Jump to content

Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Murder of George Floyd

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jax 0677 (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 7 July 2020 (archive == Merge proposal: 8'46" ==). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Header/main Photo

Closing this too since it appears to rely on the same reasoning as the RfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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 know that is the incident in question, but maybe a photo of Floyd and the officer instead? It's literally a photo of a man being murdered, we could be more respectful of Floyd and the people who want to look up this incident. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

DizzyDawn, Wikipedia is not censored. Ed6767 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't be obtuse. The man could literally be dead in that photo, we don't post pictures of corpses or active killings in every article, do we? Just because the tech makes it possible in this case doesn't mean it should be done. You have a real twisted idea of censorship DizzyDawn (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Your opinion is all you really have here, based on Wiki guidelines. Comment on the sources, not the editor, who didn't personally insult you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.50 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — 50.111.48.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
DizzyDawn, the man could literally be dead, yes, but if it is the best photo that illustrates the incident (in this case the officer on Floyd's neck) then Imo, it stays. Yes, it might not be respectful, but this is what happened and people should see it. We shouldn't censor it purely to be respectful. Ed6767 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It is very illustrative, but I can see this being objectionable to some. We could do as we do on the Pornhub article and collapse the image by default. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Ed6767, you can put the image somewhere else in the article, I'm asking for it to be removed from the header, again hardly censorship. Again, we don't put images like that in every article about a killing, just because it's available doesn't mean we should shove it in people's faces. This is literally traumatic for the black community. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not used to using the talk pages, I figured out where the info was to do it. I usually just clarify articles. @Ed6767:. Anyway, what @Thjarkur: said sounds reasonable. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
DizzyDawn, I'll let other people reach consensus but it is traumatic for everyone, but this is what happened. I don't think it should be moved elsewhere as of yet, and while a collapsible section as Þjarkur suggested may be okay in some other articles, here I don't really think so. Like articles regarding horrific historical groups and events like Einsatzgruppen have disturbing photos too, but these are not censored, yes because they are historical but shouldn't this be too? Ed6767 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: This question was proposed and failed in 2005. Kire1975 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kire1975: That was 15 years ago, Wikipedia has far expanded public use since then - maybe it should be re-evaluated. But the proposal was to make it a policy to automatically do it for all "disturbing" images. This is just one image in this case on an ongoing issue that many people may want to look up on wikipedia. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If your argument is "that was 15 years ago", then by all means open up a new discussion at WP:PUMP and gain new community WP:CONSENSUS with a new proposal. Consensus can definitely change, however you still have yet to demonstrate that such change has actually been established. Until then, you could argue that it was 30 years ago, 80 years ago, 300 years ago, or 800 years ago that Wikipedia made X, Y and Z decisions, and it would still not matter from a policy perspective. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that photo even kosher for us to publish? Has anyone looked at its provenance to see if we are allowed to use it? It look shaky to me. [1] -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Support a change. I'll repeat what I wrote about a similar image being used on the Ahmaud Arbery page: So per MOS:LEADIMAGE, a lead image "should be of least shock value", and the example given is opting for images of Holocaust victims being deported rather than images of them being abused or their dead bodies. Currently, the lead image is one of Floyd being suffocated, and I personally feel this is too shocking for the lead image. I realize this is an article about a killing and the image won't be pleasant, however,there are other images that can visualize the article that do not subject readers to the image of a dying man. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 03:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Any WP:!VOTE that takes place here would be tantamount to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which in my perspective would be unacceptable. If change is desired, it should be a community-wide decision to change existing Wikipedia policy, rather than a local consensus to skirt around WP:NOTCENSORED policy. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm confused by your reasoning. There is no local consensus trying to "skirt around" WP:NOTCENSORED. I cited the Manual of Style, and a specific quote from it, which is a policy. Just because you also found a policy that supports your opinion does not invalidate that the MoS for lead images is also a guideline. No one is saying the image should be removed from the article. No one is censoring it. People are saying it's unfit for the lead image. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 17:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow... Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines ...and occasional exceptions may apply. (Emphasis mine). MOS:IMAGES is a guideline, WP:NOT is policy. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but I think you're misusing WP:NOTCENSORED. The point is that stuff shouldn't be actively omitted, not that a photo which can be placed in the article shouldn't be used as the lead photo if it's a photo of a dead, or likely dead, person. The example given in MOS:IMAGES is explicitly this. How is it that not using a photo of someone dead or dying on the Holocaust article isn't censorship but wanting to do the same here for the same reason is censorship? DanielleTH (Say hi!) 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Avoiding the usage of a photograph which may contain dead or dying people within the infobox header is largely attributed to the western-centric cultural taboo that such photographs are disrespectful to the dead, and therefore should not be shared; this can be seen from the very first line at the top of this talk page section: It's literally a photo of a man being murdered, we could be more respectful of Floyd and the people who want to look up this incident. Thus, I would argue that the suggestion to remove or relocate images of the dead are, more likely than not, efforts to adhere to this western cultural norm. Making changes in deference to cultural sensibilities and anticipation of potential offence to the reader is one of the categories of censorship, in the same manner that removing depictions of the Prophet Muhammad or replacing the given names of deceased Australian Aboriginals with "auntie" or "uncle" would be censorship.

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

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

If your issue is with cultural implications, fine, but that isn't what I said nor is it my reasoning. It has nothing to do with death being taboo in Western culture or being disrespectful, my concern is that I heavily disagree with it not being a shock image. It's an image of a person actively being suffocated. The issue is not that he's dead but the means of death is violent and disturbing. Two of the factors listed there that make a shock image are something being racist, which this photo is widely considered to be, and something being violent, which this photo also is. There are plenty of other ways to illustrate this topic that doesn't contain those things. If your reasoning is assuming my cultural background (which I don't particularly understand since it's not something I've written about here on Wikipedia), I do believe there's reasons outside of cultural bias for the change. You mentioned something another person wrote at the top of the page to discuss that point. I agree with your sentiment and others that broader consensus is needed on this so I've put in an RfC to hopefully have other editors voice their opinion. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 04:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Would it help if the dying man in the picture wasn't actively being suffocated, as the ME says George Floyd wasn't? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't find western-centric cultural taboo in the guidelines and policies. Also, developing consensus on an article talk page for issues pertaining to the article is normal editing. There is nothing here that requires site-wide agreement. I think that is a bit over the top. And DanielleTH has presented a valid point per MOS per shock value. I agree the image is shocking but I also think it is appropriate for this article. Perhaps someone can propose an image to replace the current lead image. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a straw man argument, my reference to western taboos is within the context of explaining what censorship is, and was not in reference to Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the shock value of the image in question is a subjective matter, and cannot be concretely determined, so it's normal that there would be disagreement as to whether the "shock" aspect of the MOS applies here. For the sake of allowing the discussion to move forward, I'm willing to drop my WP:LOCALCONSENSUS position, however I still passively believe that such decisionmaking works against the general spirit of the policy. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, western-centric cultural taboo is the straw man in that such "taboos" are not part of guidelines and policies. That is sociology or anthropology but on Wikipedia it is WP:OR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It appears to me that you are not here to improve this Wikipedia article, but rather here to "own" me and win an internet argument, given that you're so fixated on the semantics behind my wording, rather than the inherent message behind it. I see no benefit in continuing this conversation with you, since it is objectively non-constructive. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Benlisquare: I apologize if it seems I misunderstood your above argument. I re-read your insights behind how censorship operates in society. I think this is an excellent description of some of the mechanisms behind censorship. In fact, looking at this post in its entirety, this is the first time I can see what may be behind editors' motivation behind claiming NOT CENSORED.
However, it seems this cannot be a one-size-fits-all argument that should be applied to everyone here.
I think you have described one of the possible motivations behind censorship, i.e., being offended. But it doesn't mean, for example, people want the image removed strictly because they are offended, or because it goes against perceived societal norms. Trauma and racism are other valid arguments. For example, diminishing and trivializing the cultural heritage of the Aztecs:
At SDSU football games, a human mascot parades around the field, including during half-time, supposedly dressed like an Aztec warrior (please read this short article).
His job is sort of like a cheerleader, in an outfit that is probably not an accurate representation of an Aztec warrior, but is probably someone's idea of what an Aztec warrior should look like, from the perspective of the dominant culture in the United States. Native Americans consider this not only offensive but also racist. Here is another short article on that issue [2].
Another example is the name of the Kansas City NFL team, the Chiefs, and the tomahawk chop the stadium audience does during games. These are also seen as trivializing Native American culture and racist. Also, for example, I think it is a valid argument to remedy these situations, perhaps in the name of cultural sensitivity, respect, making amends, and acknowledging that Native American peoples have been relegated to an inferior place in American society.
And the list goes on with other cultures as well. I don't think it is censorship to make corrections just because people are attached to their alma mater, perceived superior status, or "this is the way things have always been done." So we see such arguments in this thread. Do you see my point? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Rather than we see such arguments in this thread, I mean that there other valid arguments for covering the photo, moving it into the body, or changing it out for something else. Having said that, as you can see below, I have expressed the opinion for keeping this photo along with my rationale. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
One more thing, regarding desiring site-wide consensus. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a valid view. Also, I was thinking you meant something more than an RFC, which still be a valid view. It's just my view is different as pertains to that issue. Hopefully, I have managed to clear the air. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC: lead photo

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The overwhelming consensus (a rough headcount shows about a 3 to 1 margin) is that the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an appropriate representation of the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


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

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

  • Keep It illustrates the subject near as directly as photographically possible, every article should be so enriched. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep it is directly on point for this article. Passes WP:WEIGHT. It is most likely the most illustrative image for this topic and is in agreement with the coverage of this topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets MOS:PERTINENCE, meets WP:NFCC, visually depicts an essential aspect of the topic that cannot be easily and effectively replaced by prose. Does not meet the criteria of a shock image as there is no blood, no gore, no severed ligaments or bones, no skin deformations, no muscle wasting, no nudity, no sexual imagery, and does not serve to scare the viewer. The same still frame is regularly broadcast on local, state, national, and international television; if it were truly a shock image, this would not be possible. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Keep It depicts the event. Simple. ~ HAL333 19:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per pretty much every other vote above. It illustrates the event appropiately and doesn't meet the criteria for a shock image. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We should remove it. The photo is graphic in that it depicts a corpse. The actions of the police officer in the photo could also be interpreted as a reference to previous black lives matter protests (e.g., Kaepernick's protest in 2018 [3]) so the image is provocative. If this image has caused so much offence (which it clearly has) then moving it to the body of the article and replacing the header image with the photo of the victim (as was done in a similar article) seems like a reasonable compromise. For the sake of clarity, I strongly support the replacement of the lead image. KohrVid (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • We know that he is not dead at this point (Though whether it was possible to save him, unclear), but to call him a "corpse" and thus a reason not to include is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 03:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure we do know that. This wikipedia entry describes him as "motionless" and "pulseless" when the ambulance take him away and states that the killer was still kneeling when they arrived. This PBS article [4] suggests that he was dead as far as the witnesses were concerned. KohrVid (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article is about the killing of George Floyd. This image is the best illustration of the incident and should remain the lead image. Ed6767 (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I strongly support the removal of the image. Move it further down the article, replace it, keep it "hidden" as default. This IS a graphic image, this is a current event that has moved multiple countries to protest - it is the shocking active suffocation of a man. This is literally traumatic for Black people who live in and have seen police violence. It is not a historical event that has passed, the friends and family of the man are alive and on the internet today. The news organizations that show the video preface it with "this graphic video may shock you" a warning to people to click away - an internet equivalent is having the image shut by default. DizzyDawn (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not sensationalist, and it is not censored. It is an encyclopedia first and foremost. The point of the matter stands, it appropriately illustrates the event in question, and I have not seen a single support removal vote address that as of yet. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I fail to see how a show/hide function is in any way censorship. Is it censorship for a movie to give a "graphic violence" warning (sure, restricting the ages is, but not giving a warning). Even moving the photo to lower in the article isn't censorship, you'd be stretching any definition of it. And before anyone says "no disclaimers" you can literally just label the photo. DizzyDawn (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Hard not to bring that up when "no disclaimers in articles" is a legitimate long-standing Wikipedia content guideline... besides, the whole disclaimer matter is already addressed in the content disclaimer page Wikipedia has anyway. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Please also refer to benlin's words on the section above. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Your comment still doesn't explain why simply moving the image to a different part of the article qualifies as "censorship". Also, I'm not sure if this is the intent but you seem somewhat hostile towards User:DizzyDawn. As they have already discussed at length their reasons for supporting the change earlier in the talk page, I'm not sure that your counter-argument adds much value to the debate here. KohrVid (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
            • Censorship does not have a single definition. Like many things, it exists on a spectrum. Hiding something but not removing it outright, based on the justification that it may offend, is a softer form of censorship than book burning, but the existence of harder censorship doesn't mean that lesser forms of censorship are not censorship. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
              • So are all of the other articles about noteworthy homicides that don't use an image of the victim dead or dying as the lead image also examples of censorship? Why is this policy not equally applied to them? KohrVid (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                • Because Wikipedia is a hobby and not a job, and I can't be everywhere at once, during every major news occurrence, and aware of every single situation. I also do not know the contexts behind those articles, I haven't been involved in any consensus-building discussion for those articles, and I haven't made myself bothered to look into why those articles are the way they are. Other editors are free to look into what's going on for those cases, but as of this current moment, I have no interest in concerning myself with those articles, because I am here. Maybe editors there have come up with a convincing policy-adherent reason to exclude those images, maybe an WP:NFCC-compliant image doesn't exist for those articles, maybe there was never any image used in the first place, maybe the local consensus at the time was in favour of one action or another, I don't know, and I don't need to know. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                  • I think you should consider rewording that sort of comment in future. I don't know if you intended to come across as defensive but you do and that seems inappropriate in this context. I've pointed out what is a clear inconsistency in the way that this entry has been handled when compared to other similar Wikipedia entries which don't feature graphic imagery in the header. I've also alluded to the fact that the use of this image might actually serve to glorify the killer in an earlier comment. If you don't know how to counter any of the points I or anyone else has made then that's fine - there's no need to start a fight. KohrVid (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                    • Put simply, I'm focused on the here and now. The immediate issue to address is the content of this article, not the content of other articles, that's all there is to it. Any inconsistencies with other articles is merely a symptom of the user-generated nature of the Wikipedia project, and can't be perfectly avoided. It's a flawed endeavour to use precedent elsewhere as some sort of gauge of accepted norms, hence why "other articles do X, Y and Z" is generally an argument to be avoided or discouraged, and why I've refused to do what some editors have done here and search around for examples of articles that support their own talking points. I mean, I too could point out that Kent State shootings has a literal corpse in the infobox image, but what value does that even bring to the discussion? Zero at all. Just accept the fact that we will never ever see perfect consistency on Wikipedia, and move on towards focusing on this article. To repeat my previous comment, just so we're clear: I don't need to know what other articles do, and I don't want to know what other articles do. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                      • That example seems more like an outlier than anything else possibly because the event isn't as well known. To suggest that norms don’t matter in the context of the George Floyd article seems a little short-sighted in any case. If people come to this article expecting to be informed in an even-handed way and are instead distracted by a graphic header image, the article stops being able to do its job of informing the public in the here and now. This is why the norm of not using graphic imagery in this way that User:DanielleTH cited is important. Furthermore if we decide that these norms only matter when some people say it does, there’s a risk of alienating readers and potential contributors later on which could lead to a decline in the quality of Wikipedia entries overall. KohrVid (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
                        • "Isn't well known" is truly an understatement, they teach about the Kent State shootings here in high school modern history class, and I'm not even American. I think you've essentially illustrated the problem with all of this: Not only is everything inconsistent, but everything is also subjective. You claim that this famous event in history, known for contributing to one of the major shifts in public opinion towards America's military involvements overseas, isn't well known because you might not have heard about it. In three years from now, will people still remember the George Floyd murder in the same way other civil rights struggles are remembered? We don't know, and it's not our place to speculate on it, but it's a great question to ponder upon if you still truly believe that what you have said isn't the epitome of subjectiveness. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
                          • As a Brit under the age of 50 who took History for slightly longer than a lot of people in my country choose to, I can tell you that a lot of us didn’t get taught about that event in school. It really did look like you were scraping the bottom of the barrel on that one just to make a point (though perhaps it’s more well known where you’re from). In any case, no-one made any claims here about objectivity. I’m simply saying that there are norms regarding the use of lead images (as shown by the existence of style guide that mentions lead images) and the fact that they weren’t adhered to in this entry clearly surprised a number of readers. I think if we make a habit of ignoring that sort of thing, we do so at our peril. KohrVid (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
        • What I interpret letscreate123's comment as saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the reasons provided for removal so far have mostly fallen under appeals to emotion (e.g. your earlier post It is not a historical event that has passed, the friends and family of the man are alive and on the internet today.) rather than specific Wikipedia policy that governs what is expected of article content. The question is, are there any policy based reasons that you would like to bring forward to encourage the removal or relocation of this image? As of writing, not one person has provided an adequate challenge to MOS:PERTINENCE yet. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a quintessential use of a non-free image that is the subject of the topic that is causing the entire situation. WP is not censored nor do we mask sensitive images. Yes, understandably, it is "sensitive" in terms of what it means to Black Lives Matter, and the current situation around the US, but one can argue this would be similar for images of Auschwitz for Holocaust victims, Hiroshima in 1945 for Japanese natives, and so on. We recognize that sensitivity and respect a modest use of this image as a key image associate with this death, but we're not going out of our way to hide it further at this point. --Masem (t) 03:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Struggling to find examples of wikipedia entries that use images of the victims dying as lead images even in the examples you've given (Aushwitz, Hiroshima, &c.) KohrVid (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Pretty sure at least 120,000 people are dying in this picture alone, simply from the immediate heat blast, and I'm not even including the 106,000 people who would have died not long after the pictures were taken from local fires, falling debris, blood loss, and fallout poisoning. --benlisquareT•C•E 19:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I suspect a large part of why that image gets reused is because you can’t actually see the individuals dying as they’re dying. To use this as an example is quite a stretch as by that reasoning, an image from Google Maps would also contain a number of corpses KohrVid (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
          • If an image of Floyd being knelt on by a police officer potentially invokes horrific emotions among African American readers, does an image of the literal physical event that murdered 226,000 people invoke upsetting emotions among Japanese readers? Or, would it be easier to dehumanise the victims of this image because the death of one man is a tragedy, but the death of ten thousand is merely a statistic? How do we make the call for what is and isn't tragic and emotionally tolling for readers? Who makes the call? What makes the call valid? --benlisquareT•C•E 05:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
            • It’s not about whether it’s easy to dehumanise the people in that picture, my point is that you literally can’t see them. I think it’s enough to assume that most of our readers already have empathy - if reading the contents of the article isn’t enough to humanise the victims for them then said article should be be reworded. But to argue that a photo in which you can’t see any bodies is somehow as graphic as one in which the victim is visible but awkwardly positioned under their killer who takes up most of the frame strikes me as disingenuous. There may be people who find the “mushroom cloud” image offensive but there’s clearly a reason that it was used (both on Wikipedia and elsewhere in the past) and not say, a photo of the remains of one or many of the victims up close. KohrVid (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - the iconic image, widely used by RS, that represents this event. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep it doesnt look like a shock image and it is used in the TV and newspapers without even a warning.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Move the image further into the body of the article. Clearly the image ls shocking enough for MOS:SHOCK. Speaking from personal experience, I was shocked when I pulled up the page and saw the image of the homicide/manslaughter taking place and that the victim could already be dead. I think the image clearly belongs in the article because it does iconically represent the incident. I just think it would be better to move the photo "below the fold" so it is not necessarily the first item a user sees. If we require a photo in the heading we could use the photo of the victim himself. WilliamsJD (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep it, as it depicts the event the article is about -- ChaTo (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I don't think a more relevant image exists of George Floyds killing; however, I understand the shock value argument under MOS:SHOCK, but there really is no other possible image to use as the beginning photo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Iamreallygoodatcheckers - I absolutely hate the actions and the image however emotions aside there really is no better placement for this image and as per NOTCENSORED we shouldn't remove it (I completely agree there's SHOCK to the image but as I said there's no better placement for it). –Davey2010Talk 19:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Replace or Move As others have stated, this image is shocking. It is basically a snuff image of someone being killed. And per Wikipedia's rules on lead images, MOS:LEADIMAGE, a lead image "should be of least shock value." Classicintense (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. MOS:SHOCK doesn't say the lead image shouldn't be shocking. What it says is: an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. Has "an alternative image that accurately represents" the death of George Floyd been proposed? I honestly haven't the time to read every comment in this RfC to find out. I'm not sure how we could be "accurate" without being shocking, but I'm open to suggestions.
    The closest equivalent that comes to mind is the lead image at Shooting of Walter Scott. Depicted there is Scott running from Slager, about two seconds before going down with five bullets in him. That is shocking, graphic, something rarely seen outside movies, but it's also the best available representation of the subject event. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the #1 photo used all over the Internet to represent Floyd's murder. It will stand the test of time, by the looks of things. We are an encyclopedia... how can we not use it? I understand it is graphic, but it is the most representative photo available for the topic of the article. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Change that to Move. This image is virtually synonymous with this article. Update: I have struck my earlier "keep" vote. My current thinking is the image should be moved to lower in the article. A preferable uppermost image would be of George Floyd alive. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The image encapsulates the entirety of the topic. It is iconic. WWGB (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Move. If an image accurately representing the topic without shock value is preferred (MOS:SHOCK), surely even a less tight photo of the same moment is preferable. I was shocked to find this as the lead image, I think may belong in the article but certainly not here. The videos of the situation provide plenty of options for more comprehensive and less abruptly shocking visuals. It's hard to get more spot-on with the subject but if it were possible to use photos of the aftermath or reactions to this event, I think that would also be more illustrative and less unnecessarily shocking. Clevelad (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It is horrifying and heart-rending. It is also reality. Keep. Kablammo (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Kablammo one can still depict this reality without having it as the first image of the article. It's not like we have images of the piles of dead bodies for the Christchurch shootings page or Pulse Night Club shooting page despite the fact that dozens of such images exist. The debate is not about entirely removing the image, but about whether it should be in the infobox. I struggle to think of any other wiki articles on murders that depicts victims dying, so there is no precedent for featuring Floyd's death as the first image. Byconcept (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
      Those are mass murders, not killing of unarmed black people by police officers. Apples and oranges. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Move While Wikipedia is not censored, that is no valid excuse to depict someone dying in the lead. Shock value is a stupid excuse to keep anything. The lead image of the Assassination of John F. Kennedy is not the up close gory photo of his head (which ironically is censored on here because it is so graphic.). Someone, I can’t recall whom, on Twitter asked why the media keeps circulating and perpetuating images of black death and trauma ad nauseam so prominently, compared to other races. Since people come to Wikipedia for information, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is, the very least we can do to change narratives, stigmas, and prejudices is to use the photo of his face that was ostensibly provided by his family. Trillfendi (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Trillfendi—I voted "keep" but I am sympathetic to the concerns. If a person close to the deceased—next of kin, close friend, significant other—voiced opposition, I would support moving the image to a lower position. I don't know how that could come about—by email, OTRS, weighing in on this page—but I for one would be receptive to such recommendation. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Move It's an image worthy of being in the wiki article, but it should not be the first image on the page, especially considering it could be considered graphic as it depicts death and (arguably) murder. I know that wiki is not censored but to my knowledge, no other 'Killing Of' wiki page has the dead/dying body in the infobox (nor is this the case with mass killing pages), so there is no prior precedent for having a graphic image in the infobox. Byconcept (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    There's Death of Eric Garner, Shooting of Tamir Rice, Shooting of Alton Sterling, Shooting of Oscar Grant, Shooting of Terence Crutcher, and, as noted above, Shooting of Walter Scott. Murder of Laquan McDonald has the video of his death under the infobox. It's rare that an image of one of these kinds of killings exists at all, rarer still that the image becomes widely circulated and iconic, but when it does, we put it in the lead. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • of the pages you listed, Eric is the only comparable example. Terence's image is a blurry one where the person in question can barely be seen, Oscar doesn't depict the actual murder, Alton depicts the altercation not the shooting, and the Tamir image is so blurry that nothing can be made out. I agree that such images are rare, however. Byconcept (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. It's not a shock image at all, there is no blood or gore. – Anne drew 18:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not censored and what could possibly illustrate the killing of George Floyd better than.... the photo of the killing of George Floyd? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep it's not a shocking image absent from the knowledge of what is happening (no blood or gore), and even with that knowledge, it is largely realising the sustained cold-bloodedness of the action that shocks ... and what could possibly illustrate the topic better? Pincrete (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The image is not bloody or gorey. Although it displays a repugnant act, that act is the subject of the article, and prominent inclusion of the image is entirely due. Indeed, failing to prominently display the image may leave the reader with the wrong sense of the nature of Floyd's killing. Wikipedia is not censored. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep — this is a disturbing image that is now iconic, and no image can even remotely serve as an equivalent description of this event. To those writing that this image is traumatic: it is, and that is why there have been global protests against Floyd's killing. -Darouet (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Darouet—many of us feel it is abrasive to the sensibilities of people of the identity depicted. I wish you would weigh in about that. Why should we run roughshod over people of an identity? I think it is utterly unnecessary, which is to say it is gratuitous. Are we trying to impact the reader visually? The information contained in the image would be available to the reader if its placement were in a lower slot in the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
People of the identity depicted ... people of an identity – what does those even mean? EEng 17:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
EEng—I would contend that in this image there are identities depicted. They are the superficial identities based on skin color and features, etc., but identities nevertheless. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You speak in riddles. EEng 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Not really. I am avoiding speaking only about black people. Any identity in an unflattering light, it could be argued, should not grace the uppermost slot of an article. That is an argument. It has to be weighed against an argument which says that it illustrates the article well, even if it depicts a given identity in an unflattering light. The photo currently under discussion definitely shows a man in a very unflattering light. I don't think it should be in the uppermost position in the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what are these "identities" you keep talking about. Any identity in a flattering light – I have no idea what that means. EEng 09:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
"I have no idea what are these "identities" you keep talking about." There are many sorts of identity, EEng, but the most interesting one I think is Cultural identity. It could be difficult to totally define what is meant by cultural identity. But it is not unheard of for a person to either identify as black or white, depending on a variety of factors, including the milieu in which they've had many of their more meaningful experiences such as childhood or just "hanging out". Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
That is an argument. What basis does that argument have in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or common practice? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss—are we aiming for maximal visual impact? If not, this image could be in a lower part of the article. The information contained in it would still be available to the reader even if it were in a lower part of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
What basis does that argument have in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or common practice? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss—I believe I could ask the same question of you. Would policies and guidelines indicate its placement should be at the top of the article instead of lower in the article? No one is arguing for its complete removal. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
First, this article's subject is the killing of Floyd, not Floyd. The latter would be a biography of Floyd. Do you dispute that point? I hope not, since that would mean you understand very little about what makes a Wikipedia article subject. Let's assume you don't dispute the point for now.
MOS:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should...illustrate the topic [the killing of Floyd] specifically...". "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred". No alternative image that accurately represents the killing of Floyd has been proposed, so that passage does not apply here. Certainly the image you suggested, a picture of Floyd, does not represent his killing in any way shape or form. "Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value". Such as, for example, a case where the subject itself is inherently and unavoidably shocking. "Editors may assume, per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, that readers are aware that such articles may contain such images."
Okay, I have responded to your request for basis in good faith. Now please respond to mine in similar fashion, or stop commenting here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss—could you please stop telling me "Now please respond to mine in similar fashion, or stop commenting here"? Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll consider that your concession. Have a good day! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Not a concession at all. MOS:IMAGES also tells us "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". It is one of those exceptions that we are discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
"That photo conveys a lot more than paragraphs of he said - she said." Wouldn't it convey as much at a lower position in the article, Chatul? Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
From MOS:IMAGES#Images for the lead: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; ... Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value,"
  • Keep. Per MOS, The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. ..Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Indeed, this is precisely the image a reader would expect to see because this image is everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not George Floyd is or isn’t dead is not the issue. This is a photo of a murder taking place and is not appropriate or respectful to put on this site. I’m ashamed of anyone who thinks otherwise as they are saying that depicting real life murder is ok as long as its for a good cause. Conmon1015 (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. WP:DISC. --letcreate123 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion for a compromise. Further down on the talk page, there's discussion of merging this article and the article for George Floyd per WP:1E. While it's true that the current lead image is the most relevant and descriptive, it is also true that it is shocking and that an alternative image would be preferable if one was available. Both these problems could be solved with the merger, as the most relevant image for the merged article would be an image of Floyd, but the relevant and descriptive image currently used as the lead would appear under the "Killing of" section. Thoughts? Pacack (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    The proposal is to merge George Floyd into Killing of George Floyd, deleting the former and leaving the latter – not the reverse. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Move This is a shocking image of a man moments before his death. At the moment of this image, he is pleading for his life. Yes, this is an article about his killing but I do not think it is acceptable to show a graphic image of a murder on the top of a Wikipedia page. I have read comments above that say this image is not "gory" or "bloody" but this man was asphyxiated and this image is the equivalent of blood and gore in this case. We should not continue to circulate images of black folks in the moments before death. It is disrespectful and dehumanizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terasaface (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The image is shocking, but it's what RS are showing as the iconic image for this subject. I think that means that of course we have to use it. It's terribly upsetting, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful. —valereee (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Why are y’all calling the image of a man’s death “iconic“? He isn’t Jesus. Trillfendi (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
There are icons, then there are pop icons or cultural icons. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Trillfendi, I don't want to speak for anyone else but me and my interpretation of the image, but I think you're missing the point. The lead image is not so much an image of George Floyd. It's an image of Derek Chauvin. To me, it's not an image of a man dying so much as it's an image of a white police officer with his knee on a black man's neck, with hand on hip and the clearest "What the fuck are you gonna do about it?" facial expression I've ever seen. That image sums up police brutality against black people better than any other image I've ever seen in my life. I think it's widely circulated and used as a summation or representation of police brutality for that reason. That, to me, is what makes it iconic: that it's so widely circulated. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The question isn't whether the picture should be in the article. We are discussing whether it should be in the uppermost position. I don't think there is any justification for it being the topmost image. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The question at the RfC was not about moving the "lead photo", but about removing it. Therefore, none to few people suggested to move it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be the lead image, because it's the most iconic image of the killing of George Floyd. The image represents not just the topic, but the very reason the topic is notable to begin with. What triggered this event--the firings, the criminal charges, the protests, the riots, the reforms, all of it--is the circulation of a video showing police officers killing a man, slowly over the course of ten minutes, in broad daylight, while being filmed, with a "what are you going to do about it?" demeanor, preventing bystanders from intervening, not even getting up when the medics arrived... that is what this is all about. It's not even so much that it happened, as that we have it recorded on video. That's what makes the killing of George Floyd unique, even compared to other killings of unarmed black men by police. This still from the video is the essence of the topic. If I were to tell this story in two images, it would be lead image and the mugshot of Chauvin. If I picked three images, it would be the lead image, the mugshot of Chauvin, and probably that picture of the guy with the American flag upside down in front of a building fire. These are the images that best tell the story. This lead image is very much like the lead image at Phan Thi Kim Phuc. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. But I would say the photo of Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Levivich—you write "If I were to tell this story in two images, it would be lead image and the mugshot of Chauvin." Wikipedia is not a Picture book. It is primarily verbal. And images wherever they are found in an article convey the exact same information. There is not more or better information contained in an image at the top of an article. It is simply the first image a reader encounters when landing on an article. Impact is increased by this particular image being in the uppermost placement of this article. And therein lies the problem. We should be endeavoring to decrease the impact of this particular image in this particular article. Wikipedia is not picture book. And furthermore our basic aim is to inform. The hurtful aspect of this image is the sorry state of the black man. We want to minimize our role in searing that image into readers' minds. Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with "We should be endeavoring to decrease the impact of this particular image in this particular article" and "We want to minimize our role in searing that image into readers' minds". To me, WP:NPOV means we don't do that; we don't decrease or increase or otherwise change the impact of anything. To the contrary, we should reflect the impact. If something is prominent or impactful in the sources, it should be similarly prominent or impactful in our article. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you not contriving to develop maximum impact from the inclusion of that image? By arguing for its placement in the uppermost position, you are arguing to derive as much impact as possible from that image. But wikipedia is not about "impact". We are not trying to tug at the heartstrings of the reader. We are here to provide information. The image contains the exact same information no matter where it appears in the article. Please explain why it has to be in the uppermost position. Do you think perhaps the reader will fail to see it if it is in a lower position? This project is primarily verbal. Images can be misleading. I am not saying that this image is misleading. The fact that death followed soon after this image was made indicates that this photo is not misleading. But we should not get in the habit of of giving precedence to images over verbal information. We can't "adjust" images. They are what they are. If they happen to be misleading, the very valid argument can be made that the image represents visual truth. But that which is verbal is very different. The burden is on us to choose the language that best represents reality as conveyed to us by a broad array of the best quality sources. If an image is hurtful but nevertheless on-topic we should lower its position in the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not contriving to develop maximum impact from the inclusion of that image. Again, we shouldn't be concerned with maximizing or minimizing impact. The reason it should be the lead image is because it is the image that best represents the topic. It is also the image most associated with the topic. In a word, it's iconic, as val defines it below: so inextricably associated with an event that it can symbolize that event. The image that is most widely seen as symbolizing this event is that still frame of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have to unnecessarily hurt anyone's feelings. It doesn't matter if it best represents the topic. Are you saying the topic wouldn't be represented if the image were lower in the article? Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying there is no other image I'm aware of that's a better choice for the lead image of this article. To me, "best represents the topic" matters a lot; it's the standard by which a lead image should be chosen. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
My original vote was to keep the present image. I am changing my vote because several people found it objectionable. I can understand those objections. And I don't think "lead image" means much more than "uppermost image". There is no great significance to placement, in my opinion, aside from impactfulness. It is less impactful to encounter an image when one peruses an article than to encounter an image at the moment one arrives at an article. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
File:The George Floyd mural outside Cup Foods at Chicago Ave and E 38th St in Minneapolis, Minnesota.jpg
A sample option. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
An option unlikely to be deleted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Trillfendi, just shorthand for 'an image so inextricably associated with an event that it can symbolize that event.' —valereee (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove from the infobox; the act of the "killing" can be portrayed by other means, such as picture of a memorial. The image of the mural was taken at the site of where he died. I share the concerns about the Lynching postcards expressed below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, that image unfortunately is up for deletion for being a derivative work. —valereee (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: there are other images on Commons that may be suitable, such as in Category:George Floyd Memorial. For example, this image shows the victim's last words that are easily recognizable: "Please, I can't breath. My stomach hurts...". There are ways to represent a "killing" without showing the killing itself and without invoking the spirit of a lynching postcard. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion Pasdecomplot was correct in comparing this image to a Lynching postcard. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Certainly, but the informational content is the same regardless of its placement in the article. Bus stop (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No, the information content would be very different because many readers only look at the Figures and do not read anything. This is something all writers of scientific papers know. Ideally, the idea of a scientific paper should be obvious just by looking at the figures. This also led to introduction of lead/icon images in many journals like JACS. My very best wishes (talk)
  • You say "the information content would be very different". In what way would the information content be different? Please speak about this article rather than the "JACS". Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Kablammo (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Kablammo—did you happen to notice that the examples you are giving are from the first half of the 20th century? Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
What struck me that of all these photos including the one in issue, all of the participants are dead save one, Derek Chauvin, who is the only person who could benefit from a less prominent placement of his image. Kablammo (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The emotions evoked by an early 20th century image are different from the emotions evoked by an image from 2020. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
If your point is that writings (even the encyclopedic ones) should not cause emotions, this is wrong idea. To the contrary, they should cause emotions if you want someone to read them. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
An image of George Floyd dying is objectionable because he is of our time and many of us are sensitive about depictions of death, all the more so when they involve our contemporaries. Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The question I ask time and time again, which no one seems to want to address, is how does that relate to Wikipedia policy? --benlisquareT•C•E 03:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop benlisquare The policy WP:INFOBOXIMAGE states "When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used"; the policy MOS:LEADIMAGE states "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." Terasaface (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Terasaface—thank you for pinging me. I agree that this image is "disrespectful and dehumanizing". My feeling is that it should remain in the article but in a much lower position. As uppermost image it is maximally egregious and this is utterly uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree! Terasaface (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
What part of WP:INFOBOXIMAGE or MOS:LEADIMAGE state that they are policy? Futhermore, how do either parts of the Manual of Style that you have linked have any relevance to An image of George Floyd dying is objectionable because he is of our time? What part of Wikipedia policies, or hell, even Wikipedia style recommendation guides, make reference to the time period and contemporariness of a topic being a valid measurement of how article content becomes acceptable or not? --benlisquareT•C•E 05:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I still stand by the fact that a killing is best illustrated by the event itself, no matter how disturbing it may be. You don't exactly click on an article with "killing" in the title expecting puppies and kittens and lovely lush meadows, not to mention (if it indeed pays any relevance) media outlets such as Inside Edition consistently keep replaying this video, far more than any video of any memorial. Ed6767 talk! 11:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Move as already stated above. Shall we look at some other examples of folks who have been killed by the police and notice how none of these pages features a photo of a man potentially post-mortem? I again state that we must move this image further down the article and at the top feature either a photo of George Floyd or - as many of the following articles do - have a map of where he was killed at the top, a photo of Floyd in the background section, and the photo of the moment of death down further with the links to the video. It is not censorship to move the most graphic photo to further down the article. Looking at the Racial bias on Wikipedia, let's take a minute to acknowledge this a predominantly white platform arguing about the prominence of an image of a graphic death of a Black man. What may be "important" or "iconic" for a non-black person to see as a evidence of a police killing, repeatedly seeing these types of graphic images is causing acute stress and PTSD in communities historically plauged with police violence. Again, I am not advocating for removal or censorship, but it simply should not be the first thing we see on this page.
I would like to also bring up MOS:IMAGELEAD which states that "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred" and WP:INFOBOXIMAGE which states that "When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used." These both seem quite clear to me and I am not sure why we are still having this discussion around an image which on the basis of Wikipedia policy alone is clearly not the proper image for the lead photo in this article. Terasaface (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This is because MOS:IMAGELEAD tells: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." It is precisely the image a user expects to see on this page because it was published everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Terasaface (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • That would be a reasonable argument if the photo would only show George Floyd (as the photos of victims on other pages). But the photo shows the actual killing, which is the subject of this page. In addition, on pages like Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery moving his photo to the infobox (instead of the map of Georgia, which really irrelevant!) would be a good idea. I would strongly support moving images of victims on these other pages to the infoboxes. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes I am not sure that I understand your stance, could you clarify? I am arguing that the lead photo should not be the most graphic image we can show. Are you saying that the graphic image at the top is what you would prefer even though it is not what MOS:IMAGELEAD and WP:INFOBOXIMAGE state as our Wikipedia policies? I agree that in the case you mentioned, a photo of Arbery would be better suited than the map as the lead image. Yet, I still argue we should use an image of Floyd alive rather than the image currently at the lead.Terasaface (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGELEAD and WP:INFOBOXIMAGE are not policies. It even says very clearly at the top of the page: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This image if fully consistent with MOS:IMAGELEAD. It tells: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." It is precisely the image a user expects to see on this page because it was published everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It can be "fully consistent with MOS:IMAGELEAD" and still be deemed best placed at a lower part of the article. This is a 2020 image being considered for placement in 2020. We should be concerned with the feelings of the contemporaries of George Floyd (as well as others). I think the informational value in the image is inarguable—it certainly should be in the article. The image tends to show a black person in a way that is so disrespectful that it is off the charts. The lower placement in the article allows the value to be retained while toning down the shock to the person just arriving at the article. I don't think this applies to all persons. And I don't even think it breaks down by black and white—some of us have constitutions that are unmoved by the depiction of things that send others into virtual shock. It is unnecessary and I think distasteful to present this image first. A picture of George Floyd in life would be far preferable. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 14 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.

Choose different video 'frame' for killing

Yes, videos dont have frames, so an image from earlier in the strangulation sequence - before the foam/spittal formed on Floyd's lip - would be much more respectful, and meet policy better. Present image is too similar to historic lynching postcards. Also, image of Chauvin with mace in his hand is a very good option for an alternate in the sequence. At that moment, Chauvin isn't smiling. The postcards are noted for similar smiles. gringer my very best wishes and mandruss this is added as a different discussion. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Why would showing the condition of a victim be disrespectful? (Real question, not rhetorical)--ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The foam was there all along. When Floyd was removed from his own vehicle, Lane noted that there was "foam at the edges" of Floyd's mouth.[5] WWGB (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I think Pasdecomplot makes an entirely valid comparison to Lynching postcards. I don't think we should be choosing the most gruesome photo we can find for the uppermost position in the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks bus stop 8+ minutes of video images x 60 secs = 480+ possible screen shots. Issues in selected screenshot comparable to lynching postcards include 1.Killers (Chauvin in this instance) look pleased/smile for camera. 2.Scenes glorify the gore of mob violence; The very visible substance on Floyd's mouth contributes to the gore. 3.Postcards purposefully glorify racial domination of white supremacist mobs; in the image 'strongman' Chauvin's knee on neck, his facial expression & relaxed body posture, VS the 'weakman' white substance and constrained posture. All invoke strong comparisons to lynching postcards.WWGB Lane's statement may or may not be accurate, given history of police cover-ups. But, the white substance was not visible when filming began. So, at least 479 other screenshots are possible, meaning image at issue can easily be changed. Using another image where Chauvin looks less pleased, as in the mace moment, reduces valid comparisons to lynching postcards, thus is also more respectful ExperiencedArticleFixer because we're consciously not making an image similar to lynching postcards. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Placement matters too. There is no valid reason for this image to be in the uppermost placement. We are not trying to impress upon the reader the horror of this incident by means of an image. Images are used because they convey a variety of types of information. The exact same information is conveyed by an image no matter where it is placed in an article, which is to say that this particular image carries the same information lower down in the article as it does in the uppermost position. Many on this page have objected to its current placement. I think it should be moved to a lower portion of the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Clipping the image frame

This article is about George Floyd. Should the image frame in the infobox be clipped to only include Mr. Floyd, to reduce the emphasis placed on his killer? gringer (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course not because the subject of this page is not the victim or the killer, but the murder. That is what this image shows. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is NOT about George Floyd. It is about the killing of George Floyd. That's why the title is "Killing of George Floyd", not "George Floyd". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Detail note on image: An image from earlier in the strangulation sequence - before the foam/spittal formed on Floyd's lip - would be much more respectful, and meet policy better. The present image is similar to historic lynching postcards. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

See lynching postcards. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see point above gringer, my very best wishes, and mandruss. An image of Chauvin with mace in his hand is an very good option for an alternate in the sequence. At that moment, Chauvin isn't smiling. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead image on page above is just as appropriate as lead image on this page per MOS ("Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see"). My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

DizzyDawn and Ed6767 Discussion continues on 'killing' image with a move of similar topic. Building consensus that video has at least 479 other images 8mx60s=480) from which to choose. Present choice is too similar to lynching postcards. See thread directly above. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss this topic Clipping the Image frame was moved to Header/main photo but is not the same topic in essence. H/mp focused on using a completely different image, whereas this topic accepts video image and asks for another 'frame' within video. Can the topic be separated to stand apart? Also, votes on H/mp are finished, topic closed. So this other topic is presently buried on the same thread. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's common to keep related discussions together under one level-2 section. All of this is about the lead image and therefore related. Nothing here is closed as far as I can see. Anyway, I don't know why you're asking me specifically, as I'm not the editor who moved this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 12 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.

How is citing the MPD Policy & Procedure Manual WP:OR

@EEng:How is The Minneapolis Police Department's policy & Procedure manual prohibits the application of neck restraints when the subject is passively resisting[1] WP:OR? If we are going to write about what is and is not permissible then isn't citing the Minneapolis Police Department's Policy & Procedure Manual not only permissible but necessary? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Chatul, see WP:PRIMARY. Primary official sources can be used, with care. Interpretation of them requires secondary sources. A publication of the Minneapolis Police Department is a WP:RS for what it says. Kablammo (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see where I was interpreting it. BTW, if you can figure out why the end of the previous section and the beginning of this section are disappearing, I'd be grateful. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Just commenting on the substance, it is worrisome that the handbook section doesn't warn the reader that extended periods of constraint to the arteries starves the brain of oxygen even if you don't constrict the airway... Persistent Corvid (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't like it either, but discussing that in the article would be both off topic and WP:OR. There are some parts of the manual that hint at the risk, and it would be legitimate to quote those. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree.Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "5-300.00 Use Of Force", MPD Policy & Procedure Manual, vol. Volume Five - Code of Conduct and the Use of Force, Minneapolis Police Department, 5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12) DEFINITIONS I. ... Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person's neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. ... PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.  ... Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12) {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  • We can't be quoting such a manual, or paraphrasing it, or anything else except maybe to give an exact quote of passage explicitly referenced and analyzed by a reliable (very reliable!) source. There are very good reasons we don't ever say, on our own, "The Department's manual forbids etc etc"; for example, rule books often list general rules at one point which are modified by exceptions listed somewhere else -- just as a law which, on its face, seems to compel or forbid something may be limited or modified by other statute or case law. We can't take on the responsibility of checking for stuff like that. EEng 02:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a few problems with this insertion of the manual as a citation:

  1. WP:NOTLINKFARM: the primary source is not needed to support any statements, and would also be too minor to include in the "External links" The existing CNN source that was cited a few sentences later already has a link to the manual.
  2. WP:OR: Indirect original research in deciding "relevant" text to include in the citation's |quote= parameter.
  3. The second footnote added says: Minneapolis has subsequently revised the manual. This is unsourced. The earlier section Killing_of_George_Floyd#State_civil_rights_action only says there was a restraining order against neck restraints.
  4. WP:CITEFOOT: citation should be placed after punctuation, and in the middle of words.

—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

One of the phrases Floyd exclaimed while Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck, "My face is gone," is not mentioned in the current version of this article, perhaps because it wasn't immediately clear what Floyd meant when he said that.

Floyd's statement can be explained by the finding, from the two autopsies, that Floyd suffered serious abrasions to his left eye, left cheek, left shoulder, nose, and mouth (described elsewhere as "large areas of scrapes and abrasions on Floyd's face"), which were inflicted by Chauvin's pressing/scraping Floyd's face into the street.

None of the above details are mentioned in the current version of the article. Please add it. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Do any of the RS’s mention that? If so please cite one that does or point to where it does in an already-cited RS. PS you have a lot of talk page edits under your IP address. Please consider making an account to help edit :) Anon0098 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Excited delirium

The officers restrained Floyd had a belief he was experiencing excited delirium. Officer Lane stated "I am worried about excited delirium or whatever." This is mentioned in the criminal complaint,[6] and by the Washington Post [7] and Al Jazeera[8]. Officer Chauvin responded "That’s why we have him on his stomach." 2A02:C7F:463B:FC00:19C2:2646:9F4E:96E9 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard of this "excited delirium", but you may be misinterpreting to whom Lane was attributing it. It's a state some murderers and sadists enter when they're strangling or torturing someone. Here's an illustrative video: [9]. EEng 03:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Not to worry. You will add it when he's acquitted. 2A02:C7F:463B:FC00:19C2:2646:9F4E:96E9 (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Sources say it's referring to Floyd.(FiveThirtyEight, Slate) Slate suggests it could be used by the defense and also wrote: Critics of excited delirium argue that it’s not a legitimate cause of death, and that police too often use it as an excuse after an arrest turns deadly. They note, for example, that it’s disproportionately cited in cases where black and Hispanic men die in custody.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep. It does not matter whether or not it is real because the MPD thought it was and trained officers to "hogtie" in a prone position people suspected of suffering from it, because such people are a danger to themselves and others. 2A02:C7F:463B:FC00:19C2:2646:9F4E:96E9 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. After all, they were just following orders. EEng 11:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

trim section on chauvin?

Now that Derek Chauvin has survived AfD, should we trim The former owner said that Chauvin used "overkill" tactics on the club's "African-American" nights, for example responding to fights by spraying an entire crowd with mace instead of dealing specifically with those fighting; she felt that Chauvin was "afraid and intimidated" by black people but had good relations with the club's Latino customers. from the section? It's all based on a single person's opinion, and it's half the section so including it and no other bio details feels undue. The fact they both worked at the place during the same period is relevant and factual, but the club owner's retrospective opinion/speculation probably doesn't belong here. —valereee (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:Undue one opinion is insufficient for including this Anon0098 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree. In fact, now that we have consensus for separate articles on George Floyd and Derek Chauvin, I think the entire "People involved" section should go, and the biographical content there integrated into the body elsewhere. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hand in Derek Chauvin`s pocket

The thing I`ve never understood about any of this is the cop has his hand in his pocket..there is a mention in the article regarding body language..it appears as if he knew exactly what he was doing and was doing it in a cold methodical way..one hand on George`s pulse..the other in his pocket..eyes out in space making sure his sunglasses don`t fall...I propose adding a section related to that which is an obvious sign of pathological behavior 2600:1702:2340:9470:5495:F7A9:2143:A90B (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As usual we need reliable sources commenting on this. But I'll say this: if you've seen the lead photo brightened appropriately, there's no doubt he doesn't have his hand in his pocket. But as for the rest of his body language, you're right that some people are saying they suggest he's a psychopath. Not that I'm saying anything like that myself, of course. EEng 01:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Chauvin did not have his hand in his pocket, it's an optical illusion. He was wearing dark gloves the same colour as his pants, and the two colours blended. That was already covered in a section that was archived long ago. WWGB (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok I see it..but...he has his fingers curled up..relaxed...resting on his hip while he`s choking the guy...again body language..all the symptoms of psychopathy...and one other thing..he`s not even looking at his victim but out into space while he`s <redacted> 2600:1702:2340:9470:5495:F7A9:2143:A90B (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

Add that in George Floyd’s coroner report, he was under the influence fentanyl, methamphetamines, and marijuana. 2600:1700:E690:33D0:54CA:26AE:D946:8E13 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

See the thread above.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheImaCow (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
What sort of ridiculous, dismissive reply is this? There is a large number of secondary sources that have reported that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamines in his system. A 2-second google search revealed: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/health/george-floyd-coronavirus-autopsy/index.html, https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/04/869278494/medical-examiners-autopsy-reveals-george-floyd-had-positive-test-for-coronavirus, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/04/as-george-floyd-died-officer-wondered-about-excited-delirium. You really ought to put a little more effort into fulfilling edit requests, it's implicit that obviously a citation would have to be found, and for a claim that is this easily-verifiable it doesn't seem necessary that he ought to provide it in his request. My bad, Slatersteven accurately pointed out that this content is already in the article. Zortwort (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • But the point remains: everyone processing the edit request queue seems to think the entirety of their job is to paste in, "Not done. Get consensus, dummy. We were just kidding when we said your request would be considered." It's dumb. EEng 18:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Micheal Baden also did the autopsies of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Jeffery Epstein 2600:1004:B14B:15E6:7DE0:C1BD:781:D658 (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please construct the request in the format of change x to y. El_C 10:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh come on, El C, remember WP:NOTBURO (see also: WP:NOTBURRO). It's clear the OP is asking for those facts to be mentioned. Except they're not facts, at least as far as JFK goes (I didn't check the others). EEng 17:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
What I mean is that it is up to them to construct the prose and attach sources, then it can be added to the article. El_C 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that's being a bit demanding with a random IP. If we can reasonably interpret what they're suggesting we should respond in those terms. Instead of "disposing" of the request you could just let it sit a while and see if some interested editor looks into the matter. Not a big deal, but there seems to be an impulse recently to close things, as if there's some burden to leaving threads open a while. EEng 19:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
EEng, I'm not archiving the request. It can still be researched and answered in the affirmative by anyone at any time, which I welcome. El_C 19:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand. My wrath was only related to the rather formulaic injunction to "Please construct the request in the format of change x to y", which might cause other editors to pass over the request without reading it, when you could have just said nothing. You're still one of my favorite editors, El Cid[Confused editor?]. EEng 19:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will take that exceptionally kind compliment and shut up now! Thanks, EEng. El_C 17:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
That has been debunked: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/11/fact-check-doctor-didnt-autopsy-jfk-mlk-epstein-and-george-floyd/5329657002/. —valereee (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old criminal black man, was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest for allegedly using a counterfeit bill.[1] ChangesMakes DifferentPerspectives (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:UNDUE. There is no reason to believe that Floyd's prior convictions played any role in his death. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Criminal records

If anyone here has access / sources including the criminal records of George Floyd, it would be a good idea to add it to this Wikipedia article. ChangesMakes DifferentPerspectives (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Those records would be primary sources and thus of limited worth. His prior convictions have been discussed in reliable secondary sources and are sufficiently covered in the article George Floyd. Regards SoWhy 13:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of RS and dragging of Floyd's body.

4 hrs earlier, I added 3 RS supporting info on the dragging of Floyd's lifeless body by police. It was inserted in a sentence at the correct sequence of events, before the body is taken to the hospital: 1.[1] "Once the ambulance arrives they [the police, as earlier ref'd in statement] drag Floyd's body onto a stretcher" 2.[2]"...until an ambulance arrives and police drag his limp body onto a stretcher..." 3.[3]"Once the ambulance arrives, they [again, referring to police in statement] drag Floyd's body onto a stretcher". As RS clarifies, police drag Floyd's body before the med personnel load him into the ambulance. I don't see a discussion of why this info was deleted. It's a horrifying illustration underscoring total disregard for human life by police as these RS point out, and is valid for inclusion... Is deleting RS'd info a form of vandalism? Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, The Blast and Hitsongs don't look like RS to me. Oxygen is, but the mention doesn't seem to indicate that 'drag' means what you're saying -- no one in that article is talking about disregard for human life shown by the transfer of the body to the stretcher. The removal of these sources and your changes are absolutely not vandalism. They are WP:BRD; you can read about that at the link. Please consider doing a lot more reading before editing controversial articles. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ice Cube was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Stephen Jackson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference The Blast was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The RS is certainly very specific about the word 'drag', as in the police dragged Floyd's "limp" body. It's impossible to misunderstand. The comment of the 'disregard for human life' I added to the talk as another reason to justify the inclusion in an article on a killing, and that phrase was not included in the edit. If RS oxygen works for our purposes, it's the best quotation "...until an ambulance arrives and police drag his limp body onto a stretcher..." It's very clear. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Valereee Since the Oxygen RS [[ref name="Stephen Jackson"/> is acceptable, it's information should be included. I can re-edit Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
...the section but would prefer not to find it deleted again. Ok? Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot—are we implying that the police treated the person's unconscious body disrespectfully? You are saying that it is "impossible to misunderstand" but I don't think it is at all clear that the word "drag" implies less care than is called for. The man is a heavy man. It would be hard to move him without a degree of dragging. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, I'm afraid that's not how the BRD process I linked to above works. You make your arguments, I make mine, other people chime in, and eventually we reach WP:CONSENSUS, which is another bit of reading for you. In the meantime, anything you add, I add, or anyone else adds is fair game for changing, removing, whatever until we reach that consensus. It seems like you are wanting to use the word "drag" to make a point, here, (we also avoid making points, especially in controversial articles) but please go ahead and re-edit to say what you think it should say based on your reading of the RS. . The rest of us can then tweak or delete and we'll continue discussing here. —valereee (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
valereee Conjugations of the word "drag", ie "dragged", is in the RS. It is not OR, nor making any other point other than to include encyclopedic info on the killing of Floyd. To infer other reasons is not supported by RS. As an aside, "drag" also is used in the video, ie "Did they just drag him?". A second statement in video says, "You could have at least lifted him". Both speaker's voices are quoted earlier in article, but I haven't found RS with these specific quotations. Bus stop To drag and to lift are two distinct actions; lifting infers care, while dragging infers a lack of care. To excuse the dragging of Floyd due to his weight ignores these distinctions. Additionally (although video's not RS) 2 med personnel lifted Floyd after (what appears to be 2-3) policemen dragged his body. Very different and distinct decisions and actions, roughly same number of males lifting. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop valereee Or I should say...same number of males moving the weight. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, please indent your talk page posts by starting them with one more colon than the post you're replying to. This helps other editors follow the conversation. —valereee (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot—please post your sources here. I searched for them in article History when this Talk page discussion began over 24 hours ago. I found them, but I did not look at them very carefully. My fault. What I will be concerned to see is what emphasis I can discern for "lack of care". The presence of the word alone—"drag"—may not be enough for me to to feel that the implication is "lack of care". Therefore I'm asking you to please post your sources here. I'm asking you to please provide a link so I can easily view your sources. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
bus stop The quotations at issue are in the opening talk post. Conjugations of "to drag" are used by all 3 provided RS. Regardless of what a person feels about the word "drag", these specific RS should not be held to a different standard: Chavin didn't "push" Floyd across the backseat, he "pulled". To debate the use of the word "pull" in that instance would be equally unfounded and somewhat bizarre. Here, RS did not use the word "lift" nor "load" to describe the action, nor did they describe the police as carefully and lovingly moving Floyd's body. They chose conjugations of the word "drag". Specifically. I suggest becoming familiar with the primary source - the video - which makes this discussion seem rather surreal. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot—I'm simply interested in seeing the sources for myself. Maybe I will interpret them differently. Please provide links that I can click on so that I can access your sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, I think I found one of them. It says "Once the ambulance arrives, they drag Floyd’s body onto a stretcher." Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot—if you study my above post, you can see how I linked to The Blast (magazine) article. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
bus stop I again urge a close look at the primary source. There's no other interpretation, audio quotes included, no need to split words when images answer doubt. Afterwards I'll repost the links, but aren't they archived? Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot—yes, they are archived. I'm too lazy to find your post from 48 hours ago in the History of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-added sequence on Floyd's body dragged

Started different discussion on issue: Text in Arrest and Death now reads, "Around 8:29, Floyd, still motionless, was dragged by Chauvin and other police[54][55][56] to a stretcher, then medical technicians loaded him into the ambulance which departed for Hennepin County Medical Center.[5]:6:35[8]:7:43[1] bus stop the links you wished to re-interpret (don't know why) are in refs. valeree prefers RS [54]. All comments from others also welcome. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed two of the three refs for being unreliable. Hitsongz? Nigeria? Others can decide if the remaining ref, and hence the inclusion, are worthy. WWGB (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
You say "bus stop the links you wished to re-interpret (don't know why) are in refs". Yes, Pasdecomplot, that is what we do—we "re-interpret". All people do this all the time. Citations are provided in articles so readers can "re-interpret" information in articles. Did you think there was truth? If you want truth you are more likely to find it in math and science. But in the realm of human affairs there is little truth. Just interpretations and reinterpretations. A film I like is Rashomon. A story is told and retold by various people. We have The bandit's story, The wife's story, The samurai's story, and The woodcutter's story. Thank you for pinging me. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
bus stop It's difficult to re-interpret the OS/video capturing of the dragging; it's easier to re-interpret RS/words describing the OS/video of the dragging when the dragging sequence is not watched. That's the point. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, when I watch the video we currently use for the source at the end of that source (the one narrated by the NYT reporter), he isn't seen being dragged to a stretcher. Do you have some other video you can refer us to wherein Floyd is being dragged by the officers to a stretcher? If not, it appears this single RS is out of sorts with the majority RS reporting on the subject. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
AzureCitizen, you can see it at around 7:50 in this video on YouTube. If I were writing WP:OR, I would write that officers "threw Floyd onto a stretcher", based on what I see in that video. However, I've read a ton of articles about this over the past week, and not a single one comes to mind in which the RSes either characterize this as "dragging", or even address the placement of Floyd onto the stretcher, at all. There may be RSes that discuss this, I just haven't seen or don't recall them. Of course, we'll need RSes before we can put this into the article; our own OR won't cut it. This is one of the many instances where "the video clearly shows..." but it just doesn't matter, because of WP:NOR. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
How would you recommend phrasing this in the "Medical response and death" subsection then? It currently reads "Around 8:29, Floyd, still motionless, was dragged by Chauvin and other police to a stretcher..." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Based on the sources currently cited in that section, I would revert the language to a prior version we had that read something more like, "Around 8:29, Floyd, still motionless, was loaded into the ambulance...". I do not think the single Oxygen source (which I think is all we have right now on "drag") should merit writing "drag" in the article, especially in wikivoice. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I've made this edit. "Dragged" is contrived language. We are not trying to imply disrespect to the lifeless form of a body. Normal language would include "moving" the body—the body was "moved". It is a contrivance to try to imply "disrespect" by insisting on the word "dragged". The harm was already done during the time George Floyd was handcuffed behind his back, prone on the ground, with a knee pressing against the back of his neck. The abuse did not continue. No reliable source is saying there was any lack of care or concern in the moving of the lifeless body from the pavement to the ambulance stretcher. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that's an improvement, and "moved" complies with NPOV and BLP. But I still think that whole bit should just be cut; if we're not saying anything in particular about how the officers moved Floyd onto the stretcher, there is no point in including that detail at all. Under the theory that we also wouldn't bother to say that the officers closed the ambulance door after Floyd was inside, etc. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Every step in this central moment warrants documenting, so I tend not to support removing what I understand you are characterizing as as being perfunctory, as would be closing the ambulance door. But that the lifeless body was "moved by Chauvin and other police to a stretcher" constitutes substantive information, so I tend to not want to tamper with it. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

WWGB The hitsongz RS discusses Ice Cube (famous rapper) and his appearance on GMA (very popular US morning newsie broadcast). With these bases, I thought RS was good. AzureCitizen why would an edited version of OS video be provided as source? It cuts dragging incident, as well as Chauvin's full-frame smile after after ambulance departs. Dragging really needs to be re-added. Must say, I really don't understand the pushback against including the very specific and sourced "dragging" of Floyd's body. Levivich Again, the dragging is clearly depicted in OS, mentioned twice in OS audio, and referenced in provided 3 RS's and I can find others. Bus stop the 3 RS's are directly commenting of the disrespect of a lifeless body, by it being dragged. Same for audio on OS. I must ask the crowd, is this newbie hazing, or is there a conflict of interest in including the mention of police's complete disregard of Floyd's "limp" and lifeless body? Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a primary source video to use as a source in our article, I was asking if you'd seen a video in which police had dragged Floyd on the ground to a stretcher, in which case sharing that with us would give us good reason to search for better secondary reliable sources to add the dragging claim to the article. The word "drag" can easily conjure up for some readers an image of police grabbing him by his ankles and dragging his entire body 5, 10, or 15 feet across the asphalt to a stretcher sitting idly at the back of an ambulance's doors. Do you see why that's a problem, and why we want to have multiple quality reliable sources to justify using the word "drag"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot—the last thing I would do is engage in "newbie hazing". I argued against the inclusion of "dragging" because it is not prominently supported in sources. It is an inflammatory implication. It requires good support in sources. It would seem ludicrous to me to imply that after the body was seen to be lifeless there was further disrespect heaped on the body. It has happened. There is a history of lynchings in which that and worse has transpired. But we don't casually imply heinous activity of that sort without good quality sourcing. Thousands of opinions abound. But we have to limit ourselves to opinions or observations that are found in the best quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, I'm usually the newbie being hazed, but this isn't newbie hazing. It's core content policy. "Clearly depicted in OS, mentioned twice in OS audio"... the video is a WP:PRIMARY source. For us to watch the video, and write in Wikivoice what we see ("dragged"), is original research, prohibited by our policy. In order for us to say "dragged", we need reliable sources saying "dragged". Not one source like Oxygen, but more than one source. We also need WP:CONSENSUS to resolve disputes, and "dragged" is definitely disputed. I saw you recently re-added "drag" and it's been removed again. Please don't re-insert it until and unless there is consensus to do so. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, you are discussing with multiple experienced and well-intentioned editors who are trying to help you learn WP's policies. New editors do sometimes feel frustrated, but it's not because they're being hazed but because there's a steep learning curve here on Wikipedia. Adding to the frustration for you is that you're trying to climb that steep learning curve on a very controversial and contentious brand new article. This is really the worst kind of article for a new editor to start editing. No one here is misrepresenting policy, and in fact many people have been quite kind to you given that this article is so contentious and time-consuming. You have been repeatedly pointed at policy and repeatedly advised to read it; have you done that? Also, what Levivich said above: here's a really important policy re: reverting again: WP:3RR. Violating that one can get you blocked. —valereee (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I added 3 sources, 2 were deleted then "dragged" was edited Bus stop to "moved". All 3 sources use conjugations of "to drag", and "stretcher". Changing the verb is a unsupported personal interpretation of RS. I can find more RS but not to continually have the RS deleted and replaced with reinterpretation. Also, the link to OS is/was to a NYTimes edited version of the OS, which omits the final few minutes of the OS. A problem. Another problem is NYTimes has a paywall, making it an unusable archive location. The OS was linked to FB ( bad) then to YouTube (good) where it should be linked. There, everyone van see the dragging sequence. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—you refer to "lack of care". You write "dragging infers a lack of care". In my opinion we need good sourcing for lack of care. Bus stop (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good depiction Bus stop AzureCitizen that can't be reinterpreted: a clip from the OS of the dragging sequence (what the NYT omits): [1] It's just a clip, not RS: Chauvin drags Floyd from a point near handcuffed wrists, before neck brace attached. Watch EMT trying to stabilize Floyd's head during Chauvin's second dragging pull. Unmistakable. Lack of care. And Levivich, why was the re-added edit reinterpreted then deleted without consensus - a different set of rules? Also in support: quotations from a CNN interview on 28May2020 6:04a with Philonise Floyd, brother, "...drug him across the ground" and "they just drug it across the ground". There might be a CNN official transcript of the interview. Good for RS? Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot While I certainly agree the officers 'dragged' him while moving him, and to me it clearly looks like a lack of care, that's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. We cannot use that until reliable sources comment on it. I have no doubt that at some point, someone will -- it'll likely come up in Chauvin's trial, for instance, and then reliable sources reporting on that trial will comment on it. But right now, we can't report it because we don't have a reliable source commenting on it. And again, have you taken the time to read any of the policy we keep directing you to? Please answer this question, which I've now asked you multiple times, because at this point your behavior is starting to feel to me a bit disruptive. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/real_bishr87/status/1265691651089018882?s=20

valereee I kindly ask you to note that I was NOT providing clip as RS. I specifically state it is not RS. In the thread, several editors Azure Citizen Bus stop asked for the images (since NYT version cuts the OS) and I provided it. That's all. Far from being disruptive, wouldn't you say? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Taking this to your talk. —valereee (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

And the question I pose valereee is if the quotations from Floyd's brother during CNN interview can be used as RS. Please read the post again. What do you think? Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, no. His brother is not a reliable source for what the cops did or didn't do. He is only a reliable source for his own opinion. Please see your talk. —valereee (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
We would be saying that the brother said that. I don't think what the brother says is as worthy of inclusion in the article as what a multitude of good quality sources say. Do we have good quality sources implying that there was a lack of care? Thank you for pinging me, Pasdecomplot.
Pasdecomplot, you're aware there's a query from me at your talk, but you're choosing to continue to edit here instead of answering there? —valereee (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks EEng and Levivich. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot and EEng: Sorry, for some reason I didn't see the ping above.
I just took another look and this is the sum total of arguably-RS sources using "drag", but each one has a drawback: Oxygen is a cable TV network. The Blast is an entertainment magazine. Washington Post uses it, but in an editorial. I see it at Daily Mail, the Mirror, and Medium, and other sources that are clearly not RSes. For my part, I'm ambivalent about whether we use "drag" or not. It strikes me as being a minority of sources that use it, so I can definitely see the UNDUE concerns, but at the same time, it strikes me as not an incorrect word to use. I don't know if anyone else has any sources that we should look at that haven't already been discussed? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice Levivich, and thanks. As an aside, on OS, bystanders refer to the dragging twice. EEng It would be good to not have to wait for a trial before finding additional RS. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Um, at the risk of making a fool of myself... What's OS? EEng 22:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know either —valereee (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It's very close to OR. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Presumably, "OS" means the original source, i.e., the original video in which you can watch Floyd being moved, from the spot where he died, onto a stretcher approximately 12 to 16 inches away. As Levivich helpfully pointed out, it can be seen around 7:50 in this video on YouTube. A few seconds after that, you can hear a bystander say something like "they just dragged him!" while another says to the officer "I have your name tag bitch!" During the movement, it's obvious they're having trouble doing it; one person is pulling him using his arms, another pulls his legs, and another has his hands on Floyd's head as they struggle to roll him onto it. In theory, if you moved a body just one inch in any direction, without fully lifting it (such that some part of it is still in contact with ground), technically you could be said to have "dragged" it. The problem here is that using minority and opinion sources to state that cops "dragged his body to a stretcher" is far more likely to create a mental image for our readers wherein the police grabbed him at one end (wrists? ankles?) and dragged him many feet over the pavement to a stretcher that could have been easily brought to the body's location rather than the other way around. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot you still seem to be referring to the video as if we can use it to support 'drag'. We cannot. Not the evidence of our own eyes, not what we hear bystanders say. It and every other video are irrelevant to this discussion. OS is not WP lingo for "original source"; you may be conflating OR (Original Research) with primary source, which we don't generally use an acronym for. Per Levivich's analysis we have no reliable sources using the term in the way you are trying to use; that is, as an objection to the way the body was handled. I am ready to archive this discussion. If anyone but Pasdecomplot objects, please speak up. —valereee (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Please, valereee that's not what's happening: "As an aside, on OS" is an ASIDE=NOT RS. please...please don't misunderstand. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not misunderstanding. Please just stop referring to the video. It is irrelevant to this already incredibly overlong discussion. We don't need any asides. And honest to God Pasdecomplot START INDENTING CORRECTLY. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Indentation. I have made this request MANY times. —valereee (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"In theory, if you moved a body just one inch in any direction, without fully lifting it (such that some part of it is still in contact with ground), technically you could be said to have "dragged" it." Exactly AzureCitizen. Floyd was dragged, on two pulls. Another discussion topic mentions the abrasions found on Floyd's left side of body. Could be related but YES, there still seems to be a lack of acceptable RS, at this point, except for the oxygen RS. Any other comments Levivich? (And, my excuses, I thought OS was part of the lexicon (a term from academic research=Original Source)). Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ai yi yi. —valereee (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help build a consensus. If RS chose to report on it, I'll propose the edit. Hopefully I won't be blocked - again - in retaliation. BTW, I see no one is indenting. The • is a better system IMO Levivich but be careful! Pasdecomplot (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, I did not block you in retaliation for anything. I blocked you for editing disruptively. I would ask you to please strike the personal attack, but as you clearly still haven't read WP:TALKPAGE, you probably don't know how. —valereee (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Arrest and death

I do not have good knowledge of the facts&documents or autopsies, but I'm worried that the structure of this section (arrest&death) having a middle section "Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck' and an end section where Floyd dies is tendentious unless it reported in the autopsies as specifically a strangulation (airway) rather than an asphyxia (diaphram). Admittedly I haven't had time to read anything, hence my comment here on the talk page is a question not a suggestion.

I really want to clarify that my thinking is not based on any facts, but just in my own mind there is a tangle of questions about what the notable sources say about the medical facts of death.

-is the misconception that if someone can speak they can breathe releavant to the other police actually sitting on Floyd, but not visible in the main video, and the well-known concept of positional asphyxia? Floyd said "My neck hurts, my stomach hurts" for example, and Chauvin says "Relax."

-is it clear that the knee on the neck caused suffocation? How does that work, technically or medically, compared to the effect of face-down handcuffed restraint with a number of individuals sitting on the back.

-Is it technically possible for someone to be suffocated by restriction of airway while able to speak, as opposed to positional suffocation where the diaphram is not able to move to the amount necessary to sustain life?

-What do notable sources say about the technical and medical truth about how the airway was restricted? Is it right to have sections suggesting that knee-in-neck caused suffocation? Didn't the uatopsies say someething less-specific, allowing other types of suffocation as possibilities?


Any manner of death is consistent with the notion of police institutionalized racism, but structuring the article to remove the role of the other officers seems to be trying to make a point rather than trying to represent what documentary evidence and notable sources are there.Createangelos (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Two autopsies found he dies due to asphyxiation, as a result of the officers action. It is not for us to examine the evidence, only report what RS have said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Exactly! Officers is plural. The section headings 'tell a story' about the actions of one officer. I haven't read anything (autopsies etc) and the organization of the article may be appropriate if it is clearly reported in the autopsies as exclusively a strangulation (airway) rather than an asphyxia (diaphram). Createangelos (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
No, Officers singular. Only one officer actually did the kneeling.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Multiple officers are already mentioned in that section. What specific changes are you suggesting?—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit conflict. Anyway I'm talking out of my butt because I haven't read anything. Positional asphyxia is where the diaphram can't move far enough to sustain life and there are articles talking about it in this case, but as I say I'm talking out of my butt. If the autopsies etc say it was an airway restriction caused by the action of one officer that is how the article should be structured, thanks for checking that for me. Createangelos (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Alt text

The picture is described in detail, but stating that Floyd is "not wearing a shirt" is a bit misleading - he is wearing a tank-top, even though it is hardly visible. (Forgive me, I put this minor detail in here, because I do not think it needs a parapraph of its own. 84.115.156.96 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Took me a while to figure out, but user is referring to the alt text for the image.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Whoa, per WP:MOSALT that alt text is ridiculous. —valereee (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I've deleted the alt text, the caption is sufficient. It's a photos of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck. —valereee (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not ridiculous. Unfortunately very few images on the project have ALTs as they should, so people aren't used to seeing complete ones. This one's more elaborate than most (and could be trimmed a bit, perhaps) but it's meant to allow a blind reader to "see" what the rest of us see, and it does. EEng 14:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
EEng, I think the alt doesn't add anything, by my reading of MOSALT. We aren't trying to describe the photo. We're only trying to convey what the photo communicates that text isn't communicating. I've added alts to multiple photos that need them. —valereee (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, and a picture is worth a thousand words. EEng 14:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the fact Chauvin is staring into the camera is probably the biggest thing, and that Floyd is on his stomach on the street. We don't need details about what letters are visible on the car. The alt text is supposed to be short. —valereee (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
From Primary source EEng "the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions can be used in library science, and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions" Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
No idea why you're posting that here in particular, but you'll notice at the top of that article it says For Wikipedia's policy on the use of primary sources, see WP:PRIMARY. That's where you need to be looking. EEng 22:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, thank you for indenting. I'll give some followup information on where to post the correctly-indented reply at your talk. It's something that confuses a lot of new editors! —valereee (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
EEng the info on original source is posted here since it became a topic of discussion here between editors; it also addresses your question, and statement that you, as a researcher, were not familiar with the term. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, now I see what you're saying. Look, researchers might throw around the phrase original source as a variant of primary source, but no one says, as you do, OS. You're just confusing everyone. EEng 11:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

[ < aligning left for easier reading again] Good, I'm glad you're now familiar with the term EEng. BTW and much more importantly, another topic, "Alt Text", superceded the original topic, "Use other video frame..." May I ask who made that decision - since the decision stopped the consensus process that Bagumba and IagoQnsi were also in on? To return to the original topic, the selected image is still like Lynching postcards, even though other RS use it. More thoughts or research into hundreds of other video image options? Chauvin's smile/ smirk/lack of visible concern is where the parallels to the postcards begin. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, I inserted the subsection head because an IP didn't know whether it needed its own section, and I decided it did. That insertion doesn't stop the consensus process above it. You can still continue that discussion up there. You can find instructions at WP:TALKPAGE, which once again I highly recommend you read as it explains all this stuff. —valereee (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Gosh, thanks valereee. I found WP:CFork, POV content forking which can disrupt consensus building, a big no-no. Is this correct? Or, is it sub-pages (sub-topics in this case) which should be defined in the topic's title, if I understood correctly. (But, this conversation should have been added on my talk page, no?) Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Pasdecomplot, I'm not following? (And the last time I added an explanation to your talk, you reverted it with an edit summary that said it was unwelcome there, which I took to mean you'd prefer I not post to your talk unnecessarily. I'm happy to continue this there if that's what you'd prefer.) —valereee (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot You can continue with the original topic above at #Use_other_video_frame_to_replace_lynching_photographs by posting before the start of the "Alt text" subsection. This is not a WP:CFORK; it was done to organize the talk page and keep threads more manageable. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Bagumba but it doesn't work on mobile equipment; another reason the sub-topic is a CFORK. Additionally, 'Alt text' is a different topic, completely. It should be kept separately. And since it's resolved, 'Alt text' could be archived to stop the CFORK of the original topic, which has not been able to build consensus one way or the other. What do you think? Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, very weird, the link comes up fine on my phone. No objection to archiving this section, but you're misunderstanding what a CFORK is. The reason I put Alt text as a subsection was because it was about the same general subject, the photo. —valereee (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot Restated, just post above the "Alt text" header.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Levivich what do you think? Can we archive 'Alt text' so that the original topic isn't forked? Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Ceci n'est pas une fork.
Ceci n'est pas also not a fork.
Well, it's really not a "fork". I think what you want is to promote this subheader from a level 3 (three ===) to a level 2 (==) header, and I never argue about what level header something should be, whatever people want is fine with me. The thread should be archived when it's done. Looks to me like this thread wandered off the reservation about three days ago, and I'm not sure if anyone has any remaining concerns about the alt text of the lead image. If so, whoever has such a concern should say so and we can try to herd this subthread back on topic; if not, we can let it roam free in the archives. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot The general feedback is that this is not a CFORK. First of all, talk pages arent content, and WP:CFORK is a shortcut for Wikipedia:Content forking. Secondly, for discussions, creating a separate section for different topics keeps discussions streamlined, and is a positive for organization.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Split

Hey, Mancalledsting, we did have consensus for that? —valereee (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion's been had, and one editor who wasn't paying attention isn't a reason for us to reopen it. EEng 20:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd Justice in Policing Act - Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

Please add:

"One month after George Floyd’s death, the US House of Representatives passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which, among other reforms, bans the use of chokeholds and some no-knock warrants at the federal level, creates a national registry to track police misconduct, and ends qualified immunity."

Sources:

Thank you. --87.170.193.132 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Partially done. There had been no mention of this, and until it gets to the Senate I'm not sure how much weight we need to put on it. No objection to someone else deciding to add more! —valereee (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal: Reactions to the killing of George Floyd

I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that splitting instead of removing bloat is bad policy, but the consensus here is pretty strong in favor of split. Even some of the opposes acknowledged that splitting would be preferable to what seemed like inevitable bloat. The arguments that the reactions section shouldn’t be split out because the article as a whole wasn’t yet long enough to require it didn’t sway me nearly as much as the arguments that the reactions section was long enough and complex enough to produce an article, and that it made up over half of an article that is about the death, not about the reactions. —valereee (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

Support split - This article is over 100 kB, and part of it should be split to a new article entitled Reactions to the killing of George Floyd. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support It's only going to get bigger. I think we'll eventually need Trial of Derek Chauvin too. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the reactions section instead. George Floyd protests is the article about the reaction... or at least, the reaction that is notable or significant enough to record in the encyclopedia. What media outlets have to say about the killing, what pundits have to say, what politicians have to say, what world governments have to say... none of that matters. I mean, "the world was horrified and condemned the killing"... duh... that's really all there is to say about "reactions". The protests, the legal cases, if there are any resulting changes to the law or police procedure.. these are the significant reactions; what everyone thinks about it is not significant. Second choice, support splitting. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think everything in the article is obvious, there is a lot of really significant stuff in there, like Floyd's family's reaction, Trump's comments, etc. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current readable prose size is 35 kB 31 kB. Per the rule-of-thumb guidance at WP:SIZERULE, "Length alone does not justify division". The current length is hardly unmanageable for readers. I would probably oppose at anything below "Probably should be divided", or 60 kB. Just for comparison purposes, Shooting of Michael Brown is at 61 kB and I don't recall any split proposals (that is, beyond at least one split that has already occurred, Ferguson unrest). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Updated RPS. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There has to be more of a reason than mere file size (I know of many articles with more than 100 kB size and no one had been complaining about their length), and I don't think "reaction" to the event should have its own article - that doesn't seem like the kind of thing someone would search for, amd if it isn't then why are we asking them to find a whole separate article? I do think that the Trial of Derek Chauvin would make sense though, when it comes. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose current article size does not seem to be a valid reason for splitting, per sizerule and sizesplit. And I think the "reactions section" has been managed well, so another rationale for not splitting - the content is under control. The section contains information directly relevant to this topic. So article management and topic relevance has been maintained considering the amount of editing that has happened with this article. So for now, it seems to belong with this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The section contains too much trivial and predictable detail ("the leader of Foobar said ..."). Such content is better placed in a separate article, so that it does not dominate the more important content of the main article. WWGB (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice there isn't a ton of material in the Reactions section and it is not over bloated, which again is a surprise considering the amount of editing and the number of editors. Anyway it is all relevant at this time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT As the tag at the top of the article reads "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings." That section can stand on its own. Category:Reactions Many articles split off their reactions to things. Dream Focus 03:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. We already have a protest article. I think for the time being we should decide what are the most significant reactions and place them here and/or in the protest article. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I support Darouet's proposal. Really good. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support of the split. I think it’s too soon but there is now a butterfly effect of major (even unprecedented) events happening because of it so, inevitably, it should be split. Trillfendi (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: since the article will grow. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support- I think we should give main articles to Floyd and Chauvin. These are now globally known individuals. George Floyd alone was the individual who’s murder startled worldwide protests. He deserves his own article because his life will be discussed in history books years from now. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support like trillfendi, for sure this article gets split at some point in the future, but do we need to do it today? As for now it is all in one nice place. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is very tightly related to the subject matter itself. So, unless this section becomes way too large (which might eventually happen), keep it here. --nafSadh did say 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:SIZERULE uses readable prose, not page length. Readable prose is just 31k characters. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, this falls into the category of "Length alone does not justify division". Splitting may be required in the future, but currently it would be very premature. Other premature splitting related to this event has caused information scattering, so I think some of these closer splits/merges need to wait until we better know where this is going. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all of the reasons stated above. As a side note, I think you should stop trying to split articles for the time being with no other justification other than size, which as mentioned above, "Length alone does not justify division." DTM9025 (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I think the reactions section can reliably be assumed to be growing quickly, particularly international observers (anecdotally, three more countries have made statements since I last checked a few hours ago). For major international events--which, by nature of the protests, this clearly meets--there's of course plenty of precedent; Reactions to the ROKS Cheonan sinking comes to mind for its comparable length. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Additional observation: the International reactions section of the George Floyd protests article I think shows that a third one is necessary. First, the international reactions are not very pertinent to protests per se, since they contain mostly statements by government bodies, heads of state, etc. Second, there is information there that does not appear to be in this article, and vice versa, even though both sub-sections nominally cover redundant content. A third article seems useful. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose also per ProcrasinatingReader: A negative consequence of splitting would be information scattering. The strength and breadth of these reactions are one key thing that makes the killing of George Floyd so different from other killings of black people by police. We should avoid that split until it's necessary. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted the section about "International community leaders"' reactions should probably be re-formatted as prose, and not bullet points, to avoid becoming a trivia-like list. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

i support this epic dubs woopwopp — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrailVenks (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support split some stuff listed on the article are either to big to be kept in the same article or doesn’t make sense to be on this article at all.BigRed606 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support No brainer, its a darn big section, and it is providing undue weight at the moment. Alternatively, if not split, it will need to be cut down to size to focus on just the most notable reactions. Though the article itself is not yet too big, the section is overwhelmingly large compared to the rest of the article, and seems to be growing much faster than the rest of the article. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - in present state of this section. For the reasons of readability. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Way too many noteable reactions to be squeezed into this page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support — agreeing with Levivich that the protests are the more tangible reactions, and they should not be given less weight in this article by simply being linked. Mouthpity (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Utterly predictable reactions by public officials, heads of state, celebrities, college presidents, corporate executives, and the pope, of the form "Our heart goes out to the family, sad commentary on our times, shocked and saddened, we pray for justice" etc etc and so on and so forth, enlighten the reader not at all and should be banished to a separate article where they will remain accessible for those doing statistical studies on the linguistics of mourning and consolation. In this article we should pass on a few RSs' brief summary of worldwide reactions; only reactions especially noteworthy for their stupidity (e.g. the Finnish "Pink Floyd" moron, and whatever Trump said) or their effectiveness of expression, or whatever, should be presented here. EEng 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The reactions and outrage isn't going to slow down anytime soon, splitting now is a good premptive step. Aza24 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support it's to big to navigate effectively Blindlynx (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, for many reasons, including that this article is already far too long. Geo Swan (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support it's too big and to hard to read 21928namtran (talk) 15:34, 11 June (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't see any reason to create a new article about such a specific topic. Articles about reactions to certain terrorist attacks have been deleted for similar reasons. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose For a few reasons. 1) The article is not that long in view of its importance and I don't see how it affects the "readability" of the article at all. 2) Reactions to George Floyd's death is largely the reason why this article is so important; 3) probably most important: there is already a very substantial article George Floyd protests (and subarticle progeny) that is directed to the presumptive growth other statements assume will be needed by the response section. It is unclear where proponents of moving the "Reactions" content want to put this material. They are not arguing this information is irrelevant. Instead, I believe that it is incredibly relevant to this subject--"the killing of George Floyd" and should not be divorced from this article. Msherby (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: according to the DYKcheck tool, there are approximately 32200 characters of readable prose. According to WP:SIZERULE, that corresponds to about 32 kB of readable prose. WP:SIZERULE also says that for things less than 40 kB of readable prose, "length alone does not justify division."  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The killing of George Floyd had a chain reaction which deserves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leahedits (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel like a lot of that section's excess in content comes from the international section, which can be compressed to a few sentences summarizing international world leaders' reactions. We don't need verbatim statements from every single world leader; it's redundant and beats the dead horse. Love of Corey (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WP:SIZESPLIT. Krakkos (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - per nom; also the article itself is too big. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 17:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - We have yet another bloated reactions section that should, by now, be given its own page of sorts. RopeTricks (talk) 10:01, 22 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.

Requested move 1 July 2020

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

The result of the move request was: not moved, SNOW close. Reading the previous two move discussions (here and here), I see a consensus to not move the article to "Murder" until and unless there is a court conviction. There is clear support for that position here as well, nothing suggests that consensus has changed in the past month, and neither the nominator nor any supporters have advanced a policy-based rationale in this discussion to supersede that consensus - WP:COMMONNAME was cited in a previous discussion, but I do not see citations of reliable sources to back that up. Additionally, I am reimplementing a moratorium on the topic of renaming to "Murder of George Floyd", and since I note that this RM was filed the day the previous moratorium expired, I am extending it to run for the next six months or until a conviction is made, whichever comes first. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


Killing of George Floyd → Murder of George Floyd – The article should now move, given the level of evidence here, per WP:CENSOR. The move aligns with other articles, where there isn't a conviction yet, but the facts and coverage from WP:RS are clear. For example, see Murder of Seth Rich, Murder of Tupac Shakur and Murder of XXXTentacion. I would also note that the Tupac and XXXTentacion articles mention possible suspects, which I will assume to be a point some editors might make. While WP:CRIME states that, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law," that is for the notability of a person. The article is about an event, not an article about Derek Chauvin. As such, the article should call the event what it is. It can continue to use WP:BLPCRIME for Mr. Chauvin. Casprings (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Seth Rich, Tupac Shakur, and XXXTentacion were all shot, which, among other reasons, makes for poor comparison. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • So the method of murder matters in deciding on how to name something? Going to be hard to find an article about a murder done by a similar method as this one.Casprings (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Of course it matters. You say "The move aligns with other articles", but you don't link to any recent RMs. Here's one: Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors#Requested move 2 June 2020. You say "the facts and coverage from WP:RS are clear" but you don't link to any RS (because most RSes don't call it "murder"). You say "the article should call the event what it is" but what is it? You say "the method of murder" but who says it's murder? You? Me? Not a court; not yet. "Murder" is a legal determination, by definition, "murder" means an unlawful killing (with intent or recklessness and without legal justification). We don't know if this killing is lawful or unlawful until the law, i.e. a court, decides. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Per request, a recent move review that rejected moving Murder of Seth Rich to Killing of Seth Rich. Funny how Murder of Tupac Shakur and Murder of XXXTentacion manage to call it a "murder" and have no court room verdict and also name suspects. .Casprings (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Lets see what else I can add here. All articles that name suspects and the event is called a murder: Murder of the Notorious B.I.G., Murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson - Manslaughter conviction, not murder,Murder of Vincent Chin - Manslaughter conviction, not murder, Murder of Harry and Harriette Moore,Murder of Kenneth Salvesen,Murder of Adam Walsh,Murder of Matthew Burns... and I could continue, but you get the point. The argument that "murder" is a legal standard and you have to have a conviction in court to have "murder" in the title is total nonsense. Murder means another person was illegally killed by another person. If we can say that, per WP:RSes, you should say it. Here, I think you clearly can and we should.Casprings (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
          • You just wrote (emphasis added): The argument that "murder" is a legal standard and you have to have a conviction in court to have "murder" in the title is total nonsense. Murder means another person was illegally killed by another person. I'm not sure how you reconcile those two sentences. The one RM that you linked to was a defeated move from "murder" to "death", not from "killing" to "murder". You have yet to link to any RSes. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Pretty simple, actually. You don’t need a legal proceeding to evaluate reality. You can made a judgement based on facts and WP:RS. A hypothetical. If Wikipedia was around in 1955, after the murder trial Emmett Till, would it be okay to title an article about his killing as “The murder of Emmett Till” or would Wikipedia have to use Killing because of the innocent verdict?Casprings (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
              • I'd be nicer if it wasn't for me knowing that you already know better than to waste time with an RM like this. You've linked to zero RSes and one RM. Go click on the link to the RM you posted, and read your own !vote, and it's right there, the answer to your question about Emmett Till and George Floyd. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
                • What are you talking about? In that discussion, I simply argued there argument of WP:BLPCRIME was impossible to make because there was no named suspect. That doesn't, in turn, mean that I believe you can't put murder in the title if there is a suspect. Should we rename Murder of Tupac Shakur or take out the name of Orlando Anderson? As far as citing RS sources, I think the use of Murder is well supported within WP:RS. You are welcome to do an advanced google search, as I have. That said, we have to move past this WP:BLPCRIME strawman first.Casprings (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
                  No, in that discussion, you said Oppose Per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. You know very well that the only time there is consensus to title an article "murder" when there hasn't been a conviction is if it's the COMMONNAME. Yet you aren't even attempting to make that argument here. I suspect that's because you also know that it's not the COMMONNAME for the killing of GF (or at least not yet).
                  I'm mostly annoyed because there was a 30-day move moratorium - you had 30 days to get ready for this - and on the first day it's lifted, you posted this very half-assed RM that cites no previous RMs for precedent, and no sources to make the COMMONNAME argument. Not only did you not address BLPCRIME and COMMONNAME, you didn't even link to them in your original RM. Instead, you argued a straw man about a notability guideline (WP:CRIME), while not address any of the concerns raised in previous discussions about this titling issue.
                  In doing so, you have made it harder for anyone else who wanted to make a move request to "murder of", by making a really weak argument in favor of "murder of", which will probably now result in consensus against "murder of". In other words, you've squandered an opportunity and wasted your colleague's time. It's requested moves like this that lead to move moratoriums in the first place. Next time you open an RM, put in the effort to make an argument based on actual policy and consensus, and that actually addresses other editors' concerns about the proposed move. You had a whole month to figure this out. Frankly I was hoping my research was incomplete and after the move moratorium was lifted, someone would come here with sources to make the COMMONNAME argument in support of this move. Oh well. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Murder involves intent, and in this case, it has to be proven in a court of law. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There has been no judicial finding of murder in this matter. WWGB (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The OP apparently didn't read the cogent and masterfully written FAQ at the top of this page. EEng 03:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I did. Where is the link to where consensus was established on this. All I am tracking is one move request that was a procedural close.Casprings (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
      Casprings, See Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_1#Requested_move_27_May_2020, which is at the very top of this page. The subsequent procedural close one month ago, to a request you started, was because your move request was opened the very day after the close of the very well attended move discussion. In your request a month ago you indicated you knew about the previous move. Yesterday, on the very day of the end of the move prohibition, you create yet another move request to "Murder of". This is a well exhausted topic, a lot of points were made, and consensus has been reiterated across many related discussions in the archives. Nothing has changed in facts to imply that consensus might've changed, and the flurry of oppose votes here clearly shows that. We can revisit the name when the legal case is concluded. In the meantime, perhaps kindly WP:DROPTHESTICK. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose No sense re-hashing this. Ergo Sum 04:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unlike the other articles mentioned by the nominator, there is an active prosecution in progress. We should wait until the criminal prosecution concludes. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Besides for the Seth Rich article, those articles mention suspects. So by your logic that THIS article is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, but you can name suspects in article titled "murder" but with not even a prosecution.Casprings (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
      • If a "Murder of" article has an active criminal prosecution ongoing, then it should be moved to a different title. Wikipedia does not get to determine if something was a murder, and for that matter neither do "reliable sources". Only a jury gets to do that in the United States. Cold cases like the Seth Rich case are a bit of a different situation, but not a case with an active prosecution. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the FAQ says, there is an ongoing legal process and we should wait until there is a murder conviction.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Murder involves conviction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose No certainty of guilt—conviction is needed. We already had an analogous discussion. --Foghe (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - No conviction of murder. The article should be moved to "Death of George Floyd". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Jax 0677 "Killing" is not a legal determination. I don't believe any RS dispute that Floyd was killed. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Temporary Opposition - No conviction is yet made, and we would be in breach of neutrality if we did not let law take it's cause. Although in mine, and probably many other editors opinions it should be support we must wait for sufficient evidence and a conviction.Wurbl (User talk:Wurbl) 16:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, as evidence in reliable sources supports that he was murdered (unjustifiable homicide). Relying on the US to determine this is a poor idea. The US Department of Justice is led by one of the most corrupt officials in US history. Corruption, lies, and spread of false information is rampant, all the way up to, and especially, the president. If White House press briefings or Barr's/Trump's statements were subjected to WP:RSP, they would be deemed "generally unreliable", at least. ɱ (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thank goodness nobody is relying on the US to determine if it was murder. :-) The US Dept. of Justice has nothing to do with it.
    Chauvin is charged with murder in state court. It will be a county jury (possibly Hennepin County, possibly a different county) that decides whether or not he is guilty of murder. It is the Attorney General of Minnesota, not the US DOJ, who is prosecuting those charges. The trial will be presided over by a District Court of Minnesota judge. Appeals will be to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court (and only then, possibly but highly unlikely, to the Supreme Court of the United States, in which case the US DOJ still wouldn't be involved, as the case would be between Chauvin and Minnesota). The US DOJ is not involved in the murder prosecution at all.
    There is a parallel federal investigation going on, and the US DOJ may bring criminal charges against the officers in federal court. Those charges would almost certainly be for civil rights violations, and not for murder, because the federal government almost certainly lacks jurisdiction to charge these officers for murder.
    Also, we still have no links to RSes that support "murder". Can we get an example of the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS... even Fox News or CNN... anyone like that calling it "murder" in their own voice? (I haven't found any, but they might be out there.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Murder is a legal determination, which has not yet occurred. Per BLPCRIME this can't be called a murder until someone is convicted of murder for this death. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Killing is when you are driving...get in a car accident and someone dies..murder is intentional..I know what you`re going to say don`t bother..he methodically killed the guy with intent in broad daylight..there can be no debate as to what happened as it was caught on video...what happened to a fair and speedy trial ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:E15A:2C5D:2047:A608 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
— 2600:1702:2340:9470:E15A:2C5D:2047:A608 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It's precisely because the accused parties deserve a fair trial that we don't call this a murder until someone is convicted of murder. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Murder is a legal determination and making that call before due process and without legal authority would be an open act of political activism, which is definitely not wikipedia's alley. Fbergo (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose No legal determination has been made yet. Yannkemper (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of WP:BLPCRIME and the FAQ's Q4. Until a conviction is in place, "killing" is the most inclusive and least controversial term to use. Impru20talk 10:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I knew a move request was going to be made the day the prohibition ended. Glad we can get it out of the way quickly so we can request another month's prohibition after this. It isn't a murder, because murder is a legal term, and no conviction has been made. It's a killing because it's a homicide, and killing isn't a legal term. WP:NPOV, WP:BLPCRIME, yada yada. Why do we keep wasting editors' time and energy over points that have been exhausted to hell and back? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:20, 2 July 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.

BRD - Officers' previous alleged conduct

This is one of many ongoing discussions about the killing of George Floyd and it relates to the previous conduct of the officers who were involved in killing him. There is a clear consensus that information about their previous conduct may be included, but the devil is in the details. Far fewer editors commented on which information about their previous conduct may appropriately be concluded, but among those few, the clear consensus is that reprimands may be included, but allegations that came to nothing should be omitted.
Logically, this means that although an edit should be made as a result of this RfC, the specific wording of Gobonobo's edit doesn't have consensus support. New wording should be drafted.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

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

  • User:EvergreenFir, don't you mean "directly unrelated"? To me, it seems directly related: there is a man who dies of excessive force, and the cop with his knee on his neck, and a cop standing by doing nothing, were known of having used excessive force. How is that not relevant? And there is no comparison with the Arbery case--Arbery was the victim. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I do mean unrelated. Thank you. And in my view, the general exclusion of "past misdeeds" goes for all parties. While I completely understand why it's being reported, I do not think Wikipedia should include it unless it because part of the facts of the case. BLP applies to these officers as well (including WP:BLPCRIME). EvergreenFir (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to fight over this, and I know the BLP applies, but the facts presented here strike me as directly relevant. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Allegations of excessive force are just that: allegations. It does not mean they were "known of having used excessive force". This might be rebutted if the terms of the settlement acknowledged wrongdoing and, specifically, excessive force. However, this is not a necessary aspect of a settlement. In essence, you have unproven allegations which cannot indicate whether this incident is an instance of excessive force. I do think that if the officer's (unproven) past is retained, then it makes sense to have the decedent's past in the article. Both achieve the same end: allowing the audience to speculate about the incident. If we want speculation, we ought to make it balanced. Perennial Student (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: A victim's criminal record is not relevant to a case like this. A perpetrator's record is directly related and in this case has been properly reported in multiple reliable sources per WP:NPOV. If OP were taken seriously, we'd have to remove significant portions of Jeffrey Dahmer's early life section because he was never convicted of killing animals or underage drinking. Kire1975 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Dahmer is long dead, so that comparison falls flat. I'll reiterate that in nearly every case like this, the histories of both parties are often brought up to attempt to paint a character portrait. Often, for black victims, the intent is to show the victim "wasn't a saint" to justify the killing/murder (especially by white officers). I always fight those on the grounds they are UNDUE unless they come up in court (in which case we should mention it in the trial portion, not the biography portion). But what's good for the goose... this should apply to the alleged perpetrators too. IMO, it's just a matter of time before we add that material but we should wait until the presumptive court filings. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Facts are facts, per WP:CRYBLP. Removing these facts because it reflects poorly on some guys who stood on a guy's neck for seven minutes while he was crying "Mama Mama" and did nothing but say "Don't do drugs kids" until he died before they get a chance to defend themselves in court is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Kire1975 (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, there is the possibility that the decedent's history is relevant (as has been pointed out below iirc). This is if it were known that the victim had a violent past to the officers and in turn caused increased anxiousness on the part of the arresting officers to control the victim. This is not known and, perhaps rightly, it ought not be included unless it demonstrated. But it's not true that criminal history necessarily bears no relevance to the incident. Perennial Student (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose; agree with Kire1975 and their reasoning above. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support including Chauvin's history. Amy Klobuchar opted not to prosecute him when she was Hennepin County DA in 2006. This could impact her in the Biden veepstakes. It's getting considerable coverage and seems highly relevant to this case.[10][11] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support or Oppose depends on whether the relevance to the article is clearly established and any material complies with Wiki rules for living persons 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:6 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support including Chauvin's history. It is relevant and it is covered in multiple RS. It also helps explains Chauvin's action. It is clear from media coverage that this was not a one-off and this article should reflect that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support including whatever portions of the officers' histories are treated as significant by RSes. I'd say that's at least their professional disciplinary histories, and possibly also matters beyond that. Also, can this be un-pinned and closed? Is it still a live issue? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in as much capacity as it is reported in RS. Levivich and Quinn said it well.--Calthinus (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support including police officers history. I think it is important context as they are the aggressor. In contrast as George Floyd was not the aggressor and had the action done to him. I don't feel his past convictions are relevant as his actions are not in dispute. --Evertent (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion of past records of police at this stage, per arguments of EvergreenFir, that consistency demands it pre-trial. In this particular instance, it is very difficult to see what these officers could possibly do to more completely destroy their own credibility than they have already done. However the inclusion of this info cannot serve any useful purpose, except to further prejudice opinion against them - characterise them as bad beyond what they have themselves done and allowed to be witnessed and filmed. In many European countries (inc UK), the publishing of this info before or during a trial would constitute contempt of court, since it makes actual trial little more than a 'rubber-stamp' of the 'court of public opinion'. Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support including Chauvin's history. RS reveal that he has had a disciplinary history revealing problematic behavior throughout his career. This is directly relevant to the case. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion, less because of what it says about the officers individually than because of what it says about police departments' appalling tolerance of criminals in their own ranks. EEng 13:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We should not report allegations of prior misconduct by either the officers or Mr. Floyd. Allegations against the officers where no findings or discipline resulted do not mean that misconduct occurred— anyone can file a complaint. Records of Floyd's prior arrests also mean nothing, especially given the racial disparity in arrests. It is arguable whether actual adverse findings in either situation are relevant, but we should not invite the reader to draw inferences from mere allegations of misconduct. Kablammo (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Kablammo—don't we have a section on this page where you can address whether we can address information about George Floyd? Furthermore, prison sentences should not be construed as "allegations of prior misconduct" as they follow on convictions legally obtained. And additionally you say "we should not invite the reader to draw inferences". That is correct. I agree that we should not write in a way that invites the reader to "draw inferences". On the other hand we should not deliberately omit relevant information prominently found in sources. That is suppression of information. Fortunately Wikipedia is not censored. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support including information on Chauvin's history as a policeman. Obscurely sourced information on Chauvin's history as a policeman should be omitted but prominently sourced information about Chauvin's history as a policeman should be included. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 6 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.

Missouri Republican candidate conspiracy theory

The fact that a candidate for Congress promoted a conspiracy theory about George Floyd's death was quite notable. It was picked up by quite a few sources: The Daily Beast, Salon, The Sun, Newsweek, The Hill, just to name a few. Banana Republic (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are already well-covered in the article, there is no benefit in naming individuals or political parties. WWGB (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Well covered? It's a single sentence.
No benefit to naming individuals or political parties? then it leaves open the question of who is promoting the conspiracy theories.
Banana Republic (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
It's still early, but if any one theory gets called out more than the others, it should have some sort of specific mention. Nothing extensive, but we go where the sources go. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Floyd's criminal past

This high-visibility Request for Comment ("RfC") may well be read by non-Wikipedians, so I will try to explain what the community has decided here in terms that are accessible to those who don't know our ways. I apologise for the long closing statement.
Firstly, if it seems weird that I, a white person who isn't even American, seem to be making decisions about what our Wikipedia article says, then this is an illusion. I'm "closing" the discussion, not making decisions: the role of closer is to write a few paragraphs of text that explains what the Wikipedia community has decided in the discussion below. This might look like a poll, and someone has even decided to number the contributions for us, but it's not a poll and it can't be, because it's so easy to register an account here. They're not votes, so we borrow a bit of computer programmer terminology and call them "!votes" where the "!" means "not". Wikipedia uses a rough consensus model where the !votes are re-weighted in accordance with our policies and guidelines. A lot of the alphabet soup ("POV", "BLP" etc.) in the discussion is shorthand for those policies and guidelines.
As Bagumba notes below, the matter is complexified by the fact that earlier contributions to the RfC, including 30+ of the "yes" !votes, were made before we had a separate article on Floyd, so at that time this was the only place to put the information. I have dealt with this by giving lower weight to those "yes" !votes which were (1) made before George Floyd's separate article came into existence and (2) gave a wish to include basic biographical details as their sole reason for !voting "yes".
Wikipedia is constrained to a neutral point of view ("NPOV"); things that aren't NPOV are called "POV". The key policy considerations here are the policy paragraph at WP:DUE and the one at WP:BLP, which stands for "biographies of living people" but in practice includes the recently-deceased such as Mr Floyd.
The other key rule we have here is that where there isn't a consensus to make a change, the status quo ante continues. In this case, the status quo ante is not to mention Mr Floyd's criminal history in the article about his killing.
After weighting the votes, I do not find a consensus in this discussion. This means that the outcome is not to change the article from its current form.
I hope this helps. If you have any comments, queries or complaints about this close please direct them to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

Yes

  1. Yes of course it should be included because it is notable. If there's going to be a biographical section on Floyd then it is censorship to include only details that tend towards one kind of portrayal. 95.144.47.53 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. I think so... biographical details about both Floyd and Chauvin are relevant to the case because they are the primary characters. Biographical details includes their personalities, a brief description of their life, including criminal history if significant. Having info on Floyd, both good and bad, is better than having nothing on him. This is an encyclopedia, and details are often relevant even if they are not directly connected by the article's title. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Yes. If we are going to have a biography section for the individual, then the fact that (BLP violation removed) is probably a more important biographical detail than the fact that he liked basketball and hip-hop ("essential facts" which we currently deem important enough to include in the biography section of George Floyd). CrimeChecker (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)— CrimeChecker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    CrimeChecker, how is that relevant to the death of George Floyd?, the topic of this article. Notice that we have a biography of living person policy on Wikipedia and that policy also applies to those who recently died. You are not allowed to make accusations without any evidence. The DailyMail is a tabloid and is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia ever. I have removed your WP:BLP violation. Please don't do that again.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    ^this editor was created today. Their comment should be ignored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    You can verify the Daily Mail screenshot by going to the Harris County Clerk website yourself. However, it requires creating an account and logging in. Lcaa9 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    Lcaa9, actually you don't need to create an account. You can search on harriscountyso.org using SPN 01610509. – RossJ81 Talk/Cont 21:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  4. Yes, because it's relevant to even a short account of his life. Jim Michael (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Yes, because it is an important part of his biography and has been reported widely. There is no reason to suppress it, and in fact suppressing it could be considered POV. BLP certainly does apply to him, as a recently deceased person, but BLP says we can include negative information if it has multiple reliable sources. The officer’s previous record should also be included, as it currently is. See my suggested wording under "discussion" below. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Yes. It is important to provide context. If the page mentions Floyd's background as a rapper and high school athlete, it should mention the rest of his life prior to his death. KidAd (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. Yes, because whole his life should be briefly described and because this is something noted in RS on the subject of his death [12]. It is relevant because RS say it is relevant. All previous complaints with regards to involved police officers should also be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  8. Yes, unless the biographical summary sticks to the bare basics like at Shooting of Trayvon Martin (birth & where he lived, studied or worked at the time of his death). As it stands we mention Floyd's sporting and musical interests etc, but not this significant part of his life story. Jevansen (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    That's not a reasonable comparison, because Trayvon Martin has his own article, which is why the article on the event only has a small amount of background info on him. Jim Michael (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  9. Yes. If the history of George Floyd is removed, then the police officer's history should also be removed. Otherwise, this page is not neutral. Lcaa9 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  10. Yes, because a reader invests time in reading a Wikipedia article with the expectation of being informed about a topic. Virtually all of the best quality sources include material pertaining to who George Floyd was. He was a person most recently put out of work by the coronavirus pandemic. This is not presently in the article and this should be included in the article. George Floyd was an ex-convict. Being an ex-convict is not like being a person from a privileged walk of life. The status of ex-convict puts one at a distinct disadvantage in life. George Floyd was an ex-convict since 2014. His life had been a struggle, relative to someone from a privileged walk of life. He worked many odd jobs. This should be noted in the article. George Floyd relocated from Houston to Minneapolis to try to find work. This should be in the article. "After he struggled to find work in Houston, he left the city for Minneapolis...There, he worked two jobs, one driving trucks and another as a security guard at Latin American restaurant Conga Latin Bistro." George Floyd literally spoke out on social media against youthful gun violence. In a recent video on social media, he spoke out against gun violence, saying: "Our young generation is clearly lost". This should be included in the article. It is normal to include peripheral information in an article of this sort. Furthermore the incarceration rate is extremely high in the US relative to the rest of the world and this population is comprised decidedly of people of color. It is therefore especially problematic that we suppress this information. George Floyd's life was tragic from many perspectives. Five years wasted in prison, only to be unlawfully killed by police 6 years after getting out of prison. Our article should delineate some of these aspects of George Floyd's tragic life as this is amply supported in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  11. Yes, it is part of his identity and life context explaining his journey that brought him to be in Minneapolis. This is why reliable sources find it notable. I suggest the copy below at the beginning of "Discussion" by Melanie is notable, as a reliable source found it notable. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  12. Yes, the best sources we have pretty much have all written about this. We summarize secondary sources; there is no reason to exclude this from our summary of the incident. However, what exactly to include, and how to word it, are all questions that need to handled carefully, following the lead of the top sources. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  13. Yes, were are doing the same for the accused cops why not for the victim. // Eatcha (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  14. Yes, since people have the right to know and not suspect that Wikisconceals something lkitross (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  15. Yes, especially if we are including other BLP details widely reported in RSs, such as Floyd being described as a "gentle giant" and the officer's previous disciplinary records. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  16. Yes, especially since the current version of this page includes the sentence "he was described as a 'gentle giant' by friends and family" with absolutely no mention of the other side of him—his criminal record. Either take out that sentence to better paint a more neutral picture, or include his other life details. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should not be trying to paint biased portrayals by omitting details that would change a reader's perspective on a person. Filia Pirate (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  17. Absolutely. Not only should the coverage on this topic be neutral, but it will also be useful due to the very reason provided above this. The man was not innocent throughout his entire life, and should not be treated as such, while the officer receives a full-on biography over the incident. 180app (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  18. Yes; if prior actions by a police officer are relevant and included to establish a propensity for violence (ie. Officer X has been involved in three shootings and was now involved in this fatal incident, so his past actions show he may have been violent here too), then the victim's criminal record, especially one indicating violence, is very relevant when the police argue that he was resisting arrest (which would be an issue of the victim using violence against the police). There is no other reason for including the police officer's history if not to argue for a propensity for violence; an otherwise unblemished career would no doubt have gone unremarked. Either way, for balance sake alone, the victim's criminal history is relevant as long as it is relevant to delve into the background of the officer (or officers) involved, and incident is not being described in a vacuum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.111.153 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  19. Yes - it has large WP:WEIGHT of coverage, is part of his life, and is part of what the Police chief said about him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  20. Yes; it's a significant part of the story, it's covered by RS, and there is no justification for censorship. That said, WP:BDP would probably apply to any specific additions. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  21. Yes absolutely. This is likely irrelevant to the court case, but relevant to the whole story for context. The article includes other biographical details on Floyd (music, basketball, kids) and ends up painting a distorted picture of him. Some would suggest that these details need to be removed too but I think many readers would be interested to know who the alleged victim was. Omitting this widely reported information is censorship. For instance reliable sources claim that from 2014 Floyd had turned his life around. Now this information has been omitted too (for it would have raised questions as to what was there to turn around in the first place). Russian Wikipedia includes one sentence about his criminal record and a reference (to an English newspaper article). That would be reasonable here too. BorisG (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  22. Yes - if there is going to be a biography section in the article, which there is, and which draws on such things as his school athletics record, then it should certainly also mention his prior significant interaction with the legal system. For completeness it should also include the evidence that in more recent years he was reformed and spoke out to turn young people in his community away from crime and violence. Include this huge part of his life, or remove the biographies of persons involved from the article. Can't have it both ways. 79.64.157.123 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  23. Yes - it is highly relevant to the death of George Floyd. A significant issue is whether he resisted arrest, and knowing that he had numerous experiences with law enforcement factors factors into the plausibility of this. It would be harder to believe a 46 year old man with no criminal record or history of assault or drug use would be combative with police than someone who does. So in concealing this information, wikipedia would be trying to deceive the reader. It makes the article propaganda, instead of impartial information. It is analogous to if police-supporters tried to delete ex-officer Derek Chauvin's previous complaints, disciplinary record, and shootings. On a human level, it denies the reader to obtain a fuller sense of the tragedy, because Floyd was attempting to turn his life around after being released from prison in 2014, so this facts (and dates) of his criminal past are not entirely negative. They contribute to the big picture of the person who died. Leaving it out would harm the perception of Wikipedia as an objective resource. Walterego (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Walterego: Can you point to RS coverage that he resisted arrest? Regards SoWhy 14:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, it is described in the coverage of the charge against ex-officer Derek Chauvin, the warrant describes Floyd resisting twice and cites the various videos and testimony from the other officers. It says he resisted being handcuffed, then was compliant for a short time once cuffed, and then resisted being put into the police vehicle. "Officer Lane handcuffed Mr. Floyd. Mr. Floyd actively resisted being handcuffed.....officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of squad 320 from the driver's side. Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers." https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/derek-chauvin-criminal-complaint-trnd/index.html https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/29/read-murder-complaint-details-george-floyds-last-minutes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterego (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Walterego:This more recent article from CNN interviews eyewitness reports that Floyd was not resisting arrest. The owner of Cup Foods, who originally called the police said in this interview that Floyd was not resisting arrest. Terasaface (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  24. Yes, but only briefly. I pondered this for a while but in the end, this is something RS have reported widely and thus needs to be included to maintain NPOV. However, one sentence should be sufficient and the phrasing should make it clear that at the time of his death, he was not under any restrictions or actively under investigation, i.e. that him being picked up by the police was not related to prior felonies (and by all accounts, the officers in question had no knowledge of those prior convictions when they restrained him). Regards SoWhy 14:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  25. Just be sure to point out that repeated scrapes with the law are capital crimes in Minnesota. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  26. Yes This is making Wikipedia look like an unreliable source and people are already making fun of Wikipedia on social media because of this. While the record has been covered by most major news organizations such as BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, ABC News, NYT/AP, Global News, Al Jazeera and local Texas Monthly;[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and added by numerous unaffiliated people and keep getting removed by the same person, remove-arguers have offered no other real argument except it's too unrelated to the case (even though it's obviously related) and belongs at his "upcoming own article". Where as if you look around the spot where people have been adding it, there are long yawnsome details of athletic experiences and musical affiliations and then of the police officers similar past infractions. There has also been a sentence with citation needed there for a long time! The purpose of this from the start doomed "discussion" is only to play time against something that is extremely well-sourced and clearly more relevant than everything surrounding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.205.116 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  27. Yes Of course. Why was the police called for him in the first place ? Because he was accused of using a fake 20$ bill. Using counterfeit money is a crime. George Floyd's criminal tendencies has led him to commit a crime that would be the cause of the police being called on him and ultimately leading him to his death 51.154.221.239 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    What? I favor including this information, but not for the reason you are presenting. His death is not because he allegedly committed the offense of using counterfeit money. The police handling the arrest were immediately fired and one was arrested—for good reason. One officer used unjustified force for an extended period of time—that caused death. The other officers stood around idly and did not prevent the officer who was in physical contact with George Floyd from inflicting harm on him. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  28. Yes to the limited extent proposed by SoWhy, no more than that. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  29. Yes. It gives compelling information on the backgrounds of both. Apparently Floyd "had landed five years behind bars in 2009 for an assault and robbery two years earlier, and before that, had been convicted of charges ranging from theft with a firearm to drugs" (NY Post), and for the Daily Mail "he entered a woman’s home, pressed a gun into her stomach and searched the home for drugs and money, according to court records" (Daily Mail). This doesn't look to me as an easy person to deal with—it's important to explain thoroughly, we need to WP:avoid victimization. --Foghe (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  30. Yes, because Floyd's previous experience with police(apprehension/arrest) indicates, that he would know that there are consequences to either complying with or resisting arrest. The officer's handling of Floyd is based on Floyd's behavior (resisted getting into the police car). Whether or not the officer's handling was disproportionate to Floyd's action. Lechatmarbre (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  31. Yes, I do not see why not. His past is very much related and is covered in reliable sources. --nafSadh did say 19:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  32. Yes - His past is covered in reliable sources so I see no reason to not include it here. –Davey2010Talk 20:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  33. Yes, for WP:NPOV reasons and to provide a full account, but making clear that the officers who restrained him weren't doing so in relation to his past crimes. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  34. Yes, because it is variable, notable and relevant:
    • It is verifiable through official records.[9]
    • It is a notable part of his biography: this wasn't a single misdemeanor in his childhood, there are a number of felony convictions over a long period of time that therefore had a significant impact on his life.
    • It is relevant to the article because he was killed by a police officer after being accused of a crime, so it is indicative of his past experience with the criminal justice system.
    – RossJ81 Talk/Cont 21:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  35. Yes reliable sources talk about Floyd being an armed robber: BBC:[13]. He was also arrested accused of using a fake 20 dollar bill. So his crimes are relevant to the article. Also the wikipedia article contains background info about him playing basketball and working at a restaurant, how can someone claim that is relevant to his death but him being an armed robber is not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  36. Yes credible sources have discussed Floyd's criminal record. As long as remains in his biographical section I don't see a problem with it, Wikipedia is not censored. For those who are saying it's not relevant to his death, you're right its not, but neither is pretty much everything else in his biographical section. That section is supposed to discuss Floyd's background and his past criminal record is part of his background. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  37. Yes since factual biographical information that is relevant because if nothing else it speaks to Floyd's familiarity with the police & criminal justice system TcomptonMA (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  38. comment I think that if Floyd's criminal history is mentioned as a part of his personal background, then since this is an article about his killing by a police officer we must also include the former officer Chauvin's record as well. Chauvin had 18 prior complaints against him and has been involved in more than one other case of a citizen dying at the hands of police. Terasaface (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  39. Yes We need to list that information about him. A lot of news media mentions it, and if reliable sources believe its a notable aspect of this situation, we should also include it here. Dream Focus 22:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  40. Yes He had a violent criminal past. The officers say he was resisting. Some say he wasn't. His violent tendencies may well be considered relevant to readers. John2510 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  41. Yes (Redacted) Actor on The Flash was fired because of him. See the tweets (from 8 years ago) he was fired for, this is insanity. I never cared about all of this. But I love that actor and want to support him. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    1. That's got to be one of the worst cases of victim blaming I've ever seen. The murdered man being blamed for the misdeeds of others (like Sawyer) who have gotten in trouble for their racism. SMH. -- Valjean (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
      1. So fast to jump to conslusions. Sigh. The story also includes cyberbulling of that actor and looking for dirt, the tweets were not racist, only mysogenestic and the only one who liked his videos 8 years ago was black... and gay. Ah yes, the black woman that controlled her big cyberbulling army was already arrested once for that but still continues to do so, to destroy whiteness, racism, etc. The worst part for me is that even "the Flash" actor mocked the guy for that. People are very heartbroken under that mocking post and so am I. I commented in that actor's wiki talk page, if you for a second will forget that you are a liberal or whatever. 2A00:1370:812C:D131:2DBE:3EB:E942:5E8D (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
        1. Saying that Floyd "destroyed so many lives" because he was killed is just wrong. Don't blame the victim. Take your concerns about Sawyer elsewhere, as this article is about Floyd. -- Valjean (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  42. Yes Numerous RSs detail this and omission here would be noncompliant with NPOV.--MONGO (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  43. Yes, briefly. Plenty of reliable sources consider his background relevant. Obviously his involvement in the local ministry in the last few years should also be mentioned. Alaexis¿question? 05:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  44. Yes per Walterego. Numerous RSs have mentioned this as a part of the background to the topic so it is worth mentioning it in this article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  45. Yes as it's very relevant to the entire situation. Also mention Chauvin's misdemeanor (or whatever is called) record.Fendergenderbender (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  46. Yes to a limited extent, as it was a part of his life. We can mention the conviction without specifically calling him a "criminal". Only use the best sources and don't go into too much detail. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  47. Yes based on all the arguments above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  48. Yes - it is important for the sake of accuracy to publish all pertinent information in an effort to properly inform our readers in an encyclopedic fashion. Atsme Talk 📧 11:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  49. Yes Floyd's most egregious crime, the home invasion that he plied guilty to, was first in a single isolated paragraph in a reputable Atlanta newspaper. The exact wording was in the Wikipedia article. The next time I saw it was in a Times or Wapo article that was a hagiography where this traumatic armed home invasion was an example of his life challenges that he overcame by helping others in his community. This is relevant as there is a norm of jurisprudence that previous felony convictions are evaluated as increasing sanctions IE: "Three Strikes and You're Out." While, of course, this does not excuse Clauvin's actions, given that he probably knew Floyd's history, this could have influenced his distrust of Floyd. Arodb (Arodb talk) 12:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Arodb (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  50. Weakest possible yes. This is by no means an easy call and I could understand why there would be much disagreement amongst reasonable editors on this one, even if not for the impassioned context and high volume of response. On the one hand, WP:NPOV is always a compelling argument, but I think some who have advanced that argument here have failed to account for the fact that WP:WEIGHT is a part of any neutral determination of the appropriateness of a given piece of content. And though I think reference to it is one of the most over-used/abused principles in Wikipedia's toolkit of rhetorics, WP:BLP remains an important policy, and surely it should apply here, if on any situation in any article. And indeed, the policy has language rather directly on point here, under WP:AVOIDVICTIM. At the end of the day, the past criminal history of the victim here is just not what I would call directly and centrally relevant information to the article regarding his arrest and death while fully restrained and well within the control of the arresting officers. So after a fair deal of balancing of the considerations, I was at first inclined to !vote 'no' on this one.
    [Indenting rest of post to maintain numbered list formatting.] The problem there is that I just don't think its feasible for this particular article. Some of the defendants in this high-profile case could quite possibly assert partial details of Mr. Floyd's background as a part of their defense, and that information will surely need to be covered here. Indeed, a police union rep has already utilized a hyperbolic variation on such accusations, as the article indeed reports. Because these elements cannot reasonably be excised from the article, it becomes necessary to contend with the issue of Mr. Floyd's criminal past: otherwise we are essentially just creating our own little Streisand Effect generator, by including references to others attributing nefarious qualities to the victim, but omitting any actual neutral discussion of what the man's past actually looked like. This means that those who would like to avoid this topic to see the victim's dignity preserved could actually end up seeing the opposite happen: he could be vilified in the attributed statements of third parties included in this article, but not balanced by any discussion of the realities and specifics. And the average reader (presuming they are not the type who just assumes the worst case scenario when they are told someone is a "criminal" (which unfortunately describes a great many people), would be thoroughly unsatisfied with just hearing the accusations without knowing more, and will go looking for that information--and who knows about the neutrality and veracity of what they find in a singular source; at least here we are in a position openly summarizing and attributing to a large number of sources and exercising some editorial discretion to present the background in a non-biased fashion, bu representing the weight of the sources faithfully.
    However, even this reluctant support forced by the pragmatic realities of the situation has its caveats: there needs to be extensive discussion and compromise (erring on the side of BLP/AVOIDVICTIM precautions) as to how his past is described. Details such as those regarding his purported use of a gun in a previous alleged crime would, for example, be wholly inappropriate, prejudicial, and contrary to all policy in this area: let's please remember that this was a man who was after-all clearly restrained and ultimately defenseless against the act that took his life, so details hinting at speculation as to a supposed violent character are fairly irrelevant and should be strictly avoided--except perhaps in the form of naming previous charges in themselves, if that is found to be appropriate content. The only way such information becomes relevant is if those accused of his murder assert that they knew of his criminal past and that it influenced the manner in which they handled him as a detainee. But we can discuss such assertions in the article if and when they actually are made, and within that context; throwing in even mild implication that Floyd was a violent man at this juncture would go strongly against every relevant policy in this area.
    TLDR: Reluctant yes to including some description of the victim's criminal past, if only to concede to the reality that those accused of his murder may use it to ameliorate their culpability as a legal or public matter, but at the same time I would strongly oppose any language (aside from any used in a listing of past charges/convictions) which implies a violent nature, as such information would be 1) wildly out of proportion with how a majority of reliable sources describe the nature of the event, 2) incompatible with our policies on victim blaming, persons notable for only one event, and other vital WP:BLP principles, and 3) not covered under any compelling relevancy exception, except as necessary to address claims made by the criminal defendants here, which can be handled on a case by case basis, if and when such incidents arise. Snow let's rap 16:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  51. Yes. (Summoned by bot) Relevant to the controversy surrounding his death. Per WP:NOTCENSORED. Coretheapple (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)'
  52. Yes: including short context is WP:DUEWEIGHT but anything longer than a very brief summary would not be WP:DUEWEIGHT. AnomalousAtom (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  53. Yes per above, His past is relevant and is sourced in reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  54. Yes. Agree with above points that not only is this covered by reliable sources but omitting it would violate WP:NPOV. — Richard BB 16:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "George Floyd, the man whose death sparked US unrest". BBC. May 31, 2020. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
  2. ^ Pereira, Ivan (May 30, 2020). "George Floyd remembered by friends and family as hardworking 'gentle giant'". ABC News. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
  3. ^ Walters, Joanna (May 29, 2020). "An athlete, a father, a 'beautiful spirit': George Floyd in his friends' words". The Guardian. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
  4. ^ D'Amore, Rachel (June 1, 2020). "George Floyd: What we know about the arrest, video and investigation". Global News. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
  5. ^ "Remembering George Floyd: Devoted father, 'gentle giant'". Al Jazeera. May 31, 2020. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
  6. ^ Alexander, Harriet (June 2, 2020). "What happened on the night of George Floyd's arrest and death?". The Telegraph. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
  7. ^ "Victim in Police Encounter Had Started New Life in Minnesota". The New York Times. May 27, 2020. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
  8. ^ Hall, Michael (May 30, 2020). "The Houston Years of George Floyd". Texas Monthly. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
  9. ^ "Offense Inquiry". Harris County Sheriff's Office. SPN 01610509. Retrieved 3 June 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

No

  1. I can see no relevance to this. It tells us nothing about why this happened or how it could have been avoided. It is just a bit of title tattle.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. It's not relevant to the Death of Georgy Floyd (the arrest for forgery made zero mention of priors). What's more, George, who was killed by Derek, has no recourse to appeal his past convictions, and the police are notorious for making false arrests on the back of bigoted policing. Police records should not be considered as a reflection of reality. --Shadybabs (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. I don't see any relevance whatsoever to the article subject, which is Death of George Floyd. This is not a George Floyd biography article. If it becomes a notable part of the death (e.g. the US President starts tweeting about Floyd's criminal past), then it can be reconsidered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. No, and why are we discussing this again? Isn't this the third go-round? His past had nothing to do with this incident, and did not affect in the least the behavior of the police or anyone else. It is offered here, and promoted elsewhere, for the purpose of prejudicing the public against him. The incident happened 13 years ago and is not relevant to this event. Kablammo (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. No - I can't see the relevance of his past crimes to his murder. I also question whether this would meed WP:DUEWEIGHT. I've been following this story pretty closely in the news and I haven't heard anything about it so far. - MrX 🖋 22:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. No It is not at all relevant to the situation and only serves to blame the victim. Adding this attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE serves only to blame the victim. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  8. No It is irrelevant to this topic and Floyd's death. Such information would contravene DUEWEIGHT and introduce a FALSEBALANCE, essentially a rationale for blaming the victim. I think we need to impose a moratorium on this question. It seems editors have been over it enough.times already. This might be going into WP:DE territory. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  9. No - Irrelevant to the context behind the murder. Adding it would only create a false sense of balance and a sense of blame against the victim, which is a WP:BLP policy violation. --letcreate123 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  10. No the scope of this article is his death. Not his life. --Calthinus (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Narrowly-defining "the scope of this article" is entirely the province of those arguing to omit information found in virtually all good quality sources addressing the same subject as our article addresses. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    The title of this article is "Death of George Floyd", so its about his death.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    You say below We do not need to know about his life prior to this unless it has a direct impact. Anything else smacks of trying to prove a point. What point, Slatersteven? Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Bus stop, I suspect the point is that 1. he's a nice regular guy, look at his friends who say he was a gentle giant or his athletic record; therefore he's an innocent victim OR 2. he's a career criminal, look at the fact he's been arrested and jailed before this; therefore he likely deserved this or brought this on. These are the kinds of thing people look for to excuse or condemn the behavior by the police toward a citizen. —valereee (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Exactly all of this is about saying either "Innocent victim" or "a villain, and a jailbird". We do not know if he was passing bad cheques, or id he was if he knew, we do not know if he was running a Muckiness Battle horn smuggling ring or if he was in fact the worlds second nicest man. Only (and only) if what he did led to this is it relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    He won't ever be convicted of passing counterfeit bills because a dead man can't be tried, but we do know what crimes he was convicted of, and this is relevant to people who are debating his character or the morality of the police. It isn't right for wikipedia to omit relevant details out of a political agenda.Walterego (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Nor to include it for the same reason, to imply he was a criminal even thought he had no convictions for 5 years. This is precisely why we cannot include it, we would be implying something about his character, and that violates wp:crime and wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Walterego, his character has zero to do with how he died unless it led to his death. A previous conviction for armed robbery, a high school football career, and friends who loved him had nothing to do with how he died, which is the subject of this article. If he had previous charges or convictions for resisting arrest, it could be argued to be relevant because resisting arrest could contribute to his death. By the same argument, the morality of the police is only relevant if it could be argued to have contributed to his death. Previous complaints of undue force could be argued to be relevant. Previous complaints of accepting bribes, probably not. —valereee (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee—The New York Times writes "Floyd was charged in 2007 with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents". Some of the "oppose" votes in this thread are saying that mention of this "only serves to blame the victim". That makes no sense. Good quality sources such as The New York Times don't try to "blame victims". And a 5 year period of time in prison is hardly an insignificant event in a person's life—that is the reason the best quality sources are mentioning this, not to "blame the victim". We should be following the many good quality sources carrying this information. We should be adhering to the general outline of coverage of this topic as found in the best quality sources. That serves the reader's interests. The reader does not come here to read political propaganda. They read an article such as this to get up to speed on the basic facts surrounding this incident. It does the reader a disservice to selectively omit basic facts. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Bus stop, that information belongs in George Floyd (biography), but it's irrelevant here and WP:UNDUE. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee, if the officer's prior use of force history is relevant, then the victim's history of violence is relevant, especially when the police are arguing that they used that force in response to violence from the victim (ie. resisting arrest). This goes directly to the heart of this article, which are the circumstances surrounding George Floyd's death. Not mentioning it only undermines the legitimacy of the article and implies, at best, that Wikipedia is trying to sugarcoat a victim's checkered past, and at worse, is actively covering up information in order to help create a narrative. 24.178.111.153 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    It depends. Complaints about the officer's undue use of force on the job are relevant. If he had a domestic violence complaint, I'd argue it's not relevant. Ditto for Floyd. A history of resisting arrest is relevant. But the commission of a crime twelve years ago is not relevant to his death, and covering it in the very short paragraph is undue weight, IMO. I am arguing that we remove all irrelevant details from both bios. And quite honestly "checkered past" comments make me feel this more strongly. —valereee (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  11. No, not relevant to the incident. I would support relevant material being included in an actual biography of George Floyd. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  12. Include only details that could have contributed to leading to the death, which is the subject of this article. This is not a biography of Mr. Floyd or of any of the police, it's an article about Floyd's death. His athletic career, the fact his friends loved him, and his arrest record are trivia unless they have some relevance to the death. If he was ever charged with resisting arrest, that could be relevant. Otherwise it's WP:UNDUE to include them. Ditto biographical details on the cops other than as relevant to leading to the death. Charges or convictions of using undue force are relevant. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  13. No, only include irrelevant stuff that portrays him in a good light to push your agenda, his prior dealings with law enforcement should be hushed up. Also make sure to mention all four policemen were white. 85.238.90.27 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee—the selective omission of information that is found in most sources addressing the same topic as our article addresses can constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. And we don't wear blinders when we write about a subject for which there is ample sourcing to set an example for how we should address that subject. This isn't a creative writing project. That would include the creative omission of information that editors dislike for non-germane reasons. We adhere to the findings of the best quality sources. For instance the BBC writes "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Bus stop, I'm not saying selectively exclude relevant information. I'm saying exclude information that is irrelevant to his death because this article is about his death. It's irrelevant to his death that over a decade ago he was convicted of armed robbery. He wasn't committing armed robbery at the time of his death. He wasn't even armed at the time of his death. So it's irrelevant. If he'd had previous convictions for resisting arrest, that might be relevant to his death, and especially so if the cops say he was resisting when he was killed. This isn't me trying to paint him in a positive light; the information about his conviction and jail time is in his bio, where it belongs. Literally the only reason I can think of to include this information in the article about his death is that some people (like the above IP, which must have edit conflicted with you when you responded to me) will interpret that to mean WP is intentionally whitewashing the incident, and that doesn't feel like a good enough reason. —valereee (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    No, it is not "irrelevant", Valereee, and thank you for pinging me. We aren't a creative writing project. You are making arbitrary distinctions that the BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, and a slew of other good quality sources are not making. We can talk about the Killing of George Floyd while also talking about his 5 years of incarceration. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    Bus stop, RS are also reporting his birthplace, number of children, athletic and musical career, high school, etc. etc. etc. Do you think any of those is relevant to the article on his death? I haven't seen a single RS say that any of the biographical details they're reporting was relevant to his death. We've included what they say about his biographical details in his biographical article. When some reliable source says, "His death needs to be understood in relation to his arrest history," or something similar, I'll say we should include it. —valereee (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    It's not about portraying him in good light. The person could be a serial killer and it would still be wrong to kill him while he is not resisting arrest and begging for his life. If articles did not have titles and content that sticks to their titles then wikipedia will be useless. The fact that all four policemen were white is relevant to the situation. There are several highly cited events where white policemen killed black men, and this is one of them. The fact that some of them had prior complaints on them is also relevant. And your comment is in the wrong section. Tesatafi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  14. No None of which relevant to how he died and this is not even a biography of his life. We don’t even know this man’s birthday. Feel free to include the complaints against the offending officer. Throw Klobuchar in there too.Trillfendi (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  15. No Any prior record or arrests is irrelevant to his murder. Include in his biography article, should one be created. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  16. No or, if we do so, it should be in an extraordinarily cautious and sensitive manner. A decade ago, fully 1/3 of black men in the US had a felony on their record, a process that's been described as a part of the criminalization of the black population more generally in the US [14]. Whenever a black person is killed or dies in police custody and the death becomes well known, some media organizations (usually small, local media or right-wing media) bring out past criminal convictions, either minor or more substantial, that are unrelated to the incident but provide context appearing to justify the death. We shouldn't contribute to that, so if we do report this, we should do so very carefully. -Darouet (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Darouet—please explain how for instance incarceration from 2009 to 2014 could appear to justify the death? This is in response to your assertion that "Whenever a black person is killed or dies in police custody and the death becomes well known, some media organizations (usually small, local media or right-wing media) bring out past criminal convictions, either minor or more substantial, that are unrelated to the incident but provide context appearing to justify the death." Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    Try reading some of the yes responses here, they say just that, "he was a villain and a jail bird, if he had not been one he would not be dead".Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Bus stop: by implying that Floyd is a criminal, and therefore deserving of punishment. I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you about whether mentioning "positive" or "negative" aspects of someone's life will influence readers' views. If we are making editorial selections about what content goes into the bio for each participant in this incident — and we are — we need to consider 1) how relevant is the information and 2) is it prejudicial? -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  17. No - not relevant I come from a country (UK) where publishing the records of the police officers would itself be an offence while a trial is pending (since it inevitably prejudices everyone's opinion of them and this case), so given the choice, I would prefer neither Floyd's nor their records to be included at this stage. However, that isn't the choice and isn't the question. Even if Floyd had been a serially violent criminal (which no one claims), applying lethal force, when someone is already restrained and has no potential to resist or represent any danger to anyone - is beyond comprehension. I cannot see how Floyd's (relatively distant) record has any relevance to him being killed, especially since there is no reason to think the officer's knew and certainly Floyd was not even suspected of being engaged in violent crime at the point he was killed, and even if he had been behaving in a threatening manner, application of force would only have been appropriate up to the point he was restrained - beyond that it is clearly 'punishment'. I'm sorry, but it is difficult to understand why anyone would think his record relevant, except in some way thinking that massively disproportionate force is justified, or understandable, if someone has a criminal record. There may be circumstances in which the record could become relevant, but not simply for the sake of including it or to achieve a spurious 'balance'. Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  18. No I do not support including George Floyd's previous convictions. George Floyd's actions are not in question here therefore it is not relevant. Furthermore adding it as part of the few details of his backstory suggests relevance as part of the event. --Evertent (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    That is correct—"George Floyd's actions are not in question". I don't believe anyone has ever said George Floyd's actions were in question—or at least I know that I have never said George Floyd's actions were in question. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  19. No mentioning it is unnecessary, considering the topic is talking about his death. His criminal record got nothing to do with the incident surrounding his death. Idealigic (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  20. No per Slatersteven. Krakkos (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  21. No - reasons below, discussion section, in response to valereee. TLDR; Lack of relevance, arguments to include just because police history is included is WP:FALSEBALANCE for reasons I gave. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  22. No per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Along with other not-immediately-relevant details of his life, this belongs on George Floyd (which I think should not be merged here), simply per WP:DUE. This page has to start following WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and the number and WEIGHT of sources that discuss his past convictions is insufficient to justify inclusion in a brief, only-the-essentials summary of the event.
    The paramount importance of the WP:AVOIDVICTIM policy tips the scales further towards the presumptive exclusion of the information from this page. This consideration further stipulates that if the information is included, it should be made clear that sources agree the arresting officers were unaware of his record, to avoid making BLP-violating insinuations. FourViolas (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    That advises against prolonging or participating in the victimization of living people, impossible for editors in this case, since the victimization ended in death. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    The meaning of "living" in the context of WP:BLP, including AVOIDVICTIM, is defined by WP:BDP: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Floyd is a perfect example of someone in the "recently died" stage of life, whose reputation is still subject to being tarnished or burnished by the information we publish about them, and whom Wikipedia still owes a professional level of respect and consideration. FourViolas (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    No, living means living, in this context (the whole section is plain English). It relates to those famous victims of prolongable victimizations, like libel, doxxing and hate speech. You're reaching too far with this alleged murder victim, who was never known for getting tarnished or burnished. Even if noting his background was intended to hurt his reputation, dead people are immune to any real harm. A "professional level of respect and consideration" is evident in how the professional journalists have noted his background, we would reflect that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    The term living is used everywhere throughout WP:BLP, except where the WP:BDP section states that the whole policy applies to recently deceased as well as living people. The argument that "living means living" would therefore imply that BDP is never supposed to apply, which is absurd. FourViolas (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    BLP generally doesn't apply to material concerning the dead, you quoted this yourself. Exceptions can apply, but only where reasonably applicable. Saying we're participating in or prolonging this victim's deadly victimization is absurd, because we know it lasted just under nine minutes on May 25. Also, that part applies to biographies; saying the supposed victimization does belong in the biography is double absurd. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability_of_the_policy, before clarifying that BLP policy applies only to living people with the exception of recently deceased ones, states that BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. If a family member of mine were violently killed, and people made an effort to widely publicize irrelevant information from their past that others then used to insinuate that they may have deserved their fate, I would absolutely consider this to be prolonging their victimization. You're right that this makes it problematic to include the information in the biography, but that is a lower-traffic page where the information is appropriately contextualized as part of a comprehensive review of publicly available information about Floyd's life that is not essential to understanding his death. I apologize if my use of "absurd" came off as a personal attack; I meant it in the logical sense.FourViolas (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    This guy's notable victimization has nothing to do with how his relatives might feel bad about reading he had a criminal record. It was all about being kneeled on by cops. It's illogical to equate known physical victimization of a dead person with hypothetical emotional victimization of living people, especially if the latter material is considered irrelevant to the former topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    How would anyone "insinuate that they may have deserved their fate"? That is impossible, FourViolas. If you think you know a way, please tell me about it because I do not think any such way exists. Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    Bus stop, I was referring to comments such as this immediately above, asserting that George Floyd's criminal tendencies [...] ultimately [led] him to his death.
    InedibleHulk, differences of opinion exist over whether the dead can be morally wronged, for example by unfair reputational damage; for defenses of the position that they can, see Fisher 2001 or Scarre 2012. Given these differences of opinion, the strong language of WP:AVOIDVICTIM (editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to victimization, particular importance for people notable as victims) seems to indicate that we should take the more cautious view. In any case, the policy is clearly meant to proscribe some kind of non-physical victimization, as it's not common for people to be physically victimized based on how somebody edited WP. FourViolas (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, some non-physical victimization that some bio subject is notable for receiving and which might be prolonged, so nothing at all pertaining to this victim of entirely physical forces. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  23. No The article is about the killing of a person in the hands of the police. If we had information about the person resisting arrests or escaping from custody, and particularly if police acted with knowledge of that, then it would have been relevant. I disagree that Floyd's name would be unfairly tarnished if such information was published. The job of this article is to describe the circumstances of his death.Tesatafi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  24. No per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. 73.227.195.63 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  25. No as it's unrelated to his killing. The details about the police shouldn't included either normally but RS are giving those details some weight. As far as I can see, though, RS are not giving Floyd's criminal past the same weight. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  26. Hell no what a stupid question Kire1975 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    But is it a "stupid question", Kire1975? Wouldn't the reader want to know that George Floyd engaged in multiple acts of criminal activity spanning decades? The Federalist (website) quotes Candace Owens telling us of a string of criminal activity and prison sentences spanning decades. For instance "his record...includes jail sentences in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2007. His 2007 arrest...was for participating in an armed home invasion against a pregnant African-American woman, where Floyd held a gun to the pregnant mother’s stomach". Wouldn't multiple acts of criminal activity increase the incidence of adversarial engagement with cops and consequently the likelihood of bad outcomes for both cops and those people engaging in criminal activities? Bus stop (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Bus stop: The Federalist? Candace Owens? Hell no. Kire1975 (talk)
    Shouldn't we not be engaged in political writing, Kire1975? Adversarial engagement with cops results in a higher incidence of harm, to both cops and criminals, and criminal activity increases the likelihood of adversarial engagement with cops. Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. You should not be using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Keep Candace Owens and the Federalist out of Wikipedia. Stick to WP:RELIABLE and WP:REPUTABLE sources. And please stop pinging me. Kire1975 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Kire1975—increased encounters with police result in increased likelihood of negative outcomes for both police and those engaging in possibly criminal activity. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Maybe, but he did not have increasing encounters, as he had not been arrested for 6 years, that is decreasing encounters.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Each additional interaction of an adversarial nature between cops and citizens increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Actually using that logic every interaction does, confrontational or otherwise, Hell even being in the same street, town, country nation does, being alive does. Only the living can interact with the police, so... This is not valid argument to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    You are saying that "every interaction does". But certain interactions are more fraught with danger than others. "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    They should not be, (which is the point of the demos). If you are not violent you should not expect violence from the police, even if you are an ex-felon. There is no evidence that the police in this case knew he was a jail bird, or has reason to think he was a criminal. But I have had my say now, this look more and more like nothing more than an attempt to lead the reader into thinking this was a justified killing (you only have to read some of the yes votes to see that).Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    No one is defending the actions of the police. I agree with you completely and emphatically that "If you are not violent you should not expect violence from the police". I also have not seen any evidence "the police in this case knew he was a jail bird, or has reason to think he was a criminal". The question is: who was George Floyd? Reliable sources provide some information. Most of the good quality sources such as the New York Times, the BBC, The Guardian and many others tell us some background information including multiple arrests and multiple periods of incarceration. I have characterized these as "adversarial" interactions. Most people do not want to go to jail. Perhaps I have occasion to interact with police because I have a minor fender-bender. I would probably not call that interaction "adversarial". Due to the high tension involved in adversarial interactions, people tend to get hurt. This does not absolve the cops of what looks to me like despicable behavior in this incident. But we are not taking sides. We are writing a dispassionate article. You say that I am "attempt[ing] to lead the reader into thinking this was a justified killing". No I am not. Wikipedia is a source of information. Once we start suppressing information we are in the business of misleading readers. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    This rank speculation is really disgusting and should be stricken. WP:BLP O3000 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  27. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Just hasn't had the amount of coverage here. Likely place is in his bio article.Casprings (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  28. No - No connection to his death, the subject of this article, has been shown by RS. BLP DUE O3000 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  29. No. This is not a biography of George Floyd, and "past crimes" is a shitty way of putting it in the first place. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  30. No As it is irrelevant to this instance. If there was a criminal history that connected the officer and Floyd perhaps that would be relevant but in this case, it does not make sense to include irrelevant information about his history that could lead to disrespecting his character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terasaface (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  31. No This page is about the killing, and his criminal history is irrelevant to whether he deserved to have been killed. Avoid victim shaming. This discussion is more relevant to his standalone biography at George Floyd.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    Bagumba—you are linking to an article on Victim blaming. Does that have anything to do with Wikipedia policy or guidance? Of course there are instances of "victim blaming". But we are not doing that here. We are saying he was released from prison in 2014. By what stretch of the imagination does that constitute "blaming" him for the tragedy that occurred on May 25, 2020? Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Bus stop: There is no evidence that his criminal history made him a target for police brutality. Thus, I see it as unrelated to his being killed, and the WP:ONUS to justify its inclusion has not been met. His criminal past is already in his bio, where it is relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    Bagumba—I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline relating to victim blaming or victim shaming and we cannot possibly be victim blaming or victim shaming. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  32. No it really has no bearing on the topic of this article Blindlynx (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  33. No it is not relevant to why he was killed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  34. No absolutely not for obvious reasons 2600:1702:2340:9470:C1C1:E610:C9E5:900A (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  35. No At least not generally or as a list where it would be WP:UNDUE: this article is not "George Floyd" but about the notable event that led to his death and followup. —PaleoNeonate – 09:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  36. No: irrelevant as to the manner in which Floyd died; see also: WP:AVOIDVICTIM, a BLP policy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  37. No - It is not relevant to how George Floyd died, and should have no effect on the way he is treated by the police. This should be put on George Floyd instead Wurbl (User talk:Wurbl) 16:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on including record

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

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

  • Suggested wording: There was a sourced sentence in the article, but it was removed, and this article moves so fast I can’t find it now. It was along these lines, and this kind of thing is what I am suggesting/supporting: In 2009 Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison for armed robbery. Following his release in 2014 he moved to Minnesota, intending to “start a new life”.[1] (continuing with "He lived in St. Louis Park…" etc.)
Sources

  1. ^ Toone, Stephanie (May 29, 2020). "Floyd's brother tearfully asked for justice and peace following the 46-year-old bouncer's death Thursday". Associated Press. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on May 28, 2020. Retrieved May 30, 2020.
The reference is already in the article, it's the AP/Atlanta Journal Constitution reference (#33). IMO this is well sourced and important to understanding him, even though there is no way the officers could have known about it; he appears to have had no brushes with the law during his six years in Minnesota. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Which is why I say its not relevant, as there is no indication he was a villain, sir. Or a jailbird. at the time of his killing. It tells us nothing about him other than at the time he was not a wanted felon.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither does his high school football playing, or his rap band, but we include them. It is typical to include basic biographical information about notable deaths or crime victims, whether or not it relates to the event for which they are now known. Examples from recent articles about similar deaths: [15] [16] [17] (By the way, I'm not a "sir". 0;-D) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Then we would need to include far more background information on the officers, details of each civilian complaint, the police response to said complaints, the nature of their past killings, disciplinary records, etc. Also more details for Derek's violent behavior at his security job. That's far more material to the case at hand and necessary for balance.--Shadybabs (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Not opposed to that, but another discussion will need to be established on including that content. One step at a time. KidAd (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
For DUE weight and balance, I can only agree on including Floyd's priors if added simultaneously with details regarding the former officers' disciplinary records. Until full transparency of disciplinary records are released to the public any attempt to include a history of wrongdoing of Floyd will be heavily biased against Floyd, due to the nature of criminal records vs the blue wall of silence. Such action perpetuates the state of racial bigotry in the American police and is wholly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Please note that, while it is important to maintain WP:NPOV, any reason to include Floyd's prior arrest records is separate from the choice to include the officer's prior complaints/history. Again, there should be a full and separate discussion of latter. KidAd (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and have said so. We do not need to know about his life prior to this unless it has a direct impact. Anything else smacks of trying to prove a point.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The inclusion of this material would only serve to blame the victim if the reader can't distinguish between years. But most readers would have no problem making distinctions between years. The death of George Floyd took place on May 25, 2020. George Floyd was incarcerated from 2009 to 2014 for a crime that took place in 2007. Most readers would have no difficulty distinguishing between 2014 and 2020. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Fine. In general, people don't call the police on random strangers. Note that for George Floyd's 10 (!) previous arrests, they were all peaceful. Lcaa9 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

  • This article is about the death of George Floyd, there is no relationship between his death and his past. Including that would suggest that there is a relationship. If you want to create an article about Floyd's biography then go create it. It is not related to his death, so it is not going to be included.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam, I hope you aren't replying to me, because you didn't reply to what I asked. Also you have this peculiar habit of saying what is going to happen before it happens, like you are the sole arbiter of whatever is in question, before it's been decided. It's very strange. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    DIYeditor—it is not spread to impugn the character of the alleged or apparent victim. Basic facts that are recurrent in the best quality sources should be in the article. People's lives are documented when addressing an incident. Our article is already using some of these sources to support material that is already in the article. It would be a contrivance to pare away the facts that we don't like. Did it have to be an angelic choir boy that was killed? It was a person who may have had flaws. Or maybe not. There are a huge number of Americans in prison at any time. This is a real person. They served a 5 year prison sentence. All we are doing is depicting reality. Wikipedia wasn't created to to present an idealized version of reality. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    DIYeditor, I wasn't replying to you, so I will just ignore all of what you said but I will answer your question in my response to Bus stop. Bus stop, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this article is not a news article. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, we assume that the content here would stay relevant to the topic until at least 10 years. Now, the topic of this article is about the death of George Floyd, not George Floyd himself. You cant tell if a content about his past would be relevant or not. Until it is proven to be relevant we can't include it, if it's not, it's not going to be included. Yes, a small biography can be included as to give an insight/introduction for this topic. Tell me how does his past criminal record gives an introduction for this topic??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam: there is no relationship between his death and his past - so playing basketball is relevant to his death but a criminal record for armed robbery is not? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    DIYeditor, you see, your argument is flawed. Your argument is only an appeal to hypocrisy. I said we will only include content that serves as an introduction for this topic. Does his past of what you call "criminal record for armed robbery" serves as an introduction for this topic? The answer no. It is not proven to be relevant to this very topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam Does playing basketball belong in the introduction? If so, how is a criminal record less relevant? Do neither belong in the article? I haven't decided whether his criminal record is an introduction to the topic, that's why I'm asking questions. Also you would be more convincing if you cited policy when making arguments. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    DIYeditor, stop the whataboutism argument. It will only show that your argument is not based on objective reasoning. Will my answer to your first question change your position? I dont think so. My concern is that we will be attempting to poison the well by adding that irrelevant content. That content about basketball could be irrelevant but it is not harmful, it doesnt add anything and it doesnt poison the well.
    Here is an illustration
    • X was killed by Y checkY OKAY
    • X, who played basketball, was killed by Y. ? Maybe MAYBE OKAY
    • X, who robbed houses in the 1990s and was jailed bluh bluh, was killed by Y. ☒N NOT OKAY
    WP:OR makes this clear and also WP:TOPIC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    So my question is why is basketball possibly ("maybe") relevant but not robbery? (I can think of a specific possible policy based reason but I am more curious about your line of thinking.) If you are going to quote OR or TOPIC it would help if you quoted which part you are referring to. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    DIYeditor, that the content should be directly related to the topic. And WP:TOPIC says clearly, The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. I have supported the idea of an article about the biography of Floyd. Also, no, that tick doesnt mean relevant. I was saying what is okay and what is not. I have clarified now and edited the original comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    I also think I have clearly said above why basketball is maybe okay. As I said, it doesnt potentially poison the well and imply that Floyd wasnt innocent when he was killed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think WP:AVOIDVICTIM is what applies here. I am not familiar with how that is interpreted though. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    So? What you are saying is ....? We're here talking about whether that content about past "criminal record" is relevant to his death or not. It is clearly not relevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    What I'm saying is .... the rule I cited (AVOIDVICTIM) is what applies here, not OR or TOPIC. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    So you think that his "crimial record" content is relevant to his death? Both WP:OR and WP:TOPIC says that the content should be directly relevant to the topic of the article. I am not arguing to include his virtues. I am arguing to remove the irrelevant content about "crimial record" as it is irrelevant to this article and this is the topic of this discussion. This is the only topic of this discussion and it should be the only topic of this discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think it's a moot point because of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. How are you going to dictate what direction the discussion can take? —DIYeditor (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    His past is relevant to the article. If you think what his past has to do with his death, can you answer "why do we have officers past on the article?". George was a convicted criminal and the officers were abusive. Not including his past is not neutral and has a POV that George was the purest soul possible and officers were worse than Hitler which is not the case. Officers behave according to the criminal history of the convict, he has behind the bars for 5 years for for armed robbery in a home invasion case. // Eatcha (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
DIYeditor—WP:AVOIDVICTIM says don't include "every detail". Minor details obscurely sourced should be omitted. Five years in prison would not be a minor detail in anyone's life. The best quality sources, addressing the same topic that this article addresses, include this point about George Floyd's life. It would be a contrivance and a disservice to the reader to deliberately omit this information—not because it has bearing on his death—it doesn't—but because we don't exercise editorial authority—except to a limited extent. Basically, sources write articles. Basically, sources determine the content of articles. I don't think we should selectively omit information to make the eventual unlawful death at the hands of law officers seem more tragic; it is tragic whether the victim was an angelic choirboy or an "ex-convict". Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. (emphasis mine) My line of reasoning is that it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal, so including facts to support that perception which the officers did not know (as far as we know) is prolonging that victimization. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
DIYeditor—you say "it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal". I have to disagree. It does not appear that he was "killed because of being perceived to be a criminal". You are using figurative and imprecise language—but no offense is intended. We don't even know if he was "killed". Was it Chauvin's intention to kill Floyd? I would doubt that. I am certain that what Chauvin did constituted entirely uncalled-for cruelty. Floyd was handcuffed behind his back. Several other cops were present and apparently unoccupied, just standing around. Therefore Floyd posed no threat. How could he? What was he going to do—break loose of the handcuffs? But did Chauvin intend to end Floyd's life at that moment? It would be unreasonable to think so. But more to the point—do sources say that "it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal"? No, they don't, or at least not to my knowledge. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
DIYeditor, those details also should not be included. But that's another argument, so don't base your !vote on this issue upon whether or not those have yet been pulled. Let's decide what's correct in THIS argument. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Valereee—what would be problematic in adhering to the general coverage of this incident as seen in the best quality sources? The best quality sources are addressing the Killing of George Floyd. Why would our coverage of the Killing of George Floyd differ significantly from the best quality sources? It is problematic to selectively omit information. This isn't being done inadvertently. This is being done deliberately. The reason for this deliberate omission is stated by several "oppose" votes: They argue that the inclusion of this information "serves to blame the victim". I vehemently reject that. We are writing an encyclopedia. And we have intelligent readers. An ex-convict who is unlawfully killed is not to blame for their death. The inclusion of information that the victim is an ex-convict does not "blame" the victim. That is nonsensical. It is an important fact as evidenced by its presence in coverage of this topic by entirely good quality sources. Deliberate omission of this nature is "political". Wikipedia should not be "political". Wikipedia should lay out the facts. Anything less is a disservice to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

More reliable sources.

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

  • I suggest we remove all information that isn't directly relevant. The basketball playing & the rap music and number of children and relationships aren't relevant. The previous criminal record isn't relevant unless there's a history of resisting arrest or history of some other behavior that the defense is using to justify using this type of restraint, which would be relevant. —valereee (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm inclined to agree with Valereee. WP should account for the real possibility of deliberate misinterpretation of events, and should exclude unrelated biographies and move them into their own article. I was inclined to go Yes about 15 mins ago, I'm now against it. The past history of police is relevant to show the kind of policing they do. The past history of the subject is not relevant unless (a) the police had a positive ID and (b) WP:RS believe that the criminal history was connected to how the police treat him. As far as I can see, that isn't the case. It is an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE to say we must include the latter just because we include the former. The relevance of each one is completely different. Hence, I support inclusion of the material at George Floyd, but not here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
ProcrasinatingReader—the incident leading to death takes place in 2020 whereas the prison sentence ended in 2014. How does one have bearing on the other? Is there a "possibility of deliberate misinterpretation of events"? Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

  • I thought Wikipedia compiled multiple good quality sources into uncensored articles. Why would Wikipedia arbitrarily omit George Floyd's criminal past? If the reader wants to know, and if sources such as the New York Times, the BBC, and The Guardian, provide the information, why would Wikipedia deliberately omit the information? I think a reader would want to know who George Floyd is. Wikipedia exists to provide information where needed. Is there some reason we would fail at our purpose concerning this one piece of information? Why omit George Floyd's criminal past? Bus stop (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Because some readers/writers/voters are hypersensitive to what they perceive as victim-blaming, to the extent that they can't trust those who insist this is simply reliably-sourced background information, since some victim-blamers have lied (or seem to have lied) about their motives in unrelated earlier situations. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The bio section on Floyd is presently somewhat awkward, even given the link to his full bio. Why not include a few generalized mentions, such as: he was an athlete, muscian, and father, who had moved to Minnesota _ years ago. At the time of his death, Floyd had lost employment due to the COVID-19 stay at home order. Years earlier, Floyd had had previous interactions with police in _____ ... Maybe end with a mention of his pacifist views expressed in his video. Don't victim-blame, don't fall into the trap of re-criminalising him, and let him be innocent - he served his time, and the police have confiscated the allegedly fraudulent $20. Don't assume Floyd even knew it was counterfeit, if it even was. Remember he remained in his car outside his community store for 8 minutes. That's not what a person passing counterfeit bills would do. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Another point on Floyd: he didn't drive away when confronted by the employees. If consensus agrees, we should handle his so-called "criminal past" lightly and keep it in the past, and in his bio, while perhaps tweeking the info in the 'killing' article. Just offering suggestions. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—you say we should keep his "criminal past" in the past and you tell us not to "victim-blame". I couldn't agree more. I agree that we should keep his criminal past firmly in the past, and I agree that we should not "victim-blame". Therefore our article should say that George Floyd served 5 years in prison from 2009 to 2014 for an armed home invasion that he committed in 2007. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has travelled a full circle again bustop : the points kablammo and so many made cannot be negated by turning the circle again. His past belongs in the bio article. His killing occurred after he was accused of passing counterfeit money, but we'll never know the truth since Floyd is dead and the police have the alleged bill. His past has nothing to do with the killing. For the purpose of deflecting criticism, I suggest adding very light mentions about his life to the section which is presently awkward, in 'People Involved'. With the link to his bio page, the detailed info on his past, where the info you suggest belongs. The suggestion is a NO vote with modifications Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, his criminal activity prior to his death is relevant if this is a biography of George Floyd but only criminal elements that resulted in conviction. This should not be censored. Those wanting to leave it out, are leaving out a major part of narrative and when people 10-20 years from now read this, they will not have the true story of George Floyd. Only the agenda. Nsnodgrass73 (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What agenda? O3000 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer It seems that 30+ of the "Yes" !votes were before 4 June, when the standalone bio of George Floyd was created. The bio mentions his criminal history. It seems that a lot of those "yes"'s wanted the info somewhere, and picked Killing of George Floyd at the time. There are now more options than just here.—Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—we should not be relying on another article to make this article complete. We should be alluding to the criminal past of George Floyd in this article in order to enhance the credibility of this article. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
... make this article complete. No, that's a WP:COATRACK: writes too much about background and loses sight of the title. Either way, the existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there.—Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:COATRACK concerns contrived add-ons. Note the distinction between the "nominal subject" and the "tangential subject". Five years in prison is not a minor factor in who George Floyd was. An article on an interaction between the police and a suspect concerns the backgrounds of the subject and the police. Floyd George was a person who was convicted of a 2007 armed home invasion—also not a minor unlawful act—for which he was sentenced to 5 years in prison. This is relevant background information. Do you think this is a Coatrack article for revealing negative information about George Floyd? No, this article exists because of a fatal encounter between police and somebody suspected of a crime. Not to be too moralistic but prior encounters with the law would not be a contrived add-on. Bus stop (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to let the closer decide which arguments are and are not relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven—omission of expected information only detracts from the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
We have all had more than enough say, and any closer (I think we can assume) can read what we have said 50 times before.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven—when we write an article we don't put on blinders. Webster defines blinders as "a limitation or obstruction to sight or discernment." You are studiously arguing to omit information. But omitting this information does not accentuate the horror of what occurred in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020. Omitting this information simply detracts from the completeness of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bagumba, the situation has changed completely from when this RfC was opened, and I don't know how the closer can accurately assess !votes on either side that were basing their reasoning on the fact bio articles hadn't been created. I'm not sure what the solution is here. —valereee (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1

Evidence of the victim's past will not be in evidence, full stop. That past has nothing to do with his death, and will not be in evidence. The culpability of the defendant will not in any way be affected by Floyd's record. Kablammo (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC) [This and the following four posts moved from !vote section above by User:Snow Rise]

Kablammo It seems like maybe you meant to put this into the "No" section, but put it here by mistake? Also, not that I disagree with you altogether, but it is worth noting that what you are discussing is a criminal law standard, and not a Wikipedia standard: there are many things that would not enter into evidence at a trial which we can and will discuss in an article. Inexperienced editors sometimes make the mistake of thinking that that Wikipedia maps the content it allows directly to what a court allows in cases where articles cover criminal offenses, but that's just not so, and wouldn't even be workable in a majority of cases, for a great number of reasons. Now that doesn't necessarily mean we will discuss this or that fact (Wikipedia has its own concerns about prejudicial content in the form of BLP protections) after-all, but its important that anybody particpating in this discussion understands that the standards we apply here are our own internal policies, not the laws and rules of criminal procedure that will govern the court case, whenever it goes to trial (which may be some time yet). Snow let's rap 03:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Snow Rise, thank you for the ping. I have weighed in before, and oppose mention of his prior record, just as I oppose mention of prior allegations of misconduct of the police which did not result in discipline or were for unrelated conduct. You are correct that I address a criminal law standard (or, more properly, a rule of evidence applicable to all cases); that was prompted by your mention of "those accused of his murder may use it [Floyd's record] to ameliorate their culpability as a legal or public matter". No doubt that is one of the reasons many on and off Wikipedia are emphasizing that record, but it will not matter to the officers' legal culpability. Kablammo (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Ahhh, I see. I misunderstood your meaning there, as you seem to have surmised. I've moved your indentation in one, since I now assume the comment was meant to be a response to mine; if it wasn't (if it was meant to be a more general comment) by all means, outdent again. :) All of that said, though, I'm afraid you are actually mistaken about this point of evidentiary procedure in American courts. There is no general prohibition against introducing past criminal behaviour of a victim by the defense in a criminal case. You seem to be conflating a couple different rules of evidence: in a prosecution, evidence of previous criminal activity can typically not be submitted as against the defendant. Actually there are numerous exceptions to even that rule, but it they get quite convoluted, so it suffices to say here that generally one cannot admit evidence of previous criminal acts against the defendant. But the defense absolutely can provide evidence of previous criminal record on the part of the victim, in general. Again, there are exceptions to this rule, but that is the default. Now, any evidence has to go through what is called a probative value analysis (meaning its ability to shed light on an issue of fact or law must outweigh any prejudicial value that it might have). But in a murder trial, courts quite frequently allow evidence of past criminal convictions for violent crimes of the victim in. If any of the defendants here asserts that he knew of the victim's record, and the court has reason to believe that is true, then the past record would almost certainly be admitted as evidence of the defendant's state of mind (which goes to a critical element of a murder charge). And even if they can't prove that, the court may still allow the information to be entered if it rules that the jury may find that information relevant to any determinations about the conduct of the victim before the video started recording.
So in fact, it's quite possible the defendants will introduce this information at trial. They may choose not to (because their legal team may find it a bad strategy to try to blame the victim in this particular case), or the court may keep the criminal record out on the probative value analysis, but it's very much up in the air, which is why I make a note of it above. Further, even if they do not introduce such evidence at trial, others aligned with their defense may introduce the same information elsewhere in the public sphere--in fact, the article already contains just one such example of this being done. This ended up being the critical factor that tipped me into the "yes" category here: initially (although it was a very close call), I was going to !vote "no" on this one. What changed my mind is that I don't think there is any pragmatic way to keep all discussion of Mr. Floyd's past criminal status out of the article (attributed statements about Floyd being a "violent criminal are likely to be quoted in the article in numerous locations, regardless of whether we discuss his actual record in Wikipedia's voice). So therefore the BLP considerations flip, and it now becomes necessary to perhaps discuss that record in some small detail--for multiple reasons, but certainly including that he is not maligned as a victim without some effort to contextualize the fact that said record is not really particularly relevant to what transpired when he died in custody, as per the majority of the sources. Snow let's rap 21:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Kablammo Since our little side discussion here is getting a little voluminous, I decided to move it down here: I hope that's alright with you--feel free to move it all back up if you prefer it to remain in its original location/context. Snow let's rap 21:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The relocation is fine. I've not had time to peruse your points above, but this is the controlling rule (and this may come into play as well), and I don't see an applicable exception. Kablammo (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is the relevant rule and essentially works exactly as I summarized above. You cannot introduce prior criminal record as character evidence to prove conformity therewith. However, the defense can introduce it to go to state of mind of the defendant and the question of whether he acted reasonably under all the circumstances, among a number of other purposes, as Minnesota's version of Rule 404 expressly says. Trust me, though there is no context for it in a majority of instances, it still happens quite constantly in homicide cases where the victim has a criminal record, and is considered completely above-board (again, provided that it is relevant and the court rules the probative value outweighs the prejudicial influence, but that's true of literally any piece of evidence). In fact, there's a lot of black letter law on the principle as regards the defendant's constitutional right to present such evidence as part of a valid and complete defense, leaving states somewhat constrained in how much they can impinge upon this right.
Anyway, this is somewhat moot for now: it will be a while before the accused are submitting such evidence, if ever. But in the meantime, other parties (such as their union reps) are already raising Floyd's criminal record publicly, and you can bet certain media outlets are promoting it widely. And some of that discussion has already leaked into the article (understandably enough). So even if our objective is to afford Floyd the benefit of our BLP principles (which certainly must be one of our objectives here), then we may need at times to discuss his criminal record, if only for the purpose of reflecting what the relevant sources say about it: that it really has little to no bearing on the manner in which he died. That's pretty much the reason I moved from my initial impulse to oppose any mention in this article: we can't really keep out the commentary of others labeling him a criminal (whether the defendants choose to/are allowed to raise such an argument at trial or not). And even if we could, discussion of it would still be out there, alive in the world of media coverage at large. So even those very concerned about protecting Floyd from slandering probably ought to be in favour of allowing some controlled discussion of his record in this article. We just can't ignore it or hide it from the average person's field of view, so we should do what we can to contextualize it appropriately and responsibly. Snow let's rap 23:18, 17 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.

NPOV

I have no idea how to place a template for this AND I have not been active recently. However, I think at least a few facts should be included: it seems to be that facts are omitted now. I propose to include a summary of the following.
-George Floyd's criminal record.
-The 911 call leading to the officer's arrival.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-death-911-transcript-minneapolis-police/
-The 2 autopsy reports (concerning meth and contribution of the meth to his death).
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-death-autopsies-homicide-axphyxiation-details/
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/06/01/george-floyd-familys-lawyer-independent-autopsy-determines-floyd-died-of-asphyxiation/
-American and international policies for violent offenders and suspects that are considered armed & dangerous and heavily intoxicated.
[Remainder redacted by Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)]
85.150.152.71 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there user 85.150.152.71, I had previously had some NPOV worries about the article, but they were misplaced, I must have only skimmed it, it seems really neutral at the moment, on close reading. What had led me to worry (needlessly, I now think) is that one of the section titles seems to exceed the sources on the balance between the weight of Chauvin/airway versus the weight of other officers/diaphram/positional asphyxia. Early media focus didn't know that the other officers were sitting on Floyd (they weren't visible in the first video that became available), and Chauvin's black glove made him appear to have his hand nonchalantly in his pocket. Regardless of this, the article correctly describes all the aspects of the restraint, and Floyd's possibly misleading statement about claustrophobia and/or breathing difficulties before the restraint started. In any case Chauvin was in charge hence has responsibility. Failure to put Floyd in recovery position even when the ambulance was called is criminal. The knee on neck too, if it was restricting the airway (Floyd said 'my neck hurts, my stomach hurts' and 'I can't breathe'). Technically speaking, many sources explain that someone handcuffed face-down with weight on them can fail to get enough oxygen to survive due to restriction of the diaphram. I don't yet know how to understand sources about the neck restraint. I wish the autopsies were clearer. Crucially, regarding your comments about criminal record or intoxication, these are as irrelevant as excusing someone who kills an old person by saying, they were frail anyway. Killing refers to the boundaryline between life and death. I am thinking, the title of the section "Chauvin kneels on neck" or whatever is not very useful in summarizing what the section says, but the section seems amazingly clearly, honestly and fairly presented, in my view. Createangelos (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Use other video frame to replace lynching photographs

Reposted since Header/Main photo is closed. The selected 'frame' is too similar to lynching photographs used as racial propaganda: smiling killer, gory white substance on victim's mouth, etc. There are other images to select, at least 1 for every second of the video = 480+ alternates. A good sequence in OS when Chauvin isn't looking content is the macing sequence. I suggest changing the selected image to one where Chauvin isn't looking content/almost smiling, as when he grabs the mace before Thao steps in front of the camera. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Try Lynching postcard Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: His facial expression seems pretty neutral to me, and this is the best look we get at his face. This is also the moment that has overwhelmingly been used by reliable news sources; a quick Google Images search suggests most outlets are using frames very close or identical to ours. Examples: NYT, CNN, The Independent, Star Tribune, The Sun. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Chauvin's "look" is oft-cited. Unlike the postcards, the text here is moreorless neutral.—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

True Bagumba, and at the end of the OS, he steps full frame into the camera shot and then literally smiles. lagoQnsi have you checked the mace sequence to see if we can capture his face well enough? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Original Source. Pasdecomplot is referring to the video. I think it's a conflation of OR and primary source. We have a steep learning curve. Pasdecomplot to me seems an obviously well-intentioned editor who is having a hard time figuring us out. —valereee (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Our story so far

So far this thread has about 4 posts about the photo, 493 about one editor's use of an eccentric abbreviation, and 8204 about whether a talk-page subheading constitutes a content fork. [Later note: This references an intervening subthread, now removed.] What next -- an RfC? EEng 11:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba Thanks again, but I can't access the topic above 'Alt text' with the mobile equipment I use. If others can, the obvious conclusion is their equip is different and/or they have different apps. Not weird. The streamlining of topics or "same general subject" idea would work IF the topics were the same. The topic discusses changing the image, while the sub-topic is concerned with text describing the existing image, which effectively changed the topic completely to one which indirectly supports keeping the existing image. That's completely contrary to the topic. I agree Levivich that 'Alt text' isn't being discussed, and think it should be archived. Any final comments on 'Alt text' EEng?? Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There ya go, Pasdecomplot, and you're welcome. Please indent on talk pages. —valereee (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
so, EEng can you work on the video image also? With your equipment, could you share an image of the macing moment where Chauvin isn't looking pleased and where Floyd doesn't have noticible white substance on his lips? Maybe if we IagoQnsi Bagumba could see it, then consensus could be reached. Just a thought. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. I have no special equipment. EEng 17:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping you did —valereee (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I was going to make a joke along those lines, but that would be too cheap even for me. EEng 00:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The whole world of special equipment jokes—valereee (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Big picture in the centre

Why is there a very large picture of the memorial at the top of the arrest and death section, practically the first section of the article, in the centre of the page? Apparently it's been around for a while, so I presume I'm missing out on some discussion and I know EEng would never allow such MOS and structural desecration to occur under his watch. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, desecration is my middle name (in full: E Desecration Eng). I don't know of any MOS guideline against such placement, but now that my attention's been drawn to it after all this time, that particular image might go better in the Memorials section IF we have another image that focuses more specifically on the location of the incident. EEng 01:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Good catch. It's not in a relevant section, it shouldn't be centered, and its size should be scaled down. It goes against WP:NPOV.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
As already noted it's probably more appropriate for the Memorials section, but what does NPOV have to do with it? EEng 06:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: NPOV, maybe I was just going out of my way to be devil's advocate. At any rate, so far agreement that it doesn't belong there.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I get the NPOV concern, too. It's a huge picture of tributes left by protesters, and it's smack in the middle of the arrest and death section. It's like one of the murals. I hadn't really thought of it before, but now that's been pointed out it definitely feels like NPOV. —valereee (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, looking at the current caption of the photo, if the intent is to show the crime scene, then the image should be cropped to show less of the pavement and the flowers and zoom in on the store with a better view of the specific spot he was killed.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I think a wide shot helps. Perhaps not as wide as it is now but certainly including most of the intersection helps give a context for the area (and aids with visualising some later events, like the parks officer nearby who was found to not have sufficient sight of the event). Perhaps up to slightly left of the traffic light, if we're cropping. Though, I think a pre-event shot of the area may be better - one that isn't filled with flowers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Since you guys are too busy wringing your hands I've WP:SOFIXITed it for you. I did this before ProcrastinatingReader's post just above here, so if we want to back off the cropping a little that can be done. EEng 14:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Some think the crop works better, but some prefer the whip.
I think the crop works better —valereee (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
eyeroll —valereee (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I gotta be me. EEng 17:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The crop is not good IMO. Before at least it showed the memorial in the intersection; now it shows a bunch of people in front of a store. TBH I wasn't crazy about the old picture either, which is a picture of a George Floyd memorial, but it's not a picture of the George Floyd memorial, which is this: [18]. IMO, we can use that to illustrate the section about George Floyd memorial as fair use. Alternatively, there may be a free one out there somewhere. I'm not sure if it's still possible to create a free one; I don't know the current status of the memorial.
I also think the first image in the Memorials section, which shows the Cup Foods logo prominently, is inappropriately drawing attention to the store that just happened to be the location of this tragedy. I feel like we're shaming them. The caption says it depicts protesters, which it does, but I think there are much better images of GF protesters we could use. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The request was that, for the image in the section describing the incident, to avoid the memorial aspect and just show the location. The problem is that, for reasons that surely must be obvious, it's impossible to get a photo of the area without everything plastered with signs and flowers and stuff. So I did the best I could by cropping.
For the later Memorials section, perhaps the original uncropped image would work well. In fact, the cropped closeup in the incident section, and the uncropped full-view-with-flowers in the Memorials section, might be a nice touch.
Unfortunately, the mural can only be used under fair use (because it's copyright and, ya know, maybe the artist wants to control dissemination of his work and doesn't want millions of people seeing it on the internet without paying him). EEng 17:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Ehh, not exactly. If it were a picture of the mural, we could only use it as fair use. But if someone took a picture of the intersection, with the flowers, etc., and the mural was part of that, the photograph itself would probably be seen as transformative, and the photographer would probably be able to license it with a compatible license, like CC-BY-SA. In fact, someone has done just that, and I'm going to go test this theory now. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, there's already deletion discussions at Commons. [19] [20] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Told you. They're really going for the jugular by pointing out that not only does the mural artist have a copyright interest, but Floyd's heirs do as well, since the mural was based on Floyd's selfie, which they now own. EEng 18:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This is only a problem because of the insistence in WMF policy that everything here be licensed for commercial use, and not just educational/non-profit, even though this is a god damn free encyclopedia, and nobody would every question whether it was fair use for a free encyclopedia to publish a picture of a memorial in an entry discussing memorials, but nooooo the WMF says we have to make sure it's OK for people to sell this article and its pictures, and it's just another example of these fucking ridiculous policies getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. It drives me to rant. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
We can probably upload it onto enwiki directly and claim fair use instead? Downscale if need be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we use File:George Floyd Tributes Outside Cup Foods Minneapolis.jpg at the top of the Memorials section. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
W/r/t showing the location where the event occurred, neither the cropped nor uncropped version really does a good job of that, IMO, particularly because it's facing the wrong face of the building. The event occurred on the side of the building facing the gas station, not the side facing the restaurant (which is the vantage point from which the current photo is taken). There are probably better pictures out there that show the location where GF died, that we could use in the arrest section. Also we might add a map. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Well I for one will have no objection to the substitution of better images. EEng 18:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Then I suggest File:Terrence Floyd, George Floyd's brother visits the location where his brother was killed, now a memorial, at Chicago Ave and E 38th St in Minneapolis, Minnesota - 49960683978.jpg to illustrate the Arrests section, with a caption indicating it's a picture of George Floyd's brother standing at the location where George Floyd was killed. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that's a good choice —valereee (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
File:Protesters along and around 38th Street in Minneapolis on Tuesday after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 08.jpg is another one I think we could use to illustrate the protests section. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I added these pictures and rearranged the memorials section, putting the wide intersection shot at the bottom as a footer. Not sure if anyone else will like this arrangement or not (feel free to revert or otherwise improve). I also added the picture of Floyd's brother standing where Floyd died to the section talking about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Per MOS:UPRIGHT, I reduced that scale of the intersection shot to 1.8, the max suggested. I also un-centered it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

More respectful image?

I feel like the prominent display of this image [21] of George Floyd's death is unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful to the deceased man and his family. We have other images of Floyd, can we use a photo of him when he was alive rather than one of him being murdered in the street? If my loved one had died in such a horrific and public manner I wouldn't want an image of his final moments on display like this. It's a horrific image. I know some people are going to say we don't censor Wikipedia, and I agree, but showing some basic respect for the dead man and his family is not censorship, it's simply being decent. Bacondrum (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#RFC: lead photo closed two weeks ago. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm surprised it was such a strong consensus. The way this image is used seems callous and disrespectful to me, but that's just my opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Its placement should be lower in the article. It depicts the face of a man dying. A reader landing on an article shouldn't be greeted with the face of a man dying. It has informational value but that informational value is not diminished one iota by placing it at a lower slot within the article. The only thing "accomplished" by placing it in the uppermost position in the article is maximizing the impact and shock value on a reader when they arrive at the article and I don't see that as a "value" at all. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The article is entitled "Killing of George Floyd" and the picture depicts the killing of George Floyd. I mean, what would one expect by clicking on an article named "killing of..."? If I click on Lynching of Jesse Washington, I know I'm probably about to see the picture of a dead, mutilated man. Alcaios (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
That is absolutely horrifying. Lost for words. I can't stomach reading about that, such incomprehensible horror. Bacondrum (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, thankfully no horrible photos, but for absolutely horrifying see Elijah McClain. I had to take it off my watch list because every time it came up it made me want to cry. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Our primary obligation is to reflect sources, Valereee. Since this is a current event, as opposed to the 1916 lynching in the above linked-to article, we are necessarily concerned with the sentiments of living people. On a visceral level we experience current events almost as if they are happening in our own lives. That is because we share time and space—this being 21st century America. We aren't shirking our duties of reflecting sources if we reverse the positions of these two photographs: [22], [23], in the article. Nor are we caving in to censorship. This is a matter of appropriateness, given that this event took place a month ago. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED should be consulted. El_C 03:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

El C—why are you saying "WP:CENSORED should be consulted"? I think that is irrelevant. Nobody is arguing to remove the image from the article. It would for instance not be censorship to reverse the positions of these two photographs: [24], [25], in the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The distinction between 1916 and 2020 should be noted, Alcaios. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Making a considered and sensitive choice is not censorship, but regardless the vote was very firm, so I'll leave my query there. Bacondrum (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

just want to also add a point since the consensus was reached before the George Floyd split I believe, and people have brought this up afterwards. A picture of Floyd is presented on his actual page (George Floyd) while a picture of his death is presented on the page about his killing. I think it’s appropriate, and as Levivich said, the consensus was strong to keep it Anon0098 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I support the placement of the topmost image in Lynching of Jesse Washington but I oppose the current placement of the topmost image in Killing of George Floyd. This question has nothing to do with censorship. Do we invoke the concept of censorship when we consider moving text from one part of the article to another? Bacondrum is correct when they say "Making a considered and sensitive choice is not censorship". Bacondrum initiated this section by voicing an objection to "the prominent display of this image" and I too am arguing for less "prominent" placement of the image. I merely object to it being the topmost image. We are discussing image placement here. I agree with Bacondrum when they say that the current placement is "unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful to the deceased man and his family". I would add that it is "unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful" of black people in general. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I find the idea of hiding the picture of his death further down the article to be the true disrespect. This article is about that death and how it is affecting American society. To say "looking at this is upsetting, we should hide it" is to completely miss the point. --Khajidha (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree..black lives matter 2600:1702:2340:9470:E8D6:43FD:29B9:196D (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think an attitude of care is reflected in a casual attitude to displaying images of Floyd's violent death. Quite the opposite, it reflects a callous disregard for his and his family's tragedy. But if other editors can't see that then I'll say no more. Bacondrum (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
2600:1702:2340:9470:E8D6:43FD:29B9:196D—how does "black lives matter" have bearing on that which is under discussion? Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, I think you've broken the archives, can you go fix that? —valereee (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
If I broke the archive, I'd be glad to fix it. But I don't understand, what did I break? I guess you are referring to my undoing the archiving here. Can't I use the "undo" function to remove that section from archive? Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I see it is still in the archive. What did I do wrong? And what should I do now? Should I delete the older version of the "More respectful image?" section that is in archive? Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I've deleted from archives. I hope that is the right thing to do. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Not actually sure. The person who archived may have used a script, and that script may make multiple edits to make the move. Generally reopening discussion is done with a fresh section rather than unarchiving, I think. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it should have been archived as a comment was posted about 30 minutes before it was archived. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal: 8'46"

This proposal has been open for more than a month, it has been nearly a week since the last !vote, and a request for closure has been registered by Jax 0677.
By raw headcount, there were roughly 55 support !votes, 51 oppose, and a handful of alternate or indecipherable !votes.
Arguments on the merge side largely put forward the idea that the amount of independent content at 8'46" was insufficient to support a standalone article. Arguments on the oppose merge side were datelined well after the proposal was opened and noted that the 8'46" article had been significantly expanded. (Indeed, many merge !votes struck their comments and converted their opinions to don't merge towards the end of the discussion.) Arguments on both sides largely relied on perceptions of readability and didn't directly cite any policy that would support or not support merger.
I read that, while there is a slim majority of support to execute the merger, there is no consensus to do so. Chetsford (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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 propose to merge the article 8′46″ into Killing of George Floyd. This reference to the length of time that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd’s neck is worthy of a paragraph at the target article - maybe under a "Tributes" section since "in popular culture" seems a rather jarring reference to a controversial death. But IMO it is not worthy of a standalone article. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have changed my mind and now think it qualifies as a standalone article; see below. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That's not a strong argument or parallel though. 8 and 24 were already established as his player numbers, and no one was using them in much higher stakes situtations like protests for justice or civil rights. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


  • This is not a strong argument - no one was putting forth "Shot six times" as having any resonance in either protest themes or how to structure remembrances for Michael Brown. You are entitled to an opinion, but it's not a good analog for comparison. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks MelanieN for recognizing the article's evolution and merit. I was confident it was worthy of its own article before, and while adding more details I was even more convinced of its far-reaching impact. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Still support - While recognizing that the article has definetly expanded from what it originally was when I first gave my support on it, there just doesn't seem to be enough on the article to justify it being its own separate page, rather than being a part of the Killing of George Floyd article. As such, I still support a merge. Fernsong (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Still support - Thank you for the mention. The article has changed since this request was put forward but it is still comparatively lacking in the capacity to be a standalone article. While it definitely educates the reader, it doesn't have enough to have it's own article. The points were categorized, and while that is a good effort, that's all there is. Hence, I choose to continue to support the merge. Aaryan33056 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Have you read the article? It does the exact opposite of what you claim by detailing how the 8'46" is being highlighted to bring attention to injustice. I hope any closer of this proposal recognizes this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No, you need to read closer as I did not say anything of the sort. The duration itself is being used to "bring attention to injustice" and not the Wikipedia article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That it is merely a "catchphrase" is your opinion. If you read the article you will see that it is covered in multiple dimensions - in the context of forensics (as part of the charging document), popular culture, the media, and in protests. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI, as of today, a widely syndicated Associated Press piece refers to it this way: "8:46: A Number Becomes a Potent Symbol of Police Brutality." [26] Not just a slogan or catchphrase, but a symbol. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the source that you provided reads "All protest movements have slogans. George Floyd's has a number: 8:46". Especially in this instance we should not be creating articles willy-nilly as doing so trivializes the subject of the main article—which I would characterize as death in police custody as a result of abuse. Bus stop (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not a good (or cogent) argument. 1) No one has made a case for the time of the WTC attacks because the circumstances and significance are completely different and 2) there are not two-dozen reliable sources documenting the time you were born as notable. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I evidently juxtaposed two thing involving an 8 46 time period: one is an event that defines how we view modern history... the other is only significant to an astrology chart. It can take me 8 minutes and 46 seconds to bake Nestlé cookies. What other specific time has a Wikipedia article? This is the issue we run into when we just go making articles out of thin air. Recentism and exclusion. Trillfendi (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 8:48 is not related to anything that I know of. 8'46" is, however, and the article makes it rather clear how it has wide resonance in vigils, protests, popular culture and in the media. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Corrected the error, thanks for pointing that out. The uses of the term and resonance among corporations and groups all seem to stem from reactions to George Floyd killing and protests, making it easy to keep all of that under separate articles (i.e. Reactions to the killing of George Floyd, Reactions to George Floyd protests). 8'46" itself should redirect to Killing of George Floyd - EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, with the option to also keep this article. This is only a noteworthy time interval in the context of Floyd's killing (and in the 9/11 attacks, but that one is sufficiently disambiguated). It should be merged for now, but we can un-merge it if we decide if this has long-term notability later. epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "only a noteworthy time interval in the context of Floyd's killing" - Yes, and? There's no policy I'm aware of in Wikipedia that prescribes this as a problem in terms of article-ness. It is a time period made famous by Floyd's killing, but now has resonance in multiple domains. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the more important thing to think about is the long-term notability, i.e. would 8:46 still be repeated in 1 year? 10 years? Or would this be a phenomenon that fades out next month? WP:10YT should probably apply. I can't breathe, a similar article, is an example of something that has since become a widely-spread catchphrase, and is obviously noteworthy. Let's see if the same applies here, too. I think it may apply, given the widespread usage on social media, but we can't really predict the future. epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:10YT makes an excellent case to oppose this merger for now, and revisit the decision later. It says we should "wait and see". Yardenac (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - This is really not that well-known and deserving of a dedicated article. Xxavyer (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have changed my mind, this article definitely provides unique content. Is it necessary to exist? No. Will a lot of people see it? Probably not. But I don't think the specific stuff it has is worth merging, so the only other option is deleting. And I don't think something not being absolutely necessary or not likely to be seen is grounds for deleting, if it will nonetheless be of educational value to those who end up reading it. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, you can't have two votes here. Since you have changed your mind, you should strike your "support" vote above. If you don't know how, here's how: <s>'''Support'''</s> -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know (I am relatively new here, just joined in 2020) The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article has been significantly updated, and I think a lot of the content on it is not worth merging with the main George Floyd article, or the article on subsequent protests. It should stand alone as an article related, but separate from those two. Reminder that not everything regarding those events needs to fit into one of the main pages - it's okay to have supporting articles on related topics. I think the topic that is notable enough to warrant its own page. The current page primarily discusses specific use of that time (8 min 46 seconds) in protests and popular culture, not Floyd's murder itself. Coffeespoons (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and perhaps revisit the question in 6~12 months. I feel merge decisions like these are best made with hindsight after the article has been allowed to develop freely - especially for current events. If there was a real case for existing, that will have made itself clear with more content and sources. If there wasn't, then the decision to merge can be made with more confidence. But for now, give it room to grow. Already several supporters of merging have changed their minds, citing the ongoing progress the article has made. Yardenac (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposition but I support merging into George Floyd protests not Killing of George Floyd because the time is primarily used in protest.Waters.Justin (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge Doesn't have much coverage outside the US and is essentially encompassed by the death page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reminder: coverage outside the US is not a determining factor in our policies. Even if it was, there has been significant coverage "outside" the US because of Associated Press coverage [27], and the fact that major US news outlets are internationally read. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
"All protest movements have slogans. George Floyd's has a number: 8:46" You are arguing for a standalone article for a "slogan". Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Untrue. 1) One should look up the difference between a slogan and a symbol, as they are quite different. 2) The above !votes show this is not going to be merged. Best for all to focus on productively writing an encyclopedia. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
You are not engaging in dialogue. No surprise there, as your "argument" is for a separate freestanding article on a "slogan", according to the source that you provided. (Couldn't the Killing of George Floyd article explain the existence of the slogan 8′46″? Probably in about 2 sentences?) You are not explaining what you see as the "difference between a slogan and a symbol". Instead you are saying "One should look up the difference between a slogan and a symbol". Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't tell whether you are trolling or not. I have been thoroughly engaged in dialogue on this page. The difference is so simple I didn't think it needed explanation: shouting "8 minutes 46 seconds!" is a slogan. Lying down for a "die-in" for that amount of time, turning on the lights in Dodger Stadium for that amount of time, putting a black screen on TV with a pulsing "I CAN'T BREATHE" for that amount of time or Google telling employees to be silent for that amount of time are all symbolic. Let's not continue pointless debate - AGF and keep on editing. Cheers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
You are simply citing manifestations of a slogan. Indeed it would be surprising if there were not manifestations of a slogan. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The entire field of semiotics would have a problem with this definition. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Five days after my original evaluation, things have changed a lot and 8'46" has become significant enough to warrant a standalone article of its own. --nafSadh did say 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy Merge and this should be renamed and trimmed. Like George_Floyd insided or something. Jack007 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The content in the 8:46 article warrants inclusion, but per Wikipedia:Article size and WP:SPINOUT most of this content should not be in the main article concerning the killing of George Floyd. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge to this article - if it's merged anywhere, it should be merged to George Floyd protests (but that should be addressed in a separate merge proposal at Talk:George Floyd protests). In relation to the Killing of George Floyd, 8'46" is a coincidental detail--the time period Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck--other than being too long of a duration, it has no more meaning than that the time of day was 8:30 p.m. or that it was a Monday, etc. In relation to the George Floyd protests, 8'46" is a significant symbol. Thus, if it's not on its own page, it should be on the protest page, but not here. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Killing of George Floyd is already too long. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Even though the main article is too long, an article about the duration of an event, however terrible it is, does not have enough encyclopedic relevance in itself. If 8'46" was not a timelength, but a movement, I would probably oppose for now. Ron Oliver (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article has been expanded considerably since nominated and now meets notability guidelines. This symbol has made its way into playlists and commemorations as part of Blackout Tuesday and is being used as a symbolic time for moments of silence and die-ins across the world. I also trust the judgment of the nominator, who has reversed their position. gobonobo + c 09:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging or deletion — When there are activist movements, there is often a rush to create lots of articles based on initial hype and media coverage, and then there's a process of tidying them up later—think about the Occupy protests and the many tiny Occupy offshoots that ended up going to AfD and being merged. That is indeed a risk. But if this were at AfD, the test of standalone inclusion in terms of WP:GNG etc. are fairly clearly satisfied—it is well-sourced. There is a risk it is too soon, but this is equally balanced out by... well, if it is, and the use of 8'46" as a means of memorial, protest, activism (etc.) fades away in a few weeks or months, there's nothing stopping us from having a deletion discussion about it then, since there is no deadline, and as others have noted, this article is getting quite long already. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging or deletion - The subject of this article passes WP:GNG. A standalone article is justified per WP:SIZESPLIT. Krakkos (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

* Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin (2nd nomination). If Trayvon Martin has his own article, so should George Floyd. Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment sorry wrong one. Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think this passes GNG since there are multiple independent sources that are directly about this subject. If this was just trivially mentioned in some sources of course I would support a merge, but thats not the case when there are multiple credible sources directly about the subject.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while there should be a good paragraph about 8'46" in the George Floyd article, I also think this is now an independent phenomenon, and will likely to continue to be one of the major symbols of the protest movement. Having a standalone article will also keep unrelated detail out of a core article that is already quite long - eg the fact that the Senate observed 8'46" is notable for a standalone article, but maybe not for the core Death of George Floyd article. (Also, everyone should note that all of the articles on this subject are very fast moving, and the 8'46" article has changed quite a bit since the original nom, as has the real-world context and usage). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the subject has seen significant attention in protests and in media as of late, as represented by the size of the article at present, and has become noted in protests worldwide. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 20:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support into George Floyd Protests and this article 8'46" is inherently related to both these articles but as a standalone topic it's not notable EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge Both articles are directly related, and 8'46" is derivative and subsidiary of this article. Just give 8'46" its own subsection on this page instead of having a whole page dedicated to it. RopeTricks (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has become separate "slogan" that's related to wider BLM movement, not just the police slaying. It's similar to the I can't breathe article. 109.76.87.125 (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's becoming more apparent that the main article is better off splitting into multiple articles for various topics. This is no exception, as I see it, as there's already quite a lot of WP:RS in this article already. Quahog (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the [8'46"] article as is (and growing); if somehow it can be kept under ~20kB I support the merge, but that is very unlikely to happen. This [killing of] article is already large enough. Feelthhis (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: sources in the article and arguments above make a convincing case for notability. Much better to leave this as-is for now and revisit at a later date when lasting significance can be better evaluated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. We can revisit this whole series of articles when we have more perspective, when the scholarly works are written. It's too hard to judge while we're in the middle of this. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge into George Floyd Protests because there is no need for a stand alone article on this topic. Sokuya (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons above. Notable, well sourced, decently sized and expanding. QuestFour (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: This is too obscure, and should be merged for easier access. As a standalone article its not notable enough to deserve a whole page. Hextor26 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the length of time is not independently notable to the event. The article contains the origin of 8:46 (should already in this article) and some other events (protests, memorials etc.) which reference the time. A separate article is unnecessary.
    SSSB (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a phrase that is only associated with this event and probably won't be used for any other event. Love of Corey (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this article being as well-sourced and decently sized (without overcompensating in my opinion) proves that it has a right to stand on its own. It would take up too much room in the main article, which is already quite large, although not unreasonably so at the moment. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe this article now has enough material to stand on its own. The RS coverage has been extensive and this subject is worth covering in a separate article than either the killing or the protests article; both, moreover, are already very long, so I do not believe it is helpful to merge 8'46" into either. Davey2116 (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This protest wasn't known enough to have it's own page. Epicneter (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 8′46″ is a noteable period of time, and per WP:Split it's helpful for the reader to have a seperate article on this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This page is already very big. We need to make all possible sub-subject separate pages. If anyone thinks 8′46″ does not deserve a separate page, they should start an AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. 8′46″ page is an obvious content/POV fork. This is not a separate sub-subject of two general subjects, which are this page and "protests" page. If merging does not succeed, it should be deleted (AfD). My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the other article is too long as is and has a few splits already proposed adding more to it is counter productive.Blindlynx (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The killing of George Floyd's article has already been splitted because it's too long already. We can't merge all the aspects of this tragedy into one giant article. BTW, IMO, if this article has to be merged with an other one, it would be better to merge it with an article about the protests. --Deansfa (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The time interval is now independently notable for its use as a political symbol, in the same way as other iconic slogans. -- The Anome (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose; it's achieved a criticality on its own now, and besides, the merge target is too big as is. Feoffer (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This 8'46" is non-notable. It is but a statistic in the incident and, really, a slogan. It is also an immateriality in the overall scope of the alleged offense. Further, also strong support merger of "George Floyd" into this article. Floyd is not notable otherwise, except for his criminal record- Veryproicelandic (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support merge This is a mostly pointless and non-notable article that can very easily be merged. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge He was unknown and not notable prior to his death. 122.11.146.209 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good-faith comment, as he has obviously become notable after his death. And this discussion isn't over whether George Floyd is notable, but rather over whether 8'46" should exist as an independent page. Coffeespoons (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Such a claim, for a negative, is not required, indeed never required, on Wikipedia. It has to be for thse who claim he is notable to source such a claim. Please be aware of this! And given that BLP covers the month after the death of any individual it is particularly important that to establish a claim to sufficient notability for an article requires sourcing. So please can you proovide sources that his life before he was died was notable? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: It is, actually, in this instance, as you are claiming something counter to the myriad sources provided on the article page. The onus is on you to prove the topic is not notable. Of course you can't (because it is notable), but you are certainly welcome to try. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: Nope, those sources prove his death was notable, and we have this article for his death. There are no sources before May 25th because he wasn't notable in life. I await your sources, your claim that the article is full of sources which I have to magically find that allegedly claim what you say is not an adequate response, as per the way we do things on Wikipedia, esp when BLP is involved, as you should know well given your 15 odd years of editing here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@RichardWeiss: Your ignorance of what the sources say does not change your burden. It also appears you aren't clear on what even needs to be notable for the article to qualify for notability. You might want to re-check what you're discussing. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: I'm not so ignorant of what the sources say to think there are any sources which say oro demonstrate that he was notable before May 25th or that there are any soources about him from before May 25 beyond perhaps basic reporting of his crimes, which would not be notable by Wikipedia standards unless some other notoability is established (e.g., we'd report minor crimes by an otherwise notable person, and could do so here as his post-death notability has been amply established). Trying to claim that he was notable before May 25 is about the most fringe view I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Instead of providing sources for your claim you go on the attack in a rude manner. I am very familiar with WP:Notability and use it regulalry in my work here. Please stop assuming bad faith and either provide a source showing his notability before May 25th or don't. Going on the attack won't resolve anything. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@RichardWeiss: I think you've made it clear enough from your misunderstanding of this debate that any competent closer of this discussion can safely ignore your !vote. When you're ready to discuss the topic of this !vote, please ping me. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:25, 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_George_Floyd/Archive_3&oldid=966580924"