Talk:George Floyd/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

File:George Floyd Mural Minneapolis

Vasanthtcs (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Unclear request. El_C 10:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No, George Floyd needs his own article

Emmet Till has; Rodney King has; and George Floyd could be even more historically important.Bashereyre (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"George Floyd (killed African-American)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect George Floyd (killed African-American). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 5#George Floyd (killed African-American) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Please add the following to the biography section: George Floyd performed in adult films with actresses Kimberly Brinks and Nelli Tiger on the adult film channel The Habib Show.[1] DanielleBoshwell (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a rather obscure source. We need something from reliable mainstream sources. WWGB (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

# of children?

Where does it say he had five children? The Economist says "several", The Guardian only mentions his 6-year-old, and the other source is just a link to a 2+hour video of the memorial service with no indication where in that source anyone is saying he had five. I've seen mentions of two daughters and a son somewhere, but not five children. —valereee (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3142320001 WWGB (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ref updated.—Bagumba (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, both! —valereee (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

The current wiki article implies that Floyd had only been to prison once <REDACTED> I would suggest adding the below :-

<REDACTED WP:COPYVIO>

The current article doesnt mention that he was a drug user - when arrested Floyd was under the influence of fentanyl and had methamphetamine in his blood stream doctors found after his death 86.8.38.187 (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

When you get arrested, you go to jail, not prison. If you're convicted later, it can count toward time served. Can't bail someone out of prison, though, so a lot more innocent or not evidently guilty people wind up in jail. And yeah, the article notes drugs in his body. Whether the reader wants to think they got there through "abuse" or "use" is their call. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a bio of a recent death, please cite reliable sources for any contentious material.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Here is the public criminal records of George Perry Floyd including his 6 felonies: Case (Cause) Number Style File Date Court Status Type Of Action / Offense 114323001010- 3 Complete(C) The State of Texas vs. FLOYD, GEORGE (SPN: 01610509) (DOB: 10/14/1973) 11/27/2007 337 Defendant: Disposed(D) Disposition: Disposed(DISP) AGG ROBBERY-DEADLY WPN (F) eSubpoena 105047301010- 3 Complete(C) The State of Texas vs. FLOYD, GEORGE PERRY (SPN: 01610509) (DOB: 10/14/1973) 12/15/2005 179 Defendant: Disposed(D) Disposition: Disposed(DISP) POSS W / INT DEL / MAN / DEL PG1 >=4<200G (F) eSubpoena 097658901010- 3 Complete(C) The State of Texas vs. FLOYD, GEORGE PERRY (SPN: 01610509) (DOB: 10/14/1973) 2/6/2004 185 Defendant: Disposed(D) Disposition: Disposed(DISP) MAN / DEL CS PG I <1GRAM (F) eSubpoena 115177701010- 2 Complete(C) The State of Texas vs. FLOYD, GEORGE (SPN: 01610509) (DOB: 10/14/1973) 1/3/2003 12 Defendant: Disposed(D) Disposition: Disposed(DISP) TRESPASS PROP / BLDG-NO FORB ENT (M) eSubpoena 092886901010- 3 Complete(C) The State of Texas vs. FLOYD, GEORGE LEE (SPN: 01610509) (DOB: 10/14/1973) 10/29/2002 184 Defendant: Disposed(D) Disposition: Disposed(DISP) POSS CS PG 1 <1G (F) eSubpoena 107577801010- 2 Complete(C) The State of Texas vs. PERRY, FLOYD (SPN: 01610509) (DOB: 10/14/1973) 8/29/2001 5 Defendant: Disposed(D) Disposition: Disposed(DISP) FAIL IDENT TO P-O-FUGITIVE (M) eSubpoena 984955901010- 2 Complete(C) The State of Texas vs. FLOYD, GEORGE (SPN: 01610509) (DOB: 10/14/1973) 12/9/1998 6 Defendant: Disposed(D) Disposition: Disposed(DISP) THEFT - $50-$500 (M) eSubpoena 079379601010- 3 Complete(C) The State of Texas vs. FLOYD, GEORGE (SPN: 01610509) (DOB: 10/14/1973) 9/25/1998 262 Defendant: Disposed(D) Disposition: Disposed(DISP) THEFT FROM PERSON (F) eSubpoena 075978001010- 3 Complete(C) The State of Texas vs. FLOYD, GEORGE (SPN: 01610509) (DOB: 10/14/1973) 8/3/1997 182 Defendant: Disposed(D) Disposition: Disposed(DISP) MAN / DEL CS PG I <1GRAM (F)

Civil child support enforcement cases: 200037934 - HUDSON, ROSETTA J vs. FLOYD, GEORGE P (Court 308) 200561367 - WILSON, ANGELA vs. FLOYD, GEORGE P (Court 312) 2601:C8:381:E390:9CFF:79CF:77C:DBA3 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Source: https://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/Edocs/Public/Search.aspx?Tab=tabCivil

WP:Original research. EEng 14:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

In Biography section, end of paragraph 2, after the words Resurrection Houston. I suggest the following changes: Firstly, delete period and replace with comma and then write "whose Mission is to raise disciples for Jesus in the heart of the city in order to change the community." I believe this adds informative flavour as to the nature of the Ministry that Mr Floyd was involved with in Houston. My source is the Ministry's website. Bahern70 (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Bahern70: Can you provide an independent, reliable source, preferably one that deals with Floyd? We want to avoid being promotional or putting WP:UNDUE weight on the church relative to his life.—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Mention of autopsy: balance

The mention of autopsy added in this revision (@Perennial Student) may create some controversy, since that medical opinion is disputed. I don't think that can be written about here without equal reference to the autopsy by Floyd's family which came to a different conclusion. I think we should either include both, or none. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Precedence should be given to the official account, but I don't oppose the inclusion of the private autopsy. Perennial Student (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

An editor helpfully added the family autopsy to the article. Perennial Student (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The official document is tainted by rascim. It negates what's obvious to the eye: George Floyd was killed by homicides as per the findings of the independent autopsy. Suggesting that anything other than homicide killed Floyd is gaslighting as per this article by physicians:[2] Faith Likewater 07:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faith Likewater (talk • contribs)

Can someone explain how this line made it in? ["attractive", "good"]

"While with Screwed Up Click, Floyd met attractive women and had children with a few of them. He was a good father to his five children," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.10.40 (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to create a topic about this sentences. I think the "attractive" should be dropped (irrelevant), and I have some doubts about "good father" - don't we assume usually that a father is a good father? Ziko (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, since it violates WP:PUFF. Lammbda (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ziko: ... don't we assume usually that a father is a good father To the contrary, there's probably a stereotype that an African-American man with children by multiple women is probably an absent father. For example, see above at #Overall balance.—Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It's sourced to an obituary in The Economist. It's normal for obituaries to speak in warm and glowing terms of the recently deceased, hence the puffed aspect. But it's really not a suitable writing style for content in Wikipedia's voice, and readers will notice that (hence the IP's comment). I'd suggest either rephrasing to avoid the puff, or just attributing it to the obituary, which readers will understand then in context. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a paid obituary, and The Ecomomist check out at WP:RS/P.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

In case there's confusion, I was suggesting attributing it in the context of being an obituary, not attributing it in the context of being from The Economist. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think I understand both of your points of view. Maybe there is a meaningful way to quote someone specifically on the "good father" statement? / And do we agree that "attractive" is here not useful, or irrelevant, or maybe even inappropriate? Ziko (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed all such crap. How did that ever find its way into Wikipedia? WWGB (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: "attractive": Groupies are a known phenomena in the music scene. If it's verifiable that he lived a "fast" lifestyle, I'm not troubled by it.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am not okay with words such as "crap" on a talk page. / About "attractive": what would be the meaning behind this statement with regard to Mr. Floyd? Ziko (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You can reply to the first word under the other person's comment LOL. Re: the second, it's fine if it's deemed too racy.—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Acting career

Also, George Floyd contributed to pornographic videos. He did not use staging name. He made three videos. Bybys4u (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. See existing section above. WWGB (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

In the second paragraph: "Later he faced several arrests for theft and drug possession; in 2009 he made a plea deal for an armed robbery serving four years in prison." (Add semi colon) Mitch.r.adams (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done by someone —valereee (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd's death as been ruled a homicide

George Floyd's death has been ruled a homicide. To only show the negative of the two Autopsies that was done seems very wrong. It was like reading a bias article by Sean Hannity from Fox news. First time I've ever been disappointed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:8800:179A:A8D0:108D:526:E33A (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Was not it third autopsy that showed he is positive for coronavirus? 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:90E:C8C1:D28A:1A59 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Change the year of armed robbery from 2009 to 2007 2A00:23C5:670C:6C01:D517:7D77:B3D:B671 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done by someone. WWGB (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

George Floyd, the Houston Texas native was, in fact, a por_nstar, performing for the black po_rn site TheHabibShow under the moniker ‘Floyd the landlord’, performing with ebony po_rn talents such as Kimberly Brinks and Nelli Tiger. 2600:1700:1F70:4950:7481:B1D1:3C3C:5EC2 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see he Actor thread above. WWGB (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

George Floyd was a lifetime criminal that held a gun to a pregnant woman’s stomach while trying to rob her. 2600:1002:B013:DBCB:3199:9E29:1FEA:30A1 (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The armed robbery is covered in the article. WWGB (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Change "who was killed by police during an arrest" to "who was killed by Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer during an arrest" 49.199.242.174 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It's in the third paragraph of the lead already. As he's not a household name, I think it's preferable to leave it generic in the lead paragraph.—Bagumba (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Nor should responsibility be restricted to Chauvin alone. EEng 14:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death

His cause of death is obviously notable for the infobox, but what exactly is his cause of death? There are 2 autopsies reports that say separate things. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Death by sociopath would be inappropriate, of course. EEng 20:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Of course, because there is no such thing as sociopath or psycho-, as it is not accepted as official illness by ICD, look here also. There are some Anti-social behaviours of course but that is only accepted by psychologists, not by any real doctors, like psychiatrists (psychologists are not MD). 2A00:1FA0:42F3:90E6:21D1:68BC:9DCA:E134 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Drugs found in his system not completely accurate

The autopsy found fentanyl and methamphetimine however this does not mean for sure that he was under the influence of those drugs at the time of his arrest. It means that those drugs were detected but he could have been under the influence the day before or several hours before. Of course it's also possible right then and there. It's also possible that he was under the influence of fentanyl but had done the other drug the day before, etc. I suggest the wording be changed to this "At the time of his death, he was possibly under the influence..". This source can be sited SilverDrake11 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

SilverDrake11,  Fixed Good catch, thanks. I went with "was found in his system". As you say, we don't know if he was "under the influence" at the time of his death or any other time, and we shouldn't speculate ("possibly under the influence"). Better to just say what the autopsy said and no more. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Report says he popped for 11 ng/ml, and fentanyl intoxication was a significant condition. As with his "recent" meth use, which he seemingly was not still feeling when he died. Plenty was merely "found in his system", indicating weed, tobacco, codeine and No-Doz brand caffeine usage, but only the meth and fentanyl matter to his death (in that doctor's opinion). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

References

so many related articles...

I think it's become kind of silly that we have multiple articles about his death, the protests, etc., but not a bio. This seems to be no longer a matter of notability based on one incident. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: My issue with this biography is that it's basically a subset of the information in the article Killing of George Floyd. Also, adding a biography does not solve the problem of multiple articles about George Floyd's death, but instead exacerbates the problem. I'm sure that once the dust settles he will get a proper biography, but while events are unfolding it seems very confusing. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Elephanthunter, a lot of the bio information that was in Killing of GF shouldn't be in that article, and I've moved quite a bit of it to this bio. —valereee (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this page is fine but it shouldn't be a reason to remove info from the Killing of George Floyd page. Because that is the one people are seeing right now. Also, we need to make sure people can easily find links between this page, Killing of George Floyd, and George Floyd protests. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The various articles are a little confusing, I have to admit. Perennial Student (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: This will cause an overlap of information with Killing of George Floyd, as is already happening (eg the reference to the state autopsy which is repeated, for balance we're now going to have to add the independent autopsy, and as you can see, this quickly becomes repetition of material). Although some page splits and merges are needed, I think they're currently not being discussed enough and being done hastily. I think perhaps some more waiting should've been done before creating this page. I'm not sure how much more can be elaborated here. It may end up being the case that much of the information in the killing page should be moved here or elsewhere, like the Rodney King article, but I think it's a bit premature currently. The current design might just cause confusion, poorer access to information by readers, and repetitiveness. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrasinatingReader, overlap of information isn't a problem for WP. Most of our articles overlap to some degree with other articles. We deal with each subject as if it were independent; if we can use information from another article, that's great! New York (city) can use information from Manhattan. —valereee (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yup, we discussed on the other merge discussion :). I was more concerned with the direction some users' edits to this page were going - to possibly duplicating content copiously. That would be pretty excessive imo, if we're spending paragraphs talking about the same aspects of the death as another page, on the exact same topic. But I don't have much opposition to expanding on the background, and other topics, of the individual here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Press mention of Wikipedia article

• https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thanks. Someone formatted it into a press mention above.—Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

It is believed that George Floyd will go down in history as his death brought attention to the stereotypes and beliefs of black people that are discriminated against. 90.240.129.113 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is not a proper edit request. You need to specify the changes you wish to see made, like changing x to y. El_C 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

It is believed that George Floyd will go down in history as his death brought attention to the stereotypes and beliefs of black people that are discriminated against. 90.240.129.113 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is not a proper edit request. You need to specify the changes you wish to see made, like changing x to y. El_C 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The George Floyd mural outside Cup Foods at Chicago Ave and E 38th St in Minneapolis, Minnesota.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Where did George Floyd die?

It says in Minneapolis, but where? Which street or intersection? 97.113.131.139 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

He was pronounced dead at 9:25 p.m. at the Hennepin County Medical Center. The knee-on-the-neck, which left him unconscious and pulseless, happened at the intersection of E. 38th St. and Chicago Ave South, roughly between 8:20 and 8:30 p.m. I'm not sure if being pronounced dead at 9:25 at the hospital means he was still alive (in some medical sense) when he arrived at the hospital. See Killing of George Floyd for details and sources. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

When your heartbeat and breathing stops, you're dead in the medical sense. For reasons largely unknown to science, some dead people respond to cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts and some do not. At 9:25, it just became apparent to a doctor that all hope of a "miraculous recovery" was lost this time. The ticker stopped at the intersection, underneath the police, and remained still until it was removed at the morgue around 9:25 the next morning. So safe to say he was killed on the streets of Minneapolis. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Safest to just say Minneapolis, the location of both the neck hold and the hospital.—Bagumba (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The medical examiner reported "Location of death: Hennepin Healthcare - ER" [3], so it was not on the street. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Officially, pronouncement time is correct. Biologically, you need vital signs to live. Report notes CPR began "at the field" (on the scene), indicating cessation of life already occured. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Do we need to report that Floyd and Derek worked together?

George Floyd and now-former Officer Derek Chauvin both worked security at the El Nuevo Rodeo club on Lake Street, according to Maya Santamaria. Santamaria owned the building for nearly two decades, but sold the venue within the last few months. BTW, that club burned down in riotes. 2A00:1FA0:42F3:90E6:21D1:68BC:9DCA:E134 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Locals describe the act of the police officers as “a deadly disease spread through the eyes of racist officers” 195.12.11.118 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: inappropriate – robertsky (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

"Accounts of looting, violence and aggressive police activity occurred at many of these protests.[36][37][38]"

Requesting that this line be removed. The loose qualification of this statement ("many of these protests", vs. "in at least 50 incidents") feels like an editorial bias, intended to skew the reader towards a certain picture of the protests as being predominantly characterized by violence and looting, when this was not actually the case.

Proposed paragraph: "After Floyd's death, protests were held globally against the use of excessive force by police officers and lack of police accountability. Protests developed in over 400 cities throughout all 50 U.S. states and internationally.[39][40]" 24.7.120.151 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Agree, looting, violence, aggressive police activity have nothing to do with this bio. —valereee (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

"White police officer" isn't necessary and is fuelling racism claims. Police officer and his name will do fine. There is no evidence amywhere, other than speculation, to suggest that George Floyd's death was in any way racially motivated. Whites, Asians, men, women, trans and homosexuals have been killed in the same way to george floyd and have not had any media attention. Remove the racial undertone. 80.73.208.253 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. We cover what is reported in reliable sources. Nearly every reliable source is reporting Chauvin's race; the only exceptions seem to be those that feel it's been reported so frequently that it doesn't need to be repeated literally every time. We aren't reporting that the death is racially motivated because reliable sources aren't reporting that. —valereee (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

a) It was a white and an asian police officers and some others. b) the guy who killed him knew him and worked with him in the nightclub. 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:9CF8:F8C6:8370:8A43 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

race as an issue

is it necessary to say the officer at the focus is white? while it is apparently true, unless Derek C_____ identifies as "white" is is presumptuous, and it is inflammatory. also, using these terms creates the issue as a race issue instead of police brutality. in what I've seen, there is no evidence that the atrocity was race influence, ie no hate words, no hate symbols. race is only an issue because the main parties involved are of different races, superficially, and I believe that using racial descriptive tones only leads to further divergence of one people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:585:4300:E2C0:ECB9:3E6A:29BE:206C (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It reflects the manner in which a majority of sources describe it, namely, the racial difference. See WP:PROPORTION.—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

bad hyperlinking

the first derek chauvin isnt hyperlinked, the second one is, thats clunky and suboptimal please fix BruhElbowGang (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC) BruhElbowGang 6/11/2020

Fixed. EEng 02:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this article necessary?

Not to deviate from the gravity of the issue, but is George Floyd as a person noteworthy? To me it seems the only thing he is known for is the unfortunate manner of his death. Aside from that, had he not been arrested and killed, this page would not exist. When people type "George Floyd" in the search box it is likely that they are seeking information on the police brutality case and expecting a redirect to "Killing of George Floyd", not his life story.

I support incorporating/merging certain details in this article into the Killing of George Floyd article, but certain other information such as his "Discography" (which do not link anywhere else) should be omitted or used in other existing articles e.g. Screwed Up Click.

Again, as with most people throughout the world I am sad and outraged over how he met his end, but at the same time we need to keep things balanced in Wikipedia.

Yekshemesh (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, in my opinion George Floyd as a person does not seem to meet the notability standards set for noteworthy. Specifically, George Floyd's role in the incident was that he was stopped by the police and murdered, his discography or where he was born played no role in that. I agree with rolling major biographical details into the Killing of George Floyd article.

Sean0987 (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems like a clear cut case to keep the article about the murder, not about the man. St.nerol (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

i concur. 71.209.73.127 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Just checked out this page after viewing Heather Heyer's section in the Charlottesville car attack page. Concur on merge with larger article. 50.106.142.26 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this article is absolutely necessary, and

No, this article should not be merged into the Killing of George Floyd page. Mr Floyd absolutely needs a bio, which would otherwise be sub-merged in any other article.

And clearly, whoever put the merger flag up in a drive by edit, doesn´t know their business, because they didn´t leave a message on this page, as is customary, starting a proper discussion. As there is no section of discussion of the merger, (it should have it in the title) I am leaving my opinion here.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: The merge discussion is at Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Proposed_merge_of_George_Floyd_into_Killing_of_George_Floyd. You probably missed the "Discuss" link of the main page's notice.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this article is absolutely necessary. This one man destroyed so many lives for these 10 days, it is insane. Actor on The Flash was fired because of him. See the tweets (from 8 years ago) he was fired for, this is insanity 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:90E:C8C1:D28A:1A59 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

They should include his arrest record on the page then , including how he served 5 years after robbing a pregnant lady at gunpoint in her own home in 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:160A:C2C5:4415:90EE:28D1:CDA1 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this article shouldn't gloss over the substantial criminal history of George Floyd – a "Criminal History" should suffice. Although, I believe "The Killing of George Floyd" has this info. I think it should be merged, or, the personal details of George Floyd should be removed from the Killing article, and placed here What time it is (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Did Floyd have a history of drug addiction?

Some links mention this problem in passing, other news outlets don't even broach the subject. Reaper7 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/P, not conclusive on the reliability of The Washington Times, and it's considered partisan on the topic of race.—Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is some additional detail (aside from him possessing illegal drugs and having illegal drugs in his system at the time of his killing):

• Floyd was convicted in the 1990s for possession and theft of a controlled substance (cocaine); it is not clear whether Floyd served time in prison for either of these felonies.
• Floyd was involved in two more cocaine offenses (in October 2002 and in 2004), for which he served eight-month and ten-months sentences in prison, respectively.
• Floyd was again convicted for cocaine possession in December 2005; he served 10 months in state prison, and, after a few months, his charge was upgraded, amending the cocaine amount he possessed to be about 4 grams; however, according to the records, the alleged charge was lifted because Floyd convinced the jury that he actually had less than 1 gram of cocaine.

I'm not sure that any of these details are mentioned in the current version of this article, however (despite the fact that, in this project, articles are supposed to be properly encyclopedic). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Is this interesting? Just an op-ed, though, and from Russia Today...

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/491203-candace-owens-george-floyd-being-hailed-as-saint/ This op-ed is crazy or not? "Floyd’s “violent criminal past” once saw him break into a pregnant woman’s home and point a loaded gun at her unborn child as he demanded money and drugs from her. It’s hard to imagine just how terrified his helpless victim must have felt with a firearm pressed against her unborn child." 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:7140:8EEB:DE15:ADB4 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not worthy of inclusion, and I don't think he should necessarily be referred to as a criminal since he cleaned up his life. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are far more reliable sources than RT and the Daily Mail detailing this incident, but like with his drug addictions and Porn film, they must not be included in the article because it could cause more riots. I suggest you re-read the article to learn the style of it. He had a quick stint as a truck driver - that is detailed in the article because it is positive. The porn film, details of the assault etc only add to the chaos. America needs no more incitement in my opinion. In a few years time we can have another look at the article when things have calmed down a bit. Reaper7 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you clarify why you think it will cause more and not less rioting (I am not considering the invocation of Insurrection Act on 1 June by J. Trump (actually I am not sure of that because no military was deployed and even the article there says it is not envoked))? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:1fa0:42f3:90e6:21d1:68bc:9dca:e134 (talk • contribs)

Reaper7, it has nothing to do with causing more riots. It has to do with the fact none of us have seen 'far more reliable sources' covering this. If you've seen those sources, by all means bring them here. —valereee (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reaper7, "by all means bring them here". Yes, please! RT is our russian fake news and is prohibited as perennial source so we cannot use it, other sources looks like they copied RT because of typo (no space in past”once). 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:90E:C8C1:D28A:1A59 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

General Organization of all Related George Floyd Pages

Logically, this page should be the head page for all George Floyd, including his killing and the protests that ensued. The contents of the pages on his killing [Killing of George Floyd]] should should be included here and that page deleted. On the other hand, the page on the protests [[George Floyd protests is probably too long to be included and should be linked to from this article. Abelian (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abelian: There is an existing merge disussion at Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Proposed_merge_of_George_Floyd_into_Killing_of_George_Floyd, where you can comment on this topic.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

@Bagumba: This proposal is for the merge in the opposite direction. Logically this should be THE head page. If your remark is that I add my suggestion to the other talk pages, I am happy to do so.. Please note though that I observed that the protest page is probably too long to be merged into this page, but the page on the killing may be merged here. This seemed the appropriate page to make the merge suggestion. Abelian (talk) 22

• 20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd is at least as notable as the Black Dahlia [[Black Dahlia | Elizabeth Short] who was an un-notable 22 year old woman, prior to her death. Abelian (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd is also notable both nationally and internationally.

• The international protests seem seem largely apolitical being focused primarily on police brutality.
• The local, state and US national[ protests are partly political as testified to partly by the protests in front of the White House.
  • Many white Americans, particularly conservatives, assumed that the deaths of black men at the hands of police, were isolated incidents (source: host Joe Scarborough and other hosts, guests and commentators, June 5, 2020)
  • On the other hand, the loose umbrella organization Black Lives Matter maintains that the problem is systemic and needs to be addressed both politically and legislatively.

Abelian (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The legislative issue in the US at the national level, is the doctrine of Qualified Immunity advanced by the US Supreme Court in 1967, which has made prosecuting law enforcement officers more difficult.

Abelian (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Qualified ImmunityAbelian (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ttulinsky (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Qualified Immunity makes civil suits for damages more difficult, not criminal prosecution. See Wikipedia article and https://theappeal.org/qualified-immunity-explained/.

@Ttulinsky: See the wikipedia page on the increasing use of the Qualified immunity in cases of Police brutality or excessive force. Abelian (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd a film actor

Hello,

I'm new here. So I can't edit the page, I think because of the "political reasons" it was closed/(semi-protected). Please add this information to occupation and to biography, that he was a pornographic film actor.

Sources: "iHarare Media" is Zimbabwe's newspaper - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Zimbabwe : https://iharare.com/george-floyd-was-a-porn-star/

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUVtrcXt2vo

I will not add "XXX" content into here. It's very easy to find it on Google. Search: George Floyd porn Kimberly Brinks

People should know the truth. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maksimiuk (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems WP:NPF and WP:AVOIDVICTIM apply. Plus, we don't have a reliable source for the fact. Will let a more experienced editor deal with this, though. Perennial Student (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPF is not consistent with a dedicated bio existing. It's either one or the other, which presumably the merge discussion will resolve.—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note unless it receives widespread mention by reliable sources, I am deeming this addition to be a BLP violation. In fact, I had already revdeleted it from the article earlier today on those grounds. I won't remove this article talk page section for the simple reason that I predict the matter will be brought up again anyway (so in that sense, to avoid a timesink). But unless the aforementioned conditions are met, further unsourced or poorly-sourced mention of this are prohibited and will be summarily removed henceforth. El_C 19:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If the only evidence that Floyd was an adult entertainer is the first minute of an apparent porn video from thehabibshow.com on YouTube and a screen capture of Floyd and Brinks with no clothes on (showing the top only) is that good enough for inclusion? Why or why not? With that much evidence is another “reliable source” necessary? Are you saying our own two eyes are not reliable? If so, it sounds like you are suppressing factual information. It is clearly part of an amateur porn video branded by thehabibshow.com. Jasonagastrich (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Having seen the entire video, in which he introduces himself as Big Floyd from Third Ward, Houston, Texas, I understand your frustration. However, Wikipedia requires that content be supported by reliable independent sources, which we do not have. In the current climate, I doubt that any newspaper or magazine would publish such a counter-positive story. It may appear at a later time but, for now, we do not have the secondary sources to support inclusion. WWGB (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying our own two eyes are not reliable? Yes. See WP:NOR. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Why Zimbabwe's newspaper with provided facts (footage, video) is considered as "not reliable"? Who determines what is "reliable" and what is not? If a newspaper from the USA will publish the same information, it will be considered as a reliable source? That's at least is discrimination which creates an "informational vacuum/dictatorship". Currently provided information is misleading people because the provided information is given that way which leading parties/movements want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maksimiuk (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

We operate on consensus on Wikipedia, such as whether a source is reliable. Moreover, per WP:ONUS, we don't automatically include everything because it's true. That's also subject to consensus. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Maksimiuk, the wikipedia editors (you and I and everyone else who edits here) decide what sources are reliable. You can discuss whether a particular source should be considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the reliability of this source actually isn't the problem here. Rather, is this sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion? If only one source has reported on it (despite how much reporting is being done on Floyd currently,) I would argue that it's not. Pacack (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact he was in at least 1 adult movie and the star of that film no less is certainly noteworthy. Amazed it is not already included.Reaper7 (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add a mention of Floyd's pornographic film to the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course we should mention it! One of my favourite actors from The Flash was fired because of this and tweets he tweeted 7 years ago! People have a need to know, there are tons of videos on xvideos! 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:7140:8EEB:DE15:ADB4 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a proper response from admin's side. "Esau, why you didn't finished your justice? Just look at this." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maksimiuk (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Maksimiuk, you received an answer. Two, in fact. What I said: the wikipedia editors (you and I and everyone else who edits here) decide what sources are reliable. You can discuss whether a particular source should be considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. What Bagumba said: We operate on WP:consensus on Wikipedia, such as whether a source is reliable. Moreover, per WP:ONUS, we don't automatically include everything because it's true. That's also subject to consensus. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add a mention of Floyd's pornographic film to the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW, it is not porn as such, it is a reality show about/with porn! See FAQ here https://thehabibshow.com/tour/faq.php Just like bluecheckmarks on Pornhub. Also see chat with many comments RIP Floyd :( 94.29.3.116 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Help

Can someone who looks at this page please weigh in on the related edits being deleted for "recentism" here .. Talk:Walter Blackman? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:34ED:B275:BB1D:DF86 (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Which ones? Jim Michael (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

These edits. Deleted for "recentism". Discussed at Talk:Walter Blackman. Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:34ED:B275:BB1D:DF86 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an example of whether to mention comments made by notable people in regard to GF's death, the protests & riots etc., as well as reactions to the comments. How important does the person need to be & how significant does the reaction need to be in order to include the info on the relevant articles? Jim Michael (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Please remove the word “perceived” from the sentence that states “Events of his arrest, death, and the actions of the officers have led to international Black Lives Matter protests, calls for police reform, and legislation to address perceived racial inequalities.“

Rationale: Persistent racial inequalities in the US in so many aspects of the American life—education, employment, wealth, health, homeownership, and experiences with our justice system—are facts that have been demonstrated time and again in research across prominent think tanks and journals as well as in the analysis of many public institutions on the shortfalls of their own systems and processes. Here is one reference from a prominent journal on the racial inequalities within the criminal justice system: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418763931. Thechickenbrown (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Racial injustice is proven only in the courts ion a case by case basis. Broad systemic racism is quantifiable only as interpretative opinion of data and the level and scope of it continue to be disputed. Perfection is not necessarily reality and Wikipedia represents probable, sourced consensual facts only... in this case, perception is the only quantifiable fact. Joey.J (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

We're talking inequalities here, not injustice in particular. Whether something is broadly racist comes down to opinion. But comparable data are either equal or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Racial injustice is proven only in the courts I agree with the edit, removing "perceived". We should only characterize it as "perceived racial inequalities" if the reliable sources say "perceived racial inequalities". But if the sources say, in their own voice, that there are racial inequalities (and they all do), then we should say, in our own voice, that there are racial inequalities (as we do in many articles). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

The first line states: "This article is about the African American killed during a police arrest." At this point it has only been confirmed that he died while in police custody. Leadhillite (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the difference? EEng 04:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

consensus was reached that the word “killed” should be used. I personally don’t agree, but that’s what was decided. You’ll have to start a new consensus page with good sources and a strong argument if you really want to change it back Anon0098 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

He died after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, pressed his knee to Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes during the arrest. He died after Derek Chauvin, a police officer, pressed his knee to Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes during the arrest.

REASON: Writing white police officer still creates the segregation between people. Would it be okay to write a "black police office" if the office was black. The race of the police office is irrelevant. SighFye (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources, rightly or not, all mention race in this, so per WP:NPOV we should too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Held handgun to pregnant woman? 2600:387:0:504:0:0:0:30 (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The 2007 armed robbery is covered in the article. That the victim was pregnant has not been established from reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding Heavy.com as a source

Per WP:RSP, there's consensus to avoid using Heavy.com...it "should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead." Most info is probably also cited to more reputable sources. Any content that is only supported by Heavy is probably not important enough for inclusion in the article. TJMSmith (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Pinging Gleeanon409 for their thoughts on Heavy as a source. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

When I’m searching for information they are sometimes perfect for what I’m looking for, I doubt any of it rates as serious statements. I think this is the first I’ve heard they are discouraged. I admit I Fong google news search frustrating for that very reason. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's just another aggregator, like us, but one that insists readers need to know five and only five things fast, no time for citations! Early reports of anything generally suck. If they can Google and paraphrase without us, we can do it better without them. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

BLPNAME

Per WP:BLPNAME, I'm not sure we should be naming living, low-profile people, such as Floyd's family members, ex-girlfriends, and most importantly, minor children. Some of his family member, like his brother, have become high profile and could be named, but I think others (especially the kids) should be taken out. Thoughts? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I'm with you, but the little girl's mother put her way out into the public eye, so I can see why someone added it. I'd support removing her name anyway. —valereee (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. I took out the minor's name, left the mother's (who is an adult and who agreed to give the interview). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No names were added that weren’t in national press. I’m taking a break from this article anyway, hopefully some of my efforts will survive the cullers. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, I very much appreciate your significant expansion of this article. Thank you! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen the harm in names. Everyone has one, most everyone everyone knows knows theirs and even amateur reporters barely have to try to find out. As long as we're not telling anyone's secret identity or implying they suck, we can follow the public newspapers' caution (or lack thereof). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't name them, because (depending on the individual) it either invades their privacy or assists their self-promotion. None of his family are notable. We shouldn't name even those who've chosen to speak to the media. Adding names of family doesn't assist the reader. Jim Michael (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It helps to put an identity on them, instead of keeping mentions of anonymous family members. Several of his family members are currently spokepersons for the protestors. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd was a statesman?

Even when this is in a source, it seems too much, unless the source is using the word in some nonstandard sense. Using Merriam-Webster, was he "one versed in the principles or art of government especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies" or "a wise, skillful, and respected political leader"? --82.37.129.75 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Millions of people are chanting his slogan and shaping policy in his name, close enough. I can put "gentle giant" quotation marks on it. Would that help? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's close enough... Isn't a statesman someone who makes policy while alive? --82.37.129.75 (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He took care of local business while alive, especially back in Houston. Not glamorous, but skillful, respectable and wise work. Per source, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the wording used is elder statesman: "an eminent senior member of a group or organization"[4] Other sources support the theme, including "Patrick Ngwolo, a lawyer and pastor of Resurrection Houston, who described Mr. Floyd as a father figure for younger community residents."(The New York Times) and "On the streets of Cuney, Floyd was increasingly embraced as an O.G. -- literally “original gangster,” but bestowed as a title of respect for a mentor who’d learned from life experience."(Associated Press)—Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Do any RS call him an "elder statesman"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Yes, the one curently cited in the article does.—Bagumba (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, we attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so an "elder statesman" is something much smaller than a statesman? Makes no sense to me. --82.37.129.75 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He has been called it and an RS have reported it. It is not about size" its just some honorific.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, my comment was indeed about the scale of the honorific. I thought statesmen was reserved for people of the scale of Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle, etc. --82.37.129.75 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

No as it is not an official title, thus has not criteria for inclusion beyond hyperbole. Its true that generally it is applied to major national or international figures. But its not a rule, or charter, it is in fact a worn our cliche.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It is misleading. He is called an "elder statesman" by a religious article. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

And we point out this out, so how are we misleading anyone?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This is being used figuratively, or as 82.37.129.75 points out, in a "nonstandard sense". Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

So? how are WE (WE not anyone else) misleading anyone?Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We should omit this as it is hagiographic. A religious publication is figuratively referring to someone as a "statesman". What is "statesmanlike" about the person? If something substantial of a "statesmanlike" quality can be mentioned, then it would make sense to convey to the reader that he is known as an "elder statesman". If no example of anything of a "statesmanlike" nature can be cited, then the inclusion of this assertion would be mere hagiography. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

hagiographic and misleading do not mean the same thing, its clear that WE are not misleading anyone.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is not saying why he is a "statesman". Why would we tell the reader he is a "statesman"? Because it is reliably sourced? Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS would be on you to tell us why the figurative use of "statesman" warrants a place in the biography of George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Only if you have a valid argument, based upon policy. As your objection seems to be to something we are not doing its not valid (twice not only are we not misleading anyone one do not say he is an elder statesman).Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this kind of thing is always that we get revisionist history, but we can't know that and we can only go by what RS are saying. I think as long as we make it clear (which in this case we do) that it's someone affiliated with him that is saying this, we're good. I did think the whole 'could have been a professional athlete in two sports' was a little over the top, though, even attributed. :) —valereee (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The assertion in question is unaccompanied by any example of anything "statesmanlike" about the subject of the article. This is a non-sequitur which asserts According to ministry partners in his church, he was known to some as a community leader and "elder statesman". This is found after assertions pertaining to education, employment, and hip-hop music involvement. There is no need to lard the article with moral or religious assertions. The problem is the paragraph goes from realism to pie-in-the-sky. That would be a non-sequitur. Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I agree, it's not ideal. This particular example isn't one I feel strongly enough myself to remove, but if you removed it, I wouldn't object. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. I object to its meaninglessness. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Bus stop. I am completely for justice, but I believe words do need to have definite meanings. --82.37.129.75 (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba showed you the meaning of "elder statesman", as defined by Merriam-Webster. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The term has meaning. But the source is not providing any examples of his presumed statesmanship, therefore it may be merely hagiographic—when someone is deceased we tend to speak well of them. But I hardly think we should be engaged in memorialization. I have struck-through my earlier claim of "meaninglessness" as that is going too far. Bus stop (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

English really should start to use hyphens for counterintuitive terms like this, or agglutinate like German does. --82.37.129.75 (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I avoid agglutinate because sometimes it gives me a headache. EEng 18:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Career vs Later life

Nightscream I feel like 'Career' isn't the right term. Let's talk? —valereee (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Career is appropriate. He supported himself, and also worked as a de facto stay-at-home dad, caregiver for his mom, and community counselor. I think it’s POV to call his career simply “later life”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Most of the info in that section concerns his work, aside from a small passage on his run-ins with the law, and "Career" is the common heading name for such material that usually follows the Early life section in biographical articles. Does your feeling about it stem from the idea that "career" usually refers to a single vocation or calling, and not a series of miscellaneous or odd jobs, as Floyd had? Would you prefer something like Employment and legal problems, since the first word is more generic, and the second mentions his problems with the law? Nightscream (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think “employment” could be less than accurate if he wasn’t provably employed.

I would like to incorporate his legal problems/convictions into the title, but I’m unsure the best NPOV terminology. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"Work and crime" seems short and fair. Contracts, employment, domestic responsibilites...all "work". I agree a "career" should be in one field. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

”Work” feels fine/NPOV;

“crime” I’m not so sure. We actually don’t address his legal problems in much detail, nor do I think its needed; AFAIK there were three drug possession arrests, and one technical armed robbery (he was one of six men). Any other ways of expressing this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If we made like a sensible government and ignored recreational drug possession, we could call the whole thing "work". Robbery is a transaction, however illicit, takes time and effort. And serving the state for a (roughly) fixed term in return for food and shelter is a "position", however unenviably-appointed. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"Legal and illegal work"? :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee's previous change to "Later life" seems the most neutral for now. Career is defined as "an occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress", which doesnt seem to fit as he's had various occupations for relatively short period. "Work" is a bit ambiguous, and giving "crime" equal weight seems undue.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that 'Later life' is both neutral and sufficient. —valereee (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I find it neutral and vague; some people retire in later life, rather than work. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Work and later life? Given the input so far I agree that trying to wedge in the arrests isn’t that crucial. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, I'm not sure about that, either. The section contains his criminal history, too, and that feels like we're either calling the criminal history 'work' or glossing over it. But 'Work, crime, and later life' seems very awkward. —valereee (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, well, yeah, if they live that long, but this section is about his entire life after 'early life'. We could do a Biography heading with North Carolina, Houston, and Minneapolis as the subsections? —valereee (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A large chunk of "Education" could break off from the beginning. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I prefer "Later life", it's the best fit following "Early life". WWGB (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I relent that "Later life" is a decent counterpart to "Early life" and fairly encompasses the content. Go for it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm out if you're out. Maybe define early and later by year, though. So "Pre-1995" and "Post-1995", unless that makes 1995 seem important instead of arbitrary. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "Early life" and "Later life" are the two best choices. "Early life and education" is overly wordy; "career" is not accurate; "crime" is undue. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Can I edit? 173.56.0.92 (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No, editors need to have a Wikipedia account. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You can directly edit almost all pages. To edit this one directly, you'll need to create an account. —valereee (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Add information about his rap songs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv2bBdbvF20 https://www.nme.com/news/music/george-floyds-rap-collaborator-remembers-legendary-freestyler-2683242 He also was in Block Party Presidential Playas...2A00:1FA0:42F3:90E6:21D1:68BC:9DCA:E134 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ve added the NME cite but I’m not sure how to expand this content, although it’s likely it could be done. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

George Floyd was arrested 9 times not 8. 174.197.65.97 (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Go back and read again. He was arrested eight times to 2005, then a ninth time for the armed robbery. WWGB (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Various tissue and fluid samples"

A second autopsy, commissioned by Floyd's family and performed by Michael Baden, without access to various tissue and fluid samples, found that the "evidence is consistent with mechanical asphyxia as the cause" of death, with neck compression restricting blood flow to the brain, and back compression restricting breathing. Is there any real need for "without access to various tissue and fluid samples"? It's not like the second autopsy contends the drugs in his system. I'm not seeing how access to tissue and fluid samples would be required for a conclusion of death by asphyxia. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming the reasoning being the drugs in the system would have an effect on the supposed cardiopulmonary arrest, which is what the first doctor claimed. It might be important to leave that bit of information in there Anon0098 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The article should make the point that tissue is removed and therefore not available for later examination. Furthermore, a "second autopsy" is always fraught with problems. The process of performing the first autopsy causes "autopsy artifact" -- severed blood vessels, dissected organs, and even broken bones -- that the second autopsy pathologist may not be able to distinguish from inflicted injury. When I perform a forensic autopsy on someone we suspect might have died of asphyxia, I will frequently keep the entire neck block (the windpipe, blood vessels, and surrounding organs and structures of the throat) in a stock jar in the morgue, as evidence. I may even save large sections of the heart and brain for specialized testing. These materials would not be available to a private-practice pathologist hired to perform a second autopsy. I would say the wording "without access to various tissue and fluid samples" is important. Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Has any proof been provided he did have drugs in his system?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, NMS Labs found about a dozen psychoactive compounds in the stuff the official ME collected. The toxicology report is attached to the autopsy report. But this isn't just about drugs. As noted above, a lot of a body is damaged and removed in a typically thorough first look. Readers who've only seen corpses at funerals might assume otherwise (because morticians are masters of illusion), so might overlook how Baden was disadvantaged, absent this note. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Other run-ins with the law and prison stints

Why is only a single conviction and stint in prison mentioned in the current version of the article? That isn't very encyclopedic. Here are some additional details from Floyd's criminal past, which should be added to this article in order that it be properly encyclopedic:

• Floyd was convicted in the 1990s for possession and theft of a controlled substance (cocaine); it is not clear whether Floyd served time in prison for either of these felonies.

• Floyd was convicted for armed robbery (with a firearm) in August 1998, for which he served 10 months in the Harris County Jail.

• In April 2002, Floyd was sentenced to 30 days in prison for trespassing on private property.

• Floyd was involved in two more cocaine offenses (in October 2002 and in 2004), for which he served eight-month and ten-month sentences in prison, respectively.

• Floyd was again convicted for cocaine possession in December 2005; he served 10 months in state prison, and, after a few months, his charge was upgraded, amending the cocaine amount he possessed to be about 4 grams; however, according to the records, the alleged charge was lifted because Floyd convinced the jury that he actually had less than 1 gram of cocaine.

173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources? —valereee (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, a guy from Charter Communications Inc according to ip! Do you have any info about beeting his wife and smth with child?? I read it in my local newspaper, obviously you should know more. 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:90E:C8C1:D28A:1A59 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This article (published on June 6, 2020, and revised June 8, 2020) gives a basic overview. Aren't the people editing this Wikipedia article staying on top of the published news articles on this subject? The charges, convictions, and jail/prison records are all in the public record. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, here are they https://leonardo.osnova.io/d5ddc13a-ef64-9463-4973-6143e05072fa/ Wow. 😃😃😃 Well, we have other things to do, this is open source after all... I also am trying to save that Flash actor... 94.29.3.116 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That article is good for his ten months on coke possession, but not the rest, unless I'm missing it somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about 9 prison sentenses here! Really? And it is sourced. 2A00:1FA0:42FC:D9F4:2515:7F52:AA4E:5CC2 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Admin note: The above IP is blocked, part of a series of blocks and rangeblocks on Russian IPs for abuse, trolling and block evasion, along with the 94.x IP above. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. His entire criminal history is relevant in a bio, as it would be in anyone else’s but especially in light of his historical involvement with law enforcement. “Convicted felon” most certainly should be mentioned in the first line of his bio. Joey.J (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Why does this article only mention one of Floyd's stints in prison when, over the course of his adult life, he was sentenced to prison numerous times (information provided above)? That's simply unencyclopedic. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's unencyclopedic to equate jail and prison. Or charges and convictions. The information provided above is riddled with original research. When it's clearer whether and where he "did time" on those relatively short coke charges, we can easily include or exclude them as "prison stints". Would you happen to know anything about that? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The article still mentions only a single stint by Floyd in jail or prison, when it is the case that he served time in jail or prison on several instances (as listed above) over a period of years. Please add this information to the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This article as it stands today is a complete whitewash. Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be unbiased and objective, not an attempt to cherry-pick facts to paint a criminal as a hero after he becomes a victim of someone else’s crime. Joey.J (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Really necessary?

"Derek Chauvin, a WHITE police officer, knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes, leading to his death."

Does it really have to point out that the officer was white?

Ps. I don't want to get into any arguments or anything Jas0n Scoot (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, white cops/black deceased is at the core of this issue. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a source supportive of the assertion that "white cops/black deceased is at the core of this issue"? Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There are 18 listed at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 5#Bias in reporting the racial dynamics. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Mere mention of terms such as "white" and "black" in sources would not substantiates a claim that "white cops/black deceased is at the core of this issue". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to publicly announce that you don't believe race is a core issue in the killing of George Floyd, you go right ahead. :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

As race is an inflammatory issue we should speak cautiously about a racial motivation in this incident. And our assertions pertaining to a racial motivation in this incident should be firmly supported by good quality sources. In the 18 links you refer to above we find mere mentions of the racial identities of the cop and George Floyd. I don't think that is good enough to establish the certainty of a racial motivation. I prefer greater caution. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What "assertions pertaining to a racial motivation in this incident" are you talking about? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the one assertion that "white cops/black deceased is at the core of this issue". I said "assertions" (plural) when I should have said "assertion" (singular). Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC

For those who've lost track, there's an RfC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd#(UPDATED)_Criminal_History about whether or not to create a dedicated section within the article about Floyd's criminal record. —valereee (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Instead of saying that he held a gun to a woman's abdomen, please include that she was pregnant and black. 2600:100B:B111:BFF4:7CC5:4F71:764B:DA3B (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.—Bagumba (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

i suggest to replace or add additional information regarding george floyd death of fake 20$ bill in the Death section.

here ""On May 25, 2020, Floyd was arrested on a charge of passing a counterfeit $20 bill at a grocery store in the Powderhorn Park neighborhood of Minneapolis. According to the store clerk, the bill was an obvious fake and Floyd had refused to return the purchased cigarettes when challenged.""

modify it or add extra opinion as this ""The man tried to use what an employee suspected was a counterfeit $20 bill but an employee caught it, gave it back to the man and they left, Abumayyaleh said. Roughly 10 minutes later, Floyd came back in the store and used a suspicious $20 bill, according to the owner."" this is qouted from the link below

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/owner-minneapolis-grocery-store-says-he-told-employee-call-police-n1216461

the death section is conveying george as he commited a felony and like he deserve what happened to him, but in reality he has no idea if it was fake or not so i hope do the suitable work by replacing or editing, or adding extra information like another opinion

other sources that george have no idea if the 20 $ was original or fake Zeke warcheif (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. "The man" referred to is not Floyd, but one of two people he entered the store with. I don't have an opinion yet on whether this detail is needed here, but I'm suprised it's not already at Killing of George Floyd, unless it's been disproved.—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

"he was incarcerated for periods totaling almost 41 months"

@WWGB: Where in Snopes does it say he was incarcerated for periods totaling almost 41 months? What math are you doing? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems that an exact number of arrests and cumulative incarceration period was added a few days ago here. The 41 months especially seems OR if other sources are not presenting it in such fashion. We need to reflect how sources present the information, otherwise editors can cherrypick items to show that the glass is half empty/full.—Bagumba (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, we can do it the long way: "Between 1997 and 2005, Floyd was arrested eight times for drug possession, theft and trespass for which he was successively jailed for about 6 months, 10 months and 10 days, 15 days, and 30 months. The 41 months was wrong anyway, it is in fact almost 47 months. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there other reliable sources that get into the specifics of his arrests and sentences (WP:WEIGHT)? Per WP:SNOPES, Snopes in this case is debunking a fringe theory, which should not be the sole reason for its mention on Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

How is this not simply trivia? What RS are covering the exact number of arrests, exact charges, exact number of incarcerations, exact lengths of incarcerations at this level of detail? —valereee (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Trivia? With nine incarceration, this was not just some unlucky kid in the wrong place at the time. This is a biography, so all significant life events warrant inclusion. Many editors seem to be walking on eggshells lest they disturb the perception of George the Role Model. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, sorry, I thought I was making it clear that the exact number of arrests, exact charges, exact number of incarcerations, and exact lengths were what was trivia. It's the level of detail I'm calling trivia unless it's getting a lot of coverage. Is it getting a lot of coverage, or is Snopes the only place we're finding this level of detail? —valereee (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, I'm going to suggest you strike this, as it's not very AGFy: Many editors seem to be walking on eggshells lest they disturb the perception of George the Role Model. I do not see anyone here saying the man was a "Role Model." Accusing other editors of "walking on eggshells lest they disturb the perception of George the Role Model" is counterproductive to working collaboratively. —valereee (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Replace "Role Model" with "Anti-Brutality Folk Hero", and I'm guilty of treading lightly, no idea why anybody else is doing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a difference, bub! —valereee (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I know. And I know you know. But is everyone always so literal as us bubs? I think not! I've known WWGB to mean the other thing regarding different things, here and there, could be one of those incidents, y'know? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not with you, even on this extended proposed language. Where in Snopes does it say how long Floyd was incarcerated for, on any of those charges? I see sentences, I don't see incarcerations. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Around the middle. Each sentence (not necessarily actual incarceration time) detailed separately. Basic math (addition) doesn't count as original research (but should add up to about the correct number). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentencing time is not the incarceration time. Being sentenced to 10 months in jail doesn't mean he served any time in jail, never mind 10 months. This is exactly the reason we have OR and SYNTH policies: a series of jail sentences gets added up and described as the total incarceration time. That's just plain old inaccurate. Wikipedians simply cannot be trusted with a calculator. :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I hear you, I wrote it clearly and accurately yesterday, not defending whoever fucked it up earlier or later. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Editors, amirite? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I did misread your complaint pretty hard before pretending I didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

mani ne george ko mardya 37.111.129.240 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Google translate is unable to make sense of this. EEng 21:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe "george" refers to the subject of the article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What an insight! It won't be long now before we've got the whole thing figured out. 21:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Mardya, moydah, Mordor...a-ha! I got nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A GeoIP reveals that the IP is from Pakistan, so the language is probably Urdu. An exact Google Translate specifying Urdu brings us to "Money killed George". "Mardya" is corrected to "marda" which means dead. Hence, seems like the translation is reasonably accurate, and the statement made is that money killed George. The request is already done - we already specify that the initial arrest was for allegedly using a counterfeit bill. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

We all had that figured out, obviously. You expect to get promoted to detective on the strength of stuff like that? EEng 23:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe means the bill was legal tender, in which case, needs a reliable (English or translatable) source. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 22:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is referring to a bouncer's security job as "bouncing" sneaky?

Mainly a question for WWGB, but chime in regardless. I think it's vague and confusing, especially since he was also a security guard for the Salvation Army, well before COVID restrictions existed. Only an idiot should think this means trampolinist. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No idea, but I was going to undo it a, as far as I know, it is not referred to as bouncing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, Google it, I'm not that creative. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(1) It's "sneaky" because I reverted the same edit before.[5] Rather than discuss, you just waited a time then re-inserted it.(2) I have never, ever, anywhere heard the role of a bouncer described as a "bouncing job". WP:MADEUP? WWGB (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You reverted it in the body, and my edit summary was clearly overt. Now that you HAVE heard this verb form, why not just commit it to memory? Fighting new things isn't sneaky, but it is confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Because you do not get to define how we use words. Ohh and I did google it before replying and got this [[6]], no mention of it as a job. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster says "bounce" is a verb meaning "to expel precipately from a place", I just used "-ing" like normal. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

He was not a bounce he was a bouncer. And again you do not get to invent words.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A bouncer who bounces is bouncing. Your dictionary agrees. "To eject, expel, or dismiss summarily or forcibly". InedibleHulk (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"my dictionary" entry includes neither the words expel or forcibly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Dictionary.com, which you linked earlier, does. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, enough now. When an RS uses "bouncing" in connection to the job of bouncer we can discus using it, when it is just your wp:synthesis no we cannot, as it is not a widely used or recognised usage. As far as I am concerned this is nowe over.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

If we wrote like our sources so exactly, we'd be charged with plagiarism. Paraphrasing is fine. Plain English works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This use of "bouncing" is not made up; it's in the dictionary; one can google something like "bouncing job" to find examples of usage; e.g., here it is being used in a New York Times interview with Vin Diesel about his bouncing job: [7]. That said, it is informal as EEng points out, and there are better, more formal, variations that we should use in an encyclopedia article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Look as I might I canot find one usage of this, and I cannot view the NYT, so care you provide the quote?Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

NYT quoting Vin Diesel: " I remember leaving my bouncing job and saying, 'See you, suckers.' ... I can go bouncing and save up $3,000 and invest in my own story." Also Wall St Journal [8] "There are important rules to bouncing, Mr. Smith tells his students, including tenets borrowed from the 1989 cult classic, “Road House,” starring Patrick Swayze as a tough-but-tender fictional bouncer. Never underestimate your opponent (bouncers have died when they didn’t expect a customer to turn violent). Take any grievances outside, if possible. Be nice." Vice [9] "For the women thinking about getting into bouncing, it is fun and exciting, but be aware we have to put up with more douchebaggery than the men do." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I found Batista using "bouncing" four times in the same quote, but can't copy or paste. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bouncing is too informal. Bouncer is a little better but probably still too informal. Security guard or provided security or similar variants are better. EEng 14:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Or doorman, per Bouncer (doorman)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Doorperson. Get with the program. EEng 14:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not name the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You should have opened a contentious and hard-fought RM. An injury to one is an injury to all. EEng 14:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In this case, "bouncing job" replaced "security job" (see lead); "bouncer job" or "job as a bouncer" might arguably sound OK, but losing one's bouncer, doorman or doorchild to a pandemic is a way different story. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Or "job as a door person"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change the first instance, too. Referring to both synonyms at once isn't clear. Not sure RS say "door person", though, if you're still into echoing rhetoric. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What "rhetoric" it was his job, that is what a bouncer is, a door person.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Many places have a guy at the door to keep riff-raff out, and others inside to toss those who only become riff-raff after a few drinks. If you're sure Floyd did doors, go for it. But some might call that synthesis, "as it is not a widely used or recognised usage" (EEng is a visible minority). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's regional English or it's just me, but Doorman (profession) sounds more like who I would call a doorman. I wouldn't call a bouncer a doorman.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Odd as this [[10]] very much says its a type of Security/door staff. This also implies it as they work (in effect) on the door [[11]]. But maybe "As security" might cause less confusion as it is also part of the job.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

They all bounce you through a doorway, the non-adorable type of doormen, windows having become cost-prohibitive ejection points at some point last century. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This from a book is more elaborative on the differences between a bouncer and a doorman in the bar and club scene.—Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Arrested on

Sorry but that is (to my mind) bad English. You can be arrested on charges of something, or arrested for something. You cannot however be arrested on charges, as being charged is not an offence. You can be charged with something, not arrested for it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Google "arrested on charges" for good English examples. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

first hit "Be arrested on charges of".Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, obviously it sounds like poor English if it's a contextless sentence fragment, scroll down for the good shit. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What? It bad English not matter what else is said, the google search shows you are arrested on charges OF something.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting "arrested for drug possession and on charges of other offences"? That reads poorly to me. Some other idea? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No I am not suggesting that, I am suggesting "he was arrested for drug possession and other offences".Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's prejudicial, assuming alleged offenses occured, as explained on your talk. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No it does not, if he was arrested it was FOR a reason. That does not mean he was even prosecuted let alone found guilty. People who are Arrested are arrested because they are alleged to have committed an offence, they are never arrested for being charged. Arrested (and even charged) does not mean in English "committed the offence".Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, they did occur. He went inside. See his rap sheet at snopes.com (Reading a rap sheet is not called "rapping".) WWGB (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I stand clarified. Thanks. Replace "arrested for" with "convicted of" and Slater's sentence works. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Tried something a bit clearer, still open to further complaint and correction. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Arrested on a charge of X" is grammatically correct to my knowledge. So what we have looks good with respect to the counterfeit bill as well Anon0098 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. EEng 14:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Arrested for [crime]" is correct, e.g., "arrested for shoplifting". "Arrested on charges of [crime]" is also correct, e.g., "arrested on charges of shoplifting". This is extremely common usage, and "on" is the correct preposition, in this case it means "upon" in the sense of "pursuant to" or "as a result of". E.g., "arrested on charges of shoplifting" = arrested because you're being charged with shoplifting. That's also why there is the very common expression, "On what charge?!", as in: "You're under arrest." "On what charge?!". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Bur what about "arrested on drug possession and other charges"?Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that's grammatically correct, a shorter form of "arrested on [charges of] drug possession and [on] other charges". "Arrested for drug possession and other offenses" is equally grammatically correct IMO. I think "offenses" is more common in the UK than the US, where "charges" is more common. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's "offences", semi-foolish American! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with fences. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

So? Criminal offense has only a lot to do with criminal charge, this equality cake is full of fish. I rest my gate! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

not a “killing” or “murder” until a judge says so

Stop referring to this incident using the terms which declare it to be a homicide. No such legal determination has been made, no matter what mob rule anyone feels justifies that statement. That’s now how America works. Joey.J (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Similarly we cannot say OJ Simpson murdered anyone or that Michael Jackson molested anyone. Joey.J (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

JoeyJ, the coroner ruled it a homicide, which is a death caused by the actions of another human, so a killing is accurate. Murder would not be. —valereee (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've update the FAQs —valereee (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Coroners do not have ability to “rule.” That is solely the authority of a judge. Until a guilty plea or verdict is made and a judge signs off on it, there has been no murder or killing. Joey.J (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

JoeyJ, see George Floyd's death ruled a homicide by medical examiner. Please indent correctly; I've now asked you to do this multiple times. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The medical examiner ruled that the manner of death was homicide. This means that a killing happened. It does not mean we should say "murder," nor should we say in Wikipedia's voice by whom Floyd was killed, till a judicial authority makes a finding of fact that supports that assertion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

See also Coroner and Medical examiner, for what they're able and expected to do with death. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

killing does not mean murder as you can be killed by your own runaway lorry [[12]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Curiosity can also kill a cat with absolute legal impunity. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Porn Acting?

George Floyd also did porn, but It's not in the article. I can't edit it because it is protected. Noelbuergler (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

See above about film career.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Remove the "white" in the line he was killed by a "white officer" he was killed by an officer or even a corrupt officer. We've got to end racism and it starts with the little things like this. 165.171.224.5 (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This has been covered in previous sections. —valereee (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

FAQ?

We need an FAQ and maybe an edit notice. (No one will read them of course, but if they're present we can be all high and mighty about it if we choose.) EEng 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Height and might corrupts absolutely, and talking about racism does make it happen and people have largely stopped reading things they disagree with, but whatever, Support warning label. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Support. Being high and mighty is my favorite thing ever. —valereee (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The ultimate in vanity, exploiting our supremacy, find it so grim, so true, so real. They won't believe the things we say, can't believe the price we pay, seeking no truth, winning is all. But justice is done! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate per WP:HIDDEN "Inappropriate uses for hidden text:... Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit....Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing local consensus.” I could see encouraging a user to read the talk page. But actively trying to prohibit edits using hidden text is explicitly against manual of style. Anon0098 (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh? (a) You're being a bit selective in quoting HIDDEN, which contemplates hidden text to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. (b) Anyway, I'm not talking about hidden text in the article source; I'm talking about an WP:EDITNOTICE or {{FAQ}} on the talk page. EEng 11:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Created the beginnings of an FAQ. What kind of edit notice should we put? —valereee (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well bear in mind that (potentially, and I'm not saying I'm recommending this) there could be two separate notices, one for the article and one for the talk page. For the talk page, it might just suggest looking that the FAQ or something. Or it could even transclude the FAQ content. As for an edit notice that pops up when editing the article itself, there's less of a case for that as long as the article's semiprotected, so anyone actually able to edit is presumably more clued in to policies and guidelines. But as well all know, in the end edit notices don't seem to get read no matter what anyway, so let's not rush. Maybe with time we'll see a use case. EEng 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  I was thinking for the talk, just pointing people at the FAQ. Like you say, it won't get read (I cringe to admit I neglected to read one myself in the not so distant past), so I don't have a strong opinion on putting one in. —valereee (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If anyone else is wondering, "use case". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• +1 to a {{faq}}. I moved it to the top of the page. I also think we should rework the talk page headers to reduce banner blindness. Perhaps we can use this article to model better talk page banner practices. (I don't have any actual suggestions for what should go, but it just needs to be less.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Details of home invasion

Note: I've been informed by an editor that I'm posting defamatory information. The UK newspaper Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366533/George-Floyd-moved-Minneapolis-start-new-life-released-prison-Texas.html) has posted extracts from the police documentation regarding the 2007 home invasion case. The documents state that mr. Floyd (along with others) invaded a private house and put a gun to the stomach of a woman. There have been further claims made about the race and state of that woman which I can't confirm on the basis of the documents in the Daily Mail article (I apologize for making the claim in the previous version of this post). If I understand the abbreviation "yoa" correctly, there was a year-old child in the house. This seems like relevant information and reference to include in the article, bearing in mind that it by now includes a discography.46.109.77.155 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. While the home invasion side has been added by me (as it's supported by the Guardian and other sources), the Daily Mail facts are omitted precisely because they are not reliable. The info in the Daily Mail cannot be "vouched for" by a reliable source, per WP:SYNTH. Perennial Student (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you see the article? It includes scanned documents, that's what I'm basing this on, not the article itself. I find it REALLY hard to believe that even Daily Mail would dare forge court documents regarding a recently murdered man!! 46.109.77.155 (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The "consensus" section regarding Daily Mail that you quoted states that it is "generally unreliable" and should not be used when other sources exist. However, other sources do not exist. The consensus mentions "poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication": the court document includes the name and the correct date, which seems to exclude poor fact checking; flat-out fabrication seems totally improbable - it would require them to decide to forge an official US court document along with signatures and seals! And while it is sensationalist, that would only concern notability. Reminder, the article currently includes a discography, so standard of notability seems to be low. 46.109.77.155 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." The over-lords have spoken. Perennial Student (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Perennial Student, it may be that reliable sources will eventually support what the Daily Mail is saying, but right now we don't know. Would you like to clarify what you mean by "the over-lords have spoken"? —valereee (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Should this remain on this talk page, I would like to add a little fact-check regarding some rumors floating around on youtube and facebook. <REDACTED> 46.109.77.155 (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You're free to make any requested changes you'd like, if you back them up with reliable sources. Best to do them in new sections so they don't get lost in this one. Perennial Student (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@46.109.77.155: I've redacted the rumors, which are also unsourced. Please see the policy WP:BDP on recently dead people. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

All right, but you do understand that if respected outlets simply ignore this story (clearly for PC and not sourcing reasons), conspiracy theorists and far-right people will run away with it, and with some justification, because you seem to be intent on whitewashing the man! I've been editing wikipedia on and off for years, and I've never had a comment of mine removed from the TALK PAGE just for the sin of mentioning a rumor, that I explicitly marked as a rumor and even debunked in the same sentence! 46.109.77.155 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Which part of the WP:BDP policy you mentioned applies to comments in talk pages, according to you? It seems to be about "articles". 46.109.77.155 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See the top of that WP:BLP page: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

He's not a living person. Obviously you've put together the strictest definitions from different parts of the policy to deduce that "the editor can do what he wants" and "talk page posts need to be sourced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.77.155 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"... because you seem to be intent on whitewashing the man": See WP:NOTFORUM. If you said it's a rumor, and you "debunked" it (, and it was unsourced), this conversation should be over.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well you tell that to Steven Crowder who's running away with the <REDACTED> and <REDACTED> version of the story because there's no one debunking it, no one even touching the story with a very long stick. 46.109.77.155 (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Did you mistake me for the OP here? If not, I didn't mean to imply that the DM* claims could never be supported by an RS. For clarification, I mean the policy about the Daily Mail has been effected by others and it's not for me to make or change it. Given OP was trying to convince me to disapply the policy. Perennial Student (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a very sad state of affairs if information clearly appearing in court documents is excluded because copies of these documents appeared in a publication that is not considered reliable - even through there is no dispute about reliability of the said information. - BorisG (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@BorisG: Per WP:ONUS, we don't automatically include everything because it's true. It's all subject to consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba:Are you serious, for real?? We don't automatically include everything because it's true!? What do you do then, choose to give a positive spin on trendy articles? The Daily Mail, despite being a sensationalist tabloid has nevertheless correctly and fully sourced their claims on this occasion. Blanket banning a publication despite it displaying the evidence is utterly wrong. To your mind what kind of evidence would be acceptable? If I source the records directly and scan them in, would that be put in the main article?!(Fendergenderbendertalk) 11:45, 12 June 2020 (GMT)

@Fendergenderbender: (Re-)Read WP:CONSENSUS. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba:There's more editors of this article that support the inclusion of the findings in the Daily Mail article than those who oppose it. As such I'll go ahead and make the necessary changes to the main article.(Fendergenderbendertalk) 12:11, 12 June 2020 (GMT)

BorisG, what court document? Are you talking about the probable cause statement? Do you realize that contains allegations, and not findings? So, for us to say in wikivoice that "x happened" and cite to a probable cause statement would be to take allegations and say they were true. That would be a very sad state of affairs. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A woman accused him of invading her home, and then he spent 5 years in prison. Seems like there might be a causal relationship there, no? If the document with the "findings" is not forthcoming, surely there are ways to phrase it differently: "served 5 years in prison after being accused of...", or "allegedly committed", etc. In the current atmosphere, is it also not relevant to note that the victims (accusers) were persons of color, judging by their names (Hispanic)? This would make the accusations much more credible for many people, since according to the stereotype the police are less likely to frame a black man for the sake of non-white victims. 46.109.77.155 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Btw, a probable cause is in fact a "finding". It is not a transcript of the victim's accusation (as you seem to believe), but a statement from a "peace officer" confirming that he has FOUND these accusations credible, and "believes and has reason to believe" that the defendant in fact committed the crime. 46.109.77.155 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just an FYI for everyone, DailyMail is not an RS according to WP:RSPSOURCES Anon0098 (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

More sources confirming George Floyd had criminal record:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52871936

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/remembering-george-floyd-devoted-father-gentle-giant-200531070908430.html

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/george-floyd-family-police-video-death-minneapolis-15298275.php

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-george-floyd-biography-20200528-y3l67rrmfnb3dh4x3i5iipneq4-story.html Cherubic (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The article avoids saying he actual did or committed or was convicted of any crimes. It says he was "arrested", "charged", and "took a plea deal". He was convicted of something serious if he spent 5 years in prison, even if he did a plea deal. I could not find what the Wikipedia policy is--some articles on criminals flatly state they robbed a bank or murdered (Charles Manson, Brenden Abbott), others (Bill Cosby) just say he was found guilty. Is there a reason I should not add that he was convicted? - Ttulinsky (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Took a plea deal" is why he was "convicted"; it means he agreed to be convicted. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not. You can withdrew your plea. 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:9CF8:F8C6:8370:8A43 (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This is censorship supported by an exuberant amount of wikilawyering. In an unbiased encyclopedia, this article should have started with 'George Floyd was an American criminal, and was killed when being arrested for etc., etc. - BorisG (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

New York Post source

@Valereee: Hiii Val! I think I disagree with including this (the entire sentence, not just the parts added in that edit) sourced to the New York Post, which is like a tabloid rag known for gossip and sensationalism, in my humble opinion. I can't find this being reported in any better-quality RS (although it is out there on the internet). I can't help but think that if top tier media aren't reporting it, it's undue for us to include. What do you think? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer more reliable sources noting this to be sure it's not WP:UNDUE mention.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's better to wait. It's not in the BBC source, for instance. —valereee (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• There seems to be consensus that the court record published by Daily Mail is verifiable. If not, let someone step forward and explain why the court record is not verifiable. The court record states that Floyd was identified as holding a gun on the victim. Let someone step forward and explain why this information should be excluded from the article.Asgrrr (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  There seems to be consensus – Huh? To be clear, I do think we'll be including something like this in due course, but only after we have RSs for it (read: no, not the Daily Mail). Even if (as I have little doubt) the court records are for the right person, there's the question of interpretation of them e.g. multiple charges after refer to only a single incident. I can definitely imaging NYT giving an informed interpretation while the Daily Mail just barfs out something from a database search. It's a great example of (a) why we use only reliablesources (with good editorial oversight) even for things that seems "obvious" and (b) WP:NOR. EEng 15:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  There it is: https://thecourierdaily.com/george-floyd-criminal-past-record-arrest/20177/ As requested, NOT the Daily Mail. It has all the court papers. On page three of the court papers: https://thecourierdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/george-floyd-criminal-record-3.jpg Near the bottom, it is clearly stated that the victim identified George Floyd as the man who held a gun to her abdomen. Not a lot of room for interpretation there. Asgrrr (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry if you thought I meant that any source other than the Daily Mail would qualify as reliable. Reliable means (among other things) having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (see WP:RS). A website that calls itself a global news company specializing in breaking news stories. Our coverage spans a large variety of topics not limited to Finance, Science, Technology and Health, with no apparent named writers or editorial staff, [13] doesn't qualify. EEng 15:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  @EEng:What's wrong with the Daily Mail article? Are the sources fabricated? Are they not checked out from the correct issuing authority? Credibility is to be established on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket ban on whatever floats your boat as "acceptable" sources. The Daily Mail is a serious business with editorial boards and due processes, not a shabby basement newsletter. It's a firm regulated by IPSO and subject to their findings. What's the transparent process through which Daily Mail was discarded as a source for articles?(Fendergenderbendertalk) 12:00, 12 June 2020 (GMT)

  WP:DAILYMAIL. And please get some help with your signature; there's something wrong with the timestamp. EEng 11:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Redux

In 2007, Floyd was charged with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston, in which another man posed as a water department worker in an attempt to gain access to a woman’s residence, according to court documents.

When the woman realized he wasn’t actually a water department worker, she tried to close the door. That’s when five other men got out of a car that had just pulled up and forced their way inside.

According to charging documents, the largest man in the group, whom the victim identified as Floyd, “forced his way inside the residence, placed a pistol against the complainant’s abdomen, and forced her into the living room area of the residence.”

Floyd in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal in the case.; Cherubic (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Agreed. I think now we have enough sources to include that, perhaps as its own separate section. What do others think?

Cheers,Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 03:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, those documents also seem to mention that there was a 1 year old child in the home at the time, at least I think that's what the abbreviation "1 yoa" ("years of age") means. Perhaps someone can correct me on that? 46.109.77.155 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hang on a second. There are two issue at play, WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV), and verification (WP:V).
  • If you look at the BBC article, this is what it says: His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison.
  • Al Jazeera: Floyd was charged in 2007 with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents.
  • Houston Chronicle: Starting in 2009, Floyd served a five-year prison sentence as part of a plea deal on a 2007 charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, Harris County court records show.
  • Chicago Tribune: Floyd was charged in 2007 with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents.
  • Atlanta Journal-Constituion: Floyd was charged in 2007 with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents.
  • The Guardian: His life later took a different turn and in 2007 Floyd was charged with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents.
  • Texas Monthly: Floyd was arrested and charged with theft in 1998, and later with drug possession. In 2009, Floyd went to prison after pleading guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. He was paroled in 2013, after four years at the Diboll Unit in East Texas.
  • Little more than a sentence in each source. No details about the crime. Nothing about a woman or child in the house.
  • We should certainly not be citing to the probable cause affidavit directly; those are allegations, not a description of what was proven true. Because this was a plea deal, nothing was every "proven" true. There was no trial, no verdict.
  • So the proposed paragraph above isn't verified by those links, and I don't think we should include anything more than a sentence saying that he pled guilty to armed robbery and did five years in prison. Basically, I think it's good the way it is now. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

People plead guilty to all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons, especially if there's a plea deal involved. A plea alone leaves a lot of room for conspiracy theories. Was he caught in the dragnet, and made the deal just to avoid a harsher sentence? Was the police looking to fill out the numbers with any black man they could pull in? We have a solid document stating that Floyd was identified at the scene threatening a victim with a gun. That is VERY relevant information. Asgrrr (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Asgrrr: What "solid" document are you referring to? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

https://thecourierdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/george-floyd-criminal-record-3.jpg Asgrrr (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Asgrrr, so why do you consider that a "solid" document, and what about the things I said about it above? It's a probable cause statement, containing allegations, signed by one person... this does not strike me as a reliable source. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an official document prepared and signed by a public servant, who is supervised by others in authority. Falsifying such a document carries severe penalties. I fail to see how that is less reliable than a media article signed by a single person, quite the opposite in fact. Asgrrr (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS explains why a media article (which is independent and subject to editorial review) is more reliable than a probable cause statement by a police officer. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see that. Can you point to the specific clause(s) that explain that? Asgrrr (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Asgrrr, the specific section you want is WP:RSPRIMARY. The court document is a primary source. —valereee (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:RSPRIMARY that would preclude a short statement of the kind we are talking about. There is no question of OR in this instance. Asgrrr (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Asgrrr, as the information at the link says, using primary sources is tricky. For instance, this primary source appears to be a charging document. Nothing in it tells us what he was convicted of or pled guilty to. What 'short statement of the kind we are talking about' are you talking about? I don't actually see any clear short statement that anyone has suggested. —valereee (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add the details of the home invasion to the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Here you go, a short statement: "In 2009, Floyd served five years in prison as part of a plea deal after being accused by a Hispanic couple of breaking into their house with four other men and committing armed robbery." This would link to the court document where the readers could judge for themselves regarding further details (presence of child, gun in belly). Hispanic is relevant because accusations from POC victims are more credible in this context. 46.109.77.155 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Or simply give the names of the complainants, since their relationship (or race) is not actually indicated. 46.109.77.155 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The details of the home invasion can no longer be ignored. I understand the Daily Mail is unreliable tactic worked for a while but now the details of the invasion have been quoted through many reliable sources and should be added. Reaper7 (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reaper7, if you could provide those reliable sources? —valereee (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add the details of the home invasion to the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

All court documents related to a bio article are incredibly relevant, and if verified by multiple sources with no evidence of forgery, should absolutely be included. Joey.J (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd status as convicted felon

Legal status as a convicted felon per Wikipedia historical precedent is always included in the first sentence bio introduction. To remove it in this instance is biased, unbalanced, and an attempt at editing factual, legal, and relevant context. It is irrefutable and highly sourced, including copies of court documents. Popular sentiment of the day and political movement should never sway the inclusion or censorship of facts. While the alleged murder of Floyd is still in dispute and unresolved, his prior criminal actions are a matter of public and historical record and need to be included in this bio and any other. Joey.J (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Per your edit summary saying it's a Wikipedia policy for all bios, can you provide a link to that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

JoeyJ I know of no policy that says that. Please remember to sign your talk posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end. This helps other editors know who is making comments and arguments. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Policy appears to be undocumented, but defended and agreed to by overwhelming consensus in the vast majority of bio articles. It is important that an unbiased source of references such as Wikipedia be consistent on issues such as this, otherwise it open the door for bias and revisionist history. If Jeffrey Epstein was killed by a cop (which some argue may have happened) would that justify removal of his bio status as a convicted sex offender? Joey.J (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this content deserves a mention in the article based on editor consensus. For some odd reason, this person is being painted in the current article and news media as some sort of innocent victim and saint when in fact, they have an extensive criminal record of committing violent felonies. I do agree that we should avoid false balance, however, the bio is incomplete without mention of the subject of the bio's violent criminal past. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Who determines whether “editor consensus” exists without some kind of voting mechanism? Each section of a talk page should have a thumbs up / thumbs down link and a tallied vote at the top. Or is this all just fuzzy math? Joey.J (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

JoeyJ, you can learn more at WP:CONSENSUS. —valereee (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. It’s already in the article and lead. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Belongs in the first sentence of article, as it exists in Martha Stewart’s and countless others. Joey.J (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Since no one has proposed any rationale for NOT including FLoyd’s status as a convicted felon in the first bio line, I am going to assume consensus exists on this issue. Joey.J (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree. Needs to be included in lead. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose including it in the lead. It's not in the lead of any of the sources AFAIK. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Lack of objection in a period of 1.5 hours does not demonstrate consensus, and I am a bit shocked that anyone would think it did. I'm trying to maintain AGF here. —valereee (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• The lead of a Wikipedia article is the appropriate place to put what someone is best known for. Based on the majority of the reliable sources that discuss George Floyd, he is not best known for being a "convicted felon." What he is best known for is the fatal encounter with police in Minneapolis and the national level (and worldwide) events that followed with protests and riots. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding Criminal History Section to Article

As per WP:BRD, I propose adding the following to the article body. At present removal of this content is nothing more than whitewashing the article. The following content should be added to the article:

Criminal History

Prior to his death, George Floyd had previously been convicted of several felony offenses including armed robbery, pointing a gun at a pregnant woman, and illegal sale and distribution of cocaine. Minneapolis Police Officer Bob Kroll released a statement on June 1, 2020 stating that Floyd had a violent criminal history and that, “What is not being told is the violent criminal history of George Floyd. The media will not air this”. Floyd relocated to Minneapolis, Minnesota from Houston, Texas in 2014 after serving five years in Texas prison for felonies committed in Texas. Floyd took part in assault and armed robbery in 2007 and spent five years in prison for breaking and entering, assault, and armed robbery. Floyd also had past convictions related to cocaine use and distribution, and firearms theft.

Hennepin County medical examiners released a toxicology report performed on Floyd on June 2, 2020 which found that Floyd was intoxicated with fentanyl and methamphetamine, with traces of cannabinoids and morphine at the time of his death. Floyd’s criminal record in Texas states he had five convictions for theft, possession, and trade of cocaine. Floyd was arrested five times in the state of Texas for cocaine possession for which he served 8 months in jail for one offense and another 10 months in jail for a subsequent offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octoberwoodland (talk • contribs)

• Support adding paragraph regarding Floyd's criminal history to article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support adding paragraph regarding Floyd's criminal history to article. Additionally, the first line of the intro should include status as a convicted felon, as most Wikipedia bios do. Joey.J (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support adding section regarding Floyd's criminal history to article. (Fendergenderbendertalk) 12:20, 12 June 2020 (GMT)

• Comment Bob Kroll (police officer) is not the Minneapolis Police Chief. He's the president of the union. —valereee (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I corrected it in the text. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, it's better in talk pages if you strike through changes and underline additions; that way other editors can follow the conversation. There's information at WP:TALK#REPLIED—valereee (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed text – Neither of those are reliable sources. There are other concerns but this is a non-starter without RS. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed text There's no debating whether information on Floyd's criminal history will be included in the article; it will. But it will be based on reliable sources, and these aren't: we don't use primary sources like a toxicology report, we don't base contentious material about living or recently deceased persons on Great Game India, and -- not to put too find a point on it -- we don't base such material on sources whose own grasp of English is so poor that they publish stuff like Though George was murdered brutally, nobody is aware of George Floyd’s Criminal Past Record/Arrest Timeline for armed robbery, pointing a gun at a pregnant woman and being involved in cocaine/white bag/baggie charges. The Union Chief of Minneapolis Police released a statement on 1st June 2020, shedding light on late George Floyd’s ‘violent criminal history’. George lived an unfulfilling and sorrowful life. George was arrested. Check out the George Floyd Criminal Arrest Timeline and let’s have a Criminal Background Check on him. Let’s see if he had an investigation being a career criminal (activities). George Floyd Gun Pregnant: Firearm/Gun Robbery Conviction & Theft Criminal. Career According to Candace Owens, who refused to amend “George his Martyr” said that George once put a gun to a pregnant lady’s/women’s stomach and allegedly robbed a pregnant lady which is not acceptable by any means. However, there is no written statement of the same in the court records. If they can't write English reliably we have to assume they can't read English reliably. EEng 00:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  "There's no debating whether information on Floyd's criminal history will be included in the article; it will". Well, then by all means propose some material for this section and we can work on it together. I agree we need better sources, please add some you feel are reliable concerning this area of George Floyd's life. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  Octoberwoodland, are you asking other editors to find sources that support the information you want to add? —valereee (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  we need better sources, please add some you feel are reliable – I'm afraid that's not my niche in the Wikipedia ecological system. I copyedit and sift material to separate the wheat from the chaff. I leave it to others to bring the material to the table in the first place. EEng 01:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  I feel the sources currently in the article are reliable. Here are a couple more discussing how one of Floyd's arrests in Houston was made by disgraced officer Gerald Goines: [14] [15]. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is already in the article including the lead. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposal cites source that are not WP:RELIABLE, and one that is a WP:PRIMARY source.—Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I am afraid I am with the majority consensus on this one. It would be useful to have a separate section.Reaper7 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this version, but support describing his part in the aggravated robbery and coke possession conviction(s); screw dropped charges. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  InedibleHulk, it was less than a gram of cocaine. C'mon, you and I had more than that for breakfast. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

My breakfasts lasted an hour, tops, not 10 to 18 months. That's about as long as he attended college or helped his church. May be "bullshit", but not in the "fake" sense of the word. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If it only lasts an hour, you need to get better cocaine. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

They sell good cocaine now? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose dedicated section as undue, but if reliable sources are reporting convictions, I think we have to mention them at least in passing. Yes, it's bullshit, but that's not our decision to make. —valereee (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Locking people up for drugs is nutty. Locking people up for breaking into other people's houses, threatening them with guns and taking their stuff is legit. He was lucky to have not been lawfully killed on the spot for the latter. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support We definitely need this information. The wording could be touched up a bit. However, there are much better sources that can be used. Other people have added good RSs, but I’d also like to add this extensive Snopes article that came out yesterday: Anon0098 (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support We need to include this information, perhaps in even more details with the sources proposed above. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Even though none of this justifies his horrible murder, I believe it's relevant, the wording needs to be changed a bit though 181.167.143.17 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

I have rewritten the section based on the new sources suggested by other editors. Below is the updated section with the new sources. Please feel free to modify it and make suggestions. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

(UPDATED) Criminal History

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.

---

Prior to his death, George Floyd had previously been convicted of several felony offenses including armed robbery, pointing a gun at a pregnant woman, and illegal sale and distribution of cocaine. Minneapolis Police Officer Bob Kroll released a statement on June 1, 2020 stating that Floyd had a violent criminal history and that, “What is not being told is the violent criminal history of George Floyd. The media will not air this”. Floyd relocated to Minneapolis, Minnesota from Houston, Texas in 2014 after serving five years in Texas prison for felonies committed in Texas. Floyd took part in assault and armed robbery in 2007 and spent five years in prison for breaking and entering, assault, and armed robbery. Floyd also had past convictions related to cocaine use and distribution, and firearms theft. Floyd was arrested five times in the state of Texas for cocaine possession for which he served 8 months in jail for one offense and another 10 months in jail for a subsequent offense.

Floyd’s criminal record in Texas states he had five convictions for theft, possession, and trade of cocaine. Floyd was arrested five times in the state of Texas for cocaine possession for which he served 8 months in jail for one offense and another 10 months in jail for a subsequent offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octoberwoodland (talk • contribs)

References

• Support the newly updated section or any consensus based revision of the section created by other editors. It's important to note that Floyd was a career criminal who was committing yet another felony at the time of his death. (passing counterfeit currency is a felony under federal law)Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Still oppose - this is improved over the last draft in that it cites reliable sources and omits the "high on meth" bit, which is good since that's debunked by the Snopes article cited. But it still includes Kroll's quote, even though that is also debunked by the Snopes article cited. The cocaine charges are mentioned three separate times, and I've lost count of how many sentences convey that Floyd spent four years in prison for armed robbery. Aside from the Kroll quote, this proposed text adds nothing that isn't already in the article, it just repeats the same facts... except the pregnant woman bit, that's new. "Pregnant" is not in any of the sources cited except Snopes, which writes: no evidence suggests a woman involved in the 2007 charge was pregnant ... Nothing in the court documents suggests she was pregnant at the time of the robbery, contrary to what memes and Owens later claimed. So, the proposed text says the opposite of what the sources its cites say. And that makes me think this is not a good use of time. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, important and well-sourced information, even if some editors try to trivialize it.--Norden1990 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Kroll is only mentioned by Snopes as a source to be debunked. WP:UNDUE to mention him. George Floyd#Later life already has info on his past residences and crimes, so it's unclear if text will be supplemented or replaced.—Bagumba (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose He did that then this but when he did that...Sorry but the prose does not flow and is a tad confusing. Also "prior to his death" reads like it was only yesterday, not years ago. Also why is Kroll even relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Criminal history and details are important, and Kroll should be cited. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This needs its own section.Reaper7 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Except remove "pregnant." There is no evidence of that. Anon0098 (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I still find this a dedicated section problematic. For instance, the proposed addition says "Floyd relocated to Minneapolis, Minnesota from Houston, Texas in 2014 after serving five years in Texas prison for felonies committed in Texas." It doesn't mention what most RS say about the reason behind the relocation, which feels like it encourages the reader to infer nefarious reasons for the relocation. Pregnant woman isn't in RS, in fact the snopes source says it's NOT there. Kroll is the Union president, not just an officer. This whole thing just feels really pointy to me. We've covered the guy's criminal history. It feel undue, the whole idea of a dedicated section. —valereee (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  One of the issues with this RfC is that it's asking us to decide two or three different things. The first is which info goes into the article. The second is whether it gets separated out into a section with a heading, and if so, what that heading should be. I think we'd do better to first agree on the content and then after we've agreed on that we can work out whether the content we've agreed on needs its own section and what the section head should be. —valereee (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support This definitely needs its own section. 181.167.143.17 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly Oppose a dedicated subsection. In fact I favor keeping what is currently in the article, which is a summary paragraph about his convictions, and no more. The material in the article also documents his conversion in prison. IMO we should add that he moved to Minnesota not just to look for a job but the make a new start with his life.[16] In which he apparently succeeded, since he seems to have had no brushes with the law in his five years in Minnesota. In any case I would certainly not quote Kroll, who is not a neutral or reliable source; the police unions always back the officers and try to make the victim look bad. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that he had no confrontations with the police doesn't mean he was not still living a life of crime, and living under the radar of the police. At the time of his death, he was found to be high on weed, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and morphine. Possession of meth and fentanyl are both serious crimes. He was also passing counterfeit money. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, he was continuing to use dangerous drugs (weed is not dangerous, but the other drugs he was high on are), and violate the law whenever it suited to him. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

When a guy with a history of crimes against people reforms, the point is he stops being a danger to others. Apples and oranges. Simply passing funny money isn't harmful, but keeping the ill-gotten goods is. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

reverting close to allow more discussion

Octoberwoodland, you can't close that. You opened it and !voted in it. I suggest you start reading policy on closing discussions. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Policy states that any editor can close a discussion, even one of the participants if consensus is obvious. See WP:CLOSE. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, how is it obvious? —valereee (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I consider this just trolling. The majority of the editors voted for inclusion. Even some of the editors who opposed adding the current section still stated it should be included with specific changes. I made all the changes suggested by the commenting editors. So please revert your edit warring. I see no value in continuing to beat a dead horse. Editor consensus is to include -- period. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, simple majority doesn't matter. Arguments matter. —valereee (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And the arguments, even many of the oppose, state it should be included. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, the updated version was posted only three days ago. The !vote was 5-3, which is far from obvious. No one in the oppose section of the updated version seems to be saying anything you're saying they said. —valereee (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for almost 7 days. You are ignoring the previous votes and arguments. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, the original discussion, yes, but you changed the proposal, and then you closed a proposal you opened and !voted on after only three days without a clear consensus. Seriously, you should think about reverting your close and letting someone else close this. —valereee (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I will revert the close to allow for more time, which is a reasonable request. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, thank you, I think it's the right decision. —valereee (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

When you feel sufficient time has passed, you can file at WP:ANRFC under Other types of closing requests to have an uninvolved editor determine the state of consensus and close the discussion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask User:MelanieN to close it after another week or so since she has not participated in the discussion. I noticed that another admin has been involved in the discussion, however, since they are acting as an editor instead of an admin, it would not be appropriate for them to close as per wikipedia policy which states an admin should not act as such when they are acting as an editor in the discussion. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN !voted at the related Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#RFC on Floyd's criminal past. Posting for a close at the noticeboard is the most straightforward option.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's correct, which is why I declined Octoberwoodland's suggestion that I close this. Instead I have chimed in with an opinion above. Certainly Octoberwoodland should not have attempted to close this. Bagumba is right; we need a neutral third party, preferably an administrator, to close this. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Chicago Tribune

There's a long bio in the tribune: A long look at the complicated life of George Floyd. It covers the home invasion. —valereee (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

More specifically, it's an Associated Press article hosted on the Tribune website.—Bagumba (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The specific passage: In August 2007, Floyd was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Investigators said he and five other men barged into a woman’s apartment, and Floyd pushed a pistol into her abdomen before searching for items to steal. —valereee (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is a free copy at AP News. This is what it says about criminal history:

But then, the man known throughout Cuney as “Big Floyd,” started finding trouble.

Between 1997 and 2005, Floyd was arrested several times on drug and theft charges, spending months in jail. Around that time, Wayne’s mother, Sheila Masters, recalled running into Floyd in the street and learning he was homeless.

“He’s so tall he’d pat me on my head ... and say, ‘Mama you know it’s going to be all right,’” Masters said.

In August 2007, Floyd was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Investigators said he and five other men barged into a woman’s apartment, and Floyd pushed a pistol into her abdomen before searching for items to steal. Floyd pleaded guilty in 2009 and was sentenced to five years in prison. By the time he was paroled, in January 2013, he was nearing 40.

I posted above this Houston Chornicle bio that says:

Court records show Floyd was first arrested in Harris County in 1997, when he was charged with selling less than a gram of drugs.

He bounced in and out of jail and prison over the next decade, with two theft cases, three drug charges and a trespassing case.

The home address he gave police during those years was his mother’s residence in the 3500 block of Nalle Street, near Texas Southern University. In between, he had odd jobs, but nothing 9-to-5.

In 2004, former Houston police officer Gerald Goines arrested Floyd after Goines said Floyd bought a small amount of crack cocaine from him. Floyd pleaded guilty and received a 10-month state jail sentence, according to court records.

Goines has since been at the center of a huge scandal after leading a case that led to the deaths of two people in a botched raid. The Harris County District Attorney’s Office is re-investigating his cases, sending notices to thousands of defendants convicted based on Goines’ casework over the years, including Floyd.

Dane Schiller, a spokesman for the DA’s office, said officials have not determined whether Floyd was arrested on false grounds.

“Our civil rights division is looking at that arrest as part of their ongoing investigation,” Schiller said.

Floyd’s defense attorney, James M. Brooks, died in 2015 after a bout with cancer.

Floyd’s last arrest was his most serious, an aggravated robbery charge involving a deadly weapon in 2007. He was accused of being part of a home robbery by six men and holding a gun to a woman's stomach. He pleaded guilty.

Note that both of the sources say "Investigators said" or "He was accused of". They don't say in their own voice that he did it. (Obviously, it's possible if not likely that he pled guilty even if he was not factually guilty of all of the specific actions alleged against him. I haven't seen an allocution or mention of one anywhere.) The prior charges were minor charges for small drug amounts, and at least one of them is being reviewed because of the Goines scandal.

My feeling is that a whole section, with a header, about his criminal history is undue. I think how the article handles it currently is fine. There's always room for improvement, of course, but the text proposed above is not better than what's currently in the article in my opinion, and I'm not seeing any significant omissions in what's currently in the article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I think we probably need to include a mention of the details of the armed robbery. —valereee (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

valereee, the article currently says, about the armed robbery, In 2007 he was charged with a group armed robbery in a home invasion; he agreed to a plea deal in 2009 and was sentenced to five years in prison. What would you suggest adding, exactly? I assume something involving "woman" and "abdomen", but did you have specific language you wanted to propose? (Which might get more traction than what has been proposed here so far.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I think between those two clauses we need to insert something along the lines of "According to the AP and the Houston Chronicle, Floyd was accused of holding a gun to a woman's stomach during the robbery." —valereee (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I always have this problem with double-attribution. E.g., "(1) according to the AP, (2) investigators said, (3) [allegation]". Do we attribute to both or one? I would suggest that if we say "authorities said" or "police/prosecutors accused Floyd of" or anything like that, then we don't need to attribute that to AP/Tribune. Because it's not in doubt that the accusation was made. We know AP and Tribune are sourcing that to the probable cause statement itself, and the accusation is in the probable cause statement. I think it's more important to specify who was making the accusation rather than who was reporting it. What do you think of something like, "Floyd was accused [by authorities/police/prosecutors] of holding a gun to a woman's stomach during the robbery"? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, yeah, that probably works. The reason I suggested attributing both is so that people could see clearly we were using multiple reliable sources, but I get your point that it's awkward and wordy. And, yes, they're clearly using the probably cause statement, (wish they'd mentioned that so we could.) I'd say add the info but put a pin in this so we keep looking for sources that do mention where they got the info. —valereee (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. Let's see if our colleagues agree. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That feels borderline whitewashing. He wasn’t just “accused” he was charged and pled guilty. Just tell it how it is. “He was charged with X and was sentenced to Y years after a plea deal.” There are other sources that also show he was charged, as well as court docs. It shouldn’t be this difficult Anon0098 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He wasn't "charged" with "holding a gun to a woman's stomach". He was charged with "armed robbery". That's the "charge". The "holding a gun to a woman's stomach" was, indeed, an accusation. It was an accusation made by a witness (the woman), who told a police officer, who signed the probable cause affidavit. saying, in effect, "This woman says this guy held a gun to her stomach during the robbery". Nobody ever determined that it was true. Floyd's pleading guilty does not necessarily mean he admits the truth of every allegation contained in the probable cause statement. Here is one possible scenario: Floyd participated in the armed robbery, but it was another man holding the gun. If that were the case, Floyd very well may have decided to plead guilty and accept the deal, despite the fact that the probable cause statement was inaccurate in this regard. Unless we have a source that says that he did this, all we have is a police officer saying under oath that a witness told him that this happened. In other words, "accused". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you wanted to remove the current phrasing and replace it with accusations instead of charges, so my bad. Regardless, it might be better to just explain it rather than try to pick who is alleging what. "According to investigators' probable-cause statement, Floyd reportedly..." with the Snopes article cited, or another RS if you have one handy. Anon0098 (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

People who pleaded guilty as charged, repeatedly, under no apparent duress, then moved across the country to use their admitted criminal history as a cautionary tale to the next generation were very likely as guilty as they told the judges they were. Words like "allegedly" and "accused" are only good for untested or dropped charges. The wrongfully convicted (or even those who wrongly believe they are) typically say so later, usually vehemently, often to the local and/or international press. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with InedibleHulk. It should be written as reported: i.e. he held a gun to a woman's abdomen. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear all: I was one of the first to suggest inclusion of these details of the home invasion. Now I find it included, which is good. But it is included in the lede, which I think is out of place here. The lede should mention that he pled guilty for an armed robbery with a deadly weapons and spent five years etc. The details should be in the body of the article. Not vice versa. When lede contains more detail than the body of an article, it looks unprofessional. BorisG (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. However you stated it should belong in the body of the article, but removed the sentence entirely. I added the sentence in the body paragraph next to where it explains his indictments. Anon0098 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Abdominal pains

What is this preoccupation with the abdomen? If a woman is pregnant and someone holds a gun to her abdomen, that kind of means something. But if (as seems to be the case) we're not going to report the pregnancy (no RS or something?) then the abdomen loses its significance. In a robbery with a gun, it's a given that you point the gun at people; if a gentleman armed robber studiedly does not point his gun at anyone, THAT would be worth reporting to our readers. And in the occasional armed robbery situations where I've been offered the choice of what part of my body will be on the receiving end of a firearm's aim, I've always chosen my abdomen over the head or chest (limbs are never on the menu for some reason). So tell me: what is the reader supposed to learn from the tummy fact? That he didn't point at the woman's head? EEng 18:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought there were RS reporting he'd "pressed" or "held" the gun to her abdomen, which makes formulating a sentence more difficult if we don't mention the body part. You can say "He pointed a gun at her," but you can't say, "He held a gun to her." —valereee (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Right now the article says

Then, in 2009, he pleaded guilty to a 2007 aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to five years in prison. According to investigators' probable cause statement, he held a gun to a woman's abdomen during the robbery.

Instead, just say

Then, in 2009, he pleaded guilty to a 2007 aggravated robbery using a gun and was sentenced to five years in prison.

The reader knows a gun is a deadly weapon. And he will surmise without being told that during a robbery-with-gun the gun gets pointed at people. Problem solved. I'd go farther and reduce it to

Then, in 2009, he was sentenced to five years in prison for a 2007 aggravated robbery using a gun.

... since I don't see why the guilty plea matters, but I'm not insisting on that. EEng 12:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

'aggravated robbery using a gun' feels redundant. —valereee (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know whether aggravated communicated some nuance of the nature of the crime, but now that I check I think using a gun covers that too. So let's drop aggravated. -EEng 12:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe just for a 2007 armed robbery? —valereee (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose there's no harm in renaming the charge ("aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon") to which he pleaded, just seems like adding a layer of slight imprecision for no big reason. But I think noting his plea to whatever-it's-called is important, indicates he didn't think he was innocent. I'd like to know what he gave the prosecution in return for the bare minimum sentence, but only if sourced, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why all the aggravating lingo? Why not just

Then, in 2009, he was sentenced to five years in prison for a 2007 robbery using a gun.

? A deadly weapon could be a crossbow, so why leave the reader guessing? EEng 15:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't draft Texas' statutes, crimes are what they are. The part about him holding a gun to her abdomen precludes the crossbow. Only gets confusing if you blank that part. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying. Do you have any specific suggestions or concerns about the last proposed version just above? EEng 16:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if you remove the charge, particulars and plea, it'd be precisely that less informative. Let it be. That's my advice, anyway, not an order. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, a guilty plea does not indicate he didn't think he was innocent. It could indicate he knew he'd end up with a longer sentence if he were convicted falsely, which is common. I'm not arguing this is what happened, but we can't make that assumption. —valereee (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Generally a good point. Absent any known statement of innocence over the next decade, though, I feel I'm assuming safely in this case. Wikipedia shouldn't speculate on his motives in its voice, just give the result. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've lost track of indents but Then, in 2009, he was sentenced to five years in prison for armed robbery. would be my !vote. It doesn't matter that it was a 2007 armed robbery (versus 2008 or 2006). "Armed robbery" = with a gun. Every reader will assume that. They won't suppose it was with a crossbow, or even a knife or bat. They'll assume gun unless we say otherwise because by far the most common type of armed robbery is with a gun. The gun-to-abdomen part, if we said it in wikivoice, is a BLP violation in my opinion, because we don't have a reliable source for that detail. We'd have to attribute that as an allegation, and there's no point in attributed allegations, because "the point" is that he did a stint in prison for armed robbery; it really doesn't matter the specifics of where he pointed his gun during the robbery. There is no source for "pregnant", as Snopes points out. That seems to be a made-up talking point, I think popularized by a certain right-wing pundit. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm fine with that. I was going to get to dropping the 2007 too, but I didn't want to push my luck just yet. EEng 00:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you not read the high and mighty sign upon reentry, Lucky? "Vague, general statements don't help." In other words, they do not help. Do we need a "Help Wanted" sign hung above that one before it sinks in for "some people"? And don't try and tell me this isn't an edit request, so it doesn't count, I invented that excuse! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused. Regarding the section on criminal history, it appears more are for it than against it yet an admin is boycotting the section somehow and someone closed a discussion prematurely and now there are warnings not to edit it? Could this be any more confusing? How is a “new editor” supposed to understand and navigate all this unorganized red tape? Joey.J (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think details of his most serious crime need to be included, especially given that the article contains other much more trivial details of his life. We do not have to say this in Wikipedia voice; we can cite the probable cause statement or whatever its name. Contrary to some statements above the details provide a lot of information to the reader. Currently it is not even clear if he robed a home, shop or bank. This is kind of important. BorisG (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

JoeyJ, re: How is a “new editor” supposed to understand and navigate all this unorganized red tape?, it's not easy, and in general it's better if new editors start out with noncontentious articles. That gives them the chance to learn policy in a place where other editors have time to be patient with learners. Re: it appears more are for it than against it yet an admin is boycotting the section somehow and someone closed a discussion, we call it a !vote, which we read as "not-vote." The numbers don't matter nearly as much as the arguments made, which must be based on policy. Newer editors often think it's a straight vote and that they can just say "Support, it needs to be there" or "Oppose, we don't need it" and we count up the votes and call it consensus for the majority. But if you'll look at the various opinions in that !vote, you'll see that the more experienced editors are giving answers that explain what policy they're using to support or oppose. The closing admin then goes through each !vote, considers the argument, assigns it a weight, and decides whether there's consensus. In this case, the closing admin decided there was no consensus at this time to add such a section. —valereee (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A general question: how to challenge unmotivated reverts? I have included the information, and explained the rationale clearly, and an editor User:Slatersteven just reverts it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Floyd&type=revision&diff=963917085&oldid=963915529 with a provocative and meaningless edit summary 'What is armed robbery?'. How can I challenge that? Is there a place to report this type of behaviour? BorisG (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. If an edit you make is reverted, and you still think the content should be in the article, start a discussion on the talk page and see if there is consensus for including the content. In this case, the content at issue is already being discussed here, on the talk page. It does not have consensus, and so shouldn't be re-instated until there is consensus for it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. But it was in the article in the first place (in the lede of all places, which was a wrong place), so I think it is the removal that requires consensus, no? Anyway, how are we going to achieve a consensus if even a vote did not achieve it? BorisG (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS and WP:BRD answer your first question; WP:CONSENSUS answers the second. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@BorisG: But it was in the article in the first place ... so I think it is the removal that requires consensus, no?: When editors are in a disagreement, they need discuss. Do not edit war. There's no advantage given to reverting to what was there first.—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

BorisG, I think you're arguing WP:Stable version? The content was not in the original version of the article, which was moved from draft less than three weeks ago and has never become stable, so no, we don't need consensus to remove it. —valereee (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Death

Some questions:

- Is 'subdual' a word?

- Didn't some of the autopsies or analyses mention 'postural asphyxia'? Also that police policy is not ordinarily to restrain a subject face-down when handcuffed due to the risk of it?

- Was it deemed significant that other officers were sitting on top?

- Does anyone have NPOV concerns in either direction about this section? Can we find detailed facts please?Createangelos (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

'Subdual' is a valid, if unconventional, tense of the word 'subdue'. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Createangelos, various editors have expressed NPOV concerns in both directions about this section, which makes me think we're getting it about right, see the FAQs. If you know where someone is mentioning 'postural asphyxia' or police policy or the significance of other officers sitting on him as relevant to the content in this section, that would be great, just give us the links and we can discuss! —valereee (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, there's a wikipedia article about Positional asphyxia saying it's a synonym of postural asphyxia, and includes the quote with two references from various police documents “[a]s soon as the subject is handcuffed, get him off his stomach." That article does link back to George Floyd so maybe this is complete. I don't actually remember any notable reference from an autopsy, maybe I'm only remembering informal reaction videos of officers watching the video and reacting to a dangerous and incorrect restraint.Createangelos (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Createangelos, one of the sources cited there seemed reasonable, I've added it, let's see what happens. :) —valereee (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

OK this is nice, one thing we have to be careful of is if we're trying to substitute police incompetence for systemic racism as a cause, there is systemic racism in the police forces and that could well have played a role in how many officers were on top of Floyd and standing around ignoring his pleas. Positional asphyxia doesn't imply the death wasn't intentional but has to do with the misconception that if someone can speak they can breathe etc. I won't be heartbroken if this gets reverted, and I appreciate we're trying to represent the fair balance of the sources, thanks again.Createangelos (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Psychoactive substances

In the full report, the toxicologist listed several psychoactive substances or metabolites found in Floyd's system: Another tidbit in the article cited only to the primary source autopsy report. Not even listed as a significant condition. This seems WP:UNDUE.—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I would say that if it's not in secondary sources, we probably don't use it, but I'm guessing we can find secondary sources for that. It's likely some of this information was added by inexperienced editors who thought primary sources were actually better. —valereee (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. In a subject of this scope, I would expect more than one reliable source to call it WP:DUE. We'd otherwise end up reproducing the entire report.—Bagumba (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I would not object if that sentence is removed. It is probably not understood by most readers anyway. WWGB (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No objection to removing. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it.—Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I do object to removing it. I think it is important to the context of the article, and these substances did contribute to his death. Let's establish consensus before removing. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to show its WP:DUE weight by citing its coverage in reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Categories

I've been wondering about the categories this bio is in. Do we slot someone into "Criminals from North Carolina" because they've committed crimes, even if that's not the thing they're notable for and they have zero notability for that? I kind of feel like there's a difference between someone who has committed crimes and someone who is categorized as notable for being a criminal. Like there's a difference between someone who golfs and someone who is slotted into the category "American golfers", I guess? Kind of feeling my way along here, is there previous discussion on this? It kind of feels pointy to slot Floyd into categories like "21st-century American criminals". —valereee (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Comparing to sport isn't reasonable, because those cats are only for people who do so as a notable career. The large majority of criminals aren't professional, but criminality was certainly a large part of GF's life even if he had never been a career criminal. His several convictions included a home invasion armed robbery, for which he was sentenced to 5 y imprisonment. Jim Michael (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Michael, but isn't that kind of pointy? If a person isn't notable for their criminality, just like they aren't notable for whatever else, do we put them into that category? I'm not sure. —valereee (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

From what I've seen, whether something is a defining feature of a bio only affects its leadworthiness. Categories, on the other end, include whatever factually fits. "Categoryworthiness" isn't even a plausible word. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, so Donald Trump could be in the category "American golfers" ? :D —valereee (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Criminal cat

No, because Trump hasn't played golf professionally; sportsperson cats are only for pros. You can't compare sportsperson cats to criminal cats, which aren't limited to career criminals. If they were, you couldn't put most serial killers in criminal cats. Jim Michael (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Michael, sorry, not following...you couldn't put serial killers into criminal categories? I'm guessing most serial killers are primarily notable for their criminal activity. It's a defining characteristic. This guy is not notable for his criminal activity. —valereee (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm explaining the difference between sportsperson cats & criminal cats. The former are only for pros, excluding the much larger number of people who partake in sports as a hobby, to keep fit etc. Criminal cats aren't only for career criminals. The large majority of criminals, including most serial killers, aren't professionals. Therefore, bios of criminals aren't exempt from criminal cats on the basis that they're among the large majority of criminals who aren't professional/career criminals. Jim Michael (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well then those categories are being misused as categories should be "defining characteristics of a subject of the article". In this case, unless it is a characteristic "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define", it shouldn't be included. The example given to substantiate this is "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement", with the three words in italics being considered defining. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, thank you for that link to policy; that's exactly what I'd been struggling with. This guy obviously had been arrested multiple times on drug possession charges, and he had the one really bad conviction. But is it actually a defining characteristic? I think maybe it's not. —valereee (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It's mostly notability. For example, jeffrey dahmer was a serial killer, not a chef. There is a distinct difference. Anon0098 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Anon0098, I think you're agreeing that categorizing someone as a criminal if they aren't notable for their crimes might be problematic? —valereee (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

valereee, Right, it is important to mention it within the article itself, but I think the categorization is a little over-the-top. I understand where they are coming from, but it might violate WP:CATDEFINING as RandomCanadian stated. I would support you removing it Anon0098 (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I found further policy at Category:American_criminals that states: For inclusion in this category, a person must: Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a noteworthy felony So I think we can safely remove those categories. —valereee (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's absolutely incredible and hypocrite. You are all distorting the WP rules in order to represent Floyd as a hero "statesman". He was a criminal, who was tragically murdered by a policeman during an official procedure. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Norden1990, I've left the appropriate category, which was Category:American people convicted of robbery We can, if we find better sources, probably add Category:American people convicted of drug offenses and Category:American people convicted of theft and Category:American people convicted of trespass, though we'd have to create that one. But Category:American criminals is extremely clear on what qualifies: people who have been convicted of notable felonies. There is nothing notable about the crime Floyd committed. I'm very sorry you choose to see that as hypocrisy on my part. I assure you I am interpreting policy to the best of my ability. —valereee (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Norden1990, I agree. It is fascinating how much censoring this article has undergone with the efforts of Valereee, Bagumba and others. I have come out of WP retirement to add my voice to bring more balance. He has been convicted with a crime and should have that category re-instated. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Aua, please go look at the instructions for inclusion at Category:American criminals —valereee (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Acting job

Google "George Floyd porn star" and look at the result and the images. It looks like he did some porn videos. One image shows his chest tattoos match with the porn star and his face looks the same.

Should be included if true. Mr. James Floyd (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest adding this to the FAQ but I think it's already covered by Q2. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is true. His face (and other bits) are clearly visible in the video. But we cannot include that in the article without its coverage in a reliable source. In the current climate, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. WWGB (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It is reliable but I understand it hurts his image, which I don't want to do. BLM Mr. James Floyd (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There's the truth, then there's "the truth". People (generally) love pornography. That's not the issue. It's that Google flat-out lies about other things, too. Gotta set a bar for everyone's sake somewhere, may as well be on Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, I don't think anyone has identified a source generally considered to be reliable on this aspect of Floyd. If one were found, we would need to be wary of WP:UNDUE: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all ... Editorial oversight requries that we don't automatically mention every "fact" mentioned in a reliable source. We apply due weight.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be a misunderstanding of UNDUE. There is no "minority view or aspect" to Mr Floyd being in an adult video. We should be wary of editors using UNDUE selectively to censor facts that don't cater to their POV. Mr Floyd being in an adult video is of interest to a significant number of Wiki readers as it gives them a better understanding of the man -- more so than "gentle giant-isque" and other vague descriptions plastered all over the article. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Enlighten me: what "better understanding" do you gain about a person from watching a video of them having sex, that is significant enough to include in their biography? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

But it's true. Oh ... WP:ONUS.—Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Mr Floyd became notable because his death was egregious. As is natural for all humans, a killing's egregiousness is directly proportional to how distasteful the perpetrator and the manner of deaths are and inversely correlated to how innocent the victim is. Giving an accurate portrayal of who Mr Floyd was will take away from that: an absentee father, drug addict, convicted felon, and an adult video special. Right now, we are not presenting Mr Floyd as he really was with all the "gentle giant," "involved in ministry" business.

Put another way, an accurate representation of this gentleman's moral and ethical character goes to the very core of why this is notable. While the circumstances of his death alone would have him notable, the better he was as a man, the worse the killing is, and thus we must be careful to frame him as accurately as possible. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

a killing's egregiousness is directly proportional to how distasteful the perpetrator and the manner of deaths are and inversely correlated to how innocent the victim is Strongest possible disagree. Also, I'm not sure anyone other than a god can create an accurate representation of a person's moral and ethical character. Where do we mortal even begin with such a judgment? Also also, there is nothing moral or immoral about starring in an adult video or possessing $10 worth of crack. Also also also, where do you get "absentee father" from? C'mon, let's not smear the people we write about with baseless accusations. Also x4, being a drug addict has nothing to do with one's innocence, morality, or character. Damn there is so much to unpack in that statement. I'll just say I disagree with like very single word there and the entire worldview/philosophy/ideology they reveal. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Strongest possible disagree. The victim's moral and ethical character has absolutely nothing to do with notability. The fact a man was a flawed human being has zero to do with the value of his life. —valereee (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact a man was a flawed human being has zero to do with the value of his life – I don't agree with that, actually, but don't mistake that for any kind of endorsement of the government or any of its agents killing someone. I've always thought that the fact that Floyd was a flawed human being is part of why his case teaches such an important lesson: even flawed people don't deserve to get killed by cops. EEng 03:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I see the distinction, but I believe both are true. —valereee (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note as I already stated on the matter. We need coverage of this by multiple high-quality sources, otherwise, it becomes a BLP violation. El_C 09:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Add coronavirus diagnosis and blood toxicology to lead

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.

---

In 2014, he moved to the Minneapolis area, finding work as a truck driver and a bouncer. In 2020, he lost his security job during the COVID-19 pandemic. He died while being arrested for allegedly using counterfeit money to buy cigarettes; Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, knelt on his neck for nearly eight minutes. Although autopsy reports stated that at the time of his death, George Floyd tested positive for fentanyl, methamphetamine, cannabis, and morphine, the medical examiner issued a finding that his death was not due to intoxication or drug overdose. Floyd also tested positive for coronavirus at the time of his death.

References

Above proposal by User:Octoberwoodland

• Support adding blood toxicology and positive coronavirus testing to article lead. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  When you make a proposal, identify yourself in the proposal itself. EEng 02:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Um... haven't we been through this? EEng 02:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No. This is the first time we have discussed he was positive for coronavirus. His toxicology report already is referenced in the body of the article. I was proposing adding it to the lead to clarify that he did not die of a drug overdose. It's probably appropriate to add that he was suffering from coronavirus. I don't know if that contributed to his death, but the sources I located (this time reliable ones) all mention it. I think it's relevant that he had COVID-19 at the time of his death Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time we have discussed he was positive for coronavirus – No, the article currently states That April, he contracted COVID-19, and recovered after a few weeks. I hadn't picked up that your proposal was about the lead, and now that I do, I believe that what you propose is overdetail. Readers don't need to be told, in the lead, what didn't kill Floyd. EEng 11:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Against MOS:LEADBIO to give undue weight to autopsy report minutiae which are not the primary cause of his death.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as this adds nothing to understanding this case.Slatersteven (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose until some medical expert says any of it was somehow an important element of his biography. Including them in the lead lends undue weight unless they somehow contributed to his death, which right now no medical expert is saying. —valereee (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I tested positive for coronavirus 19 on March 10 of this year. I had it for almost two weeks. The first week I had a very mild fever for about 3 days. I also was extremely fatigued and felt very tired. The fever was very mild but the tiredness was far more intense than the normal flu. The second week I had it I developed a dry cough and I had trouble breathing for a day or so. I have type O blood which recent studies have shown that people with O blood type have some sort of resistance to the virus as antigen A and antigen B which O blood has appear to damage the proteins on the virus envelope. I went and got tested at the VA and I tested positive for both the antigen and the virus, and the VA doctors told me I was now immune to COVID-19 (So I go outside without a mask since I don't have the virus anymore and I cannot catch it again). Knowing all of this, if Floyd had COVID-19 at the time of his death and he died of asphyxiation, it may very well have contributed to his death by reducing his ability to breath. This means that the officer that killed him may have used this neck compression with his knee to subdue suspects not realizing that Floyd's ability to breath may have been compromised. In other words, I don't think the officer was trying to kill him, but may not have realized his actions would be fatal to Floyd. I don't know how an autopsy would determine if COVID-19 compromised Floyd's ability to breath but after having COVID-19 I can tell you for certain that it does interfere with the ability to breath. There is also ample evidence from several studies that black people experience more severe symptoms from COVID-19 than caucasians, and nobody knows why this is the case at present. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Many decades ago the VA's care was first-class, but if someone there gave you the idea that you can go outside without a mask since I don't have the virus anymore and I cannot catch it again they're more in the crapper than we've been led to believe. Whether Chauvin meant to kill Floyd we ill probably never really know; personally I don't think so. He just didn't give a fuck [17]. EEng 23:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, most cops are dicks. Most of them are schoolyard bullies who get a thrill out of pushing people around. Back on topic, I think its highly likely that if Floyd had COVID-19 (which he did at the time of his death) it would certainly have contributed to his death. As for VA health care, I have no complaints, I visit the VA once a month for blood draw for my meds (I have a TBI from an incident while I was in the Army and I have to take anti-seizure medications in order to have a drivers license). Oddly, while I am there they require all VA vistors at present to wear a mask inside the hospital. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is that odd? EEng 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the VA knows I had covid and recovered quickly from it, so I don't see where I need to wear a mask, but they make everyone wear one and they have the roads in and out of the VA blocked with checkpoints and issue a mask to anyone entering the hospital complex. I have also been around other family members and friends who have had it, and I have not gotten it again. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No one knows the extent to which recovery confers immunity, or whether this or that test result implies some level of immunity. I think you need to ask again about this idea you're immune. EEng 23:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, my doctor from the VA called me earlier today and said they wanted to test me again for covid 19 before my appointment next Tuesday, and I have to go in on Monday for my blood draw and another covid test. The blood draw is painless but the nose swab hurts like hell because they ram the swab up your nose and down into the back of your throat. They said that anyone who has previously tested positive for covid 19 will need to be retested every other month, so they seem to agree with what you say. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Always a good plan. EEng 00:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a WP:SNOW close on this. Pretty clear that the consensus here is to not include the content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, I'll close this as "withdrawn" but FYI it's permitted for a proposer to close their own proposal as withdrawn at any time so long as no one else has supported the proposal. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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

length of time

Vaselineeeeeeee there is new information which is saying 8'46" is not correct, it was 7'46".—valereee (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's what we've got: https://apnews.com/0b4714f6a42b362b0e2c0cd701c6392b —valereee (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: And that claim is not sourced in the article. The other articles still use 8'46 and that is by far what is used in the media. We should wait to see how this 'new info' unfolds before going against the majority of sources. At the very least, source it in the article saying how it may have been thought to be 8'46 at first but now they say it is 7.46. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, if we're not sure, maybe we shouldn't mention the length of time with any specificity. It isn't really a crucial distinction. We could possibly say 'differing reports put it at 8'46" or 7'46"' maybe? —valereee (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I added a note tag, hopefully this suffices to avoid confusion. Feel free to change the wording. I do not edit much in this area, but I'd encourage you/others who do to stay consistent between the Floyd pages as the rest still use 'nearly nine minutes'. Perhaps this note could be added there too. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, I think the note is good. Please don't ask us to stay consistent among the Floyd pages, they keep sprouting like dandelions. —valereee (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Consensus in the parent article should apply to all sub articles, so we only have to agree on these things once. Which one is the parent article? :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I think the parent article has to be Killing of? Do we need to suggest RfCs be held there? It seems like it might keep us from having multiple identical discussions. (Surely this is something that's been decided?) —valereee (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, maybe we should make a {{George Floyd FAQ}} template to put on talk pages of all articles in Category:Killing of George Floyd, that covers the basics applicable to all articles, like white/black, killed by, and 7:46, to name a few. And that FAQ can say discuss issues applicable to the entire category at the parent article (which I agree is Killing of, at least for now). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

No need for a template. {{FAQ}} allows you to point to the FAQ of another article. In fact there are a lot of nifty parameters that will allow us to make a quite elaborate and beautiful family of FAQ pages for no one to notice. EEng 20:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

lol —valereee (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

OK I'm going to go give that a spin. I haven't gotten to play with AWB in a while anyway. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@EEng and Valereee: The FAQ page is now at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/FAQ, and if either of you want to mess with the formatting of Template:George Floyd FAQ, you can change it there and it'll look the same on all the pages. I've added it to some but not all GF-related pages. I'm going to have to change what I've done so far slightly to move it below {{talk page header}} (instead of above), per WP:TPL guidelines. (boo) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, nice! It'll be interesting to see if there are any reactions —valereee (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, why the move down the headers? —valereee (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, because WP:TPL and others were rearranging the headers behind me, so I figured I'd just submit and follow TPL. Personally, I think the order of things at TPL is wrong, but I guess it's global consensus? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, wow, that seems so bureaucratic and deaf to the needs of a current event article. Ai. Ah, well. Probably not worth fighting about. Isn't that sad? I'm saying the same things I'd say in a meeting at Coca-cola. —valereee (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 —valereee (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich pointed me here after I inquired why FAQs were popping up in places where such questions hadn't been asked. I don't feel great about applying an FAQ to a large number of pages without any discussion on those pages. I get not wanting to have the same discussions over and over, but those discussions largely aren't actually happening on many of these pages, and IMO the FAQ makes it more likely that people will want to discuss them (WP:BEANS and whatnot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I had already tweaked the lead of Eight minutes 46 seconds. I think 8:46 is still the symbolic time, at least for now, having had continuous coverage for almost 3 weeks. Though the correct 7:46 should be mentioned too.—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of FAQs as being to stop or reduce discussions, but rather to share the outcome of past discussions (e.g. Q1) and to improve future discussions (e.g. Q2). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

They don't mention past discussions except by implication, and are on pages where there have been no discussions. *I* get the point, but it's confusing (and again, potentially WP:BEANSy) to have them on dozens of pages where there's no record of any such questions (nevermind frequently asked). If they're to continue on those pages, it should at least be clear about where those discussions happened. Otherwise it looks like an FAQ to preempt questions rather than report on discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just collapse and put down beneath other banners at those pages, so that if/when stuff does come up there's some ready bit of history? —valereee (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding pointers to the appropriate archived discussion makes sense. EEng 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless they're uncollapsed and right at the top, you might as well scrap them. EEng 14:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

But on pages where they aren't yet necessary/useful, it would be okay to leave them collapsed and not at the top until they become needed, wouldn't it? That would make it obvious to experienced editors that there is such a thing available if they feel like it's gotten to be something they need to give valuable real estate to. —valereee (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately that moron Levivich didn't take my advice to not use a template, so whether the FAQ is precollapsed is a global yes/no question for all articles. Whether it's at the top of the page, or buried among other banners, can be varied page by page. EEng 20:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a feature of my ironfisted lockstep template rule. But I suppose we can make it so the template passes on arguments, to give the peasants some small feeling of autonomy. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The term I had in mind was hamhanded. I recommend pasting in {FAQ|page=Talk:Killing of George Floyd/FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}} directly and deleting the template. That would also give an opportunity to review whether the FAQ is really needed on all 87,435 pages you added it to, so I'd suggest you set yourself a ping to come back to this in 2 months. EEng 22:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ping me!

-EEng

I think you misspelled nimble-fingered. Pasting that code is a terrible idea because it's missing an open curly bracket. Also for other reasons. But in any event, it's easy enough to let the wrapper pass arguments (what I suggest), remove the wrapper (what you suggest), or remove the template altogether (I think what Rhodo suggests), or any combination thereof. I'm happy to implement whatever the consensus is. When it's figured out, somebody ping me and tell me what that is. :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you misspelled thimble-brained. Also sentence fragment. EEng 03:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Goines

Is there consensus to include something about Floyd's 2004 arrest by Gerald Goines being reviewed? It's been covered in articles by AP, WSJ, New York Times: Mr. Floyd, who died after a white officer held him under his knee in Minneapolis, igniting a protest movement against police brutality, grew up in Houston and was arrested by Mr. Goines in 2004 over a $10 drug transaction. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to jail. The 2004 arrest is now being re-examined by Kim Ogg, the district attorney in Houston’s Harris County, as part of the review of the former officer’s now-questionable cases. The arrest was not the first time Mr. Floyd had had run-ins with law enforcement in Houston. But it sent him to state jail for 10 months. He later moved to Minneapolis to try to turn his life around. “His interactions with at least two policemen were quite negative — one likely led to a wrongful conviction, the other to his death in custody,” Ms. Ogg said. “It’s more than a coincidence. It’s just a terrible example of how unfortunately some policemen deal with minority men. I don’t think the color of the cop is really the problem. I think the problem is police culture.”, Houston Chronicle, The Hill, NBC. Seems to me that it's a significant part of his bio, worth inclusion. Especially since we mention that he went to jail eight times, we should tell the reader that one of them was likely a wrongful conviction according to prosecutors. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

When this was in the article before it was sourced only to [18], which was about police shootings in Houston and the Houston police chief. The passage re Floyd said:

The string of shooting deaths comes a little more than a year after a Houston narcotics squad killed two people during a botched drug raid, drawing national scrutiny. An investigation found that the officer at the center of the case, Gerald Goines, had falisfied evidence to justify the deadly raid, prompting murder chargers against him and leading prosecutors to review hundreds of his prior cases. Among those who were notified that their convictions may have been tainted: George Floyd. A little more than a year before his killing sparked nationwide protests, Floyd received a letter on March 8, 2019, alerting him that Goines may have been involved in Floyd’s arrest on drug possession charges 15 years earlier, before he left Houston for Minneapolis.

This presents the Goines angle as an interesting coincidence. These kinds of notifications are de rigueur when such corruption is uncovered, and whether it will lead anywhere for 15-years-ago convictions remains to be seen. If sources said something like, "Floyd received the notice and was angry" or whatever, we'd obviously include it; on the one source I just quoted, I think we wouldn't. Given the number of sources Levivich has enumerated -- I haven't looked at them -- we probably should say something because apparently people will have heard of it. But I'd keep it severely minimal. EEng 19:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. We're far, far from anything more than possibility that there's a wrongful conviction in here. EEng 11:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support a minimal mention. I've added a 1-sentence mention twice and twice been reverted, so don't look at me. :D —valereee (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think I was the revert-er, and it was because at the time, the single source cited presented it as a curiosity. With all these new sources I'm guessing something useful can be said about the Goines connection. I'm borrowing someone's Mac right now so it's all I can do not to smash the heap of pastel-themed boutique junk to smithereens. EEng 20:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  HEY! I'm a mac user and there is no pastel-themed boutique junk anywhere near me! —valereee (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Neither are fish aware of water. EEng 20:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  You are a terrible person —valereee (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  The result of years of dedication to my craft. EEng 21:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we mention Goines is a black american like we mentioned the race of Floyd and Chauvin? Or does Goines get a pass? Reaper7 (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Reaper7, what do you mean by "a pass" in this context? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean a 'pass' in the English language sense. IE a pass on mentioning it. Reaper7 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the English phrase "getting a pass" means "not being punished for something". Like an athlete gets a pass on a foul. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are describing the American English use. I was using the Queen's English. I take it from you determined battle over semantics that you are not for mentioning Goines is black? If you could clarify at some point today it would be super. Reaper7 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure about that, you linked to "pass on" which is a different idiom than the one you used, "get a pass". And I think what you meant was, does Goines "get a pass" on being identified as a black man, which implies that being identified as a black man is a bad thing, which in turn may be interpreted as not exactly PC. Anyway, whether we should identify Goines's race depends on whether the RSes identify it and how prominently. I haven't looked. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

When making a snarky point it helps to get the Queen's English right. EEng 15:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed ^^. I still don't understand how even in an american sense of the word, one can drag up anything as absurd as being a 'black man is bad thing.' Anyways, I think it is time to open it up. Reaper7 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Should the races of Goines and the other restraining police officers be mentioned?

We have included the races of Chauvin and Floyd - a White police officer and an African American respectfully. Should we include the races of the 2 other restraining officers listed here by the BBC. Goines will now play a bigger role in the article. Should we mention his race or pass on mentioning anyone else's race? Thoughts. Reaper7 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support including his race: an accurate understanding of the situation, including Mr Floyd's life, will be enhanced by that mention. While intersectionality is difficult to deny, this helps to illustrate the complex police-community relationship in which Mr Floyd grew and ultimately died, rather than just white-black issue. Cheers,Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support If there are decent sources detailing their race. Reaper7 (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• No unless there are sources calling it significant or relevant in some way. The reason we mention Chauvin and Floyd's race is because sources are using it every time they mention the incident. Literally I'm not sure I've heard anyone say their names without giving their races. We mention it because sources mention it constantly. Where in that BBC article are the other officers being identified by race? I'm missing it. Don't think I've heard much about that, maybe a couple of passing mentions? No one seems to be saying it's relevant in some way. Does all the coverage of Goines mention his race as significant in the crime he committed? (The apparent source at the article mentioning him doesn't actually give his race, so I've removed it from the article. If the sources don't mention it, we can assume it's irrelevant.) So far looks like a definite no on Goines, who btw isn't currently mentioned in this article. —valereee (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

More than 'passing mentions.' NBC article dedicated to how significant it was that an asian american officer was involved in the Floyd incident and its implications. Another decicated artcle to the same asian american police officer and its implications. People, journalists and others are discussing the races of the police officers involved - even dedicating enture articles to the issue - and these are outlets like NBC and Yahoo.. Reaper7 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Reaper7, thanks for the additional sources. Yes, Thao maybe seems worth mentioning, at least minimally, but main coverage should probably be at Killing of. We'd have to think about how this even fits into a bio. The death section isn't supposed to be comprehensive. —valereee (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Still thinking on this. In order to add that, we have to greatly expand that section. If we mention Thao's race, do we need to mention the other two. If we do that, do we need to provide context on who was doing what, and why Thao's race is important...I'm not sure this is due weight just to shoehorn in Thao's race in Floyd's bio. I think this probably needs to be at Killing of. —valereee (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind we've got a Killing of article which is quite detailed. This article is about Floyd himself, with only a modest sketch of his death. EEng 14:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's my feeling, too, after a bit of dithering. :) —valereee (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

On the plus, mentioning Thao's race briefly does not take up much room in the article - neither his role. Of the restraining officers, one was Asian American, one Black American. However although it does not take up much room and is in line with the brevity issues, it offers the reader a true insight - an insight that articles from msm have been dedicated to. So what it really comes down to is the benefit to the reader of not mentioning it as it hardly changes the length or tone of the article. Reaper7 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Keung, Lane and Thao aren't even named in this article. Their names and races are included at Killing of George Floyd, where those details belong. It's WP:UNDUE to include that level of detail in Floyd's biography article. Note that Chauvin is the only one charged with murder; the other three are charged with aiding, so that's a big difference in terms of what level of detail is DUE. As for Goines, I'm not seeing support in sources for mentioning his race in Floyd's biography (as opposed to in an article about Goines). The relevant detail there is that one of Floyd's past charges may be overturned. I don't see sources saying the race of the corrupt officer is relevant to that officer's allegedly false charges against Floyd. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Criminal history

How is that so editorially relevant that it comes before his personal life and growing up history? GuyBlu (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@GuyBlu: If you are referring to mention in the second paragraph of the article, the lead is intended to summarize a person's life.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The summary has more detail of his criminal life than any other detail there. I don’t see why it’s necessary to be included in the first place, but even then, a summary should be a summary GuyBlu (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba sorry I’m on the app and can’t figure out how to thread my reply GuyBlu (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

GuyBlu To indent, add one additional colon to the number in front of the post you're responding to. I've fixed yours. The lead includes a single sentence about his criminal history. Including less would mean...well... —valereee (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What valereee said. I can sympathise with the point you're making, GuyBlu, but the lead should accurately sum up the contents of the article. His past life, especially any criminal background, is going to be of relevance. And for the record, we do include his personal life in the lead before this, Floyd grew up in Houston, Texas. He played football and basketball throughout high school and college. He held several jobs, and he was also a hip hop artist and a mentor in his religious community. The information is in chronological order, in that paragraph. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It is editorially relevant because it is in chronological order. His criminal record is part of his "growing up history," and it would be whitewashing to not include it, or to break chronological order for that specific detail in order to paint a different history Anon0098 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ME's report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the coroner said they were significant .[19] WWGB (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arbitrary nav section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"... I got shot ..."

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

Are the any clues about that in his history?

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

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

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

sad

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

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

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

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

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

Protected Status

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

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

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

Employment

Is there a consensus regarding Floyd's employment in proximity with Chauvin? This fact appears to be in dispute between Pinney's retracted account and the account of the club's owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleepenvoy (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The retraction concerns the claim that Floyd and Chauvin worked the same shifts and clashed heads. It is not disputed that they both worked for the same nightclub. WWGB (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

willydrach, by "significant amount of information regarding his legal troubles (which is out there)" what do you mean? We haven't seen that. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Willydrach, there is no one size fits all. Some pages might not warrant all the detail per WP:NOTDIARY. I would say Floyd is generally not notable for being a criminal, so a dedicated section would be WP: UNDUE.—Bagumba (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Not again, no there should not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

In RK's article, it's split between 2 sections: Early life & Later life. The 3 actors mentioned each have a separate subsection, but I don't know if there's a rule regarding which is better practice. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It`s irrelevant to this incident..he wasn`t wanted for a major crime..it has nothing to do with his murder 2600:1702:2340:9470:6D85:7514:AA02:ACDF (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

i dont think we should be throwing "murder" around at this point in time. that is what the trial is to determine. Stayfree76 (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"... we should be throwing [the term] 'murder' around ..." AGREED. Shouldn't we take care to use the word "alleged?" What about saying "his demise?" It seems much more neutral. This is the U.S.A. and we keep to a presumption of innocence. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE TO MY PREVIOUS EDIT -- The top of this page has an FAQ that specifically asks why "murder" cannot or should not be used. It says to use either "homocide" or "killing." See my screenshot here:
https://i.postimg.cc/3NMtZybK/2020-07-21-1456-10-Screenshot.png
So I made things more complex instead of making them more simple. Please forgive me. Go to the FAQ, or click on my screenshot, or both. Thanks for the feedback. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. I was surprised at there being no section on this. <redacted> In any case, without reference to criminal history the article seems biased and skewed. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see archives; there's been discussion. —valereee (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello —valereee! Thanks for refactoring my edit to this talk page! Do you have any idea why this was done? Also, when it says "see archives" is there a specific archive that I should see, or just any archive? I am pretty sure that if someone could specify a particular archive that would be more helpful. I did click on one archive, so I feel like I learned something, but I'm also pretty sure that it's not specific to this article. Do you know any editor that might be able to help with this? Only if you have the time, please don't bother otherwise. I am a relatively inexperienced editor. I know that we are not supposed to make personal attacks, nor are we supposed to start an "edit war." Maybe that "teahouse" website knows about this? Thanks again. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the archived discussion. As a relatively inexperienced editor, you may not realize that a highly contentious article like this one is a bad place to learn unless you can learn very, very fast. I suggest you learn WP:BLP first, as that will explain the reasons I had to redact portions of your post. —valereee (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

172.250.237.36 No..the presumption of innocence applies only to the law..George Floyd was murdered on camera..there is virtually no chance whatsoever that he wasn`t 107.217.84.95 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Misleading/False Information

i wanted to mention a few things that are incorrect in the wiki. this is just some really quick and easy ones, since i haven't gone too deep yet. more will be added. i will sign each entry so it can be tracked as more is added.

1. in "later life" section it reads: "In 2019, George Floyd worked security at the El Nuevo Rodeo club with security guard Derek Chauvin." Stayfree76 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

security guard Derek Chauvin should be replaced with either: Officer Derek Chauvin or more specifically Minneapolis Police Department Officer Derek Chauvin. In his persons page "Minneapolis Police Department" has a link directing to their page as well.

2. in "death" section it reads: "..., but officers made no attempt to revive him."

this might not be as quick and easy, but i dont think this documents the events correctly or is at least misleading. according to body cam footage (only the audio transcripts were released so far), Officer Lane was performing CPR/ assisting in Mr Floyds care. the second link has the full transcript where you can read the discussion between Officer Lane and a paramedic.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/newly-released-body-camera-transcripts-show-moments-george/story?id=71688795

https://www.fox9.com/news/transcript-of-officers-body-camera-shows-george-floyd-told-officers-i-cant-breathe-before-being-restrained

Stayfree76 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, thanks for raising this. #1 - the guy from the club later retracted his story that they worked together; I deleted the whole sentence. #2 - yes but that was only after Lane got into the ambulance, not at the scene; I think it's clear from the text in our article that the officers provided no medical assistance at the scene before the ambulance got there. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Re (1), Chauvin worked at the nightclub in a private capacity, not as a police officer. It is already established in the lead that Chauvin was a cop.

Re (2), the complete sentence reads "For the last three of those minutes Floyd was motionless and had no pulse, but officers made no attempt to revive him." No officers assisted Floyd while he was under Chauvin's knee. Lane may have offered to assist the paramedics, but that is not the extent of the statement in question. It is correct that no officers assisted Floyd during the last three minutes under Chauvin. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

RE RE (1) the situation still does no constitute calling him a "security guard" or even mention a "private capacity". it is stated "Maya Santamaria said she had been paying Chauvin, when he was off-duty, to sit in his squad car outside El Nuevo Rodeo for 17 years. She said Floyd worked as a security guard inside the club frequently in the last year."[20] to make this a little more academic we can see what the law says about it. see: https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/status-and-authority-of-off-duty-officers/ here is an excerpt and all that needs to be said. "State v. Gaines, 332 N.C. 461 (1992) (holding that the murder of an officer who was providing security for a hotel was nevertheless committed against an “officer” who was “engaged in his official duties,” which supported pursuing death penalty). Accord, State v. Locklear, 136 N.C. App. 716 (2000) (“Even an off-duty deputy is considered to be acting under the color of state law when the nature of his actions involve official police action to enforce the law.”); State v. Pope, 122 N.C. App. 89 (1996) (applying Gaines to a “law enforcement officer who was engaged in secondary employment at the time of the murder”)." Stayfree76 (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

RE RE (2) in my humble opinion the statement is still misleading. as mentioned this was just an initial pass, but since there is some feedback i have done deeper analysis. lets take the context the full sentence and the following: "For the last three of those minutes Floyd was motionless and had no pulse,[40][42] but officers made no attempt to revive him.[46]:6:46 Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck as arriving emergency medical technicians attempted to treat him". see below.

analysis: i will do my best to try an show where i am coming from. first, let me start with the 3 minutes. based on the now accepted correction to 7:46 being length in restraint and the RS used by the wiki itself we see the following... "8:25:31 the video appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak" then "At 8:27:24, the defendant removed his knee from Mr. Floyd’s neck. An ambulance and emergency medical personnel arrived, the officers placed Mr. Floyd on a gurney, and the ambulance left the scene".[21] this source states that from perceived unresponsiveness to knee removal was 1 minute and 53 seconds which is consistent with 1 minute being removed from total restraint time. next, it states that the knee was removed prior to the "medical technicians" arrival, yet the wiki states the opposite. to be thorough, in looking at the video footage itself, it does clearly show the medical team was present before the knee was removed, but they had not yet started treatment. in fact, the second the paramedic touched mr floyd's head [effectively starting triage] chauvin immediately removed his knee.[22] Lastly, based on the body cam audio transcript [23] it is clear the officers understood the health risk floyd was in (excited delirium, foaming, and bleeding from mouth). im not great with police/medical codes, but it also looks that they even upgraded the urgency. with that being said, the officers made the conscious decision to wait for the medical professionals to arrive and considering the medical documents related to excited delirium are very explicit in how dangerous the situation is, it is doing the officers a disservice to expect them to be capable of treating such a condition.

my impression: for the reasons mentioned above i now believe "but officers made no attempt to revive him.[46]:6:46" should be removed and "Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck as arriving emergency medical technicians attempted to treat him" should also be removed. Stayfree76 (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

it is doing the officers a disservice to expect them to be capable of treating such a condition: There's nothing in the existing text that said they were negligent. That's left for the readers and the legal process to decide.—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I tweaked that Chauvin was an officer and on off-duty security here.—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

awesome. also, regarding the text not showing they are negligent. the reason i mentioned removal is because this is talking about living persons, and wiki:BLP states "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking." the sentence itself implies they had a "duty" to provide medical treatment (they didnt), and for that it should just be left out as it doesnt add anything other than [maybe] state the obvious. going a bit further, it could be suggested that calling for a high priority paramedic in and of itself can be considered "treatment" as they knew the condition was not manageable by themselves. what about the second concern? based on the sources i posted the information in the wiki is false/incorrect in multiple ways. Stayfree76 (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

they knew the condition was not manageable: I dont think that is a widely held opinion.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

so first, can you please acknowledge the concern about the following: from perceived unresponsiveness to knee removal was 1 minute and 53 seconds which is consistent with 1 minute being removed from total restraint time. next, it states that the knee was removed prior to the "medical technicians" arrival, yet the wiki states the opposite. WP:Etiquette includes, but not limited to the following: 1. Do not ignore reasonable questions. 2. If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate. 3. Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.

I dont think that is a widely held opinion: i am not using an "opinion" for this matter, but studying the known evidence of the cases, video, and news reports and presenting the facts given. there is a huge problem when a wiki page uses a cited source for a point, then contradicts the same source elsewhere. at this point it is starting to resemble negligence. see WP:UNDUE, WP:Verifiability, and the general WP:Editing Policy ("... on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content")

third, to make this easy i will quote the exact part of the body cam audio transcript that clearly states they understood the medical condition so you dont have to read the whole thing like i did, or even have to click on a transcript link.

Thao: Do you have EMS coming code 3?

Lane: Ah code 2, we can probably step it up then. You got it? [crosstalk 00:13:29].

George Floyd: Please, man!

Thao: Relax!

George Floyd: l can't breathe.

Kueng: You're fine, you‘re talking fine.

Lane: Your talken, Deep breath.

George Floyd: can't breathe. can't breathe. Ah! I‘ll probably just die this way.

Thao: Relax.

George Floyd: can't breathe my face.

Lane: He's got to be on something.

Thao: What are you an?

George Floyd: can't breathe. Please, [inaudible 00:14:00] can't breathe. Shit.

Speaker 9: Well get up and get in the car, man. Get up and get in the car.

George Floyd: will, l can‘t move.

Speaker 9: Let him get in the car.

Lane: We found weed pipe on him, there might be something else, there might be like PCP or something. Is

that the shaking of the eyes right is PCP?

George Floyd: My knee, my neck.

Lane: Where their eyes like shake back and forth really fast?

George Floyd: Im through, I’m through. I’m claustrophobic. My stomach hurts. My neck hurts. Everything hurts. need

some water or something, please. Please? can't breathe officer.

Chauvin: Then stop talking, stop yelling.

George Floyd: You're going to kill me, man.

Chauvin: Then stop talking, stop yelling, it takes heck ot‘a lot of oxygen to talk.

George Floyd: Come on, man. 0h, oh. [crosstalk 00:15:03]. l cannot breathe. cannot breathe. Ah! They'll kill me. They‘ll kill me. I can't breathe. can‘t breathe. Oh!

Speaker 8: We tried that for 10 minutes.

George Floyd: Ah! Ah! Please. Please. Please-

Lane: Should we roll him on his side?

Chauvin: No, he‘s staying put where we got him.

Lane: Okay. just worry about the excited delirium or whatever.

Chauvin: Well that's why we got the ambulance coming.

Lane: Okay, suppose.

Stayfree76 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:Etiquette includes, but not limited to the following ... You did not mention the first point at WP:EQ: "Assume good faith". The guideline WP:TPG#YES also suggests: Be concise: Long posts risk being ignored or misunderstood. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We generally draw viewpoints from WP:SECONDARY sources, not WP:PRIMARY source transcripts. I'll wait for others to comment, as we edit based on consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree, please read WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH before suggesting any more changes. Please spend more time and effort on making your posts short and concise; if you can't figure out how to make your point in three sentences, many other editors won't bother to even try to figure out what you're saying. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

im pretty close to escalating this issue as you [cannot] call this good faith anymore. this is NOT original research! it is literally right there in the sources i provided. i simply put an excerpt in the post because of a FAILURE TO READ THEM. let me rephrase this. THIS WIKI ACTIVELY CONTRADICTS THE [Killing of George Floyd] wiki. why is this so hard? the only reason i keep long post and elaborating so much is because of a failure (negligence) on the part of the editors. in the RS cited it literally contradicts what is said:

"8:25:31 the video appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak" then "At 8:27:24, the defendant removed his knee from Mr. Floyd’s neck" 27:24-25:31 is 1 minute 53 seconds.......

also stated that the knee was removed prior to the "medical technicians" arrival, yet the wiki states the opposite. to be thorough, in looking at the video footage itself, it does clearly show the medical team was present before the knee was removed, but they had not yet started treatment. in fact, the second the paramedic touched mr floyd's head [effectively starting triage] chauvin immediately removed his knee. Stayfree76 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, is that from the transcript? If so, we can't use it, as it's original research. —valereee (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee no its not, its from here, though i flipped the seconds around. its 25:24 > 27:31 making it 2 minutes 7 seconds. this is why having 3 articles with all the same info is crazy especially when the contradict each other. that is the biggest reason for this mess, but the source is used in the Derek Chauvin wiki. is official court evidence (exhibit 2) from case considered original research? Stayfree76 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

just to be thorough here are sources "reporting on the transcripts" and also mention excited delirium [24][25][26][27][28] shall i keep going? Stayfree76 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

oh also, i found it AGAIN. this source is used by the wiki in 2 separate places. it is the criminal complaint which does say 8:25:31 > 8:27:24 Stayfree76 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The source you linked to explicitly says ''Nearly three of nine minutes, Floyd was non-responsive, court documents state." Volunteer Marek 20:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

they say 3 minutes, but then they show the timestamps and it contradicts their statement of 3 minutes and the complaint itself confirms the 2 minutes aswell... i mention that in my statements above. Stayfree76 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect to Death of George Floyd.

See the bottom of the 'header' on top of this talk page. Screenshot is below:

https://i.postimg.cc/jd2Dh8PS/2020-07-21-1452-56-Screenshot.png

So, shouldn't this page be deleted or "merged" into the other article? Here's a link to my 'Teahouse' discussion, which elaborates on this. I was advised to enter the question here on this 'talk' page, as you will see if you click this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Page_Isn't_Merged/Deleted_Yet_-_Can_I_%22MERGE%22_It_Then??

Can I "merge" the contents of this page to the other page, or simply delete the page and "redirect" the name of the page to the other page, or do I need to be a more advanced editor to do that? I'm a very inexperienced editor, and I do not use a user account. Thanks in advance, for any feedback. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That discussion (back in May) was about different page content. The current page George Floyd was created on 5 June 2020, after that earlier discussion. There is no consensus to move or delete the current George Floyd page. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks WWGB. I just deleted the notice for a deletion and I know, no matter how redundant that may sound, in reality it should still make some sense. Since this is Wikipedia, please revert or revise as you see fit. Thanks again for all your help!! Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I restored it for historical purposes. Consensus can change is a policy here, which that AfD probably reflects.—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

IIRC this was a dab at the time it was taken to AFD. The biography was recreated later. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's reflected in the close.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"There is no consensus to move or delete the current George Floyd page." There should be. The man himself was not notable, only his death and the reaction to same. --Khajidha (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

He`s notable now..leave it in 107.217.84.95 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is agnostic about how someone becomes notable. It's more important whether there is, at a minimum, enough coverage to write about their full life, not just their involvement with one event.—Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There is consensus to have a stand-alone George Floyd biography: Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 2#Proposed merge of George Floyd into Killing of George Floyd Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If you can honestly tell me that you would support an article on this man's life if he had not encountered the police that day and was still alive, then the article on him deserves to stay. If not, then it deserves to be merged into the article about his death. The man was not notable while alive and dying a notable death doesn't make him notable as a person. It only makes his death notable as an event.--Khajidha (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What you're saying is: unless he was notable before he was notable, he's not notable. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that a notable death does not make a person notable. We have many articles about notable events that caused one (or more) deaths of non-notable individuals without having articles for the individual victims. Even in cases where the death(s) caused reactions leading to social changes. --Khajidha (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but consensus is against you that a notable death does not make a person notable. To your original point: I do not have to believe that he was notable before his death in order to believe he should have a stand alone page. Instead, I can believe that a notable death can make a person notable. And this is the consensus in this case. For another example like this, see Matthew Shepard. A person can become notable after their death because of how they died. What Shepard and Floyd have in common, and why there is consensus in both cases for a stand alone biography, is that they became widespread symbols. Their deaths are beyond "notable", they're significant events in US history that had widespread, deep and long lasting impact on US society (and laws). For another example like this, see Trayvon Martin. By the way, my personal opinion is that the "Killing of..." article should be merged here, to "George Floyd", and that should be done in every "Death of..." article. We should not split hairs between the topics of (1) a person and (2) their death. It's really one and the same. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, I do think a notable death can make an otherwise non-notable person notable. Crispus Attucks wasn't notable when he died, but he became notable because he was the first person to die in the American Revolution. I'm guessing there are others. Heck, half the people in Martyr probably weren't notable until they died. —valereee (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Listing more non-notable people who died notable deaths doesn't make the people any more notable. The deaths are what is notable, the deaths are what become symbols and rallying points. Most of those deaths that become rallying points do so because the victim wasn't notable. Their deaths become symbols we can all identify with, they indicate that this could happen to anyone. --Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, if you believe in your argument, start a WP:PROPMERGE. I doubt you will get much support. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

There was already one at Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_2#Proposed_merge_of_George_Floyd_into_Killing_of_George_Floyd.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alleged film roles

Why is there no mention that he was <redacted> Since his previous jobs are listed,no reason to ignore this one . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.11.138 (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Due to WP:BLP concerns, this will require a cited reliable source and consensus to add to the article. Portions of your post were redacted, as there are indications at WP:RSN archives that the source you provided was not reliable. There was also an earlier discussion on this topic.—Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Death of George Floyd

"He died after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, pressed his knee to Floyd's neck for nearly eight minutes during the arrest." This should definitely be changed as even Dr. Michael Baden's autopsy didn't find evidence of traumatic asphyxia . Every accusation of this is based on a video in which you can't see how much pressure is forced onto Floyd's neck. In addition to that, for the same reasons the following paragraph "The official autopsy report classified Floyd's death as a homicide attributed to cardiopulmonary arrest caused by subdual and restraint.[18][47][48] A second autopsy, commissioned by Floyd's family and performed by Michael Baden, without access to various tissue and fluid samples, found that the "evidence is consistent with mechanical asphyxia as the cause" of death, with neck compression restricting blood flow to the brain, and back compression restricting breathing.[39] Some experts have theorized positional asphyxia.[49]" should be fully removed as the entire claim is just utterly false.

As a suggested addition I would add that George Floyd was sitting in the driver's seat of the car while under the influence of heavy drugs. "Lane (to Floyd): Jesus Christ, keep your fucking hands on the wheel. (Page 1 of 25)" "Kueng (to Floyd): You got foam around your mouth, too?" "George Floyd (to Kueng): Yes, I was just hooping earlier (Page 7 of 25)"

It should also be noted that Floyd was internally bleeding before a knee was ever placed on his neck. "Lane: 320 Can we get EMS code 2, for bleeding from the mouth. (page 14 of 25)" The exact cause of the bleeding cannot be said but physical harm by the police officers can be ruled out as Floyd was never in pain prior to this point.

Another addition should be that George Floyd already had problems breathing before ever being on the ground which leads to the fact that the Cauvin's knee on Floyd's neck wasn't the cause of the breathing problems. "Kueng: Take a seat! George Floyd : Please! Please! No, -inaudible-. Kueng: Take a seat. George Floyd: I can't choke, I can't breathe Mr. Officer! Please! Please! Kueng: Fine. George Floyd: My wrist, my wrist man. Okay, okay. I want to lay on the ground. I want to lay on the ground. I want to lay on the ground! (page 12 of 25)"

This obviously proves that Floyd was standing (he wanted to lay on the ground) which makes it impossible for someone to choke you with their knee. It also proves that it was by his own request that he laid down on the floor. He actually even entered the police car and immediately left through the other door and laid down by himself.

"Floyd was motionless and had no pulse,[40][42] but officers made no attempt to revive him." should be changed to "Floyd was motionless and had no pulse,[40][42] but officers made an attempt to revive him." Clearly you didn't read the bodycam transcript and have no intention in giving the actual facts to the world but just put leftist propaganda out into the world. In my opinion, Wikipedia is partially responsible for the Black Lives Matter movement and with that also responsible for the injuries and deaths of many people. You should be deeply ashamed of yourselves. An organization with such power that just puts out false statements in order to support their own political beliefs. This entire fucking article and the "Killing of George Floyd" article is an entire embarrassment for humanity. Volvicwater0.5 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

References

We go with what RS say, if they are wrong take it up with them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The above looks like a heap of original research to me. Wikipedia does not publish any self-made analysis about any event; rather, we only reflect what is documented in reliable sources. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Change "nearly 8 minutes" to "nearly 9 minutes"; as the officer knelt on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

69.162.231.55 (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: 8:46 was the initial reported time, but has been changed. 8:46 is still referred to symbolically. Please refer to the footnote at George_Floyd#cite_note-7:46_not_8:46-3 or Eight minutes 46 seconds.—Bagumba (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Just curious, why is the semi protection for compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons?

172.79.76.204 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

As you are unclear exactly why you are questioning it, I'll assume you are puzzled because he is dead. You can refer to WP:BDP.—Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Why does this man have an article?

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

---

Other than posthumously triggering a riot under false pretenses, he hasn't done much else to warrant a his own page. This could have just as easily been a section in the page for the riot. HalfShadow 21:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

HalfShadow, there's been significant discussion. Please see the archives here and at Killing of. —valereee (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

HalfShadow, I am sure you are aware that the BLP also applies to the recently deceased. If you are here to slander George Floyd's character, and if you want to blame him for unrest, and if you want to do away with worldwide protests against racist violence and systemic racism as a "riot", I suggest you refrain from commenting here and from editing the article. Just to make sure, I'll notify you on your talk page about various discretionary sanctions. As for "this man", this man has a name. Say it; it's not difficult. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Protest", you say? Have you looked at Portland recently? George was used as an excuse, nothing more. HalfShadow 21:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, you so do not sound like someone who understands neutral point of view. How do you have nearly 35000 edits and not understand that? —valereee (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Because the majority of them are cleaning up vandalism. You know: doing your job for you. HalfShadow 21:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In other words, you have little experience with actual content work. EEng 21:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Man is killed, mans death gets lots of coverage to the extent of swallowing up much of the oxygen in the room for the subsequent 2 months plus, sparks wide ranging protests against police brutality. Someone on wikipedia says "why does this exist?". Interesting. Koncorde (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:358F:C062:8EE8:7CD5 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

unsourced addition

Mikerrr this is the second time you have made this unsourced addition. Can you please provide a source or stop adding it? —valereee (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

This page is about the man died during a police arrest. For other uses, see George Floyd/Archive 1 (disambiguation).

97.90.178.98 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: see FAQ Q4 at the top of this page. stwalkerster (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Did Floyd resist arrest?

The body cam footage has been released. Reaper7 (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

:After reviewing the body cam footage, it seems like the majority of this article needs to be rewritten. It appears the criminal in question was suffering from an overdose while being detained and at the very least was fighting with the officers during the interaction, possibly due to the cocktail of illicit drugs in his system. EricCharmanderillo (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. I don't see any sources mentioning illicit drugs in Chauvin's system. EEng 10:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

:::: Try working on your reading comprehension skills. EricCharmanderillo (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I know. At first it seems amazing that such meager cognitive powers got me through one of the lesser Ivy League colleges, but then you realize Trump went to Penn so anything's possible. EEng 23:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I kinda feel like Wharton owes us an apology —valereee (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that he's single-handedly made a Wharton diploma about as valuable as an Enron stock certificate, it's more like Trump owes Wharton an apology. But then Kushner somehow managed to get through Harvard, so there's plenty of embarrassment to go around. EEng 00:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Getting into vs. getting through. It's interesting. —valereee (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I heard he got out of the Moral Reasoning requirement with a doctor's letter saying he was incapable of moral reasoning. EEng 01:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

EE is very pointedly directing your attention to the only criminal in the interaction being Chauvin as he has actually been charged, and is witnessed contributing to Floyd's death if not the direct reason for it. It was facetious, but obvious. Koncorde (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Not obvious enough, apparently. EEng 23:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

:::::: ee stated that they didn't know what I was talking about, so it seemed like they were confused. The article is about the criminal George Floyd and his death. Hopefully this is cleared up now. EricCharmanderillo (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not obvious enough. EEng 23:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

unfortunately there isnt any RS that highlight the intoxication component of the situation so there isnt much that can be done until further reports are made. im assuming some major changes will be needed once the officers in question go into/ finish up trial. Stayfree76 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, the places in the article that say Floyd was "killed" during the arrest, should be changed to say that he "died" during the arrest. We don't know that he was killed -- that's rumor and conjecture at this point. We only know that he died. Likewise, the related article "Killing of George Floyd" should be renamed to "Death of George Floyd". Maybe we can't say, at this point, that Floyd died of an overdose, but we also can't say that he was killed. Both views are alleged, not proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.175.218 (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, did he resist arrest, when did he resist (at which point) as I do not see it. Also its heavily edited. As to killed, you can be killed accidentally.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

cf. Q4. EEng 10:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"was suffering from an overdose" This would contradict the autopsy." "The medical examiner's final findings, issued June 1, classified Floyd's death as a homicide caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained" by officers who had subjected Floyd to "neck compression". Other significant conditions were arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use. The report states that on April 3 Floyd had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, but does not list it as a fatal or other significant condition." Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

EricCharmanderillo turned out to be a sockpuppet, so striking through their edits as block evasion. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

References

I twitched :/, but also...

as i was writing in the comment of an edit i twitched and hit the enter button. just wanted to put it in full here because i didnt see any way to retro actively edit the comment. this is reason for edit:

copied over updated info/ time from the "killing of" article. reworded following sentences to fit better with updated verbage in prior sentence and to be more accurate with the source that is cited. (the original sentences were not very close to what was actually said)

TBH. and i have brought this up before. i dont feel like that NYTimes video is considered reliable and is it looks to be some janky assumptions based on limited info at the time. alot of what the video discusses is now wrong. i feel like this source should be replaced if possible. if not i would say any statements being qualified by that source only, should be removed. Stayfree76 (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the NYT video analysis is not the perfect source -- there are later sources that corrected some of their errors -- and would support replacing it where we can find better sources. —valereee (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

400 cities?

In "Death" it reads: "Protests began in Minneapolis the day after his death and developed in over 400 cities throughout all 50 U.S. states and internationally.[53][54]"

After going over both of the cited sources i cannot find a single mention of how many cities had protests or even mention "internationally" or other states outside of Minnesota. All i could find was this reference: "..., but 400 years." Does anyone else see where these statements are qualified?

The reason i decided to look into it is because i thought it seemed weird that a news agency would be able to report so early on where protests took place or how many places actually had an active protest specifically in regards to this incident, especially if they were in other countries.

If it is truly not in the cited sources i suggest these adjustments:

1. if internationally and U.S. present in source: "Protests began in Minneapolis the day after his death and developed throughout the U.S. and internationally.[53][54]" Stayfree76 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

2. without internationally, but U.S. present in source: "Protests began in Minneapolis the day after his death and also developed throughout the U.S."

3. without internationally and U.S. present in source: "Protests began in Minneapolis the day after his death"

Stayfree76 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you just querying whether any RS is saying 400 cities? —valereee (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed "over 400" as it is unsourced. WWGB (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

8 minutes article

Hi @A man without a country:, I didn't know I was reverting your edit in the first place. I genuinely associated the mention of the 8 minutes of the killing with the article dedicated to it. Because those two subjects are the same. Not a big deal and definitely not a "non-ethical behavior". Wikipedia:Assume good faith can be a good start I guess. --Deansfa (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem :) No they aren't the same because Eight minutes 46 seconds is about subsequent protests. Inner links are provided to clarify a term to better understand the text. Here such link doesn't contribute to it. -- A man without a country (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. "Eight minutes 46 seconds" became a protest' symbol the same way I can't breathe became a protest's slogan. We have no problem linking the "I can't breathe" of George Floyd to the article about the protest's slogan, so why not linking this "8 minutes" to the "8 minutes" article? "Eight minutes 46 seconds" is referring specifically to the length of the agony of the George Floyd, and the article not only explains it (and clarifies that it was actually 7:46), but gives other info like this became a protest symbol. I really believe it totally helps the reader, and that the two subjects are strongly connected. There's actually a similar link in the body of the article, should it be removed as well? --Deansfa (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country, of course that link clarifies. It's a link to the article about that specific text. What possible reason could there be not to link? —valereee (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Deansfa, "I can't breathe" was already in use before Floyd. 8 minutes was not. So this example actually disproves your point. Valereee, no it doesn't. How in the world can article about subsequent protests which used "8 mins" theme clarify anything about Floyd being chocked for 8 minutes? See WP:MOSLINK: the fact that its title matches the concept you wish to link to does not guarantee that it deals with the desired topic at all. Neck restrain is used by police sometimes to prevent suspect movement: [29]. A link to a page with information about that could be relevant, but again - not from the words "8 minutes". -- A man without a country (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country I quote you: "The link has nothing to do with the event itself". "I can't breathe" has less to do with this particular killing (you just said "it was already in use before Floyd") than the 8 minutes has to do with George Floyd. The length of the agony of George Floyd IS the cause of the 8 minutes article. The 8 minutes article not only covers the specific of the length of George Floyd death, it covers how it became a symbol of police brutality. Same was as "I can't breathe" is. It totally helps the reader, and the two subjects are strongly connected. --Deansfa (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Deansfa Well, I see your logic. You think that if 8 minutes became something because that was in connection with Floyd killing, we can link to that. No, we can't. This is the same thing as with TRIVIA sections. If someone calls a song "America", that doesn't mean it can be mentioned on the page United States of America. As for "I can't breath" - I thought it may be here, because there were several other guys who died in custody and told those same words. But now I think it doesn't belong here too - unless we are sure that Floyd referenced those guys. "I can't breate" is Floyd's quote. And we have in WP:MOSLINK: Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. I'm serious about that. This is not a political pamphlet against alleged police brutality - this is an encyclopedia. -- A man without a country (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"alleged police brutality"? What are you suggesting? I'm sorry but you're the one with a political agenda here. I'm just a simple contributor who tried to link two articles that are strongly related. Writing an encyclopedia? I wrote 3000 articles on the French Wikipedia, so please don't tell me what Wikipedia is. I will put back the link because you're the only one here who want this link to be removed, and the link had been in the article for weeks. --Deansfa (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not with political agenda. Is it because I put "alledged" before "police brutality" that you tell me I am? Every Wikipedian knows that all the stuff we write here must be put as alledged by someone, not necessarily true. You have seen my arguments. I told you my reasons - I want to see a neutral article. Is your only argument that I am only one here? -- A man without a country (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country is probably looking for something like what's already in the body: The length of time that Chauvin was initially believed to have had his knee on Floyd's neck, eight minutes 46 seconds, was widely commemorated as a "moment of silence" to honor Floyd. It is clearer there about the expected context of the 8:46 link. Is that notable enough per MOS:LEADLINK to reword into the lead, or it best left in the body?—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead already contains a link to an article about Floyd honoring (swiftly turned into riots). I think a balanced approach is needed. -- A man without a country (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

swiftly turned into riots: The unrest caused by the unidentified feds in unmarked vans doesn't belong in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country, I don't understand what this means: an article about Floyd honoring (swiftly turned into riots). Are you trying to make some point here? —valereee (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Have you read the lead? It has long, long link to the page George Floyd protests. Or should we make every spare word a link to some page connected with these protests? -- A man without a country (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country, not only have I read it, I helped write it, but thanks for the snarky rhetorical questions, one of my favorite things to deal with from inexperienced editors at contentious articles. If you cannot interact civilly with other editors when you are disagreeing, please go learn to edit somewhere less contentious. —valereee (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country"Have you read the lead". Really? Can you be a little less condescending and assume good faith? --Deansfa (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, well I think Valereee could start from him/herself in assuming good faith. If I write something, then obviously yes, I am tring to make some point. I'm not talking to myself. -- A man without a country (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country, okay, you said you think we need a balanced approach; all of us here agree. So I'm guessing your point is that you think something is not balanced right now? Maybe you can explain what you think needs to be changed in order to achieve balance. The best suggested changes generally take this format: "Change X to Y because (brief reasoning), here's the source for that." —valereee (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee First of all, thank you for the articles you wrote. They are really good. But as I told Deansfa higher and below, there are too much inner links in the lead to BLM-related articles which are not helpful in understanding nor George Floyd, nor the killing of him, but instead look as a way to immerse a user into BLM topics. Same is true for the page about the killing (both leads share same text and links). -- A man without a country (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country, and which links do you think should be removed? —valereee (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I think it's Eight minutes 46 seconds in the lead of this article. In the lead of Killing of George Floyd, it's the same link and also I can't breathe (because it's a quote and linking from the quotes is restricted by MOS:LEADLINK). -- A man without a country (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree on the i can't breathe at killing of, responded to the rest below. —valereee (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, we could have made the exact same edit war by removing the link to I can't breathe, because the I can't breathe article is about a BLM slogan (just quoting the article), so the readers may believe George Floyd was screaming a protest' slogan while dying. No, readers are not stupid and even if I can't breathe is about the protest slogan, it explains why and refers to the death of Eric Garner and George Floyd. 8 seconds article is the same: it refers to the death of George Floyd and explains it became a symbol. I'm sorry but as a reader, it's big and super helpful to understand that the even the length of the agony of the victim became a national symbol of police brutality. --Deansfa (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Deansfa, yeah, right on! That's why it caught my eye. With sooo much links in the lead to same-BLM-topics pages, it looks way too much like a political pamphlet, not an encyclopedia article. Readers are not that stupid to pass it by, yeah. At least, I'm not that stupid. And yes, I'm not only a reader, but also an inexperienced editor. Every reader is a potential inexperienced editor. -- A man without a country (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A man without a country, and we love readers who turn into editors. The problem is that contentious articles are a terrible place to learn, truly. Patience is often stretched very thin, so newbie mistakes which would be dealt with patiently at Red giant often aren't tolerated as well. —valereee (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think the 8'46" link works in the lead and is not pointy. We currently link in the first para of the lead to killing of, counterfeit, Minneapolis, Chauvin, 8'46", and protests. For someone coming to the article for an overview but actually trying to get to another article, I'd say killing of, protests, and Chauvin are crucial. Minneapolis, counterfeit, and 8'46" could move to the section, I don't think they represent excessive linking or pointiness. —valereee (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

Change "white police officer" to "police officer." The fact that he is white is not important and it is things like this that fuel hate against, and therefore(usually)the death of, police. ZJoe2234 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry RS think it is relevant, so as such so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem ZJoe is that the reliable sources do indicate that more often than not the skin colour of an individual is significant, and that you are right it does lead to death. However it is very rarely the police that are killed, and the skin colour focused upon is that of their black victims. So when RS focus upon the colour of the skin of the police officer, this is not to engender hatred - it is to demonstrate an imbalance. Koncorde (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Who is Slatersteven to decide this unilaterally? "So as such so do we?" Who is "we," Slatersteven? This article is not about social ills and as such the race of the police officers involved is irrelevant to a neutral, unbiased story about a particular man, in this case George Floyd. So, Koncorde, it doesn't matter if there's no intent to engender hatred; this story is not about whatever "imbalance" you refer to. There appears to be a concerted effort among several editors here to turn this article into a political narrative which the Wikipedia community should not tolerate. Mikerrr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem Mike is that the race of both the victim and the alleged perpetrators are both relevant and the reliable sources have already made it political by reporting on the political nature of the response to his death. Wikipedia doesn't make the narrative - the narrative exists in reliable sources and we reflect it where there is significant coverage. And by imbalance, we are talking about where a black man can be killed for a fake $20, and people want to make it into about whether or not he had any priors, resisted arrest or had drugs in his system, or to protect the "blue line" in order to absolve a police officer whose attitude may be informed by his own skin colour and created a prejudiced approach that functionally resulted in a death, and calls into question the nature of police work when interacting with minorities. All of which is covered by numerous reliable sources. You may have seen some of the responses on the news. Koncorde (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The incident has been reported as a race issue and many people believe that race was a motive to the murder of George Floyd. Stating that the officers are white simply supports a common belief that his <redacted> was racially motivated. It is simply a fact, the article does not state what the officers were thinking, but only their skin color. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Stating that the officers are white" Four officers were involved in Floyd's death. Two were White Americans, one was Asian American, and one was African American. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

While agreeing that the descriptor "white" is fine to stay, I don't think that it should stay because it "supports a common belief that his murder was racially motivated."

Additionally, rather than using the limited scope of the cited (outdated) articles for the first paragraph in the Death section, why not use a more recent source to sculpt the first paragraph? Articles from May, while capturing the gravity of the ramifications, are lacking substance and instead rely on speculation and pathos. SaintRedemptus (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@SaintRedemptus:: Ideally the lead section just summarizes points already supported in the body. Per MOS:LEADCITE, citations are generally not needed in the lead. However, this being a controversial subject, citations have probably remained to fend off potential debates. Feel free to suggest any improvements; it's most effective if you have the specific text you would like to add/change/remove. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer:, this incident is not a murder and as mentioned, only 2 out of 4 officers were white. also, this "common belief" that it was racially motivated is just not the case, therefor "simply supporting" it doesn't make any sense at this time. Stayfree76 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Stayfree76, it was a <redacted>. I’m not saying that based on my beliefs, the officers were charged with murdering him. So yes, it is a <redacted>. Yes, two of the officers were of other ethnicities, maybe there’s a better way to put that. But I wanted to clarify that this incident is considered <redacted>. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, in the US you are innocent until proven guilty, therefor it is not murder until a judge or a jury of your peers says so, depending. Stayfree76 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• ZJoe2234 makes a valid point. There is no indication Derek Chauvin was racist in any way. I think removal of the terminology "white" police officer should seriously be considered. Bus stop (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, that’s absolutely not true, while in the court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean that you didn’t commit a crime. Nikolas Cruz, the shooter at Parkland still has not faced trial over two years later. We don’t consider that “not a murder”. This is a <redacted> since all four officers were charged with murder. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, I'm going to stop humoring you after this statement. 1. the person you mentioned is not a murderer at this time as he has not been convicted of murder. 2. he confessed to the crimes, so there is self incrimination involved with the case. Stayfree76 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I deleted the threatening part of your comment. This is uncalled for and against policy. On an unrelated note, Bus stop, calling an officer white is not saying that he is racist. Wikipedia is unbiased so saying he is racist or nor racist would be biased without a source from him. However, this situation is definitely linked to racial issues and simply calling the officer white, is not implying any original content. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer—nice user name. Mentioning this in the body of the article is warranted but the mention in the lead is not. Bus stop (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is warranted, because the focus in the Reliable Sources makes it clear that the ethnicity is considered significant. Not really so much for the other people involved in Floyd's death but more so for the man who was identified as being knelt on Floyd's neck and directly ignoring his pleas despite at least one other officer raising concerns.

The reliable sources very much raise the question of whether ethnicity played a part, along with the institutional racism of police forces.

Now in contrast if this article was about Chauvins tax returns, his race would likely be irrelevant, and almost certainly not mentioned in any news report outside of referencing his role in Floyds death. Koncorde (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, to be pedantic: "the official autopsy report classified Floyd's death as a homicide". So the death was a homicide - i.e. one person was killed by the actions of another. That does not prejudge culpability, which is a matter for the courts to decide separately. Homicide can be accidental, negligent or premeditated, it can be murder in one of three degrees, or manslaughter, which may be voluntary or involuntary, and there are numerous variations and shades and the precise definitions vary by State and according to whether it's a State or Federal charge. Homicide is NPOV and accurate and supported by multiple RS, so leave it at that, eh? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd was a pornographic actor

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.

---

Editors say the sources are unreliable but what's stated below is true:

Floyd took part in an adult film scene with pornographic actresses Kimberly Brinks and Nelli Tiger; under the moniker "Floyd the Landlord", for the adult entertainment company TheHabibShow. After his death, TheHabibShow responded on Twitter with their condolences, and posted the link to his GoFundMe memorial fund. Michael14375 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's no secret that Floyd appeared in a porn movie as "Floyd the Landlord". It's easily found in an Internet search. Any mention in Wikipedia was rightfully removed, as no reliable source was available. That includes iharare.com which is reintroduced above. However, conandaily.com is neither deprecated nor blacklisted. Moreover, it seems to have a large staff so it is not a blog. It think this site, and its claims about Floyd, need further analysis before dismissal. WWGB (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Policy WP:EXCEPTIONAL is the issue here: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. We also shouldn't rely on non-independent sources as an indication of importance.—Bagumba (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Also wp:undue, why the hell is this even worth mentioning?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Because we are meant to be writing a balanced biographical article on Floyd. If we can mention that he mentored young men and delivered meals, we can also mention that he earned money with his d***. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

conandaily.com does not show any signs of editorial oversight. It likely isn't important enough to have been deprecated or blacklisted. Oh, and I see there's actually a discussion right now at RSN. Yeah, that's not a reliable source. It's probably some combination of blog and diy-aggregator. —valereee (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like "Floyd the Landlord" continues to fly under the radar for now! Thanks, WWGB (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

maybe one day someone will report on it. there are definitely primary sources on the matter see: reddit post with safe video. he says "big floyd from third ward, originally from Houston". whats that saying about the horses mouth? StayFree76 ^talk 16:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

Change first sentence:

George Perry Floyd Jr. (October 14, 1973 – May 25, 2020) was an African-American man killed during an arrest after allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill in Minneapolis.

To: George Perry Floyd Jr. (October 14, 1973 – May 25, 2020) was an African-American man who died during an arrest after allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill in Minneapolis. Collinsej (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See Q4 in the FAQs above. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

WGF201 (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Later life (after the sentence ..."and his Third Ward pride." insert above text) Between 1997 and 2007, Floyd was sentenced to jail terms nine different times on various charges. These include drug possession, theft, trespass, and aggravated armed robbery. – reference: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/ In August of 1997, he was convicted to six months’ jail-time for drug possession. The following year, he served a total of ten months in jail for two separate charges of theft, on September 25, 1998, and December 9, 1998, respectively. In August of 2001, he was sentenced to 15 days in prison for failure of identification to a police officer. In the 2002-2005 period, he served a total of 30 months’ jail time for four different cases of breaking the law. These amounted to three different instances of drug possession – on October 29, 2002, on February 6, 2004, and on December 15, 2005; and one instance of criminal trespassing – on January 3, 2003. Finally, in 2007, after taking part in a home invasion incident which took place on August 7, Floyd was arrested for aggravated armed robbery, and pleaded guilty to the charges in 2009. He was sentenced to five years in prison, and was paroled in January 2013.

Death (after the sentence ..."emergency medical technicians arrived." insert above text) Upon his death, legal action was immediately taken by Floyd’s family. Reference: https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/15/891221766/floyd-family-attorneys-to-announce-a-civil-lawsuit-against-minneapolis-and-polic The lead attorney on his case, Benjamin Crump, provides legal representation for the other two figurehead cases of criminal injustice that have stood at the basis of the black lives matter movement – the killing of Ahmaud Arbery and the shooting of Breonna Taylor. – reference: https://bencrump.com/ben-crump-on-the-george-floyd-case/ From a lawful standpoint, Floyd’s murder is considered a direct instance of applied personal injury law, and as such, his legal team is formed of attorneys that are specialized in this field of activity. – reference: https://www.pintas.com/victims-of-discrimination/

(after the sentence ..."have theorized positional asphyxia." insert above text) Following a post-mortem toxicology screening, it was discovered that Floyd’s body tested positive for 11 ng/mL of fentanyl and 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine. However, according to medical analysis, the mere presence of the drugs in his bloodstream, especially in such low quantities, presents inconclusive and insubstantial. Any claims of Floyd’s loss of consciousness being resulted from substance abuse are therefore medically unfounded. – reference: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/

•  Not done Nah. Prior convictions aren't relevant here. --Jorm (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  The criminal history is actully already covered in the article. It'd be more helpful to say what needs changing as opposed to providing a full rewrite of sorts.—Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WGF201 I'd suggest requesting a single edit at a time, in this format: "Change X to Y, because Z, here's the source." Short as possible. You're giving us way too much information and asking us to analyze it to understand what your point is. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add the following informative paragraphs to the Death section of the page:

After the "...as emergency medical technicians arrived." paragraph, in order to provide legal clarity on the post-mortem situation.

" Upon his death, legal action was immediately taken by Floyd’s family. The lead attorney on his case, Benjamin Crump, provides legal representation for the other two figurehead cases of criminal injustice that have stood at the basis of the black lives matter movement – the killing of Ahmaud Arbery and the shooting of Breonna Taylor. From a lawful standpoint, Floyd’s murder is considered a direct instance of applied personal injury law, and as such, his legal team is formed of attorneys that are specialized in this field of activity. "

After the "...theorized positional asphyxia" paragraph, in order to clear up any confusions regarding the cause of death and to disprove the implied lack of mens rea due to supposed substance abuse.

" Following a post-mortem toxicology screening, it was discovered that Floyd’s body tested positive for 11 ng/mL of fentanyl and 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine. However, according to medical analysis, the mere presence of the drugs in his bloodstream, especially in such low quantities, presents inconclusive and insubstantial. Any claims of Floyd’s loss of consciousness being resulted from substance abuse are therefore medically unfounded. "

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this informative edit, and my apologies for any previous editorial-related confusions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WGF201 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that adds to an article about Floyd. This is a biography. We could maybe add a single sentence about the family filing a lawsuit based on the NPR article. We could maybe add a sentence saying loss of consciousness not being attributable to substance abuse, but I don't think the article currently implies it was, does it? Also I'm not sure I'm finding that in the very long snopes analysis; you'd have to give us a quote from that. —valereee (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added the second request in, as the mentioning of the two drugs definitely has a negative connotation and may cause some readers to make a connection between that and his death. I don't see the point of adding the first request though, as the lawsuit was filed in July, while Floyd died in May. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

He didn't allegedly use a counterfeit bill. He DID use one. So why can't you just fucking change it too "he paid with a counterfeit" instead of "allegedly". Thewhobitywhaty (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The alleged counterfeit bill was the reason for his arrest. The matter has yet to be determined by a court or judicial officer. WWGB (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought I read that the police never even collected the bill in question.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if the cops have a bill and it is counterfeit, we can't know whether the clerk made a mistake about who gave it to him. I doubt this is ever going to be determined. No one is going to be charging him. Even if the bill is brought into evidence by the defense I suspect we'll never be able to say this is anything but alleged. —valereee (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Circles back to the simplistic "we say what sources generally say".—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Weren't we smart to have come up with that out? —valereee (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Criminal record

Separate from his death, his convictions should earn him the 21st century american criminal category. Blueshocker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Category:21st-century American criminals. I'll leave it to the WP:CATDEFINING gurus.—Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The category American criminals and most of its subcats requires those categorized that way have been convicted of a noteworthy felony would be what applies here. George Floyd is not an American criminal. It remains to be seen whether Derek Chauvin is. George Floyd is correctly categorized as American people convicted of robbery, etc. —valereee (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

Change: " A white police officer, Derek Chauvin, knelt on Floyd's neck for nearly eight minutes.[note 1][3][4]"

To:

"A white police officer, Derek Chauvin, had restrained Floyd with a knee on Floyd's neck for nearly eight minutes.[note 1][3][4]"

You can clearly see from the lectures that Chauvin is not putting the full force of his weight on Floyd's neck' To say he was "kneeling" is misleading and tantamount to inciting racial discord and violence based on a lie. Collinsej (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Pretty much every reliable source describes Chauvin'a action as "kneeling" or "knelt". WWGB (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Its strange people think there are shades of kneeling on someone until they are dead, including one that see's it as unrelated to the actual death. Almost like he just lay there and died without any input from anyone. As if the full force of a knee is required to cause death or injury. Like, improper use of restraints, or restraint methods haven't been studied for decades with revised guidance on policy and procedure issued each time. There is a reason Chauvin was fired. He did not follow his own training, and ignored at least one colleague who raised concerns with how Floyd was being held (but who was at least partially liable for the escalation to that point, hence his firing also). Koncorde (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I do see your point, Collinsej. Typically when say someone is kneeling on something, we mean their full weight is on that thing. The issue here is that we're describing it the way RS are describing it. Have you seen reliable sources saying "restrained Floyd with a knee on Floyd's neck"? To me that seems to imply that there was some need to restrain Floyd, who was during that time handcuffed and not resisting. —valereee (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of a definition of kneeling that would differentiate with the exact balance between Chauvins left knee and right knee, nor would I expect an RS to speculate on the pounds per inch required unless it was an episode of MythBusters. Koncorde (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, there is a HUGE difference between kneeing on someones neck and restraining someone with a knee (especially around the intent of action). Its manual allows "compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway.".[30] the policy literally states you cannot apply direct pressure to the airway. if chauvin did, then he broke policy and that is a problem and would be ammo for the felony murder charge holding up. in many cases you can restrain someone with a knee and no pressure since the knee isn't the component of the restraint that matters. the point of that neck restraint not knee restraint is to use leverage against a weak point of the body making it difficult to push out of it (lifting 20 pounds with your neck is not easy, let alone 100+ that is floating just above your neck.) to conclude, i think the change should be made given the source i cited, but maybe could be worth seeing if there are others than go into the neck restraint aspect of the incident in more detail. StayFree76 ^talk 05:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There isn't, it is recognised as an incredibly dangerous tactic just like restraining someone chest down with pressure on their back is - it is proven to kill people. There are innumerable studies saying so. That you speculate lifting 20lbs isn't easy should really make you wonder how much pressure is actually functionally dangerous, its why I said no RS is going to speculate on the exact weight distribution of Chauvin (the lethality of the knee in the back, and chest compression from laying horizontal under any pressure is a known killer also - particularly for the duration it was done). It's why in your article their expert is amazed that it is in their manual at all, and why it is criticised in that article. If you read the next paragraph of that article you would see, very clearly the context of when such a restraint may be used and why that policy was violated by Chauvin "That's allowed in order to control someone with "light to moderate pressure" or "with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure." The latter act is authorized only to protect officer lives with a suspect who is "actively aggressive" and cannot be controlled by lesser methods.. Koncorde (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, i believe you just re stated what i already stated. my point was that if he was in violation of policy then it should be easier to convict. if he was operating within policy, then it will be hard to convict, which inherently means it was not excessive force as the policy does not authorize force beyond the limit we just discussed... the main point here, is that there is a difference. the act of restraining isn't the same as the act of putting entire weight on someone. it would be very naive to think that people doing restraints like that aren't aware of the amount of pressure they are putting on the person. you might not be aware, but i was active duty USMC and am personally very well trained in hand to hand combatives including lethal and not lethal force. StayFree76 ^talk 20:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the point is there is no difference in kneeling with different amounts of pressure that would change the description that Chauvin was kneeling on Floyds neck to merely "restraining someone with a knee", and no RS is going to speculate on the appropriate "light to moderate pressure" justification to control someone and whether Chauvin was doing so. The point in all RS is that his knee was on his neck. Functionally whether he was also compressing his chest with his other knee and / or if it was the cause of death was ultimately not because of the pressure on his neck is an irrelevance because the technique is universally recognised as lethal and is pretty much banned in all mental health environments because (and is also meant to be banned in most police forces, but hey ho, unsurprisingly we keep hearing about deaths). I provided 3 studies further up, but you can look this up yourself as to the relative "not lethal force" of pinning someone to the floor that routinely ends up in a lethal outcome. Koncorde (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

the PD allowed that restraint... it doesnt matter what you or anyone else says. the restraint was authorized so its not about whether he did it or not, its about whether he applied excessive force (pressure) on the neck... if it was a clear cut case like you suggest it would have already been done and the prosecutors and everyone else wouldn't have said how difficult it will be to convict the officers. see Kamala Harris talk about it here StayFree76 ^talk 22:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The point behind it being allowed and in what situation isn't even a point in question. The point about whether the neck pressure was excessive is also irrelevant - the cause of death could be the pressure on his chest, or combination thereof (per second autopsy: "asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain") - the significance of his knee being on his neck is the focal point of all RS because of how it looks. The difficulty in achieving a conviction is irrelevant, and her argument is not about the legality of the restraint but the fact that the general public is programmed to trust the polices POV regardless, and was part of a wider discussion she was having about introducing Anti-Lynching laws and police reform. "It is still the case that jurors are inclined to to trust -- because that's part of the social contract -- to trust police officers and that has been part of the difficulty that so many prosecutors have had when they brought these cases," Harris told the program's hosts. "But there's no denying that this, this officer and those who were his accomplices should pay attention real consequence and accountability for what they've done. I don't think there is any question that he did not die of natural causes," Harris said. "He died while this police officer who had been invested with a badge and a gun by the people used the power he was given by the people to have his knee on a human being's neck." Koncorde (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

the contents of her speech arent relevant here only that she says it will be difficult. is the the officers actions were in violation of policy then it wouldn't be difficult and instead of talking about how difficult it will be they would say how easy it will be. this is due to the legal definition of restraint. its not an aggressive behavior and harm is not the intent. (this is very important because murder charges need to prove intent, unless manslaughter then they have to prove the officer's actions were negligent). with that said, you can see how using wording that infers some behavior or way of thinking needs to be heavily challenged. we dont know whether he had intent and the trial has not ruled he was negligent, therefore stating he was retraining is better. NOTE: i would say that, to add balance, it could also be stated that people were arguing the authorized restraint was done with excessive force making it fall outside of policy (for example) StayFree76 ^talk 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You used, and are using, her words to suggest the difficulty in achieving a conviction is because of the mode of restraint being legit. The reality is her words are saying the issue is because people implicitly believe the words of the police to be true, and behaviour of the police to be justified. There are numerous cases to demonstrate this just in the last decade, indeed it is part of the reason the BLM movement exists. And, when it comes to the legal definition of restraint - it is kind of ruined by the idea that their policy supported its use "with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure." which is harm in anyone's book. Killing someone would be pretty harmful too. Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

if something is allowed by policy, regardless of the outcome, then you cannot blame the person who was following the policy. i dont know why this is difficult to understand. if it is determined he followed policy (for real), then the only thing that could happen is a policy change to prevent it next time. thats the way policy works. there have also been plenty of cases where cops in court will say they weren't properly trained on insert thing they are charged with and have gotten off because the PD didn't make something clear to the officers. that is just how it works, whether we like it or not. StayFree76 ^talk 23:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

God please I hope we can assume that a jury won't decide a cop can't be blamed for kneeling on a motionless person's neck until they're dead because MPD didn't say, "Neck restraints are okay, but don't use one until the person is dead. NOTE: We are emphasizing that you must NOT use this until death results! You must STOP before they die! NO DEATHS ARE ALLOWED TO RESULT FROM KNEELING ON SOMEONE'S NECK!!!" But juries do tend to like cops. —valereee (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

unfortunately, thats the only way to protect good officers, but [potential] "bad" officers benefit from it. mainly because its been determined that 'any' force has the potential to kill someone, even if considered non lethal. its the same in the us military. if you are ordered to do something, you do it. if rules of engagement say something, you follow it. if policy is followed, but something bad happens... welp, it comes with the territory. keep in mind this is completely separate from people legitimately disregarding policy or disobeying orders, etc. to close, the policy says the restraint was authorized. policies dont cover things the result of an an authorized action because those outcomes cannot be reliably predicted (this is why policy changes after things like this because it happened so now they can say, NO MORE). StayFree76 ^talk 19:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• if something is allowed by policy, regardless of the outcome, then you cannot blame the person who was following the policy – Christ, I am so fucking sick of the amateur legal analyses in this and similar articles. Just because somewhere in a policy manual it says "In situation S technique T may be applied" doesn't mean that from there on out you get to apply T at will, recklessly, and without regard to the totality of circumstance (including an ongoing awareness of the apparent state of the subject). Policies must be read as a whole. Undoubtedly somewhere else it also says that the minimum necessary force must be used for the minimum necessary time. It comes with the territory – What territory is that, exactly? The territory in which sociopaths are given badges? EEng 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stayfree76. Lev!vich 18:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: you quote me, but then cut out the important part of the statement. i clearly said "if it is determined he followed policy (for real), then the only thing that could happen is a policy change to prevent it next time.. all i am saying is that we no one is discussing whether the policy was broken or not, but whether the force was excessive, and excessive is directly related to the situation and what the PD considers viable. i have mentioned before that many of cops have gotten acquitted for things because they simply were not trained or informed in the matter, which puts all responsibility on the employer itself aka the police department. as for the statement of it comes with the territory, its as simple as when your job is to deal with criminals, people can get hurt (including both the civi and the cops involved.) cops have been ran over accidentally while doing a traffic stop, and in many cases, it wasnt the fault of the driver (it comes with the territory... dont step into the freeway or you might get ran over) this is how the US government works as a whole. US government employees are bound by policy. also, these are not "legal analysis". i was an federal employee for the US government and have also been employed by state level emergency services (government agencies)...StayFree76 ^talk 21:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

What in the world does any of this meandering dissertation have to do with the subject of this thread, which is changing knelt on Floyd's neck to restrained Floyd with a knee on Floyd's neck? EEng 21:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

if you could just slow down and breath for a second, i can explain [again]. restrain has a different inherent meaning and is analogous to performing police duties. since a conviction hasn't been given regarding him committing felony assault, we should be careful as to not say things that can be damaging/ BLP. StayFree76 ^talk 22:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"Allegedly passing"

I think it's worthwhile clarifying who made the allegation - the storekeeper. Being specific here shows who made the allegation and allows readers to understand what actually happened here, that it wasn't something like a police sting operation. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, good point, I've tweaked —valereee (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee thanks! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Nearly" eight minutes

Hello! I was going to edit the part that is linked saying "nearly eight minutes" to be a tad more accurate because reading it confused me for a second. Is that a correct statement, or should it actually say "nearly nine minutes" since it was 8 minutes and 46 seconds? It confused me since it says "nearly" eight minutes, meaning not eight minutes, but it's over eight minutes and nearly nine minutes. Would it be more accurate to rewrite it and put "nearly nine minutes" instead since it was 15 seconds to 9 minutes? Thanks! A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, AbigailAbernathy! Thanks so much for coming to talk first. The time period has since original reports been corrected from nearly 9 to nearly 8, per the sources/notes. —valereee (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah I did not see the note next to the eight minutes in the top paragraph, just did some looking around. Thank you for clarifying! A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. While prosecutors corrected the time to 7 minutes and 46 seconds, the New York Times reported that that time doesn't align with video evidence. The exact time is uncertain, but I'd vote "nearly eight minutes" be replaced with "over eight minutes". I'll wait for a more experienced Wikipedian to weigh in, and if we can agree on the change I'll bring it up on the talk page for Eight minutes 46 seconds. Thanks! Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ifandonlyif0, thanks so much for coming to talk first! Maybe some sort of language like "approximately 8 minutes" in the lead and "sources vary on the actual exact time from 7'46" to 8'15" " in the body? —valereee (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Valereee! That sounds good. Only thing I might add is that the NYT source says "at least eight minutes and 15 seconds", so it might be preferable to say "sources vary on the exact time from 7'46" to over 8'15"." (I've also discovered I can't actually make the edit because my account isn't autoconfirmed.) —Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

We'll give it a day or so to see if there are any objections. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest going back to "nearly nine minutes." Since the latest body cam footage was publicly released, multiple sources are putting it at around 9:30. —Bagumba (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

to be honest, in my humble opinion, the time was really not that important. I think the people (reporters) we trying to cling on to a specific time for some effect, which did up happening with the 8:46 becoming a symbol. i think the more important detail is that the time length was substantial. to ifandonlyif's point, i think providing a range of the times reported might make this easier to deal with and less likely needing a future update. The range would be between the least reported time by an RS to the most also by an RS, for example. StayFree76 ^talk 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support a range. Something like "pressed his knee to Floyd's neck for 7 to 10 minutes during the arrest.", and link one source with 7:46 and one with 9.5 Anon0098 (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Did you have any input on my 9 minute comment above? I saw that you reverted CodingCyclone's change to 9 minutes at Killing of George Floyd. Figured we could centralize the discussion here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, hm, I hadn't seen that. This whole time thing is such a rabbit hole. I don't actually have an opinion. Whatever everyone decides is fine. But whatever we decide, let's add it to the FAQs so at least the folks working at the various articles can see what's the currently agreed-on time. StayFree has a point. Maybe we should be dealing with this in the lead as simply knelt on his neck for a time initially reported to be 8'46", then in the section we can explain the various reports? —valereee (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That works for me too. It's the time, accurate or not, most people and even news have been referring to all along also.—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've left notification of this discussion at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, Talk:George Floyd protests and Talk:Eight minutes 46 seconds, which have similar wording in their respective leads.—Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, okay, I changed it, we'll see what happens. That actually might help prevent random drive-by well-intentioned types, as it provides explanation both for those who believe it's 8'46" and those who know it's not but haven't gotten the latest update. :) —valereee (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I go with the WP:TENYEARTEST on this. Ten years from now, the fact that initial reports of the time period varied will seem like nothing more than a footnote. Think of the famous example, Dewey Defeats Truman, where a newspaper incorrectly reported that Dewey had won the 1948 United States presidential election. Our article mentions the incorrect reporting, but deep in the body. In the lead, we just say who actually won the election; we don't bother with "first they announced Dewey, then Truman". We should take the same approach here. If the best, most recent sources say 9:30 (and it seems they now do), then we should say 9:30 in the lead. We can explain in the body or in a footnote (or both) that it was initially reported at 8:46 and then 7:46 and then 9:30 after the bodycam footage was released. But the most important thing is we tell the reader what actually happened, moreso than telling the reader what some incorrectly reported. Lev!vich 17:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:not_truth StayFree76 ^talk 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC) edit: oops, this was supposed to be a direct response to message above where it said But the most important thing is we tell the reader what actually happened, moreso than telling the reader what some incorrectly reported.. retroactively indenting to prevent confusion. StayFree76 ^talk 08:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

All the times are verifiable. You will need to be more specific.—Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Striking comment after Stayfree76's above explanation about their indenting mistake.—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've posted further comments below that I'm OK with something vaguer than "9:30". Lev!vich 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We had this discussion before about people rounding off instead of giving the exact number. Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_3#Should_the_lede_have_8_minutes_and_46_seconds_or_almost_9_minutes? Dream Focus 00:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That ended in no consensus, perhaps complicated about whether to link to 8:46. The time has not been linked in the lead for a while now.—Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with it being changed to 9:30 if that's what the actual length of time on video shows. Are there any high-quality RS that state 9 mins and 30 seconds was the duration besides NYT? Yodabyte (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yodabyte, see the other sources iimmediately below here.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of news outlets more like CNN or WaPo, etc. Yodabyte (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Precision: The argument against mentioning specifically 9:30 as opposed to say "9 minutes" is MOS:UNCERTAINTY: Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. I don't think it was accurately measured down to the second, and it's not that significant if other sources mention times that vary by a few seconds. This is not likely to be a stable number..—Bagumba (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

8:46 would pass the test significant in themselves for some special reason, if it were also generally accepted to be the right number. But if the right number is not clear (or is clear but doesn't have special salience) then I agree "about 9 minutes" would be better. --JBL (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that there is about a 2 minute range in time that is currently being reported by RSs, so about 9 is still too specific. Anon0098 (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Even Minnesota prosecutors are saying 7:46, which has been reported by RSs numerous times. Imo we should stick with the official count. If consensus determines that 9:30 is significant enough, at the very least, we should say "initially reported as 8:46 but has since been disputed as both longer and shorter" or something to that effect, to show official reports as well as originally calculated ones by some RSs. Anon0098 (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Is 7:46 being referenced outside of the routine news coverage when 8:46 was adjusted. The prosecutors don't seem concerned with pursuing the real time. From June: Chuck Laszewski, a spokesman for the Hennepin County attorney’s office, said on Thursday that prosecutors did not intend to again address the timing question. “It’s not something that affects the case,” he said. “We’ve got bigger fish to fry.”[31]—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, lawyers. They have absolutely no concern for encyclopedia writers. Lev!vich 16:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about "nearly nine minutes" because that means "but not nine minutes or more than nine minutes", where as 9:30 is one of the sourced possibilities. I think "about nine minutes" works, and at least to my mind, includes anything from 7:46-9:30. I would also be OK with "almost ten minutes" (I think of seven, eight, or nine minutes as "almost" ten minutes), or maybe "between approximately eight and ten minutes". I think we should "massage" it in the text somehow and come up with a vague wording that covers all three numbers, and it should have a footnote that explains all three numbers reported. Lev!vich 17:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't interpret "nearly" to mean "less than" only, but am ok with any wording that conveys "close to", "approximately", "around", etc.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Why not "several minutes" with a link to the article on 8:46? There's no need to specify exactly how long here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Several" could be as few as three, which would be denying a reader the extent of the situation. The spirit of MOS:LINK applies here: Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

at the same time, where is the line for too many minutes? i feel like a lot of readers have a different threshold for what crossing the line is. that being said, would the situation or case change if it was only 3 minutes, but the result was the same? the reason i ask is because several could go up to 10 and what number gets picked is based on the individual. StayFree76 ^talk 04:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't love several. I'd rather use 'a period variously reported as over 7 to nearly 10 minutes' than use 'several minutes,' which could be as few as three. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The answer is to go with the most common lowest denominator, and then add a refnote for the different times if it's even significant. Over 7, over 8, over 9, it's pretty much irrelevant however "Several" is definitely wrong. We know the times. We should use them rather than being obscure, ev3n if that means we give a "between 7 to 10 minutes depending on sources" statement and then refnote the different sources. Koncorde (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Previously a victim of a shooting?

In the body camera footage he remarks that she was shot before, but I don't see it mentioned here. Is anyone aware if WP:RS for that incident? - Scarpy (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Scarpy, no one here has brought a source, and there's been commentary that folks have tried to find one. —valereee (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

He said it: "Man, I got shot the same way, Mr. Officer, before."[32] This seems more relevant to attribute to Floyd at Killing of George Floyd, unless other sources corroborate the shooting or it becomes a point by the prosecution.—Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because Floyd said something does not make it true. He also said he was not on anything, and we now know that was not true. Wait for independent confirmation that it happened. WWGB (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The statment would need to be WP:INTEXT attributed to Floyd if it's added.—Bagumba (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The statement doesnt need to be true as we have alls kinds of quotes in all of the articles about what people said. im actually not a fan of including all the things people said, or want it at a minimum moved into a separate section. I started a discussion about it in the killing of talk. it sounds awkward when reading an encyclopedia, but the contents read like screenplays. StayFree76 ^talk 16:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Failure to address extra information in circulation

I'm not skilled in Wikipedia's rules, but do rely on it as a good background source on any topic. There is data being widely circulated regarding the role of fentanyl. If it is incorrect, or the conclusions are challenged by others, etc., then it would be nice to see a 'theories' section where common issues like this one have the information put forward with sources where known and the rebuttals likewise explained and linked. Otherwise Wikipedia is leaving a vacuum in which they spread without the alternate view. Wikipedia doesn't have to judge, just not give proponents the weapon of We're being gagged for the popular theories.

The information that led me to read this article and the George Floyd one is:

1. A recently released June 1, 2020, memorandum by Assistant County Attorney Amy Sweasy of the Community Prosecution Division in the Hennepin County Attorney's office, i.e. the prosecutors. Filing 27-CR-20-12949 in the District Court State of Minnesota.
2. It is the notes from a conversation with Dr Andrew Baker, chief Hennepin County Medical Examiner.
3. Sweasy reports the ME as saying:
   1. The level of fentanyl found, 11 ng/mL, in the hospital-blood sample can cause pulmonary edema.
   2. That's a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.
   3. Floyd's lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy.
4. Contrary to this, the autopsy gives the lungs' weights as 1085 g and 1015 g, roughly 1.75 times the average adult.
5. Former federal and state prosecutor George Parry claims Floyd repeatedly said he couldn't breath even when he was upright and mobile and that this could have been due to pulmonary edema which the ME stated above could have been caused by the level of fentanyl present. https://knowledgeisgood.net/2020/08/28/george-floyd-the-plot-thickens/
   1. Wikipedia should be able to state whether Floyd repeatedly stated he couldn't breath when upright and mobile.

I'm a layman reader from the UK, with no axe to grind either way on the topic. I want a summary of the known facts, and for the main arguments and rebuttals, as yet undecided by the courts, to be put forward. Completely ignoring these reports might be the easiest route for Wikipedia, but it is letting down its readers.

― Ralph Corderoy (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Ralph Corderoy, generaly speaking the George Floyd#Death section is only a high-level summary of his death, and the details are left to the Killing of George Floyd page. More defense arguments have been coming out in the last week, and the talk page at the killing page has been discussing which sources are considered reliable, which arguments to mention per WP:DUE, and how to remain neutral. Feel free to participate in the discussions there. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is there even a wiki page titled 'killing of George Floyd'? That's presumptuous at best, but blatantly false if you want to be honest about it. Until the courts determine whether it was an overdose or not, calling this a 'killing' is moronic. Philibron (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

i believe this is answered in the FAQ at the top, but its because it was rules a homicide by the coroner. there was some debate on whether it should be changed to death or from death awhile back. anyways, if the outcome is in favor of the officers, then getting it changed will probably be fitting at that point (imo?). tbh though, it seems like wikipedia doesn't care too much about what judges or juries say and might still call it a killing because of "common parlance" even if officers get a not guilty ruling. StayFree76 ^talk 06:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We go with what the official medical report says.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The OFFICIAL medical report determined that he died from fentanyl and meth. That was the OFFICIAL report. The UNOFFICIAL report, done by a lackey hired privately by the family, is the one that says asphyxiation. The coroner ruled it drug reaction. Some guy the family hired is NOT the coroner. So both of your responses fail to state any facts that support the title. In fact, according to your reasoning, the title of 'killing'is patently and intentionally false and misleading. This indifference to the facts will be the death of Wikipedia. If wiki won't put accurate information in the articles, then what's even the point of Wikipedia? Philibron (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea which official medical report you have read.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Note 2 is not supported by the source.

"The following year, Floyd was arrested twice for theft, receiving sentences of 10 months and 10 days, respectively." Source does not say he was arrested twice for theft. The source only says: "Then, the following year, authorities arrested and charged Floyd with theft on two separate occasions (on Sept. 25, 1998, and Dec. 9, 1998), sentencing him to a total of 10 months and 10 days in jail." Therapyisgood (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

i always thought that looked weird. this definitely looks like he was charged once for 2 counts and served 10m 10d, not that he served two distinct sentences one being an awkwardly short 10 days. StayFree76 ^talk 08:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Theft has different levels depending on value of stolen items. Stealing a $50 item is misdemeanor theft where over $300 is felony theft. So a 10 m 10 d sentence makes perfect sense. 10 months for the felony theft, 10 days for misdemeanor, running consecutive. 10 days is a common sentence for misdemeanors Philibron (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

sure, but that's not the problem op is talking about. as i mentioned before, the current state makes it seem like this:

arrested for theft > 10m jail > released > arrested for theft > 10d jail > released.

the source is saying this: theft > theft > arrested for both > 10m 10d jail > released.

the quote from op says the thefts were only 2 months apart from each other. how can you commit theft when you are currently in jail for theft? StayFree76 ^talk 16:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The source does say he was arrested twice for theft: "authorities arrested and charged Floyd with theft on two separate occasions (on Sept. 25, 1998, and Dec. 9, 1998)". The source contains a copy of his arrest record, showing separate arrests on each date. The source also contains a copy of the recorders memorandum for the second arrest, giving a date of offense of October 22nd and a date of judgment of December 14. The timeline is: arrest 1 (25 Sep) > theft 2 (October 22) > arrest 2 (Dec 9) > sentencing for arrest 2 (Dec 14). It is unclear when the first offense occurred, or when he was sentenced for it. If I had to guess he was likely out on bail when the second arrest occurred? Paisarepa (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks for going into the details, that helped a lot. i was just going off of the OP's presented info. with that, it still seems a little weird tough, right?. i don't personally think its a big deal, but if i read something and think "hmm, looks weird" or "????, that doesn't seem right", i feel like other readers would have the same issue and i always try to push towards clarity and simplicity whenever possible. StayFree76 ^talk 20:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed the wording to make it (hopefully) less confusing. I don't think there is any reason the note needs to specify which sentence resulted from which arrest. Paisarepa (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct timeline is 9/25/98 arrest for aggravated robbery. 10/22/98 arrest for Theft Class B misdemeanor. Judgement for October misdemeanor on 12/14/98, sentence of 10 days served 2. Then the Judgement for the September aggravated robbery wasn't until 2/11/99, for 10 months. The snopes article confuses matters by delivering the timeline arse-end-around. Koncorde (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Failing to address his criminal record.

There is stuff left out of this article about this man that builds a different/wrong picture about who he was as a person. Piag1997 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Why is wiki intentionally ignoring facts and misleading readers? This will be the death of Wikipedia. Philibron (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

From the lede "he was convicted of eight crimes. He served four years in prison after accepting a plea bargain for a 2007 aggravated robbery in a home invasion.", what are we laving out?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This article isn't about a prior history which isn't a factor in why he was killed. Unless someone is saying that he was killed because of his criminal record. Anyone? Would be a novel defence. Koncorde (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact: the police aren't supposed to kill criminals. Except in very, very, VERY limited circumstances ... which did not apply here. --Khajidha (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Drug intoxication at the time of death

Under the subsection relating to Mr. Floyd's death, in this article the following statement is made:

"Fentanyl and methamphetamine were also listed as being in his system, though there is no evidence that these drugs contributed to his death."

I propose that the text after the comma is removed. That is, change the statement to:

"Fentanyl and methamphetamine were also listed as being in his system."

This is a poor statement for two reasons. Firstly, it contradicts the text in the main article regarding the death of Mr. Floyd. In Killing of George Floyd, the following is stated:

"The complaint cited the preliminary opinion that the "combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death"."

And that:

"The medical examiner's final findings, issued June 1, classified Floyd's death as a homicide caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained" by officers who had subjected Floyd to "neck compression". Other significant conditions were arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use."

So these are clearly listed as likely contributions to his death in the preliminary report, and as significant conditions in the final report. Thus it is perhaps misleading to assert that there is no evidence that this is the case, since it has been asserted in the above.

Secondly (and more importantly), it's an improper statement to make. Whether credible 'evidence' exists as to its significance in Mr Floyd's death will be determined by a jury on the advice of expert medico-legal witnesses, as called by both the prosecution and defence at the trial. In fact, it will likely be a key element of the defence case. For now, no comment should be made on an encyclopaedic article such as this.

Lj16118 (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Lj16118

This was previously discussed at Talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#ME's_report. At the time, items listed as "significant conditions" were removed from the article because there was no consensus on how to neutrally explain the meaning of the medical term, which would otherwise be misinterpreted by its plain English meaning. It was re-added in mid-August.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutrally explaining this is as easy now as it was then, just add a footnote to the universally-accepted definition given on page 14 of the only authoritative handbook on medical certification of death. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Since there is a main article on his killing at Killing of George Floyd, I would propose that his bio be limited to straight-forward facts and not be bogged down with POV points that will lead to bloating to address WP:NPOV concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

i agree. there has been a consistency problem between all of the related wikis from the start as well, so something like this [should] limit that. StayFree76 ^talk 05:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Aside: I notice that Killing of George Floyd lists these items without any explanation of "significant conditions".—Bagumba (talk)

the major complaint of my ongoing ANI discussion is that me trying to apply consistency between articles is bad, unfortunately. this happened on my first block as well. since then i have been hesitant to fix the wikis unless its on something i know people wont think is some kind of POV move. StayFree76 ^talk 19:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, which is a really good general policy for moving forward. Unless you think the change you're making is unlikely to be controversial, go to Talk first. (FWIW, the usual terminology we use here is 'the article' rather than 'the wiki'.)

Do you get the argument about 'consistency between/among articles' that people have discussed w/re: the major complaint of my ongoing ANI discussion is that me trying to apply consistency between articles is bad? If you aren't sure, ping me to your talk or come to mine. It's not an intuitive concept for most new editors, and while we don't need a long discussion here, I'm happy to discuss. —valereee (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"there has been a consistency problem between all of the related wikis from the start as well" Seems like an indication that we have too many articles trying to cover the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The current sentence is wrong on two levels. Saying these substances were "found in his system" puts them implicitly alongside the harmless nicotine, codeine and caffeine. Saying there's "no evidence" of these significant conditions contributing to his death is the explicit opposite of everything the ME is widely reported as telling us about this for months. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I reworded it to just be potentially confusing to readers who don't understand coroners, rather than inaccurate to everyone, left the discussion tag in hopes a perfect wording is eventually agreeable. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Significant conditions

Still unresolved is the article referring to "significant conditions" and not distinguishing the medical term from the vernacular. It doesn't help to punt and just throw it into quotes either, because readers might also read them as WP:SCAREQUOTES and misinterpret (in yet another way). Trying to explain "significant conditions" gets into WP:MEDPOP issues. I think an alternative is to only bring up items with WP:DUE coverage that are brought up by the defense, and avoid medical interpretations of the coronor's report.—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: too bad there isnt much movement on this. anyways, since there is a main article specifically about the killing, shouldn't the death section very briefly mention the events. something along the lines of:

"On May 25, 2020, Floyd was arrested after allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill at a grocery store in the Powderhorn Park neighborhood of Minneapolis. He died after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, pressed his knee to Floyd's neck for over eight minutes during the arrest. After Floyd's death, protests were held globally against the use of excessive force by police officers against black suspects and lack of police accountability. Protests began in Minneapolis the day after his death and developed in cities throughout all 50 U.S. states and internationally.

if people want to know more they can follow the link to the main article. StayFree76 ^talk 20:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

We might compare the level of drugs in the autopsy report and the "average" lethal dose https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fentanyl_en And https://media.defense.gov/2019/Sep/09/2002180420/-1/-1/0/CG%20069%20_V1%20ANTEMORTEM-POSTMORTEM%20METHAMPHETAMINE%20BLOOD%20CONCENTRATIONS.PDF those number can put into perspective the abstract number and show that he had no lethal level of methamphetamine but more than lethal level of fentanyl in his system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:86A1:A300:F177:FBF7:F461:E528 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Comparing "the level of drugs in the autopsy report and the "average" lethal dose" does make sense in cases were the deceased was naive to the relevant psychotropic substances - that is, where the deceased person was NOT a regular user.

Yet in the case of a regular user (daily consumption), the consumed doses can indeed surpass therapeutic levels by orders of magnitudes; from addict to addict (or, in the case of opioids, from pain patient to pain patient) they vary wildly. Instead of 10 mg of morphine per day, 500 mg or more are consumed. Easily. 100 mg per day (10 times the therapeutic single dose) may be NOT even enough to keep withdrawal symptoms at bay.

Therefore, without a detailed history of Mr. Floyd's substance use, the laboratory results do not tell us much about the drug's possible contribution to his death. Rgelpke (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Drugs in his system were brought up by the defense as a possible cause of death. This isn't the exact article but it's close to what I saw. I know it seems ridiculous but if it's being mentioned, it ought to be mentioned somewhere. I didn't realize I was on the wrong article's talk page because I didn't think George Floyd was notable enough to have an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

Add "adult film actor" to George Floyd's occupation. 109.93.177.13 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:BLP and oft discussed e.g. Talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#George_Floyd_a_film_actor.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

He died of fentanyl

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

---

I can't link to it but that's a claim someone is making.

There is a brief article here if anyone knows how to get to it. It wouldn't be ethical to share my password.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

And I see this is discussed above.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

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

vchimpanzee, what's infoweb.newsbank.com? —valereee (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

NewsBank is a resource made available to those with a library card at several, but not all, the libraries I go to. During the COVID-19 pandemic, or at least I assume that's the reason, this one library I go to upgraded, and it's like reading the actual paper each day. The article I wanted to link to wasn't available online when i tried to search.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, so it's a database of news articles from various sources? I think we'd likely need to know what the original source was, or that NewsBank curates them somehow. —valereee (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

We can trust the newspapers there. The one I was looking at is the same one that gets delivered to homes not in my neighborhood, but in a county near where I live. Conservatives complain about its liberal bias, but that's to be expected.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

In the specific case, the article I found that was similar in that same newspaper was written by an Associated Press reporter. I guess I should have posted the same information that would go under references. So here's how that would look.

Amy Forliti, "Lawyers for ex-cops raise Floyd's history of crime, drug use," Associated Press, Sep 10, 2020.

The brief article didn't have any of that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That information is in Killing of George Floyd. See [33]. It does not belong in this article. Paisarepa (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't expect George Floyd to have his own article and thought I was being redirected to the correct article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2020

Their autopsy also said the 46-year-old victim had ‘other significant conditions’ including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease, Sarmat28 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Was not a rap artist Hpelkey71 (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought he was pronounced dead at the hospital according to officials?

Why does it say he died on scene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5800:37:CC00:E170:3D65:C72C (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There are different standards for declaring death. Some require (officially) a doctor or equivalent medical professional to make the notation. Some places expressly leave no option for any else to determine death. This means any nurse, paramedic or otherwise can only attempt resuscitation (and in fact must attempt resusc) unless there is a DNR agreement or similar. Which is why a lot of people are "found unconscious" and die later (the reality being they were dead when found, but only "pronounced" dead officially later), while in care homes or similar a patient may die at 2 in the morning but the official authorisation may be hours later when the GP arrives.

Additionally in the end a person may be without a pulse and not breathing, and have very low brain activity and still not yet be dead and it isn't up to anyone but whoever is officially designated to do so go decide that they are dead and to cease treatment.

After the fact the Coroner can make a determination of time of death (among other actions). Koncorde (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Children

Children should be changed to "confirmed children," as Floyd was a notorious womanizer. Brungk (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

tbh i agree

bumped J4mes was taken (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

why was "killed" used?

In the beginning of the article it says he was "killed". He died but he wasn't "killed". 2nd, if the wiki article it to be truthful, why was no mention (although url unnecessary) of him making a porno movie? 2600:1700:E7A1:A1D0:CC82:DAD:FD78:BBCA (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Because RS say he was killed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also his porn career has little relevance and frankly only seems to be brought up by people seeking to discredit him Unibond (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Separate issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Made notable strictly by his unfortunate demise, such elements have no place. J.D.718 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

White

Ok, I want to say something why was my edit deleted, whoever deleted it clearly didn't read what I said, so protip READ AND GET INFORMED BEFORE YOU ACT THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Because white cop/black victim is central to this issue, and many other deaths at the hands of police. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It had nothing, it was over power Derek did this over power not race THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Not according to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Who is RS? and just because one person the answer is something doesn't mean it is THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS. WWGB (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What are the "reliable sources" THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

One of the ones that we cite in the line in the lead, for a start.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Charging of Derek Chauvin

why was Derek Chauvin the officer who killed George Floyd not charged formally and allowed a bail bond of $1 million? Gplaborde (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Floyd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The reasons for arrest are incorrect

The use of the word "less" in these lines means that if there was "more" he would not have been arrested.

Floyd was arrested for giving less than one gram of cocaine to another person he was arrested four more times: twice for possessing less than a gram of cocaine, once for giving less than a gram of cocaine to someone else

He was not arrested because he had less than one gram of cocaine; he was arrested for giving cocaine to another person.

There is no offence of giving less than one gram of cocaine or possessing less than a gram of cocaine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.213.152.165 (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

He's not wrong. The wording is misleading. It should be something like "he was arrested on four occasions for //insert criminal charges// when found in possession of less than 1 gram of cocaine." The current wording reads like the criminal charge was because he had less than 1 gram, and was supplying less than 1 gram. Koncorde (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As one source says "According to prosecutors, police in that case caught him delivering less than one gram of cocaine to someone else".Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but read the sentence structure. The IP isn't saying it is wrong he was arrested with less than 1 gram (which is what the source you supply states). The IP is saying that the sentence is suggesting he was arrested for possessing less than 1 gram. The use of the word "for" in this situation infers that the reason for his arrest was the fact he had less than a gram and you could (ludicrously of course) assume he wouldn't have been arrested if he had more than 1 gram.

It's the equivalent of saying "Koncorde was arrested for driving below 10 miles per hour" when the actual fact is "Koncorde was arrested for driving without due care and attention after being found driving at 10mph on a highway".

Separately I am assuming the material weight would change the type of charge brought (such as with intent to supply) meaning the significance of the less than 1 gram should be retained. Koncorde (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ahh I see. Well the source says he was arrested for "delivering less than one gram of cocaine to someone else" So the RS deem the amount relevant. So again we go back to Source for this suggested alteration of our text.Slatersteven (talk)

I have reworded slightly to remove the ambiguity by re-ordering the content to match the same format used for other arrests. Koncorde (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems OK.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth about this man

Article says allegedly passing fake money. They found several fake 20s and singles in his car. This man was also high on fentanyl and meth. Why is this not included in the article? Says he was a hiphop artist and church mentor? Where is the evidence of this? What type of church mentor is high on drugs using counterfeit money? Why is this not in the article showing the entire picture of this man who is being painted as a martyr? He was a career criminal who unfortunately was killed after committing more crimes. Stand4somethingFall4anything (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well we do include the toxicology, and the reat would need support from RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This page is to be redirected to Death of George Floyd but Derek Chauvin stays as-is?

Is there currently an effort being made to fulfill the conclusion of the AfD by moving all information from this article to Death of George Floyd such that no information is left out? Also, is there a reason why the article on Derek Chauvin is to be kept, but that this article on George Floyd is to be moved? -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who said George Floyd was to be moved? WWGB (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Floyd. -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That was in May. I can't remember exactly what events happened afterwards, but the article ended up sticking. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:GNG has since been met for a standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer to 'Do we need to know that Floyd and Derek worked together?

To answer a now archived talkpoint's question about mentioning that Floyd and Derek Chauvin (the latter when off police duty) worked as security for the same venue and firm. I would say it should be mentioned. If the account is to be objective it should declare any facts about them that may give rise to suspicions of conflict of interest or bias and circumstances that enabled to two to be known to each other before the arrest. (It suggests to me the two could have known about each other and therefore given Chauvin an added interest in arresting Floyd and even influenced the way Floyd was treated.)Cloptonson (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"Man who claimed George Floyd and Derek Chauvin 'bumped heads' changes story" Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Later life

The Minneapolis-based Star Tribune newspaper ran an in-depth feature story about Floyd's life in Minnesota. It ran on December 27, 2020. Some initial reports about Floyd's life in Minnesota were from soon after his death should be depreciated as they contained inconsistencies and inaccuracies during a scramble to report news about him. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Which content is disputed. The new media looks like a bit of a whitewash to me. WWGB (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Protests

I'm not familiar with wikipedia and don't understand how to create a new discussion. But why isn't there any mentions of the violent protests, the rioting, the looting, the murders, the protesters attacking white BLM supporters, the black only rallies promoting segregation and how it divided America more than anything? I'm doing a school work on that subject and I thought I would find those informations here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Likely because those things didn't actually happen.--Jorm (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This page is more about his life. A dedicated page on the protests is George Floyd protests, which is linked in his bio.—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Topic

I would like to work on this topic for my Wikipedia assignment. I want to help reduce the biased language and add to the section on the lasting effects. I've included the link to my user page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AHall08 AHall08 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC) I’m interested in this topic because, going off last semester’s theme of Black Lives Matter (BLM), George Floyd’s murder was a major spark for the outrage which erupted around the nation last year. The effects of his death are wide-ranging and still sending shocks around the country in terms of how people are responding to BLM, what policies are being enacted, and more. I've included the references on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AHall08AHall08 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@AHall08: If you want to be seen to edit this article without bias, I would avoid using the term "murder". No-one has been found guilty of murder at this time. WWGB (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional Source for George Floyd's Autopsy

I've never edited an article in Wikipedia, and am not about to start now. However, when the information came out about how the two autopsies differed, I found and read this article, which clarified that there were no significant differences and that both were in agreement as to the cause of death. I offer the link for anyone who wants to read it and decide if an edit is warranted.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosear (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The source quoted by 538 might be more useful as it is by a physician: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-autopsy-and-the-structural-gaslighting-of-america/ TricksterWolf (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Movie career

Under the name "Big Flyod" he did pr0n. Write it down. --2003:C4:B70A:3500:654D:73B7:C4FB:A132 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but there are no reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There are. The entry of Big Floyd on Iafd: http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=bigfloyd/gender=m/big-floyd.htm --2003:C4:B704:EA00:504E:E664:3B98:A27E (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not a wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Slatersteven greetings. I included the information that you reverted because there are many details of the positive things he did for his community, and I wanted to provide WP:BALANCE and so I detailed some of the unfortunate events. I don't see why you reverted this. You clearly have no problem with the content, only the reasoning for adding the content, which makes little sense. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Because we already mention his crimes, we do not need this kind of detail.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your reply and reasoning makes no sense. I am going to place the content back in as I do not see why it should be removed. If you haven't realised, Wikipedia provides detail, it does not simply mention events. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I know what Wikipedia is for, but the content has to add something, we are not a collection of random information. This adds nothing to our understanding of him (or his crimes) it is just a bit of trivia. It does not add balance, just unneeded detail. that just adds more words for no real benifit.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly not 'random information', they are the actions of this man and received media coverage so should be included. You say this adds nothing to the understanding of his crimes, but you are clearly wrong as this provides details about this crime and thus adds to the understanding. This is not trivia either as the actions were responsible for several years imprisonment, a significant part of this man's life. I will add the content back in one last time. Please do not revert this as it will constitute WP:3RR. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We mention his conviction, this adds nothing to our understanding of that, its is trivia detail. He was not imprisoned for "impersonating a government officer", but for armed robbery, that is all we need to Know.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You clearly did not listen to what I just said. I also never said he was imprisoned for impersonating a government official, so please stop misquoting and lying. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

But that is what your edit adds, that he was "Floyd impersonated a government official", this is nothing to do with his conviction.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

He was imprisoned for armed robbery. During the armed robbery, he was dressed as a government official. The two are very closely linked, and thus this information should be included. He was never imprisoned for impersonating a government official he was imprisoned for the robbery. Please try your best to understand what went on. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And we say it was an armed robbery, by the way "impersonating" and "dressed as" are not the same, lots of government officials do not have uniforms (and in fact those that do are not usually called just "government officials").Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you would take the time to look at the sources, you will see that "When Henriquez looked out the window, she saw a man “dressed in a blue uniform” who said “he was with the water department.” But when she opened the door, she realized the man was telling a lie" and that "The lady soon realized that the person was impersonating to be a government worker, she tried to shut the door". Look at the facts and not offer your opinion-based statements. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also seems trivial to me, and The Courier Daily does not appear to be a reliable source.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba thank you for your involvement. Would you mind explaining how you think the information is trivial. I've found many statements in the article which I deem to be more trivial than the statements I added.

• Friends and family characterized him as a "gentle giant"
• He delivered meals and assisted on other projects with Angel By Nature Foundation,
• His friends advised him to keep his life slow and focus on recovery
• Floyd passed a drug test and hoped to earn a commercial driver's license to operate trucks, but he dropped out of the program as his job at a nightclub made it difficult to attend morning classes,
• In 2017, he filmed an anti-gun violence video.

I believe details on a crime which resulted in him going to prison for many years (a significant part of his life) should be included. I also believe that per WP:BALANCE this should be included as the article nearly fully praises his work for charities and the community yet his crimes are barely mentioned. As for The Courier Daily, I am inclined to agree and I will try to find a better reference. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be an other stuff argument. Perhaps there is other trivia, but we're talking about this addition. At best, less or as trivial won't cut it. I don't consider eight crimes and years in prison being in the lead to be "barely mentioned".—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, generally speaking, more WP:EXCEPTIONAL stuff is going to have a higher sourcing requirement. And WP:BALANCE isn't about trying to balance out positive or negative aspects in an article (that's WP:FALSEBALANCE); balance is about covering aspects of the topic in accordance with their coverage and seeking balance for sources that contradict each other when both are roughly equally prominent. Most coverage of Floyd has not gone into that much detail on his prior arrest, nor is it what made him notable, so excessive focus on it would be undue here. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's trivia and the source is shite. It should not be included. I'm not sure why we're having this conversation, nor why anyone would think it should be included, except as to provide an "excuse" as to why it was okay that he was murdered by police.--Jorm (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF. WWGB (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We mention his crimes, and his jail, time, and the fact he was on drugs. What we do not do (and this is what I mean by Trivial) is to say who he delivered meals too, or what type of meals (for example). NOw I happen to agree some of the above does seem pretty trivial. But then so are many of his crimes, we still mention them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these are trivialities, and I have tagged the article. I have also requested full protection at WP:RFPP. Elizium23 (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If sources state he gave meals to the poor, its an important part of his life we absolutely must include it, and that is utterly justified. I do agree we shouldn't give useless trivia, but it's not useless trivia at all. Des Vallee (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We should objectively apply WP:WEIGHT. At a minimum, has the fact been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, preferably not on the same day? Same goes for the removal of "gentle giant". Was it oft mentioned, regardless if it was his non-celebrity friends and family? (I haven't looked.) NPOV does not imply that we only write about "official" viewpoints from police and prosecutors.—Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Bagumba WWGB Des Vallee Jorm Aquillion Slatersteven Willbb234 These issues are too trivial for an indefinite undue weight tag on so important an article -- I don't fully understand everyone's objections but they seem to be omission-related, so please add what you think should be added and then let's remove the tag. Gershonmk (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I made a few bold edits to provide more context about Floyd and clean up some of the content found objectionable. Can we remove that article flag now? Minnemeeples (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the tag. It'd be clearer if a specific sentence or section was tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Robbery details

Under the 'Later life' section, add extra information about the robbery.

Change "According to investigators, Floyd had entered an apartment by barging in and pushed a pistol into the abdomen of a woman." to "According to investigators, Floyd had entered an apartment by barging in after trying to impersonate a government official and pushed a pistol into the abdomen of a pregnant woman."

Sources: https://www.thecourierdaily.com/george-floyd-criminal-past-record-arrest/20177 https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/

It is important that this information gets included in the article W313411 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is it important, what does it tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the whole line is WP:UNDUE and should be removed. The investigator's allegations are just allegations; the guilty plea is not an admission to those specific allegations. Also, it doesn't mention that GF was one of a group of men (5 or 6 IIRC) who allegedly participated in that robbery. But I don't think we should expand this with more detail, I think we should go the opposite way and not include the details of the allegations, just the facts of the plea and prison term. Without RS saying definitively what happened in their own voice, the allegations of the prosecution are undue. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

He spent a considerable amount of time in prison. That experience had an effect on his later behavior and fear in police encounters, and it is included in in-depth bios of Floyd. The manner in which he ended up in prison should be noted. The current content is relevant and strikes a balance. Reputable sources have reported what the investigators alleged. What is the RS supposed to do, interview the witnesses? That starts to be an unreasonable burden for an RS. I'll add an in-depth Star Tribune bio as a supporting source and attempt to summarize it better. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Considerable doubt has been placed by sources on the "pregnant woman" part (e.g., snopes says "no evidence suggests a woman involved in the 2007 charge was pregnant"). We don't know if any of those allegations are true. The sources AFAIK do not report that Floyd allocuted to the charges. It's UNDUE because it suggests that because he pled guilty, he was in fact guilty of the crime, and that he was guilty of the specific acts that the investigators alleged. That's too far of a stretch. There are sources (one of the Texas magazines if I remember correctly) that detail extensively the many reasons why GF might have pled guilty to a crime he didn't commit (and why people, especially black men, sometimes plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit). We shouldn't suggest to the reader that what the investigator alleges actually happened. If we don't know what actually happened, then it's not proper to speculate, or to repeat unproven allegations. The allegations, per the sources, do not particularly impact this man or his life (the prison time had an impact, but not these specific allegations... it doesn't matter if he held the gun to her adbomen or head, or if he was dressed as a utility worker or pizza deliveryman, etc. etc.). And the fact that this must be sources to local news and specialty sources (like snopes), and that the national and international media, all of whom have written biographies of Floyd, do not cover these details generally speaking... that's all evidence that these details are not DUE for inclusion. My two cents. Also I don't remember the last time this was discussed and I'm too lazy to go find it, but I know that I've typed all this out before :-) There's probably some past discussion that may be relevant here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. Two of the more in-depth biographies of the life of George Floyd by the AP and the Minneapolis Star Tribune included a lot of context about what led to Floyd's prison time:

Henao, Luis Andres; Merchant, Nomaan; Lozano, Juan; Geller, Adam (June 10, 2020). "For George Floyd, a complicated life and a notorious death". Associated Press. Retrieved February 11, 2021.

Rao, Maya (December 27, 2020). "George Floyd hoped moving to Minnesota would save him. What he faced here killed him". Star Tribune. Retrieved December 29, 2020.

Both biographies above are cited in the article, which no longer says the woman was pregnant. There are always ways to improve the content, and I don't support the pregnant context, nor do I support citing Snopes and The Courier Daily (a news aggregator), but removing all context about what led to Floyd's relatively long prison sentence would create a gaping hole in the biography of Floyd.Minnemeeples (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The prior discussion I was thinking of was Talk:George Floyd/Archive 1#Details of home invasion, which was long and looked at like a dozen sources (including the two you raise).

• Star Tribune is local news and its level of detail shouldn't weigh as much as what's in national and international news orgs (see WP:PROPORTION and WP:NEWSORG).

The long-form, retrospective article was written by Maya Rao, a nationally renown journalist and author, for a reputable newspaper. It was published many months after the initial course of events, and it covered events of Floyd's life in Houston in elsewhere. It wasn't routine/sensational news coverage, it wasn't commentary, it wasn't an opinion/editorial, and it wasn't a local puff piece. Rao wrote one of the most detailed biographies of Floyd's life that has been published yet. As noted at the end of it, "This story is based on interviews with 38 people about Floyd and his world, and draws on court records, police reports, videos and photos." If anything, too much weight in the George Floyd article is given to other puff pieces and short-form articles published in early June 2020, which are becoming primary sources at this point. Minnemeeples (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Among national news orgs, it's just this AP news report that says In August 2007, Floyd was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Investigators said he and five other men barged into a woman’s apartment, and Floyd pushed a pistol into her abdomen before searching for items to steal. Floyd pleaded guilty in 2009 and was sentenced to five years in prison. By the time he was paroled, in January 2013, he was nearing 40. So that doesn't include the water department uniform, traffic stop, or photo array details (which are in our article cited to other sources), and it does include "five other men" detail (not in our article).
• NYTimes [34] says: Four years later, Mr. Floyd pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and spent four years in prison. He was released in 2013 and returned home again — this time to begin the long, hard work of trying to turn his life around, using his missteps as a lesson for others.
• BBC [35]: There were lows, as when he was arrested for robbery in 2007 and served five years in prison ... His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison.
• Neither of those two has any details at all. Mind you I'm rehashing arguments from the discussion last summer, there are other sources everyone looked at, I'm not sure what consensus we arrived at about specific details, and more importantly, I'm not up-to-date on sources that have been written in the last six months (except I'm sure they're out there), and what they say about it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  I think the abdomen keeps getting mentioned in reliable sources to address the pregnant narrative in unreliable sources. Essentially, it's arguably WP:DUE now because of the false claims that precipitated it. I'm on the fence of whether it needs to be mentioned here, but I can at least respect the angle. At any rate, the Courier Daily is not a reliable source.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's UNDUE because it suggests that because he pled guilty ...: The WP article currently says he was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, which seems accurate, even if people will interpret it as they wish.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done There is no way that this is DUE as presented.--Jorm (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

I need to change spelling mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradbucci20 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Belwine (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

This article is factually inaccurate. It does not include any information about the drugs he induced during the stop or info about his heart disease. This article also talks about George being “killed”. I believe until the trial has concluded and all the evidence is presented, this article needs to be either removed or edited to reveal ALL the information of the stop. Everyone in this country is innocent until proven guilty. 2600:1011:B110:E9C:2811:B32D:3CA3:9F83 (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It does include that information: "Fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death. Other significant conditions were arteriosclerotic heart disease and hypertensive heart disease.". Regarding "killed", that's just the conclusion of the autopsy, the trial will determine whether or not it is a murder. You might find the FAQ on this talk page to be relevant. Volteer1 (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

This page seems to be somewhat one sided and at times, contains false, or needless information. For example, former officer Chauvin has not yet been convicted of any crimes surrounding the incident. Thus, the word, killing, murder or any variation or synonyms of these words cannot be accurately used. Death or untimely demise are good substitutes. Another example would be the cause of death. While it is true that the private autopsy ordered by Floyd’s family gave more favorable results, it was done without a body present. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner, (the one who did the first autopsy used by the government) found that Floyd had died not of a lack of oxygen, but of heart failure caused by a Fentanyl overdose of four times the lethal limit, and that the excitement of the arrest caused Floyd’s heart to stop. The theory of suffocation can be further disproved, when we hear Mr. Floyd repeatedly say that he can’t breathe. Using simple logic, we can understand that if you can talk, you can breathe and thus any suggestion by this article that Floyd died as a result of former officer Chauvin should be removed or replaced. I hope that you take these suggestions seriously, as I put a lot of effort into them. Thank you. -Mason S. 97.88.134.221 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to specify exactly what prose you would like to change, and what you'd like to change it to. Make sure to provide reliable sources for your new prose. What you're asking is that a volunteer decide to rewrite swathes of the article, do all the research, find all the sources and get consensus for the change. If you'd like something changed you should be going through that process. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And killing does not mean murder, for the umpteenth time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Facts just get in the way.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• George Floyd Memorial in Portland, Oregon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Merging pages with Killing of George Floyd

The subject of the article is only known for one incident: his cause of death. Everything that happened around that has little to do with the individual involved and more to do with the larger issue at hand, which is racial discrimination and the treatment of Blacks by American law enforcement. Since, other than his cause of death, George Floyd is not notable for literally anything else, I would suggest there only be a "Killing of George Floyd" page, as well as the removal of the "George Floyd" page.

The fact that several points of information such as biographical notes have been repeated throughout the page, I would say that this only proves my point that there is not enough to warrant Floyd having his own Wikipedia page.AThousandPaperCranes (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Following a discussion, George Floyd was redirected to Death of George Floyd on 31 May 2020, and since renamed Killing of George Floyd. This current article was started on 5 June 2020 and has existed since. Anyone is free to start a deletion/merge request, but there is no chance this article will be deleted, especially now that Chauvin's trial is underway. WWGB (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. He’s become more notable since his death and his biography is the subject of many reputable sources. He’s a notable historic figure. Minnemeeples (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is clearly not a realistic idea; there are too many sources, and it feels like a bad faith tagging to me.--Jorm (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though I have sympathy for the point being made. The notability of Floyds life is intrinsically tied to his death (and manner of death) which I don't think anyone disagrees with. However the level of coverage of the fallout of George Floyds death clearly has almost nothing to do with Floyd himself at this point. I think the "Murder of" article has taken on its own life at this point. The only other realistic way of splitting it would be as "George Floyd" as one article (inclusive of his death), and "Trial of Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin" on the other containing everything related to Floyds death and fallout. Koncorde (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think you are on to something there. There is no killing of Crispus Attucks article; the article is just Crispus Attucks. (There is a Boston Massacre article though.) Much like Floyd, Attucks was not a notable person until after his death, and the cause of his death and symbolism of it took on broader meaning by many people, and historians have continued to uncover more and more about Attucks over time. Not sure if this makes much sense. But I could see George Floyd being the main article and some stuff, like all the bail and trial stuff about Chauvin moving to the Chauvin article. Just a thought. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Various reliable sources discuss him solely and the contents of his life—to the point that a separate bio is warranted. DMT biscuit (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support George Floyd the man was never notable. His death is a notable event. The protests and reactions are notable events. --Khajidha (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support only his death was notable. Yes, there are sources that cover his life, but when considering the number (and depth) of these in comparison to the number surrounding his death and subsequent events, the rest of his life isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 01:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Result of last discussion was "not merged" at Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_2#Proposed_merge_of_George_Floyd_into_Killing_of_George_Floyd in June 2020.—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. As was said many times in the last discussion, WP:1E has an exception for people involved in exceptionally significant events, and this certainly qualifies in that it was a major catalyst for the 2020 resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Minnemeeples. His biography is covered in sources which have nothing to do with his death. Dimadick (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Peer review of new edits

Your updates to this article do a good job in providing additional sources as well as relevant new information/current events. I was impressed by the additional of differing perspectives and attributing competing claims to respective sources. I would suggest adjusting the structure of the article as the Personal life section was very short and seemed like it overlapped with the early and later life sections. I would also add a short discussion or link to Black Lives Matter as that was not mentioned in the article. Good job overall! S.shedore (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's Black and white (people)

According to the AP style guide, capitalize Black when used in a racial/ethnic sense, but do not capitalize white. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't use the AP style guide, we have our own. And it was recently decided that either Black and White or black and white was acceptable, but not Black and white (or black and White, for that matter). --Khajidha (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Khajidha Where and when was this decided? I can't seem to find it...due to my laziness, poor searching abilities, or both. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Minnemeeples: see this RfC and some more recent discussion on the matter. Basically, while they can be capitalized in (mostly US-centric) articles, there isn't a preferred style, and it shouldn't be mixed (i.e. using both "Black" and "white"). --Volteer1 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and links, Khajidha and Volteer1. -- Minnemeeples (talk)

So then we should have grammatical consistency on the article and capitalize either both or neither then, no? Drassow (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Then why isn't this happening? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The article consistently capitalizes White and Black. This issue appears to be resolved. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's hypocritical and discriminatory to capitalize one but not the other. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears we don't, so what is your issue?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

George Floyd passed away while being subdued for resisting arrest. 2601:89:8401:7140:47F:B57B:72E2:D8DE (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what edit you want to make.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling of Courteney Ross

The name of his partner is misspelled in the article. The correct spelling of her name is "Courteney Ross" (not "Courtney Ross" as stated in the article).

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/us/courteney-ross-george-floyds-former-girlfriend.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.32.247 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed her as his "partner", as a more reliable source is needed. Most sources just call her his girlfriend.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)