WP:Too_much_detail. examples of this were listing per minute timestamps, number of police cars, restating officers names/ specific officer every time (one of them did it should be all that matters, imo), paraphrased what people said if it was relevant, random details eg. (across the street, next to the store, direction someone was looking)." - me 10 days ago

StayFree76 talk 16:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lack of support from even a single editor in ten days should make it obvious that this isn't working. I'm not going to try to argue through an eight-paragraph rewrite when you've shown no interest in modifying your proposal based on the feedback you've already received -- instead you doubled down on your version claiming that consensus was already reached (false), insisted that these changes 'will happen', and threatened to just go change the article if others don't agree with you. Feel free to propose other changes (preferably of a more manageable size and breadth) but regarding your current proposal I'm a firm no, primarily due to the tone changes and the removal of non-bystander quotes that should be retained. Paisarepa (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i did not double down. i said 50 times that i am not stuck on anything in particular... are you reading this at all? im not going to re-post another proposal to update a few words... my proposal wasn't 10 days ago... the consensus to fix the article was. i am going to change the article because it is agreed upon, you just dont want to believe it. even with you and one other dissenter that is a 4-2 decision. its not calculus here. the article has a severe problem and it needs to be fixed. and with how many views it probably gets the sooner the better. i don't know about you, but i have pride in things i work on and i would rather people not "talk shit" about a non encyclopedic article that i am proudly apart of.
that being said. i no longer care to engage with you as i feel your behavior is particularly overbearing, accusatory, and frankly not helpful. for anyone else that may see this i will gladly discuss further. other than that i will move forward with what i have been doing the past 3+ months and edit this article. StayFree76 talk 20:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You posted the text of your proposed changes on 4 September, it is now 14 September, making ten days. Since you posted the changes you have not had any editor agree they should be included in the article, though you have had two editors raise concerns with them -- me with the content, and another with the method of presentation. That's the opposite of consensus. Your repeated threats to change the article because others won't agree with you are not appropriate, do not reflect how Wikipedia works, and are certainly not conducive to constructive discussion.
You also have no right to remove another editor from the conversation because you don't like what they have to say. If you believe my behavior is inappropriate you're welcome to provide me with specifics and ask me to change it (on my talk page, not as part of this discussion), or take it to WP:ANI Paisarepa 21:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Stayfree76 the problem here is that there's way too much text for people to follow. I don't want to read all this, so I'm basically just waiting to see what change you actually make so I can decide whether I object. If you'd do what has been suggested multiple times -- cut the explanation by 95% and just give us "Change X to Y because Z", and make Z one maybe two sentences, you'd have a much better chance of actually getting something done. At this point I'd start with the single quote you think is MOST unnecessary, remove it and explain briefly in the edit summary. If no one objects -- maybe give it until tomorrow -- make the next most obvious change, and keep working that way. —valereee (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Valereee: sorry, i landed myself in the ER last week and have been out of commission for awhile. anyways, the reason i posted it like this was because the entire section is a mess. remember awhile back i asked Whats the plan on this? shall i propose a new paragraph here?, to which you replied with sure, do change x to y, etc. that is exactly what i did. if it is too much to handle there is not much else that i can do about it. the problem is a big problem that spans the entire section. based on the discussions its apparent that smaller changes will be better and for that i think enough consensus has been given for should be changed. because of that i will just edit the article directly per normal and we can follow the standard revert and discuss cycle if needed. i think everyone will find that the changes will be a breath of fresh air and make the article much more readable. i think GF especially, but everyone else also, deserve that. StayFree76 talk 16:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stayfree76, sorry to hear you were out of commission! Yes, what you're doing certainly isn't working, partially because you can't seem to limit yourself to a few words of explanation. I'll again strongly recommend you go learn how to edit somewhere less contentious; new editors and contentious articles are a very bad combination. If you are going to absolutely insist on continuing with this bad decision, then 1. make small changes and 2. wait to see what other people's reactions are and 3. learn to write short and take the time to do so. All these walls of text waste other editors' time which is something that can get you blocked. —valereee (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Valereee: seriously, stop telling me to learn somewhere else. i have been editing wikipedia for almost half a year now... its getting old. while you are here complaining at my inability to edit, i have already started the changes, though im sure you didnt notice. from my pov, you are the time sink because all you do is tell me to go somewhere else and constantly regurgitate what i have already said. over a week ago i literally said i will just make small edits over time to prevent issues. so why did you feel the need to even make a comment? im suprised this didnt get archived since i was away from wiki for 7+ days...
you have now told me to go away at least 20 times and yet i am still not getting reverted. i think my current count is 1 revert on a misunderstanding in an unrelated article. also i have edited like 15 different articles with multiple different topics. im an educated individual with much professional experience. if it takes me 1 month to learn a global network and create a cyber risk assessment and enact a mitigation strategy, im pretty sure i can learn how to wikipedia in 6. also i suggest you remove that oath from your user page, because you are NOT following it in the slightest. also, like the other person that just attacks me in this discussion, i will no longer engage in any form of discussion with you. StayFree76 talk 01:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stayfree76, you don't really have any choice but to interact with the other editors on a particular article. Refusal to discuss is another thing that can get you warned and eventually blocked.
FWIW, it's not just the length of time; it's also the number of edits. You have 423, about 120 of which are to article space. That is still a very new and inexperienced editor. But I'll stop trying to give you good advice that can keep you from getting blocked again, sorry it feels like an attack. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stayfree76, you have been editing for almost half a year, yet you have failed to learn many basic things about Wikipedia, and your editing focus has largely been on articles where you clearly feel a strong personal emotional investment.
What usually happens to people who ignore the advice of experienced users on hot-button topics, is that they end up blocked or banned. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dishonesty in the lead paragraph

The lead paragraph states that George Floyd said "I can't breathe" and "please" while he was pinned. However, George Floyd was pleading before he was on the road[1][2]. This should be changed immediately. NPOV Enthusiast (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current wording doesn't say anything about when he started saying it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure about that? The current article states that he was pleading while he was handcuffed, face down.

"Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, knelt on Floyd's neck for several minutes[a] while Floyd was handcuffed, lying face down, and repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" and "please", and calling for his mother." NPOV Enthusiast (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We cannot put the entire article in the lead. The article makes clear that Floyd was complaining of breathlessness prior to being placed on the ground. I object to the assertion of dishonesty. WWGB (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article does not imply that he was only pleading in that moment and if you read the full article you'll find that it goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the events of that day, including Floyd's actions and statements immediately prior to Chauvin placing his knee on Floyd's neck. The lead is not supposed to repeat the entire article, it just summarizes and highlights. Paisarepa 02:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The OP seems to be suggesting that since Floyd was already complaining of trouble breathing before Chauvin kneeled on his neck, that somehow mitigates what Chauvin did since, hey, the guy was already having trouble breathing so don't blame me. I see it the opposite way: if someone's complaining of trouble breathing, it's probably doubly a bad idea to kneel on his neck. Just sayin'. EEng 03:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I've cleared it up, added a mere 12 bytes. I can probably trim 12 in insubstantial wordiness, if that seems fair (UPDATE: I got 84!). It's not like we're summarizing anything from the body that might explain why he was breathless. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"after and while", we already use while in the sentence making one of those words redundant, and no idea what "after" is meant to clarify. Meanwhile the general assertion of OP and yourself is is inaccurate. There is nothing loaded about pointing out that the significant amount of coverage emphasises what he says while he is being knelt on. If we want to say he was in distress prior to being knelt on by all means, but that does not change what was happening while he was being knelt on - or that he died while being knelt on. Koncorde (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He was repeating these things before he was knelt on, hence he was knelt on after repeating these things (also while). This is simple. It'd also be simple to note the significantly covered meth, fentanyl, heart disease, fear of returning to prison, COVID recovery, struggle with police, cop on his back, panicked yelling and insistence that he's going to die, all of which used to be understood as bad for the cardiopulmonary system before non-bruising pressure to the back of a neck became the exclusively important thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grammatically terrible. Meanwhile the significance of how he died is not what was in his system, or how much he was shouting, or speculating about what "used to be understood". Koncorde (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the first time I've heard anyone claim Floyd's "panicked yelling", "fear of returning to prison", etc., were contributing factors in his death. The lead does not imply that Floyd only began complaining about being unable to breathe after being kneeled on. Additionally, the concern that this leads to a second implication that the kneeling is what killed him is silly since the police restraint is precisely what killed him according to both autopsies. Paisarepa 22:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said they were bad for the cardiopulmonary system, not contributing factors in his death. We were discussing his breathing complaint, I thought. The meth usage and fentanyl intoxication were also contributing factors in his death, but I didn't intend to bring up autopsy discussions you already read elsewhere. And what used to be understood about fentanyl, yelling, fear, meth and strenuous exertion affecting circulation negatively isn't speculatory. The data's all Googleable, I can't paste it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you weren't trying to imply those were contributing factors in his death then how are they relevant? Why would you bring them up? Keep in mind that 'his breathing complaint' led to his death in less than ten minutes. And these are not 'autopsy discussions', these are the actual real-life autopsy reports. Paisarepa 02:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Figured these things that typically cause breathlessness might give lead readers a fuller picture on why and when he repeatedly said "I can't breathe". As written, it seems like we're saying the pleading was a result of the pin, particularly Chauvin's part in it, despite the body explaining how it preceded that.
There's nothing in the actual autopsy report indicating lack of air led to his death (just subdual, restraint, meth, fentanyl and artherosclerosis), though earlier discussions regarding autopsy findings from this page certainly gave the impression that asphyxiation/strangulation was involved.
It seemed your association of the breath and the death might have stemmed from one of those, maybe I'm wrong. In any case, the lead is still very misleading, by my reading, as if it were based solely on what appeared to be true in May. Whether this is intentional or not, it makes Wikipedia look archaic and incomplete, unless someone reads the full article. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Studies show that the average reader spends so little time per article that I'm surprised that they even get through reading the lead. That is why we find so many stupid people today, just plain too lazy to increase their understanding of our world and instead using shrunken minds that think small racist thoughts and other garbage. And I'll be damned if I'll waste my (extremely brilliant) time on them. Face-smile.svg Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The significant focus of media coverage is on the situation in which he died, and the fact that the police contributed, with the most significant and demonstrably obvious treatment being what Chauvin did despite the entreaties of the general public and the victim himself. Going into the speculation about what may or may not be a factor in the lede isn't the right way to do it. Koncorde (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't about righting a great wrong. It's just about fixing a lead sentence to better reflect the sequence of events already given in the body. And that sentence is not about Floyd's death, it's about him saying he can't breathe, pleading for release and calling for his mom. By only mentioning these statements while simultaneously mentioning Chauvin kneeling on him, it strongly suggests they occurred once Chauvin kneeled on him, when bodycam footage and the reliable sources covering it clearly show they came before he was even cuffed.
If we insist on omitting his somewhat recent COVID, his more recent hooping or his very recent struggle with police, we could still cut the existing sentence into two parts, and put the part about his statements before the part about the cuffing and kneeling. It would probably save space, for fewer commas, and would definitely make the undisputed chronology clearer. Sound fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made an example edit of this suggestion, take it or leave it. If taking it, maybe cut and paste the citations, too, I can't on this gizmo. Also removed "please" as an uninformative fragment (please what?), saved 26 bytes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't suggest any absence of Floyd complaining, it emphasises the complaints he made while being restrained. It suggests that was the crucial moment and the critical bit of the whole situation from the perspective of onlookers. Which is reflected in the significant weight of coverage. The crucial aspect of Floyds death is not that he was or is dead, but the manner in which he died.
I personally have no issue with it being included or not - with an improved rewrite - but throwing around the word "dishonest" about its inclusion is at the very minimum misleading. Koncorde (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, and that emphasis made sense when all the media had to go on was the angle from the infobox and an unfamiliarity with grappling techniques. But now that the autopsy has ruled out a funky choke and the bodycams have shown the whole "subdual" part, it seems silly to stick with the foremost ideas we chose at the time, if not knowingly dishonest. Black lives still matter, just so we're clear, nothing can change that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We didn't choose. The coverage dictates. The coverage still dictates that what is significant is how he died, and in what manner - this is about the killing of, not the plausible deniability of. It is that act which is notable. Koncorde (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not denying that, plausibly or otherwise. Just saying that killing had nothing to do with an airway restriction. Tying breath, death and knee together, while excluding the cause of death and every contributing factor, perpetuates the gut reaction at the expense of everything an independent certified physician has since taught us, via all the same outlets we already use to relay the manner and circumstances of death. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No.
Our summary of autopsy 1: The medical examiner's final findings, issued June 1,[85] classified Floyd's death as a homicide caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained" by officers who had subjected Floyd to "neck compression".[86][87]
Our summary of autopsy 2: He found that the "evidence is consistent with mechanical asphyxia as the cause of Floyd's death", and that the death was a homicide.[94][95][92] He said Floyd died from "asphyxia due to compression of the neck", affecting "blood flow and oxygen going into the brain", and also from "compression of the back, which interferes with breathing".[83] Koncorde (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Autopsy 2 was paid for and missing pieces, mainly based on the viral video evidence, worth far less to us than it was to its buyer. The impartial guy with a fresh cadaver also mentioned subdual, which Wikipedia chose to crop. Neck compression does not mean airway restriction. The trachea is in the front, the brain stem is in the back, the blood goes through both sides. There's no "No" to anything I say in Baker's opinion, including my "speculation" that absolutely no side of Floyd's neck was injured in the making of this video. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you know we were using 526 bytes more to not mention the subdual? Craziness. One cohesive quote now, as the author intended. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both came to the same conclusion, he was murdered. Your original research and opinion about what makes a person likely to die when lay prone is the subject of numerous studies highlighting how dangerous it is to do for a prolonged period of time, particularly if additional weight is applied and other complications exist. Speculating about where blood flow is or isn't is why we use the reliable sources.
You may be fixated with the lack of injury to his neck, but you don't need choke marks, soft tissue injury or similar to die. Case in point: George Floyd.
Also not sure what your fixation is with "subdual"? It just means he was being subdued by police? Which is a polite way of saying he was being yanked out of a car, lay on the ground and subsequently restrained. Koncorde (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The autopsy calls it a homicide, not a murder. Attributes it to subdual, restraint and neck compression by law enforcement. It's the prosecutors who alleged Chauvin alone accidentally murdered Floyd, and a jury will decide if this is so, after hearing more than we have. But at this point, we're all damn sure on what "subdual" is a politer way of saying. That is, Floyd was resisting four grown men like a fucking horse for the length of a typical MMA title fight, despite being a 46-year-old smoker with residual COVID, a shitty ticker, a potentially lethal dose of the world's most famously fatal downer and paranoid meth fancies combining with rational fear of returning to prison. Without that perfect storm to subdue first, relatively brief restraint and compression would've been business as usual.
But the lead, knowing this, puts everything on the off-chance that we might learn Chauvin's knee had something to with Floyd's debunked asphyxiation. That is a NPOV, CRYSTALLBALL and SUMMARY violation, not my neutral understanding of the main reported facts of this callous and cruel non-intentional homicide/killing/snuffing/slaying/whatever.
The blue lives can still rot in hell, if that's what civic justice turns out to require, but in the meanwhile, we should all be fixated on not shaping a prejudicial bias per BLPCRIME, especially when the POV hinges on such bullshit as combining two slogans that have since been proven bullshit (social justice proponents even admit defeat on "8:46"). It's wrong on at least five levels, the whole current intro. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop. The lede might be crap and need a rewrite, but all your speculation is exactly that. We represent the RS, not your feelings. Koncorde (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These aren't just my feelings, I keep pointing at facts and PAGs (and I never requested any sentiment, real or imagined, go in the article). I can't cite well on this device, but can try if there's something you feel sounds fishy or baseless. WP:NPOV, to start? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have pointed at exactly no facts, but a whole lot of your own personal research and feels. Stop pushing for false balance when the significance of his death has nothing to do with whether the RS are being fair on the cops. The manner in which he died, and not your personal opinion on his superhuman like efforts to not die, is the crux of the article. Two autopsies say he was killed. Not suicide, not death by cop, not his health. He died, while begging not to be killed, as police officers pinned him to the ground - and the subsequent fallout of his death - is what the article and lede is about. Not plausible deniability or trying to shift the balance to blame the man who died, or mitigate his suffering by inferring that by somehow complaining about his breathing prior to being "subdued" and "restrained" makes things better or the lede more relevant. Koncorde (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already told you, I'm not trying to blame the victim or absolve the police. The only thing I'm denying, and well beyond "plausibly" is the entirely baseless connection between the neck, the ability to breathe and the homicide. I'm sorry if you read something similar from a right-wing asshole, but that's not me. I'm not part of any left wing agenda, either. I'm just a guy who grew up in a Canadian funeral home, learned to survive drugs and fighting, settled down after retiring from yellow journalism and have been separating truth from suggestion on Wikipedia ever since. You want to pretend I'm saying what I'm not, go on without me. I have to watch interracial subdual and restraint at UFC 253, anyway. You're welcome to watch, too, if you think being held down in bad positions is normally fatal by itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is often fatal, particulwrly when any additional pressure is applied to the chest. This is why "mechanical asphyxiation" is a thing. You can google that, and the halfdozen studies that I have linked to previously on this page. The end result has been it recognised, and banned outright in almost any medical setting when "subduing" people. The only people still using it with any regularity appears to be the US police. Koncorde (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It totally exists. But you'd have to take Michael Baden's word over Baker's to believe it occured here. Read that bio and tell me you wouldn't be a fool to be fooled again. Do you know how many studies on Methamphetamine#Adverse effects, Atherosclerosis#Signs and symptoms, Clinch fighting and Fentanyl#Respiratory depression there've been? More than enough. The fact that reliable sources agree with Baker that these were significant conditions in his death isn't happenstance, speculation or partisan invention.
And the fact that such apparent asphyxiation technique is/was regularly used by American (and Canadian) police while restraining uncooperative suspects, despite not one of those arrests causing a George Floyd situation in all those years, just goes to show how key those parts are. This article can make drugs, cops and heart disease all look bad without diminishing anything.
Right now, the average healthy idiots Gaddydancer mentioned above are leaving this lead thinking having a knee lightly on their necks for several minutes is going to kill them. They should be thinking that doing meth and fentanyl with a bad heart before prompting police subdual and restraint (instead of returning your cigarettes, explaining the situation or fighting in court) might make such weak compression fatal instead of temporary. We'd be doing them a favour, as well as not look foolish. Win-win, in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, again. "Positional asphyxia", "asphyxiation and excited delirium", "positional, compression or restraint asphyxia" amongst other names and varieties of phrases are very well documented studies. It has killed many times in the past - the lack of public awareness other than in a few specific cases is not a lack of evidence of the dangerous nature. Indeed there have been 3 specific cases in the last decade involving black men of particular note (Garner, Smith, Floyd) but that is not exhaustive, and may reflect how much the police have ceased using it as often and / or are more aware of the risks (indeed at least one officer mentioned such a risk as he watched Floyd die, and Chauvin must have been aware because it was said to him directly). For example Here is a 1999 Chicago Police training bulletin Positional asphyxia is a death that occurs when a subject's body position interferes with breathing. This training bulletin informs Chicago Police Department members of potentially dangerous restraint positions that must be avoided during custodial arrest and transportation. Positional asphyxia can occur when a subject's chest is restricted from expanding properly or the position of the subject's head obstructs the airway. Officers should never: restrain a subject's hands and legs together; leave a subject in control restraints lying on his back or stomach; put weight on the subject's back for a prolonged period; or keep a subject waiting for transportation in a restrained position without proper monitoring. The risk of positional asphyxia increases in the presence of alcohol intoxication, drugs, physical ailments, delirium, or respiratory diseases. When feasible, officers should handcuff an arrestee with both hands behind his back, palms outward. Although most officers have no reason to expect death to result from restraining a subject, it can happen. The bulletin claims that exercising caution and common sense can lessen the potential for in-custody deaths from positional asphyxia.
There are also the longstanding advocates against such restraints in the medical field, and a wider awareness among police enforcement of its risk dating back much, much further and much more broadly than just the US [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] which do not preclude the idea that comorbidities are a factor, and a major risk, but that comorbidities should be expected when you end up killing someone. Koncorde (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@InedibleHulk and Koncorde: do either of you have a specific edit you are suggesting? Otherwise, I wonder if this has become a WP:FORUM on what caused his death.—Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My argument is in defence of the status quo, and / or against rebalance based on false equivalency. As far as I am concerned, Inedible is advocating a complete balance change, and has argued both the lede is dishonest (and so therefore are editors in favour, presumably) plus a variety of other claims related to BLPCRIME / NPOV etc. The forum aspect is because he keeps pushing his own OR and speculation about MMA fighters not dying. Koncorde (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The medical examiner's report said, "Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."[26] What does that mean? (Not an argument here, just trying to see what the understanding of this is.) Bob K31416 (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it has not been explained in the article because of WP:MEDPOP concerns. I'd say that "significant conditions" should be removed from the article since it doesnt necessarily mean what a layperson might think it means.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is why we use third party analysis, and not our own.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think those are good attempts at an answer, e.g. using MEDPOP, but I don't think it applies here. The quote is from a medical examiner press release, not a scientific paper, and should be reliable and understandable by the general public. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bob K31416, the medpop argument is because some editors have argued that 'significant conditions' means they contributed significantly to the death. Others have been disagreeing that we can make that interpretation because of medpop. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you care to share your understanding of the quote in my first message or any thoughts on it? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far it's looking like the quote is inscrutable and maybe we should remove it from the article. Any thoughts? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of removing I added something per source to help clarify. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incomplete dates

in the section "Memorials, protests, and reactions", most if not all days are just in "Month Day" format. shouldn't these all be referenced in a way explicitly showing 2020 so that info doesn't get lost over time? tbh, i don't know the exact formatting that it should be and think listing the year every time seems a bit excessive, but maybe the first date in each paragraph could list the year 2020? StayFree76 talk 17:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Title: Death of George Floyd

In relation to the above toxicology report, as well as his enlarged lungs and massive fentynal overdose, the cause of death will always be in some doubt. We do not know if the knee was the cause, or the fentynal/water on the lungs. So we do not know if this was a "killing" or a "death." SInce the word "Death" covers both possibilities, the title of the article, as well as wording within it, should be changed to "The Death of George Floyd." Said with sympathy for all involved in this tragedy.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.161.114 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the FAQs at the top of this page as to why the article is titled the way it is and most likely will not change. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
331dot Will that change if Chauvin, and the three other officers are acquitted? 98.37.0.12 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doubtful. As the FAQ explains, it is a killing regardless of what happens to Chauvin. If he is acquitted, it simply means he was not convicted of a crime in the killing. One can kill and not commit a crime. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Killing of Eric Garner, where no one was convicted of a crime. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the court finds that Floyd died as a result of the subdual, but Chauvin was acting in accordance with directions and is not convicted, then "killing" may stand. If the court finds that he died as a result of a medical condition and/or drug intake, then "killing" would not be appropriate. But it's all WP:CRYSTAL for now. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ME has already determined this as a homicide. That's not up to the court. The court is only considering whether or not laws were violated. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Killing and murder are not the same. The autopsies found he had been killed (at least in part) due to the officers actions. So until a court says that is not the case killing stands.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-Overdose Information-

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, I don't want to start some edit war. All I wanted to do was place information regarding the toxicological status of Mr. Floyd in the Lead paragraph of this article. I am going to place some Q&A below to prevent back and forth.

"Why in the lead paragraph?": Because the fact that Mr. Floyd was on a fatal dose of fentanyl at the time of his killing has serious implications for the rest of the article, it is important that the reader knows this information before continuing to the rest of the article.

"Why do I have to specify fatal?": Because even though any amount of narcotics in one's system may contribute to death, having a fatal dose guarantees the death of a user. The distinction between fatal dosage and any dosage is extremely important for any reader trying to educate themselves on this event.

"Why do I want this fact in the article at all?": Because the fact that he was on a Fatal dosage of fentanyl at the time of his death is an extremely important factor that many people are not educated about, placing it in this article will insure that more people are properly educated on the event.

I also was using a Secondary source (NPR), as well as a reputable primary source (An official Medical examiner's report). However, it seemed that you reverted my edit almost instantly, if it was it seemed as if it was an edit war, it was not, a user by the name of "Bagumba" was providing advice on what to add next.

Thanks, JazzClam (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please demonstrate where in the secondary source it says the dose was fatal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof: It took me a little while, and I'm going to have to add an additional source, but, https://ndews.org/wordpress/files/2020/07/ndews-hotspot-unintentional-fentanyl-overdoses-in-new-hampshire-final-09-11-17.pdf - on page 8, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, it says: "Postmortem levels of fentanyl confirmed in our sample range widely from 0.75 to 113.00

ng/mL, with a mean of 9.96". This means that the average fatal dosage is around 10 ng/ml, and with Mr. Floyd having a dosage of 11 ng/ml, he is within the fatality range. Upon your response I will add the information to the article with the average fatal dosage.

What you've provided is a source that studied 505 people who died from overdoses (98.4% involving fentanyl) and found that the mean concentration of fentanyl was 9.96 ng/mL. This is not the same thing as saying that 9.96 ng/mL is a lethal dose of fentanyl, and the study does not say what a lethal dose is. That's what we need, a reliable source stating what a lethal dose of fentanyl is, or that Floyd's dose was lethal. There is also the issue of whether this belongs in the lead, and I am not convinced that it does. But if it is to be included anywhere, we need to straighten out the facts about lethal doses before adding it to the page, so I will go ahead and revert your addition. Continuing to try to add this information without establishing consensus here is edit warring. Lester Mobley (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's prohibited original synthesis - you may not take Source A which says X, Source B which says Y, and use those two to say Z. Not permitted on Wikipedia, the end. Unless you have a reliable source which says that George Floyd had taken a lethal dose of fentanyl, you can't include it here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof:@Lester Mobley: Okay, after looking for an hour or so I can't find an article that abides by the stated rules, so I will removed the "Fatal" term, and I'm pretty damn sure you guys are going to keep reverting if I place it in the lead, so I will place it in a distinct section of the article. It belongs there as the fact that he was on a not-insignificant dosage of narcotics is a fact that the readers of wikipedia deserve to know JazzClam (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The google search [27] may be helpful for the edit you want to make. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JazzClam, please also be aware of the policy WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article ... If something someone proposes makes sense, they're expected to gain supporters other than just themself. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support JazzClam's proposal. That information is highly pertinent to understanding the events of that day. Crescent77 (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof:@Crescent77:@Lester Mobley:@Bagumba:@Bob K31416: Hi all, I have pinged everyone who has taken part in this conversation to get your opinion on what my plan is. Below i have attached the full toxicological report on Mr Floyd, I am going to place it in a subsection of the "autopsies" section, labeled "Toxicological Report" meaning it will be section 3.2.1, please, feel free to add criticism. Now, some may add, that "Why, at this point, do I care about adding this information in, given that it will be relegated to a subsection of a section?" Because this Tox report is a significant part of the Hennepin County autopsy, and is a piece of information that many people are not educated on. I believe that the goal of wikipedia is to present the whole truth, and while this article not including this tox report is, technically, truthful, it is not presenting the full truth, that is undeniable.

The Official Hennepin County medical examiner's Toxicological report on Mr. George Floyd.
Compound Result Units Description
Caffeine Positive mcg/mL A common stimulant of the methylxanthine class[1]
Cotinine Positive ng/mL An Alkaloid of Tobacco and the predominant metabolite of Nicotine[2]
4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL A direct precursor to Fentanyl[3]
11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL The main active metabolite of THC, which is formed after the consumption of Cannabis [4]
Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL The main secondary metabolite of THC, which is formed after the consumption of Cannabis [5]
Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL The primary psychoactive component of Cannabis[6]
Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL A potent Central Nervous System (CNS) stimulant primarily used as an illicit recreational drug [7]
Fentanyl 11 ng/mL An opioid used as a pain medication, as well as an illicit recreational drug. [8][9]
Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL The immediate precursor chemical used for the illicit manufacture of Fentanyl, often left behind as the result of unbalanced or impure chemical reactions.[10]
Morphine 86 ng/mL A pain medication of the opiate family that is naturally found in many plants and animals, including humans. [11]

[12]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzClam (talkcontribs) 13:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to present the opinions of RS. If you place it anywhere its going to get removed.13:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but these are reliable sources, including the DEA, Drugs.com, and the National Institutes of Health, also, Wikipedia:RS also says articles must represent Majority and Minority views, and it seems the Toxicological report Mr. Floyd being discussed is a minority view, for whatever reason, yet still must be represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzClam (talkcontribs) 14:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do "Other significant conditions were arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use".Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slatersteven: Yes, the article does that, but it is important that more information on the official Hennepin autopsy is shared. JazzClam (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If RS do not think it is important neither do we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An entire table of stuff is definitely undue. We link to the coroners report. People can read the content in context. We summarise the findings, not duplicate and interpret the data. Koncorde (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slatersteven:I understand that, but the wikipedia RS policy states that if there are reliable sources to back up information, that information may be added if it is relevant, this information is relevant, so it should be added. It does not matter what other secondary sources believe is relevant, such as news outlets, but rather what can be backed up by reliable sources and is relevant to the article it is intended to be placed in. JazzClam (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it does, that is what w:rs and wp:undue and wp:weight are all about. You want to add a table that tells us absolutely zero about how or why he died. Based upon your interpretation of primary sources where do they say he died of an overdose?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koncorde: And perhaps you are right, I didn't know what to include and I just decided to write up the whole thing. JazzClam (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JazzClam, I recognize that you did good hard work in making that table. Unfortunately part of it does not conform to the Wikipedia policy of No original research (OR). A problem is that the reliable sources aren't about the topic of the article. Here's an excerpt from the first paragraph of the previously mentioned policy, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The reliable sources that you gave are not directly related to the topic of the article, the killing of George Floyd. In other words, they make no mention of the killing of George Floyd. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And there is also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that's not the case ... So, if you want to ... Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent ... on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements.Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, I suppose I was wrong, I was thinking this argument to be political in nature, but it seems that it's just people backing up a standard of quality in articles, that's impressive. Signing out, JazzClam (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's fair to question JazzClam's motives. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bob K31416, I regret that it's part of a "Tendentious editing" page which hints at bad faith. But I think the spirit of wanting to right a wrong applies. JazzClam: Sorry, that it couldn't have been explained to you more effectively. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JazzClam, As far as I can tell, you're doing fine, considering the limited editing experience you've had (about 2 of the 4 months since you registered, assuming you didn't do much editing before you registered). I hope you now understand better the policy WP:NOR. Because of the large amount of space that your table would take up, it looks like it was criticized using WP:DUE. I don't think that policy applies because it refers to views, not facts. However, the large size can be criticized for just a matter of good writing, which is just the judgement of editors, including myself. As far as WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is concerned, from what I've seen it doesn't apply to you. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the core concern is NOR. We should generally avoid researching about fentanyl to expose a fact from a source that doesn't specifically deal with Floyd. If it's meaningful, you must trust that the observation about Floyd will be published at some point and become a viewpoint worthy of DUE coverage on Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a reliable source right about the topic of the article. Notes from prosecutors' meeting with Dr. Baker: Fentanyl - 11. He said, "that's pretty high." This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. This is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal consequences.
As for secondary sources, there are some that cite this conclusion, but they were called not top-quality earlier here. Speaking of "top-quality" ones, we get:
  1. NY Times: "The medical examiner also cited fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as conditions that might have increased the likelihood of death."
  2. Associated press: "According to prosecutors’ notes filed into evidence, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker told prosecutors that the level of meth in Floyd’s system was low, but that the level of fentanyl was high. Had Floyd been found alone with no other contributing factors, Baker said he could conclude Floyd overdosed, according to the notes." Note this article was also published in NY Times, but later removed.
  3. ABC news: Nelson added a footnote quoting Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker saying, "If Mr. Floyd were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD."
I think it should be enough to state the level of fentanyl as "potentially lethal", but at the very least (if you insist on dropping all details and ignore secondary sources such as Fox News that actually cite "fatal" thing) we surely have enough secondary RS to mention explicitly that fentanyl level was "high". adamant.pwncontrib/talk 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I have the quote for the NYT that supports "might have increased the likelihood of death"?Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's item 1 in adamant.pwn's message above. Also, I checked that the quote was in the NYT article. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and we needn't preface this claim with NYT attribution, as if this is the reporter's fringe opinion. NBC News' Doha Madani interprets OSC as those which "may have contributed to his death" on October 7. Both mainstream outlets are simply clarifying what every reliable source has been saying flatly about these conditions for nearly five months. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]