Talk:Trial of Derek Chauvin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Death VS Killing

Pinging mathglot here since they're involved in the editing.

Per consensus here and on Killing of George Floyd, as well as at Wikipedia:DEATHS, "killing" is not a legal matter. Killing as it is used in Wikipedia does not imply guilt, and does not require the weighing of a court (for example, at Killing of Harambe). Death is only to be used either if the death is of natural causes, or if the cause of death is entirely unknown. Autopsies have stated that Floyd died as a direct result of his injuries from Chauvin, and thus we can sufficiently call it a killing regardless of the opinion of any court. The court's job is not to rule if it is a killing, but if it was murder, which is a specific type of killing which carries criminal liability. The change from "killing" to "death" was made by a disgruntled editor who believes Floyd died of a drug overdose and has been using multiple accounts to advance that view on articles, including at Killing of George Floyd. I thus reverted their edit manually as a bad-faith POV edit; it was not my own addition as Mathglot's edit summary seems to imply. Builder018 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Builder018: Thanks, I understand what you're saying that it wasn't your addition, and the reversion comment is generated automatically by the software, so the fact that your name was in there in the comment, was only as the last editor who restored the previous version and is by no means any kind of accusatiion, or attribution by me that you were responsible for the wording. You're in the clear; the words are intended for whomever originally added them.

That said, I also follow what you're saying about the legal aspect of killing vs death; I'll have to go read more about that. That said, I don't dispute that killing is independent of legal concerns, but I don't know if I buy whether it is also devoid of accusation, at least, in that case. The widespread opinion is, that Chauvin killed (or murdered) Floyd. Yes, there's a possibility that, say, drugs did it, but let's face it, that's not what people see, when they see "Killing of George Floyd" in a Wikipedia article. Everybody knows what is meant by that, and it's a not-very-veiled accusation against Chauvin, and is tantamount to saying, "Chauvin killed Floyd". In my opinion, the court will ratify that statement in a few days, or weeks, and then I have no problem saying that. But saying that NOW, is premature, and a violation of WP:BLP. Saying that Chauvin is a killer now, just seems like a rush to judgment. There's WP:NODEADLINE; let's just wait for the court and the reliable sources to give a firm basis for that claim, and not step all over WP:BLP just for the pleasure of getting Chauvin labeled a killer at Wikipedia, before the legal system does. It's not what we do. Thanks for your message. Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd disagree with your assessment that it's a rush to judgement, we already have several autopsies that state that Floyd died directly as a cause of Chauvin's actions. I personally think waiting for the court, if anything, is an unnecessary delay to improving the related articles. BLP would only apply if "killing" were a criminal term, but it isn't, and thus it doesn't. Thank you for being civil about it though, as many editors I've encountered during this discussion have been less than nice about the matter. Builder018 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to keep the section titled as "Killing of George Floyd" instead of "Death of George Floyd". One thing to keep in mind, however, is that while the two autopsies found the manner of death to be homicide, the examiners actually took pains to avoid stating that Floyd died directly as a result of Chauvin's actions. Instead of a "cause of death," (and who killed Floyd), they speak to the "manner of death" (homicide), and then note that while the manner of death was ruled to be a homicide, it "is not a legal determination of culpability or intent."[1] Assuming Chauvin is convicted (and he probably will be), there will no doubt be a requested page move to "Murder of George Floyd" for the "Killing of George Floyd" article. One of the things the community should probably look at closely in that request is the question of what the trial court's finding was with regard to intent, i.e., did Chauvin intend to kill Floyd or was it unintentional? If intentional, "murder of" is the obvious name for the article title. If unintentional, then "killing of" may still be a better title, as all the "murder of" articles on Wikipedia involve situations where the killer intended to murder the victim. Or to put that another way, there are no "murder of" articles that revolve around a killing that was unintentional, hence why make an exception for this one? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If the court\jury finds Floyd died due to overdose, pre-existing medical conditions, or a combination thereof, is killing still appropriate? Killing implies to me an outside agency such as Chauvin causing the death whereas death makes no distinction between a health crisis, accidental suicide, manslaughter, murder etc. Given the prosecution's evidence to date Chauvin has reasonable odds of beating most charges. 人族 (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not open to the jury to make such a finding. They can only decide "guilty" or "not guilty" to the charges put before them. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@WWGB:, you miss the point. Within hours of whenever the jury gets back, you're going to have a thousand reliable sources nationwide and worldwide supporting "killed". You don't have that now, and it's not up to editors here to opine about whether it should, or shouldn't, be "killing". Mathglot (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You missed the point I was making. I express no opinion on "killing of" versus "death of". I am just saying that the jury can make no finding wrt drugs, as that it not the matter before them. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen:, your arguments aren't wrong, they're just premature. You're arguing about what might happen in the future, "Assuming Chauvin is convicted (and he probably will be)". I agree with you about what probably will happen, but Wikipedia is not The Encyclopedia of the Future. Just be a little bit patient; you'll get your wish, but only after it happens; not before. Cheers Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You said,

BLP would only apply if "killing" were a criminal term...

No, WP:BLP is not a legally-based policy, the way WP:LIBEL or WP:LEGALTHREAT is based on law. WP:BLP, as it says in the three bullets right at the top of the policy page, is about the WP:NPOV policy, WP:Verifiability, and no original research. Right after that, it says (emphasis in the original):

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

The statement that "Chauvin killed Floyd" (which I think is a true statement) is a contentious statement, because some people disagree with it, and we're having a trial in court, because people disagree about it. Furthermore, that statement is about a living person, and according to the policy, must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. There's simply no hurry about this; absolutely nobody disputes that George Floyd died; that may be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Some people dispute that he was killed by Chauvin, a living person; therefore, Wikipedia must not say it, but may quote people who say it, with attribution, as their opinion. Just be patient a little while; soon, the court will agree with you, and say that "Chauvin killed Floyd"; at that point, we can say it, too. There's simply no rush, here. There's a lot of emotion, a lot of anger (me, too), but as editors here, we need to set that aside (just like jurors are supposed to do) and do our duty—the jurors following the law, and we editors following policy. The policy says, not yet. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Some People" are going to disagree regardless. A hundred court cases, a hundred autopsies, and a hundred testimonies down the line, there will still be people who believe Floyd died of a drug overdose, whether because they've bitten a propaganda apple a bit too hard or because it confirms their biases about the situation. It's generally accepted as a result of the autopsies that Floyd was killed, not just that he died. I don't believe that "Floyd was killed" is contentious, nor that it is the same as saying "Chauvin is a killer". Builder018 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just like "some people" don't believe in the Moon landing, but they are not the reliable sources we are concerned about. Once the verdict is in, and in particular, once a thousand news sources all around the world immediately report the result, we will have the unimpeachable, overwhelming, almost universal WP:WEIGHT of worldwide reliable sourcing of the fact. Now, we do not have that. Whether you believe that it's not contentious, or a hundred Wikipedia editors believe that it's not contentious, is irrelevant. We are not reliable sources. Just wait a bit. You'll get your wish. There's simply no reason to do this now, and it's clearly against policy. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The subheading Killing of George Floyd should remain per the previous consensus about that article's title. A request to change that article's title back to Death of George Floyd is still under discussion. If consensus to change back is reached there, re-name of the subheading here would be warranted. Until then, the subheading here should reflect the article it references and the consensus already reached. Discussion here will not change the outcome of the consensus already reached or the discussion still ongoing. Tvc 15 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Killing does not mean murder, you can be killed by a falling tree, that does not mean the tree murdered you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, true, but how is that relevant here? You can be killed by lightning, drowning, guillotine, hanging, lethal injection, or the electric chair, but that does not mean the electric chair murdered you. I think you meant something else here, but I'm not sure what. Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tvc 15:, no, it shouldn't remain the previous "Killing of George Floyd". That consensus is from 2 June, days after Floyd was killed when tempers were still raw, and no trial was imminent. That consensus is not relevant now, in the middle of a trial, where a man (presumed innocent) has been charged with killing him. It's incontrovertible that when people see "Killing of George Floyd" that they draw the conclusion that "Chauvin killed Floyd". Maybe that's what SlaterSteven was getting at, after all; since Floyd wasn't killed by a tree, or even by a randomly placed knee that somehow unfortunately got in they way of Floyd's airway, but by Chauvin's knee; "Killing of George Floyd" equals "Chauvin killed Floyd" right now, during the trial, in April 2021, in a way that it did not on 2 June 2020. Wikipedia may simply not make such statements in Wikipedia's voice. Why not just wait for the outcome of the trial? Then you will have the section title you want, after the guilty verdict. Then, you will have your choice of hundreds of newspapers to choose from, to source "Chauvin killed Floyd". But not today.

Here's a thought experiment for you: what if one juror is a hold out, and there's no verdict, then what? Then Wikipedia will be ahead of the reliable sources (assuming they ever come around, in that case), and that would be wrong per WP:NOTCRYSTAL: Wikipedia cannot predict the future. What if the prosecution screws up or the defense hits on something brilliant, and there's reasonable doubt, and jurors hold their noses, and are forced to acquit Chauvin? Then you'll have a case where Wikipedia says that he was killed, and the newspapers don't say that. Do you really want to see that situation develop? WP:BLP is policy for a reason, and that policy says hold off for now, and that is what we should do. Show me where I'm mistaken: quote something in BLP, or some other policy. I realize why you and everybody else believes Chauvin believes he was killed; the thing to do here is to transcend that, put aside your own feelings, and follow the policy. Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would use the word murder...contrary to popular belief murder is not exclusively a legal term 107.217.84.95 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It relevant because it means Floyd could have been killed and no guilt attaches from that statement.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Floyd was killed, the two autopsies concluded. Whether Chauvin was criminally culpable for killing Floyd, that is what is being determined here. Floyd could have been lawfully killed. starship.paint (exalt) 12:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And the defence is contending it was Floyd's overdose combined with his general health that resulted in his death. The knee over Floyd has to be proven to be relevant for Chauvin to be responsible for anything. 人族 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay I lean toward Death rather than Killing but I'm just reading an article which suggests a possible change. Said article includes testimony by Mackenzie, the defence's questioning of her, and the apparent angle involved which is that the angry mob - Hansen, Williams etc may have contributed or even be responsible for Floyd's death as they prevented police etc from focusing on medical care. IF this becomes a significant part of the defence's case - and the fact paramedics loaded and fled rather than provided care on the spot which led to the fire department being unable to find the ambulance to render immediate support suggests it could be, then Killed could be valid so long as it is emphasised that Chauvin and the police were not the killers. The fact that the defence has declared they want to call yet another prosecution witness for the defence suggests the case is falling apart. Only time will tell. 人族 (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And you can be killed by an overdoes.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a linguistic difference between 'killed by' and 'killing of'? Killed by would refer to the the thing or person doing the killing e.g. the overdose. Can 'the killing of' refer to a thing or is it person specific? Certainly it would be accurate to talk of 'the killing of Floyd' if the hostile crowd killed Floyd by preventing him from receiving life saving treatment by police\paramedics but could you talk of 'the killing of Floyd' if it were an OD? 人族 (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And if it is found to be an overdose that would be a valid point, so far it has not been proved what killed him.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Notes

So far the prosecution seem confused as to what kill Floyd. The only thing they're consistent about is that Chauvin is somehow responsible. That's not a reassuring position from the prosecution - guilty until proven innocent in a sense. Perhaps they'll actually present a reason before the trial concludes though given their job is to prove Chauvin's guilt which requires an explanation of how Floyd died and how Chauvin is responsible. 人族 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Most discussion on this topic interchanges the concepts of being “killed” and “the killing of” as the same thing. Many are defending that he was killed (which I don’t think is significantly contested) without addressing why “the killing of” is warranted, which is different. It would seem “the killing of” implies much more in terms of intent or culpability. As a thought experiment to highlight this, if I title an article/webpage/blog “the killing of the cat”, my family would surely initially conclude “what the hell have you done?!” and likely assume I purposefully killed the cat. As opposed to using the other less implicating versions like “the cat was killed” or “the death of the cat”. Additionally, most dictionaries include further qualifications in their definitions of “killing” with things like “especially deliberately”, “the act of” , “causing”, “caused by”, etc., all seeming to imply more than is warranted before a thorough determination such as in the outcome of a legal proceeding. Wikipedian’s first instincts with the myriad of other similar articles titled “the death of” seems more objective and correct, before a court case on the matter is settled. Digihoe (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Testimony section should be turned into a table

I'm not a huge fan of the Testimony being added into the list of the witnesses. It needs to be it's own separate section. The current list is way too cluttered, biased and worse, unformatted.

I would appreciate it if users here could re-format the article to describe the events of the trial properly. I'm not sure cherry picked statements agree with wikipedia's rules on neutrality.

I would like to see a new testimony section added.

Something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#The_trial could work great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CE10:D900:A886:1FFC:4211:4BD (talk)

Hi IP user. First, can you confirm that you're using these two IPs (#1 and #2). Second, since it looks like you have some big ideas on how to improve Wikipedia, it would be very helpful if you could register an account. Third, can you please sign your talk page comments by putting 4 tildes (~~~~ at the end of each post?

Finally, I want to explain why I reverted all your recent edits. You have a clear idea about the best way to transform the Testimony section, but it should be clear to you that not everyone agrees. Per Wikipedia policy, you were BOLD. The fact that you were reverted twice (now three times) should be enough to suggest that your major edits are controversial. Before you make big changes like that again, please engage here until a consensus is formed. I am not reverting because I'm sure I'm right but to restore the status quo before you made changes without consensus.

I don't agree that the Nuremberg trials page is a good model for this one. Most witnesses shouldn't have their pictures here, for reasons of relevance and privacy. In general, I prefer paragraph prose over lists, and I think we can eventually on something like O.J. Simpson murder case. It'll take time before reliable sources can guide us on what testimony should be mentioned, highlighted, explained in depth, or just left out entirely. In the meantime, we're trying our best to figure that out via discussion. Please join that discussion instead of making big, unilateral decisions. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A couple quick additions: IP user, do you also edit as User:Declanhx? Apologies to Declan and User:Gandydancer for catching their edits in the rollback. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had to sign in to upload images. The trial is widely broadcast on many media outlets, so in my opinion an argument about privacy isn't valid here.

How is it that "discussions" are required to turn a messy, unformatted section of the article into something readable but some random editor can come along and add their biased perspective to summarise someone's testimony without their changes being reverted?

In my opinion, a table format would be perfect for this section. user:firefangledfeathers Declanhx (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reverts Firefangledfeathers. I agree with your other comments as well. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to explain your perspective user:gandydancer Declanhx (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

WWGB's changes on 11:58, 10 April 2021‎ have not been challenged by the users here, as user:firefangledfeathers has just pointed out, there needs to be agreement first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declanhx (talk • contribs)

Check again. I did not create any new content. I merely combined two disjointed sections to improve context and logical flow. WWGB (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It did neither, it made an ordered list of witnesses look cluttered, messy and biased. If anything, you should support a table being added here as it is a very logical solution and doesn't contradict your view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Declanhx (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment For the record, the edits of IP range 2A02:C7D:CE10:D900::/64 (talk) are most likely those of Declanhx.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Current tag

I am mainly reaching out here to @Gandydancer: I am pretty sure that the {{Current}} template is being used here against the template's guidelines. This article doesn't have "a hundred or more" edits in the past day; it's had 19 in the past 24 hours. The tag has been on this page for just over two days, more than the guideline's recommended "less than a day." That said, this is my first time removing a Current tag, so please let me know if I am misinterpreting the guidelines or if there are more in-depth instructions elsewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As two days is not long enough to conclude this event, it remains current, contentious and incomplete; keep the disclaimer till the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that this event is current, that edits here are contentious, and that this article is incomplete. I also probably should have pinged you as the original tagger; I mistakenly thought it was Gandydancer. Now that we have that shared understanding, can you let me know how I'm misinterpreting the guidelines for correct usage of this tag? As I'm reading them, they preclude using it the way it's used here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

They (under "Learn how and when to remove", not the template document itself) say consensus dictates. Can you think of a part of the disclaimer that isn't accurate, useful or applicable here? Can you convince others of this? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to that page! Reading those pages helps me be a better editor. Please note though that it says this in the specific template guidance section:

The template should generally be removed when the event described is no longer receiving massive editing attention. It is not meant to be a general disclaimer indicating that an article's contents may not be accurate, or to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic (if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have the {{Current}} template, with no informational consequence). If the article continues to have sourcing or cleanup issues, a more appropriate maintenance template should be used instead.

I think this article is no longer receiving "massive editing attention". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it has fourteen talk sections in ten days. Not massive edits, but much attention to them. Some of the contributors seem abundantly cautious, to avoid reversion and edit war. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you think of a "more appropriate template" to remind readers of the unresolved cleanup needed? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not know of a template that I would support adding to this page. Refocusing on this discussion, though: can we remove this tag? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Per your own selected suggestion, a more appropriate maintenance template should be used instead if the sourcing and cleanup issues continue, which we've agreed do. If we can't think of a replacement, no fix needed. Carry on? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree that this article has sourcing and cleanup issues. If you do, feel free to tag appropriately! I do not bear responsibility for finding a tag for you. We both have a responsibility to remove a tag if its presence is unwarranted. Can we do that now? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Presence is warranted by accuracy, usefulness and applicability. Adjourn till May? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't remove the tag until there's consensus. But I hope to have some comments soon from less involved editors. "Adjourn till May" seems exceedingly too long to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever worked on an exceedingly complicated murder trial article before? May seems fair. To resume discussion on the matter, at least. But that's my experience, won't try to stop you from talking to others about it. As for "less involved", that tag was my only major edit here (two of three minor edits are not marked as such, but they were). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we need a tag for this article as it is recording a current event as it is taking place. I agree that the present tag is not perfect but I've looked and can find nothing better. Gandydancer (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The current event template has a single purpose: to alert readers to heavily-edited articles. It is rarely used for more than one day. The template is no longer appropriate on this page. It should be removed forthwith. The absence of a suitable alternative template is no reason to use it inappropriately. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Removed. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Since we're tied 2-2, and you removed it, the defence calls Willbb234 to break it down. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Well lets make it 3-2, it is an ongoing event, its not been over for 1 second, let alone days. The tag should stay.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A straw poll does not overturn a guideline. The template has gone. WWGB (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It is still a current event, its still happening and will change by the minute.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggest you read Template:Current, especially how soon the template is removed. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

LIke this bit " occasionally longer." we are not required to remove it. As I read it is that you keep it for a day or two after the event is no longer actually happening. Now of course the real issue here is that we should not be operating as a live news feed, and in truth should maybe wait before having any content until after the trial.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But "a hundred or more" editors are not editing the article every day, so the need no longer exists. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That is an optional use, its use is for current events (as in "important events that are happening in the world"), this event literally is still happening, but this is my last word. I think this is a miuse of policy and that this is the very definition of a current event.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The tag may not be perfect but it is a step in the right direction. The reader gets the gist of it. This would be an article in a state of continuous change. Present content probably needs refinement. New content will be added as the trial moves along. 108.53.222.173 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Keep {{current}} tag, as this trial is constantly changing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we change the archive period to 3 days?

This talk page is over 100 kB and growing. Can we change the archive period to 3 days? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I support a change for sure. Would a more incremental change suffice? 7->3 seems like a big jump. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - Something is better than nothing, but with this long trial, things could get worse. What do you suggest? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  I suggest 5d, and we can see what happens. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

News or Encyclopedia?

Trying to discuss a court case while it is ongoing is ridiculous and completely non-encyclopedic. People should quit rushing to be first to post something, let the court case finish, and THEN, when we ACTUALLY know something, use the sources to create information, rather than trying to create news.50.201.228.202 (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, wP:notnews is clear. A lot of the conflict would just stop if we waited till after the case was over.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. The whole testimony section should be removed. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I do think we can work to summarize testimony based on how RS are doing it. Weeks 1 and 2 of testimony are concluded, and there's plenty of coverage recapping each week. I'm anticipating that it will be contentious to delete testimony from some and highlight the comments of other witnesses, but we should try. To be clear though, I strongly object to the suggestions that we (a) wait until the trial is over before working on the article, or (b) remove the whole testimony section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

How though? We have no idea on how RS will discuss the testimony beyond the 10-20 minutes of thought that have been happened. It is purely regurgitation of rushed thoughts and opinions. It has literally no value for an encyclopedia, and it appears to only be written to make people feel like they are getting page views. Between WP:Recentism and WP:NotNews, I just don't see how it fits within the guidelines at all. Frankly, I'd rather see the article have no information in it than the current rushed attempt to look like a paper so someone can say "FIRST!" Lulfas (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We are neither news nor encyclopedia in the sense that we are not the encyclopedia of my youth where everything printed was pretty much set in stone till a review came out in a number of years. I've worked on numerous quickly-moving articles and reporting is done all along rather than to wait for weeks or months until issues are resolved. If you don't agree look around and find similar articles that did not present developments as the subject of the article moved along and mention them here. Gandydancer (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Morries Hall

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he only tell the court that he was planning to invoke his 5th, and he hasn't actually appeared in the trial? Someone should remove him from the list of procescution witnesses who have appeared.73.62.184.213 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. The jury missed all of that. And the prosecution is very glad they did. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

7gfIAOW9fxY , YouTube Video ID of Hall at the trial. Re-add him to the list. Declanhx (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

DO any RS report what he said?Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He spelled his name, then his lawyer explained (not testified) why he shouldn't have to testify. Nothing at all to do with making Floyd "look bad", Declan. He doesn't want to incriminate himself in third-degree murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, you've been very quick to make changes based on having zero discussion with anyone. You clearly have a bias towards the prosecution. The list is of witnesses, Morries Hall is a witness, and a very important one given his connection to Floyd. Whether he Testifies or not is irrelevant. Declanhx (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well for one of many crimes he has been ACCUSED committing (one of which is not third-degree murder, at least beyond media speculation), and you need to read wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

His lawyer singled out third-degree murder as the most important potential charge he could face, not the media. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have asked what he had said, no RS have been provided saying he has in fact testified, as such he does not bleing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He has appeared in the trial. There is irrefutable video evidence of this. Whether he Testifies or not is irrelevant. Declanhx (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a list of witnesses who "have testified in the trial", not everyone who saw something or was in courtroom footage (the judge and lawyers are also irrelevant here). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. Who decided that is was "A list of witnesses who have testified in the trial"? In previous edits the list was a neat listing of those who had been called as a witness, without testimony. Morries Hall has categorically been called as a witness. I have already provided the youtube video ID of him in court. Declanhx (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hall has not been called as a witness. He wasn't questioned directly or on cross. The jury heard nothing he or his lawyer told the judge, nor seen video of it. And the prosecution has now rested its case. Barring an abomination of justice or time travel, he will never be their witness in this trial. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Strange that this isn't mentioned on the Wikipedia article regardless of your position on the case. I sense a heavy amount of bias from you. The jury DO know that he will not be testifying, which immediately tells them he would have incriminated himself. Not a good look. Declanhx (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nor do we know he will, read wp:crystal.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You've just contradicted what InedibleHulk just said. Will he be a witness or not? Declanhx (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not know, so we can't say he will be. And no "not being called" is not contradicted by "Nor do we know he will". One if future one is present tense.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It does contradict it, One states that we DO KNOW, The other does not. Please be clear on what the facts actually are so we can reach an agreement Declanhx (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not he has so far not been called, as he pleaded the 5th, and thus was excused. What we do not know is if he will be called in the future.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So you would agree, categorically, that he is excused from given a testimony? I will correct that in the article for you now. as it is of public interest to know Declanhx (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No one agreed to any edit as far as I can see. Asking if he agrees than at same time doing something "for him" as if he agreed is not a productive discussion. Also I suggest you stop adding the information in any form to article as you are already past the WP:3RR. Either way should wait until there is a talk page consensus not a single person's response. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not an ask, It's rhetorical. He doesn't need to agree as he already stated that it's his opinion.Declanhx (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If you required "consensus" before adding content, wikipedia wouldn't allow people to edit articles like this. And wouldn't requiring multiple responses contradict user:InedibleHulk's actions at 15:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC) above? There is clear bias here. Declanhx (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:consensus it is assumed you have it until you are reverted, then you do not. As you were reverted you do not have it. And you do not get to decide what I have or have not said.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And to add, I am saying this is not relevant, tells us nothing and should not be here, in any formSlatersteven (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Defence witness, maybe. Prosecution, no chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tidy up the Prosecution witness Section

It looks too cluttered, messy and unformatted. I've previously suggested making it into a table , which would have a much better aesthetic, make the information more easier to read and rid the testimony section of bias. I've tried to discuss the change before but in the 48 hours it's been up no real arguments have been put forward.

I'm happy to take suggestions on what should be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declanhx (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, noone else seems to have a problem with the prose style. As for bias, it's reporting prosecution witnesses. Of course they are against Chauvin. Let's save the bias arguments until the defense case is seen. 115.64.99.174 (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Right but that's not the cause of the problem, it's people writing summarry of the testimony that is biased. No one has written at how hansen was a hostile witness and reprimanded by the judge, People are repeatedly trying to hide Morries Hall from the list because he will make them look bad as a felon. Giving a single statement out of multiple hours of testimony as a summary isn't healthy. Declanhx (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree the cherrypicking is slanted, just as the main article was. Agree it's unhealthy. But when someone refuses to testify, it's clearly lying to include him on a list of those who did. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a list of people who have testified, it's a list of prosecution witnesses. Declanhx (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Which Hall clearly refused to be, since prosecutors gave him no immunity. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Declanhx: can you provide a source which says Genevieve Hansen was a hostile witness? I would be very surprised by this as it seems to be in complete contradiction to what sources, and now our article, says. As per the judge, Hansen was excessively argumentative and also volunteering information that wasn't asked during her cross examination. But her being hostile to the defence was of course expected and doesn't make her a hostile witness, as our article on the concept or frankly common sense explains, as she was a prosecution witness not a defence one. I would be very surprised if she was a hostile witness, since the reason she got in trouble appears to be because she felt very favourably to the prosecution i.e. she was very angry at what happened to Floyd and what Chauvin and the other officers did so I'm uncertain why she would ever be a hostile witness as a prosecution witness. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I am also not a fan of the list format. I think the main issue is not the format, but the length. If we can cut down and summarize, I think we can move to paragraph prose. I agree with you that this section could use more discussion of important points raised by the defense attorney on cross as long as those points are properly sourced and WP:DUE. Please make changes incrementally or get consensus before making a big change. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You're looking at 3 sets of data: Name, Role and Testimony. I think this warrants a table and is much neater than what we have now. We don't really need to be so pedantic on sources as the whole trial is readily available on YouTube.Declanhx (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with Fff. I think that for now we should stick with the way we're doing it and eventually we can move toward putting it in a better form. Seems to me that I heard yesterday that the prosecution has 30 something witnesses--so that would be a bit much. Trying to get rid of the source tags yesterday I worked on one that I actually feel will eventually not need mentioning, or very little. We must be patient... Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we need testimony in that section. Do any news sources provide a summary of each day somewhere? we could source that instead. Declanhx (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am using NYT for day-to-day coverage but they do not have a general wrap-up type of coverage yet. They are still doing pretty much what we're doing, a listing of witnesses and what they testified. There is no rush here--eventually we can get it all sorted out and done right. Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Which would imply that what we have right now isn't done right. Who determines whether what we have is better or worse than other solutions? We don't even have a proper list of witnesses because trigger-happy editors are removing them for stupid reasons. There is a rush, because we need to provide information while the trial is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declanhx (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)`

We decide together what solution is best. I recently removed some of your witness edits, is your comment above in reference to me? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You made an excuse that the summary of Morries Hall should be removed for {cn}, which messes with the summary of other witnesses, who hadn't been removed for the same offence. You really need to drop the bias.Declanhx (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm just poking my nose back to see what's happening with the piece and the Testimony section appears to have been merged with the Witness section which is now a wall of text. That's not even remotely reader friendly, leaving aside any other issues. 人族 (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

re: A typo in the article

The article refers to Dr Lindsey Thomas as "he". As far as I am able to ascertain throughout the trial and in news articles mentioning her, Dr Thomas uses "she/her" pronouns so that should be edited. [2] for evidence of a news article that refers to her as "she" 2607:FEA8:435F:D600:EC42:D44B:4DB0:7F05 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that catch, I verified it and corrected it. MerelyPumpkin (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to say Dr Thomas is female, or is there some dispute over this? 人族 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No apparent dispute, just a typo. The one extra byte in the pronoun is simple enough. While there are indeed a few men named "Lindsey", it's not evenly split enough to make a big deal of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Name of page

I noticed that the George Zimmerman trial's article name is "Trial of George Zimmerman," though the lede starts by calling it "State of Florida v. George Zimmerman."

I was wondering if this page and that page should have consistent article naming (e.g. "Trial of Derek Chauvin," or if there is a reason for the difference.

-KaJunl (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi KaJunl, the article title is State v. Chauvin per the split proposal and this talk discussion. MOS:LEGAL recommends Bluebook format (ex. Roe v. Wade) and Unless needed for specificity, leave state names out of the title, e.g., use State v. Elliott, not State of Vermont v. Raleigh Elliott, et al.. See Category:U.S. state criminal case law. Tvc 15 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding to that, if news and non-fiction coverage coalesce around "Trial of Derek Chauvin" as the commonly used name, we would probably change per WP:COMMONNAME. That doesn't currently seem to be the case. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Neck for time?

"While Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street, Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds.[9]"

This is wrong. Lt. Johnny Mercil is a PROSECUTION expert on use-of-force; "showed Mercil a series of still images taken from officers' body-camera videos, asking after each one whether **Mercil agreed that it showed Chauvin's knee appearing to rest more on Floyd's back, shoulder or shoulder blades rather than directly on Floyd's neck. Mercil often agreed."**

From the trail coverage; https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/chauvins-lawyer-argues-knee-on-shoulder-not-neck.html

This sentance should read; "While Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street, Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck, back and shoulders for nine minutes and 29 seconds.[9]"

The phrase "neck area" is becoming fashionable in mainstream American media. Definitely concise. Anyway, please sign your posts and put new sections at the bottom; that's beyond mere style choice, a standard practice. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Neck area was adopted because the defence had demonstrated the knee on neck claim to be grievously flawed - still showing knee on shoulders. Rather than drop the prosecution they simply changed their terms人族 (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Mistrial Section?

Is it worth having a section about a mistrial, or including it in another section? I'm thinking https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/548445-judge-warns-of-mistrial-in-chauvin-case-if-prosecution-witness-even for instance. Fowler advanced the possibility that Floyd's death was partially due to carbon monoxide poisoning, something the state never tested for. After said expert left to fly home, the prosecution sought leave to recall one of their witnesses, despite having rested their case. The allege they only just received blood gas evidence, and that Fowler's testimony constituted new evidence - despite being in his February report. Judge Cahill ruled the state's new evidence could not be referred to (the prosecution having rested their case) on pain of mistrial. While Cahill didn't rule a mistrial based on what the witness said, sources other than the linked piece suggest the state's witness referred to the prohibited data 4 minutes into his rebuttal, with defence immediately seeking a sidebar. While Cahill hasn't himself ruled a mistrial, this and other grounds already exist for it. 人族 (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is already filled with tons of UNDUE/WP:RECENTISM information. The mistrial content doesn't belong. The judge made it in a passing comment as to why the report the prosecution now wanted to add into the record couldn't be mentioned. Everything else just seems like speculation. If a mistrial is found, add it in, otherwise it's not germane. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, if and when there is a mistrial that would be diffenet.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We also have the Maxine Waters aspect. As Judge Cahill has said "Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned". If a not guilty verdict is given then the mistrial will be ignored. Should a guilty verdict be returned however ... 人族 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Schedule

Is there some theory of how long this trial is supposed to last? Can that be added to the article? Thanks. 2601:648:8200:970:7809:A2B2:9D4C:F27C (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Closing arguments are expected on Monday, judge said yesterday, then the jury could take minutes to days to deliberate. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If they come back with a guilty verdict, of course, we continue with the sentencing phase (eight weeks later). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

If they come back hung or not guilty do we cover the subsequent rioting at the 'wrong' decision? 人族 (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC) If history is any indication, we'll summarize the rioting here, but cover it in a linked standalone article. By my own oracle, I'd also expect some outrage if the state wins. Since last May, much more exculpatory evidence has gone mainstream, ergo more Chauvin supporters (though still likely the relatively small camp). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC) My word IH, I am not sure anything about Chauvins conduct has changed in almost a year that would be exculpatory by any measure. Chauvins supporters are the same ones as started out, and almost nothing will change that - even a guilty verdict. Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Reasonable prophets can disagree, cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Given the prosecution was dropping about 500 new pieces of evidence on the defence each day of the trial it's entirely plausible exculpatory evidence exists but has been buried by the prosecution's corporate law style dirty tricks. If a guilty verdict is returned an appeal or mistrial request is pretty much guaranteed. Outrage is guaranteed, but I wouldn't expect rioting - Chauvin's supporters aren't the crowd prone to rioting. 人族 (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Agreed, "some outrage", lawful and orderly-like. Not sure where you saw anything like 500. As far as I remember (from the unmuted sidebars, anyway), the only thing the state even attempted to weasel in late was that last-minute blood test result. If the jury convicts him, I won't blame any (unusually) dirty tricks. Sometimes when faced with contradictory information, people choose which to bury for themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC) The 500 pieces of new evidence a day from the prosecution is via LI coverage of the trial. The blood test result is probably about the only dirty trick the MSM has covered but it's far from the only 'night before' raised by the prosecution. 人族 (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC) I guess I'll take your word on that. I've been watching the trial stream itself, avoiding pretty much any secondary coverage that isn't directly related to a dispute on this talk page. From that perspective, no side complained (at least unmuted) about getting blindsided until The Return of Dr. Tobin. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC) I've now heard Crusher Blackwell repeatedly accuse Private Nelson of keeping kayfabe, "shading the truth" and spinning yarns into fool's wool that he couldn't even pull over a simple nine-year-old's eyes. That was pretty heelish of him, long day or not. Props to Nelson for maintaining composure and not hurling his shoe! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Chauvin merely "accused of contributing to the death of George Floyd" ?

The article on Martin J. Tobin (an expert witness for the prosecution) includes the phrase "Derek Chauvin, who was accused of contributing to the death of George Floyd". Since the article here has these specifics: "second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter" I have to wonder if "contributing to the death" is accurate - and if not then if someone here could suggest an improved formulation for the other, related article. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe accused of being responsible for ...? The jury have yet to determine if Chauvin is actually guilty of anything. There's also moves afoot to call for a mistrial given Maxine Waters interference, not to mention the games played by the prosecution. 人族 (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Where do we say Chauvin killed him?Slatersteven (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You're not funny. 82.28.152.167 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems straightforward to simply list the charges against him. Readers can determine on their own how much he "contributed".—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As a person from the future, I have a more straightforward answer: "killed." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I have edited the page in question, since Chauvin has been convicted of second-degree murder amongst other things. The sentence now reads, in part, "who was accused of killing George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020." Pianostar9 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Change title to State of Minnesota v. Chauvin

This title is more accurate then the current one and provides more information that is instantly available from reading the first words. It should also be noted that when the judge read the jury's verdict, he referred to the plaintiff as the "State of Minnesota", not just the State. Existing123456789 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

See existing ongoing discussion here on talk page. Mentions of why just "State" was chosen for current title are included there. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

List of prosecutors is inaccurate

I'd change this myself, but every time I edit an infobox, I break it. The list has a couple errors in it. Keith Ellison shouldn't be on the list if the list is meant to be a list of the attorneys who were in the courtroom prosecuting the case. The list is missing Steve Schleichert, who was one of the most prominent members of the prosecution team, and gave the closing argument. Skrelk (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Years in prison

The article currently says "He faces a maximum of 75 years in prison" but both of the linked sources say 40 years. The NYT says that the max sentencing time for 3 charges *in total* would carry 75 years, but should they be added up? Or do they run concurrently so the total is still 40? Legoktm (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I also found this Slate article which says it's up to the judge to decide if the sentence is served consecutively or concurrently, suggesting that the true maximum is 75 years, but the realistic max is 40. Legoktm (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Truth is realistic. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure how to interpret your comment. What are you suggesting the article say? Legoktm (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hulk likes to add flavor text and whimsical musings. I don't think there's much to interpret there. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for edit conflicting my detailed answer! Shorter, but clear, there is no distinction between truth and reality in potential maximums. Find one, you have both. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It might not even be 40; most sources are saying 12 years plus whatever aggravating circumstances add onto that SRD625 (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

there’s also federal charges that the department of justice is considering so we just don’t know yet and I don’t think that should go in this article anyway SRD625 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Future federal charges are irrelevant to this current state trial's article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• The sentencing reminds me of a fairly recent high profile case near me (Kidnapping of Jayme Closs). The person convicted in the case had no prior record but was still sentenced to the maximum for all the charges they were convicted of, with the sentences running consecutively. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Several sources[3][4] say that because all of the charges stem from the same crime, it is very unlikely that a judge would have Chauvin serve the penalties consecutively. So the maximum would be 40 years total, although it is likely to be closer to 12 1/2. Nosferattus (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The prosecution has made a verbal motion (to be followed in writing) for a Blakely hearing and stated their intention to apply for aggravated sentencing. The "presumptive" sentence under MN law is 150 months with a max of 40 years, but in order for the judge to sentence more than 180 months (he has +/- 30 months sentencing discretion), they have to go through what amounts to a second trial. After the verdict, Chauvin waived his right to a jury for his Blakely hearing, so Judge Cahill will be the trier of facts for that process. I believe that is set for 2 weeks from now? Anyway, all of this was broadcast on the live feed, and the sentencing guidelines and statutes are easy enough to cite if anyone cares to. I think it might be a bit weighty right now, before any release of a written Blakely petition, but maybe later it will be helpful.

What I learned decades ago in a high school law class is that a person may not serve more than one sentence for the same action. That's double jeopardy. In other words, for the judge to sentence Chauvin to consecutive terms (max 75 years), he would first have to rule that each crime was a separate act committed by the defendant. I think that's why we have concurrent sentences for cases like this.

SRD625, this article is about the state of MN v Derek Chauvin only. Federal charges aren't really a part of this. Not yet anyway. In a few years this will probably be combined with an article about the federal charges, and all of it will be combined with the Chauvin article. Dcs002 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

International

Hi!!!. I added international reactions from some international politicians. I'm not native in English. Could please any kind-hearted and willing editor check my grammar? I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you and excuse any misspelling. CoryGlee (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Past tense

In the opening sentence we use the past tense "was". Am I mistaken in thinking the case is not over, just the jury trial is. We still have the sentencing phase to complete. As such, shouldn't we use present tense? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Technically, yes, still on. To the layreader, though, the climax and closure have probably come. Depends who our audience is, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed this back before the article got semi'd. The case is not over by a long shot. Post-trial motions, sentencing, appeals, etc. are all part of the case. I believe the rush to change it is borne of the same misunderstandings (as reflected above in the rename proposals) to change this article's title to "Trial of Derek Chauvin", which would be massively inaccurate and misleading to our readers. Put briefly, trial=past tense, while case=present tense. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)