Talk:Derek Chauvin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Speedy deletion tag

A speedy deletion tag was placed on this article by an individual who then blanked the article, including the db, a few minutes later. I had pointed out to them that db8 was only supposed to be used for articles that were essentially duplicates of previously deleted material. No article had been previously deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)}}</nowiki>

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it can be redirected to George Floyd or one of many other suitable pages) --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it will certainly need to be a redirect - the issue is whether the revision history needs to be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• StAnselm, I already explained to you, on your user talk page, that db-repost is only supposed to be used on material that was previously deleted. The logs for this page show that this article was not previously deleted.

I removed the db-repost tag you placed in violation of policy. Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan the title is irrelevant. G4 allows deletion of subjects that have been discussed at AFD and deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Clarification please. Praxidicae Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4 says
This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title...	I think you are arguing that the deletion of Derek Chauvin (police officer) justifies the G4 here. However, StAnselm already acknowledged, on his or her user talk page, that they don't know what any deleted material said. The claim they used for placing the tag there? " But the consensus was clear that there should not be an article about this person." I think you know that is not how deletion works. A brand new version requires a brand new AFD. AFDs which conclude a topic itself should never have an article are rare. They result in salting the topic name. For 99.x percent of articles deleted at AFD, good faith contributors who think they can draft a different version, one with references not used in the earlier version, one which they think does measure up to our inclusion criteria, are entitled to go ahead and do so, without having to worry about contributors interfering with their work with inappropriate speedy deletion claims.
It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version...	As above, StAnselm has no idea as to whether this version is identical to the version of Derek Chauvin (police officer) that was deleted.

• I don't need a giant chart, you can go read WP:G4. It says NOTHING about "the title must be the same." Changing a title is not a substantial difference. The AFD was pretty clear that this shouldn't exist as a standalone article. And considering you can't see the deleted version either, you're not in a position to be making the judgement about whether it's sufficiently similar or not either. Praxidicae (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Praxidicae, you wrote something that really surprised me. "The AFD was pretty clear that this shouldn't exist as a standalone article."

As I wrote above, AFD do, very rarely, close with a decision that an article's underlying topic, itself, should never be covered in a standalone article. When that conclusion is reached the article is salted.

But almost all AFDs that close with a delete are simply deleting that version, at that date. Good faith contributors are welcome to try and draft a new version that addresses the concern that triggered the deletion, or a new version that includes references not available or not found, when the earlier version was deleted. Speedy deletion of a recreated article has always been interpreted as not applying to new versions that meaningfully differed from the deleted version.

Your comment seems to imply that, in your opinion, every AFD delete closure is tantamount to a SALT decision, and no one should ever think they are permitted to draft a new version of any deleted article, no matter how many new developments there are, now many new references are published. So, is this what you meant to write? Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, AfDs are community discussions to determine whether a subject is notable enough for an article. In this case, the determination was that Chauvin is not notable per WP:BLP1E, and we would not have an article on him unless that changes. If you do not like the outcome of that AfD, you may take it to WP:DRV for review. But recreating it under another title and wikilawyering over whether it's eligible for G4 is disruptive. – bradv🍁 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Because this article is American topic, please adding to top of article as follow because date format needs to used as script.

• {{Use American English}} (date=June 2020)
• {{Use mdy dates}} (date=June 2020) 36.77.95.210 (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020 (2)

Please change link from: (Category:Death of George Floyd) to (Category:Killing of George Floyd) as the category name was renamed few days ago and the former name has redlinked. 36.77.95.210 (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Please implement [1] in addition to the AFD tag while the AFD is in progress. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Jax 0677: Probably not happening. See the reasoning on AN here (old, not involving you) and here (recent and started by you), see also the above template: "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Not done This isn't G4 eligible. At the very basic, it was never deleted as a result of an XfD, and its most recent XfD hasn't closed. A brief stint at DRV resulted in being relisted, so speedy deleting would ignore that. Moreover, there are a lot of keep !votes in the new AfD, so this is absolutely not uncontroversial. Moreover, at the moment it's a redirect and protected, so there's really no need for deletion; doing so would just remove the history from view, which would be disruptive to the AfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Categorization

Please replace Category:American police officers with Category:Minneapolis Police Department officers. Apokrif (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Izno (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Can we store this page to the last edit that was an article. It is causing confusion in the AFD. Also, can we take off the protection. There is no reason for it while the AFD is ongoing.Casprings (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: you can use the oldid to access the previous version — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Can click here to get to any version in the page's history.—Bagumba (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is well cited and concerns a notable person who will be in history textbooks. There definitely edits that need to be made on this page, but to say he isn't notable enough is absurd and could come off as political bias. You have a page regarding Thomas Junta, who is far less notable and did not spark a major world-wide protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.106.121 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Target

The redirect target needs to be Killing of George Floyd#People involved​, not Persons involved.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, by Hut 8.5 – Thjarkur (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

propose paragraph deletion

Although this is indeed cited, does it really add anything to the article? 'He might have overlapped or he might not....?' "According to the former owner of El Nuevo Rodeo, a Latin nightclub, Floyd and Chauvin had worked overlapping shifts as security guards at the club; Chauvin for 17 years and Floyd at about a dozen events. The former owner said it was not clear whether they knew each other but that she did not believe so.[10][11]"

I would suggest this be deleted. --DevilTrombone (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• DevilTrombone, see Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion/Archive_12#Explicit_explanation_of_PROD_eligibility_of_previous_AfD_candidates. Articles that go through an AFD are not eligible for prod. Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I meant that paragraph should be deleted, not the article. --DevilTrombone (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Privacy issue

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.

---

Should the name of Derek Chauvin's ex-wife be listed in this article, or at least redirect to this article? I don't see why it should be omitted if it is all over the news. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Because of WP:BLPNAME, as I've pointed out to you multiple times now. There couldn't be any more clear a case of this. The wife has changed her name for reasons that must surely be obvious even to you, and there is no value whatsoever to breaking her incognito. EEng 21:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it should not be included. EEng found the section I was looking for, and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE also applies. Her name is not necessary to the reader's understanding and her privacy should therefore be respected. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Redirect_links_to_<redacted>. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• For the record the OP continued with the BLP violations [2]. EEng 01:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Since the former Mrs Chauvin, was (Redacted) I question whether rules that protect people who are not public figures apply to her. She was interviewed, multiple times, during her term as (Redacted). During those interviews she explicitly praised Chauvin, for having a sweet nature.

  She described meeting him when she was working in a hospital emergency room, and he brought a wounded suspect in for treatment. She said she was impressed by his kindness.

  I think that is relevant to his article.

  Yes, following the killing, she filed for divorce, and set in motion the steps to change her name. That makes the story of their marriage complicated, so, if it is covered, it should be covered carefully.

  I question whether policy calls for a complete blackout on reporting on any aspect of his marriage. RS are reporting Chauvin is a racist. I am keeping my eyes peeled for RS who challenged whether he was a complete racist, by pointing out that his wife was born in Laos. I think any RS that points that out should be covered here - carefully, of course. Geo Swan (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• {{ping}}ing Yngvadottir, Ohnoitsjamie. Geo Swan (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  I've redacted your identification of this person. There must be a full moon or something. I leave to others your idea that, Gee, I guess he wasn't that much of a racist because, ya know, he married a [insert here]. (And I heard that some of his best friends were [insert here]!) EEng 03:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Geo Swan, I think you're on the wrong side of this, and there have been revision deletions and a block by at my count three different admins over the matter, so I'm fairly confident in my judgement on the matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No, we should absolutely not use her name. How is this even a quesiton? Anon0098 (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Did not know there sere degrees of racist. Hates xxxx's but not yyyy's and zzzzz's? But ggg's are OK if the (fill in the blank). --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• With regard to the claims that RS have had nothing new or interesting to write about the former Mrs Chauvin... I invite contributors to read (redacted). Geo Swan (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Geo Swan, if you are not aware that Medium (website) is a blogging platform that is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia, then please inform yourself. "New or interesting" is not an inclusion criteria, and I must warn you that you are at risk of a block for violating WP:BLP if you make any further efforts that might facilitate the harassment of a living person. In brief, stop now. This is a formal warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• I can't believe this really needs to be said, but no. She is the very definition of a low-profile individual, and she has been thrust into the spotlight through no fault of her own. Let's respect her privacy.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I think her claims should be included - simply because this is something described in many publications on the subject. We should simply summarize what RS say, i.e. act per WP:NPOV. As about her new name, yes it can be excluded. My very best wishes (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BLPNAME. WWGB (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • WWGB, are you sure you are citing BLPNAME correctly? Doesn't BLPNAME specifically state it is for names that have not been widely disseminated? When I checked, last week, a google search for her name gave 269,000 hits. A google news search gave something like 30,000 hits. Google hits, alone, don't make her more notable. But, I suggest a person's name should never be described as "not widely disseminated" if it gives hundreds of web search hits.

    So, are you sure you are citing BLPNAME correctly? Geo Swan (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC) I suggest

Per WP:BLPNAME, "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." What is the benefit to any reader knowing whether her name is Alice Chauvin, Betty Chauvin or Carol Chauvin? It is sufficient to refer to her as Chauvin's (ex) wife. WWGB (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, she's a private citizen and deserves the right to remain that way. —valereee (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• What BLPNAME says is has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, and the latter bit controls even if the concealment hasn't fully succeeded. Geo Swan, this has been explained to you in more detail on a user's talk page, and you really need to drop this now. I'm pinging you so you'll this but in a moment I'm going to archive this to avoid drawing any more attention to it. EEng 18:08, 21 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.

WP:NOPAGE

This is just a pin for the future, so people can think about it. The recent AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin) was debated on entirely the wrong basis i.e. notability. The real question is WP:NOPAGE: even assuming he's notable, is a separate page the best way to present the information about him? As it stands the answer is 100% no. This article is completely duplicative; there is nothing -- literally not a thing -- in this article that's not in the article Killing of George Floyd; Readers wanting to learn about Chauvin are much better served by reading the later article. This article just provides one more place to fiddle with wording, one more place for people to vandalize and add conspiracy theories and unreliable sources, and so on. EEng 23:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is water under the bridge now. In so far as the subject is concerned, I suggest summarizing at Killing of George Floyd and elaborating here. El_C 23:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If there's anything left over to elaborate with. If the situation's the same in a month I'll propose merging. EEng 00:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I am good with that. El_C 00:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The argument that it's just one more page for 'fiddling, vandalism, and unreliable sources' misses the point that if that's someone's intent they'll just do it on another page. It's like saying 'let's not build a wall since it just gives a vandal another target'. That said, I think the argument that this page isn't sufficiently justified is correct. Until we have a biography and know more about him this is just a stub. But wikipedia has tons of stub pages. Another one won't crash the servers, I think. DevilTrombone (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I have preemptively semiprotected the page indefinitely as an Arbitration enforcement action, so I think we'll be alright on the vandalism front. El_C 04:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I do not think this page should be merged or deleted. Right now nothing from the "Background" section of this page was included to the "Killing" page, and one can reasonably argue this should not be included. However, the content of the "Background" section is actually important for understanding the story and interesting for a reader. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  What you say is untrue. The only stuff in this article (added since my post above) not in the Killing of article are his high school; his work McDonald's, as a security guard, and as an Army policeman; and his college. That could all be easily incorporated over there. EEng 21:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  How come? This section of "killing" article provides just a couple of phrases (he "had been a police officer in the Minneapolis Police Department since 2001.[24][25] Chauvin and Floyd sometimes worked overlapping shifts as security..." etc.), but no other info about him, which is provided in Background on this page (4 paragraphs). I agree: this could be included in "killing" page. The problem: some people will object to inluding it there. If you think otherwise, please try to include it on "killing page" and see what will happen. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  No, the thing to do is wait and see how this article develops, and then ask the question of where the material on Chauvin is best presented. EEng 03:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I withdraw my suggestion; the DC page is here to stay. EEng 18:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Call for discussion

To try to avoid edit warring I am going to list some additional subtopics here, to get others opinions as to whether, and how, they should be introduced here.

I am going to encourage other contributors to consider not following WP:BRD here, until reporting settles down. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin and qualified immunity

Derek Chauvin role in George Floyd's death renewed the debate over the extent to which the USA's Judicial branch should extend qualified immunity to law enforcement official who commit acts that would result in conviction, for civilians. I gathered some references. Overlap between articles should be avoided. Geo Swan (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.google.com/search?q=%22qualified+immunity%22+%22derek+chauvin%22&newwindow=1&safe=off&rlz=1CAEAQE_enCA863&sxsrf=ALeKk03pOfhpPHgFpayyhnC5zvZEamSfOA:1591828718614&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjyt8OKqPjpAhVgknIEHWLRDpMQ_AUoAXoECGYQAw&biw=1366&bih=617

References

• None of this has any place in this article. EEng 23:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, I was hoping that anyone who had a genuine policy-based opinion on not covering the RS that discussed Chauvin's connection to the issue of whether to continue or deprecate the qualified immunity police currently enjoy would make an effort to explain their reasoning.

  1. Is it your position that Chauvin's role in stimulating this discussion should be covered in the qualified immunity article? But surely, even then, there would need to be at least a link to qualified immunity, here, and a sentence or two of context?
  2. Is there an article, other than the Derek Chauvin or Qualified immunity where you think these RS should be used? Okay, what article(s) would that be? As above, surely there would still be a need to link to those article(s), and provide some context?
  3. Are you arguing that there are reasons why none of those references should be used to expand any wikipedia articles? If this is your position, surely you need to explain yourself?

  Geo Swan (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Chauvin killed Floyd -> horror, outrage -> protests -> discussion of reforms. There's a place, in the articles about Floyd and his death, to enumerate (but not explore) legal and policy changes that are being proposed. Assuming this article continues to even exist (which it shouldn't) the most it should say is a generality like "Chauvin's killing of Floyd sparked worldwide protest and intense attention to X and Y and proposals for changes to Z and W etc etc." One sentence at most. He's just too far removed. Look at it this way: Let's say someone vaguely understands that Floyd's death has caused discussions of policy changes. If this person knew the subject of one of those changes (qualified immunity, say) he'd look at the article about that subject. Or if he didn't have particular policy areas in mind, but knew the discussions stemmed from Floyd's death, he'd look in one of the Floyd articles. But it would never occur to them to look in this article. You might as well put discussions of qualified immunity in an article on Chauvin's dad because, well, when you think about it, if it weren't for him none of this would be happening. EEng 01:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not to press the point, but if (and/or when) there is coverage in reliable sources of qualified immunity as it pertains to the subject, then a summary of that would be fine, I think. El_C 01:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, if RSs talk about how qualified immunity might apply to Chauvin, that conceivably would be discussed here. But then the same points likely apply equally to the other officers as well, so even that probably better belongs in the Killing of article. This certainly isn't the place to discuss, or probably even mention, policy changes. EEng 01:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps either or both, depending on the material, its breadth and depth. El_C 04:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a reactions section on the George Floyd protests main page. Might be better use there. Adding indirect policy ramifications on a personal article is a little bit of a stretchAnon0098 (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Mug shot use

I think that we should not resort to the fair use of such a humiliating picture of this poor man. The mug shot should be removed. 51.175.201.208 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he's suffered enough. Anyone can make a mistake. Free Derek Chauvin! Seriously, if your sympathy for him stems from the fact that he lacks a soul, I guess I can see that, at least a bit. EEng 21:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with OP actually. We should perhaps use another picture than a mug shot. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Got one? EEng 03:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The only other pictures of him publicly available that I'm aware of are the screenshot of him in the original video suffocating George Floyd and a few other different mugshots of him. I understand we're trying to be nonbiased, but we don't have many other options that are less humiliating. Regardless, at least for now I think it's fitting considering he's most well known around the world for killing George Floyd and a lot of people have their eye on him for the court proceedings and how he will eventually be sentenced. I don't think it should be removed and that there should be outright no pics either for the same reason that it shows him in a more clear angle that also reflects his current incarceration and the world anticipating his sentencing (not to get too deep). Uelly (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

he is known for being a criminal/criminal charges. Why would we use anything els? Praxidicae (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I`m confused..there is no picture of him at this time..the one of the murder is probably more memorable..someone removed the mugshot..with regard to humiliation and describe him as a poor man I have no words to say here 2600:1702:2340:9470:E464:AE25:80FC:8AF7 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Crop the photograph - Crop the mugshot and do not label the mugshot as such. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI, the mug shot was deleted; discussion is at [3] —valereee (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Then there should be another picture..I have never once read a Wikipedia article about anyone where there wasn`t a photo if one is available..this is blatant censorship 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate Page : Derek Chauvin

It is inaccurate to describe Derek Chauvin’s actions as “involved in the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 25, 2020.” I suggest a more accurate short description : “former police officer responsible for the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Chauvin kept his knee upon Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, including after Floyd lost consciousness for 1 minute and 20 seconds, as two other former officers pushed down on his body. Floyd can be heard saying he could not breathe multiple times, clearly audible on a video recording of the incident.”

Wikipedia is just as responsible as every other individual and entity to make necessary changes, including the language we use surrounding the killing of black and brown people by officers. Vkatlaps (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The killing of white people too, come to think of it. EEng 22:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The article title is Killing of George Floyd and consistency with the title is preferred. El_C 07:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

incarceration history

There should be something about where he is being detained..the article gives the bail amount not whether or not it has been paid..I`m assuming he`s been moved at least once to a cell somewhere unless he`s bailed out..anyone ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:BD16:B8DD:4AA6:F27C (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Absent mention of release the reader will assume he still in the clink. I never understand the preoccupation with recording where exactly people are being held. I don't think he's allowed many visitors so it's not clear what readers will do with such information. EEng 22:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It`s in every Wikipedia article I`ve ever read about someone who has been arrested...personally I thought he was out on bail..people are already going on about his treatment..I assume he`s still in jail ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:E464:AE25:80FC:8AF7 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly the controversy about the conditions of his confinement does belong. EEng 22:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn`t say anything about where he is..only that he`s been transferred to a state facility..doesn`t say which one..no one knows where he is..I surely don`t...it`s not like there is any real chance of him being lynched 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Misleading/False Information

Referring to the 2nd sentence in the article, which says

During an arrest made by Chauvin and three other officers, he knelt on George Floyd's neck for almost eight minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on a street.

(I might be mistaken here but) I recall that George was lying face-up looking at the sky when Derek's knee was on his neck. Can someone please fix it and respond to me. Thank you, BGzest (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

BGzest, the sources say Floyd was lying face down (and the photos support that, as well) —valereee (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. Have a look at the infobox. WWGB (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at the photos and I think I'm wrong, he looks more facing down then facing up. Just nullify my request. Sorry guys. BGzest (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• As I wrote above, for three weeks all sources, including the Prosecutors, said almost nine minutes, or 8:46. The last time i looked 8:46 got over three times as many google hits as 7:46. Yes, the prosecutors later asserted it was only 7:46. But the video is public, and they were not the only people to review it, frame by frame, in detail. The NYTimes has a video about the video, which shows they reviewed it frame by frame, and it says they independently determined the duration to be 8:46. So I think Stayfree76 was mistaken to call for the article to be corrected, and I think it is a mistake for the article to state, as an undisputed fact, that the duration was less than 8 minutes. Geo Swan (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• this brings an interesting point to the matter, in my opinion. i guess what you are saying is, what source takes priority in the case where there is conflicting info. personally, i believe that any numbers or information sourced from the prosecution or any legal authority involved, for that matter, should override any statements/reports from media. that being said, im sure there is room to elaborate within the article regarding specifics of the case being updated over time. from what i can tell, many people write information or state things as fact before all the evidence is gathered, or from looking at the scenario from a limited view so striking it out completely seems more fitting in those circumstances. (for example: once you read the transcripts released of the body came audio it is pretty clear that the officers were struggling to deal with him throughout the entire incident. they had mentioned excited delirium at least once and if you look at the white paper about that topic you will see that [former] officer Chauvin followed the PD policy to the T yet he was being called a murderer before the case was even started. you cannot be a murderer before you are convicted of murder.) Stayfree76 (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Murderers get found not guilty all the time..that does not mean they did not commit a murder 2600:1702:2340:9470:E824:60F6:5A7C:F5ED (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

no, that is exactly what it means. if someone is found "not guilty" then they did not do whatever it was they were being tried for. i am somewhat unsure why you would challenge that, but that is how the law works in the US. "innocent until proven guilty". not guilty by default infers innocence. Stayfree76 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That`s insane...if someone were to kill someone you care about right in front of you and got off on a technicality would you still say it wasn`t a murder ? look it up in a dictionary [ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder ] yes there is a legal definition however it also says " to slaughter wantonly " or to "slay" I don`t necessary take 100% stock in online dictionaries after all they have a tendency to misspell the word LEAD I hate that but I`m pretty sure if you looked it up in an actual dictionary it would say the same..this..look up the word slay 2600:1702:2340:9470:C1B8:7247:E9DD:B50C (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

there is a big difference between being found "not guilty" by a judge or a jury of your peers and the case being dropped due to a "technicality". in alot of circumstances the case could/would be retried in CIVIL court (see OJ Simpson). that being said, bringing up what ifs is completely ridiculous, but unfortunately i have the experience in which you mention. 2 weeks ago my aunt and uncle were shot to death. the suspect died a few days later. considering the main suspect is now dead, it is unlikely the case will be a murder and will stay classified as a general homicide. you should really be more careful saying things like that. i have been active in trying to help accurately edit this wiki while coping/mourning and taking time off of work and having to read your statement was unpleasant to say the least. Stayfree76 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• And on that sad note I think we should end this. EEng 22:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please 2600:1702:2340:9470:1C1:95B0:EFAD:252 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Length of restraint incorrect

According to sources the time in restraint was 7:46 not 8:46. This should be corrected as soon as possible as the current article is no longer accurate.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/derek-chauvin-knelt-on-george-floyds-neck-for-746-prosecutors/ https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/06/17/prosecutors-derek-chauvin-had-knee-on-george-floyd-for-746-not-846/

Stayfree76 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the information and for providing a link (we don't use the New York Post as a source, but the AP/CBS reference is fine). -- MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I don't think this is a routine correction. The press were reporting the duration as 8:46, without challenge for weeks. Last time I looked, most press reporting were still reporting the duration at 8:46.
• Over on Talk:Jack Letts you will see a very long discussion I had with an inexperienced contributor, who seems to have left the project. He was determined that the article should say Letts had been "charged", based on a single BBC article. We should cover what RS say, even if it doesn't seem credible to us, as per VERIFY.
• But when RS don't agree, I think that is what our coverage should say. Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

details around 911 call

based on the transcripts of the 911 call it the following quote from article seems to be inaccurate or at the very least misleading: "On May 25, 2020, Chauvin was one of four officers involved in arresting George Floyd on suspicion of using a counterfeit $20 bill at a market"

according to the transcripts provided by the City of Minneapolis, the callers complaint said the following (shortened for simplicity):

Caller: Um someone comes our store and give us fake bills and we realize it before he left the store...and he’s sitting on his car cause he is awfully drunk and he’s not in control of himself. Operator: On 38th ST. So, this guy gave a counterfeit bill, has your cigarettes, and he’s under the influence of something? Caller: Something like that, yes. He is not acting right.

that being said i believe the article should be changed to something along the lines of: "On May 25, 2020, Chauvin was one of four officers involved in arresting George Floyd on suspicion of using a counterfeit $20 bill at a market [as well as being "under the influence of something and not acting right" before getting in, and operating, a motor vehicle].

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/28/city-of-minneapolis-releases-transcript-of-911-call-on-george-floyd-released/

Stayfree76 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing an opinion with a cause of arrest. “Not acting right” is not a criminal offence. Nor did Floyd drive a vehicle after the cigarette sale. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

i am not confusing anything. the sentence i quoted says "SUSPICION"... that suspicion was created by the 911 call... it is one the reason the cops showed up to begin with. there is no imposed guilt on the statement, it is historically accurate. that is all. Stayfree76 (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, fine. SUSPICION of being under the influence of "something" and not acting "right" is not something you can arrest someone for. I'm under the influence of "something" right now, and my mother used to say I wasn't acting "right" quite a lot. EEng 03:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I am as well and I`m breaking the law..shoot me..a non violent crime does not justify what happened 2600:1702:2340:9470:98B2:7C4:6918:104B (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

i dont think i should have to say this, but your statements are not adding anything to the conversation and are borderline mocking and i definitely don't appreciate it. have any of you read the transcripts from the audio from the body camera of the officers that was recently released? that being said, see blow for link to a wikipedia article regarding the EXACT concept used to make at least detain, if not arrest. i points i am making are done expressly to ensure the accurate documentation of the event AND if we ever want wikipedia to be considered a realiable source then everyone else should do the same. Going further, during the 911 call, the person mentioned mr floyd was not acting right etc. here is an extended quote (link also below): "Caller: Um someone comes our store and give us fake bills and we realize it before he left the store, and we ran back outside, they was sitting on their car. We tell them to give us their phone, put their (inaudible) thing back and everything and he was also drunk and everything and return to give us our cigarettes back and so he can, so he can go home but he doesn't want to do that, and he's sitting on his car cause he is awfully drunk and he's not in control of himself."

mr floyd was in the DRIVER seat of the vehicle. not considering him not wanted to get out of the vehicle, the officer approached the vehicle with extreme caution (weapon drawn and pointed). i could keep going, but i think i have said enough for now. i would urge you all to stop being emotional, look at the facts presented, and if you have something to say maybe make it constructive.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-death-911-transcript-minneapolis-police/

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Stayfree76 (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

I would like to have the IPA pronounciation of Chauvin's surname - /ˈtʃoʊvɪn/ - added to this page. I believe that the pronounciation of his surname is somewhat ambiguous, and after watching many news reports where the hosts say his name, I have determined that /ˈtʃoʊvɪn/ is the correct pronounciation. Here is the transcription, formatted according to Wikipedia's guide: /ˈtʃoʊvɪn/

Thank you. 73.238.40.183 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but we would need to have a source actually explaining how to say his name - not just our interpretation of how news anchors are saying it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Date of Birth

Someone please add that he was born in 19 March 1976 according to this https://coms.doc.state.mn.us/publicviewer/OffenderDetails/Contract/261557.--2601:206:380:4F40:B51A:49B:D108:8348 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2601:206:380:4F40:B51A:49B:D108:8348 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not in the source cited. Sundayclose (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

More fundamentally, (a) we don't use primary sources like that; (b) WP:BLPPRIVACY. EEng 22:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The article currently says he was born in 1976. There are sources that say he is 44 right now,[4] which would mean he was either born in 1975 or 1976. Is there a definitive non-primary source that it was specifically 1976? Now we could cite this primary source to narrow it down to 1976 but not list his full birthdate for privacy reasons. Any suggestions?—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that the year of someone's birth is a "straightforward, descriptive statement of fact" that doesn't require interpretation, I think it appropriate to cite "1976" to that primary source, while we can always swap it for a definitive secondary source later if one emerges. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Any kind of database search counts as OR, because there are too many uncertainties about whether you've reached the right record. EEng 05:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

picture

Still waiting for his picture and incarceration history..seems to be the elephant in the room 2600:1702:2340:9470:6D85:7514:AA02:ACDF (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to find a picture we can use. Ideally one where he's not in an orange jumpsuit. And ideally freely licensed, if possible. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I`m a complete amateur with regard to this...I have no problem with the mugshot or the killing of George Floyd article...as I remember both were in then pulled..I don`t know why his current whereabouts is not in the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:9407:91EF:9E8C:2E7 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Officer Who Pressed His Knee on George Floyd’s Neck Drew Scrutiny Long Before - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/us/derek-chauvin-george-floyd.html -- 2001:14BA:9C0B:A700:0:0:0:8EA (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tax Evasion

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 tried to create a new section, but I got flagged for violating the biography of living persons policy? Here are the sources. Hope I don't trigger it again.

1. https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/07/22/derek-chauvin-and-wife-charged-with-multiple-felony-tax-crimes/

2. https://www.startribune.com/fired-minneapolis-officer-derek-chauvin-wife-charged-with-tax-crimes/571864051/?fbclid=IwAR2e0dvD8XcsL_ul672fnwZ8O1dipy9-tW7msVKr63NaRlEg5QvT6sGNpag

Kire1975 (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Kire1975, it looks like you were triggered for naming his wife, which is against is related to WP:BLPNAME.—Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, was about to say the same. That seems like a violation of the Genies (Putting Back In Bottles) Regulations, 2016: AP names her rather prominently in https://apnews.com/56bea6e3d1ea1aaeba129522df43294f and pretty much all the stories on the tax evasion (of which there are dozens) use her name. Maybe that filter needs to be retired now. Guy (help!) 10:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense, but his wife is now charged with a felony for tax evasion related to their joint finances. Both names are widely disseminated. This automatic flag offers no opportunity to take that into account. Weird. Kire1975 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JzG: I rephrased above, as I wasn't intending to take a position. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, no criticism implied or intended, my friend. You stated it as found, and correctly, I just think that in this case the BLPNAME bar has by now been exceeded. Guy (help!) 11:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, none taken. Just wanted to be clear I was merely interpretting the filter than agreeing one way or the other. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• A month ago a handful of administrators were manually using revdel to suppress mentions of the name in question.

  Are the rules used by the robot that runs the filter publicly viewable? How broadly applied is this filter. In the WPANI thread I mentioned below, I explained I had started a draft at User:Geo Swan/Tou Thao, but that I was maintaining the references off-wiki, as some of those references did make passing mentions to the name in question, and David Eppstein seemed to think he was authorized to revdel good faith contributions if they cited RS that merely contained a passing mention of the name in question.

  Are filters like this url based?

  Do they apply everywhere, or would they allow a reference with a url that included the name in question in an article on Tou Thao? Geo Swan (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, a month ago we didn't have a load of stories naming both Chauvins as parties in a tax fraud prosecution. Mrs Chauvin is not a public official, whereas Tou Thao is (or was). Assume good faith. Guy (help!) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• {U|JzG}}, thanks for the reply.
• Okay, but even a month ago, even the day Floyd was killed, the individual with a link to Derek Chauvin was not a BLP1E, due to the coverage of the event of 2018.
• As I noted at BLP1E my google search in early June got me 269,000 hits for their name, got me 29,000 google news hits.
• In 2018 the individual in question was the one receiving coverage, around the 2018 event, but they made significant comments about Derek Chauvin then, which were relevant to his article today, and could have been added to his article, except for the poorly explained call upon the authority of BLPNAME.
• With regard to AGF, I am happy to assume that everyone who I think has exceeded their authority has done so in good faith. I don't think I have suggested, anywhere, that the statements and actions they made, that I disagree with, were in bad faith. Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Geo Swan, We're not a tabloid. Honestly, I can't see this as anything other than a normal and reasonable use of admin discretion. Guy (help!) 17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  • You may be correct. If we had a discussion where we weren't required to obfuscate everything, we might all agree with some or all of the prior exercises of administrator authority. However, this obfuscation means no one can quote passages from RS that they think justifies more coverage of this individual. And, since the discussion is limited by what is going to trigger a discussion ending revdel, I am concerned we can't meaningfully agree on how reasonable those exercises were. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

    Geo Swan, no obfuscation is necessary. Previously, she played no real part in the story. Now, she is a co-indictee in a tax fraud allegation. Still not related to the Floyd killing, but probably enough of a connection to pass BLPNAME. Guy (help!) 19:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

    • There was a story, from NBC, about a month ago, where an Asian-American journalist reported on the coverage of this individual, and the inherent racism and sexism of that coverage.

      It addressed the male critics of this individual, within the Asian-American community - she called them "Asian-incels" - who resented Asian-American women who dated or married outside the Asian-American community. She suggested the death threats this individual's lawyer reported had probably come from them.

      It addressed the question as to whether genuine white supremacists ever married Asian-American women (answer: sometimes, when they too fell for the stereotype that Asian-American women were extra submissive...) Did that article merit being cited and summarized here? Maybe. I dunno. I knew that if I placed its url here, and asked for other's opinions, it would be revdel'd, as a previous article had triggered a revdel a week earlier. Did that article merit being used as a reference in other articles, like our coverage of the Incel movement, or the me-too movement, or whereever we cover stereotyping of Asian-American women? Again, I dunno. And if it merited being used there, what about using this individual's name, in the other wikipedia articles that cited the NBC article?

      Derek Chauvin and the individual I won't name owned property together in Florida. About three weeks it turned out that Florida election officials realized that he had used the Florida property to register to vote in Florida, and had in fact voted in Florida in 2016 and 2018. The obfuscation forced on us by revdel-happy administrators forced us to not discuss this. Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, you seem pretty determined to miss the point. Complaints about admin conduct to to WP:AN, the filter question is at WP:BLPN, and you have long since exhausted whatever enthusiasm I might have had for discussing whether to name Chauvin's wife. Guy (help!) 20:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Is BLPNAME really applicable?

Kire1975, Bagumba and JzG, BLPNAME says:

"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."

There is a certain individual, we all know who I am talking about, but I won't explicitly name them, whose name is being protected. I encourage everyone else to not name them, or even refer to their relationship with Derek Chauvin, in this discussion, to prevent this discussion from being revdel'd.

I did my best to get administrators to explain the reasoning behind their application of BLPNAME, when the name of the individual in question could not be described as "not widely disseminated". When questions addressed to them individually failed, I initiated a thread at WPANI at Are administrators using discretion appropriately around the Killing of George Floyd?. That discussion, though long, was closed rapidly, with my good faith questions largely unaddressed.

The individual in question was not a BLP1E. In order to avoid a revdel I won't explicitly state the nature of the coverage of that individual, in 2018. Contact me by email and I will explain further. IMO that 2018 coverage did not meet GNG, all by itself, and this individual does not now measure up to GNG, themselves. But coverage of them in some RS is significant and detailed. IMO i wouldn't take much more for suggestions they measured up to GNG to be defensible.

I am very sorry to report that half dozen or so administrators have stated or implied that good faith attempts to discuss this issue could trigger a block. One administrator stated that they thought my attempts to discuss this issue should already have triggered an indefinite block.

Administrator David Eppstein was one of the administrators who had revdel'd good faith edits because they included urls that named the individual in question, in the url. He had also revdel'd good faith edits that did not put the name in question in article space, and that did not use the name in question in the url. David Eppstein revdel'd good faith edits when they used RS that made a passing mention to the name in question. No, I am not making this up. If I understood their comments at WPANI, David Eppstein stated he planned to continue to revdel good faith contributions merely for their good faith use of RS that made a passing mention of the name in question in the body of the RS. So, if the NYTimes wrote an article that was 99 percent about something else, but made a passing mention to the name in question, he would revdel the entire good faith contribution. Geo Swan (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, It was valid at the time, but now, they are co-indictees in a non-trivial tax fraud, so I suspect that cat is out of the bag. Guy (help!) 16:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I still would prefer we leave this person's name out of the article. Using the name doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the subject, and this is a human being who clearly does not want to be a public person. —valereee (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I'm sure she doesn't, but she doesn't have a lot of choice now she is indicted and charged as a co-conspirator in a substantial tax fraud. This is no longer our problem to fix, IMO. Guy (help!) 19:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, yes, I know she's going to get more attention than she wants, but she's not a notable person. She deserves her privacy as much as she can get it back eventually. Newspaper coverage comes and goes. Five years from now, coverage done, people will have forgotten, but WP will still be calling her out on the article about her husband. She's a human being. We have no reader-serving reason to include her name. JMO, it's fine if others disagree. —valereee (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, well, I suggest we consolidate discussion at WP:BLPN. I don't really have a strong view either way, I am mainly trying to talk Geo Swan down from the Reichstag by having a proper revioew and demonstrated consensus one way or the other. Guy (help!) 19:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I don't feel passionately either, but if you start a discussion, please do ping me. I'm starting to lose heart here. How many disruptive new editors are we going to have to manage at this set of articles? It just doesn't stop. —valereee (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I already started the BLPN thread. But to be clear, Geo Swan is an old hand. I see that Stayfree76 is now blocked but only temporarily: I think a TBAN is in order. Guy (help!) 08:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, oh, yes, I wasn't trying to say there weren't also disruptive editors who've been around a while. :) I find the new editors more difficult to deal with because as disruptive as they can be, I feel a strong sense of responsibility for trying to turn them into productive editors if possible, so I stretch my patience as far as I can. When an editor with tens of thousands of edits behaves disruptively I don't feel like it's necessary for me to assume they simply don't understand out ways. I'm happy to be terse with them or even ignore them if it feels like the correct response. —valereee (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Valereee, I referred to the significant coverage of this individual, in 2018. I haven't spelled out what that coverage was, due to the revdel-happy administrators. You didn't ask about the 2018 coverage. Why is that? I think that 2018 coverage shows she voluntarily chose to be a public person, in 2018.

As to whether using their name would or would not enhance reader's understanding - how can we possibly have a meaningful discussion over this so long as revdel-happy administrators are going to swoop in and grind the entire discusussion to a halt?

If their relationship with Derek Chauvin were the only thing to say about them, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. It is far from the only thing to say about them, but the disruption of the revdel-happy prevents us having a meaningful discussion as to whether the obfuscation was appropriate, in the first place. Catch-22. Geo Swan (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, you're arguing that a title that doesn't have a wikpedia article makes a person notable? Or that anything you've ever done that might have gotten your name in the local press makes you a public person? I don't agree. —valereee (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• You call it "a title that doesn't have a wikipedia article". So, if I started a wikipedia article on that title, tomorrow, would that make this individual a public person, overnight?

No, she became a public person, in 2018, when she took steps that resulted in multiple interviews and profiles in Minnesota newspapers. Those interviews and profiles would not have been enough to justify a standalone article, in 2018. But notability is on a scale. Our policies and guidelines on notability explicitly say individuals who aren't notable enough for a standalone article may, nevertheless be notable enough for coverage in a section of a related article. Why isn't the individual who I won't name an instance of an individual who while not notable enough for a standalone article, was still notable enough for significant coverage in related article(s).

Yes, I understand that personal sympathy for this individual makes many contributors want to bend and twist BLPNAME, to apply it to them. On a personal level I understand their personal sympathy for this individual. On a personal level I too feel personal sympathy for them. But an urge to "protect" this individual, by prohibiting their already very widely disseminated name from being mentioned on the wikipedia is not only not supported by the explicit wording of BLPNAME, it doesn't even make sense. This individual started the steps to formally change their name. It is their new name which it would make sense to protect.

No one knows what that new name is, although there has been a minor amount of speculation. I will agree with not mentioning any of the speculation on the new name. That is what makes sense.

• You asked whether "anything" that gets someone state-wide press coverage makes them a public person. I'll answer that. If that press coverage happened by accident, not a choice by the individual, then I'd agree they can still be considered a non-public person. But then there are guys like Joe the plumber. His initial press coverage, of a memorable exchange with a Candidate, was accidental. But he was ambitious, and chose to run with it, and use it make himself a public person. Geo Swan (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  I was simply answering your question You didn't ask about the 2018 coverage. Why is that?. I didn't ask about the 2018 coverage because I'd seen it and it was not the kind of coverage that, to me, turns a person into a public figure, even if she's divorcing someone who recently became notable and the two of them are being charged with tax evasion. —valereee (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't in favour of this change myself, then. But I do think the question can be re-evaluated now that, as JzG mentions, they've been both charged in tax fraud. I'm not sure BLPNAME is still applicable, given every RS under the sun from various countries, from the BBC to CNN, CBS, are openly reporting both names. That said, as I've said many times, information persists on Wikipedia far better than RS'. Once the hype dies out, Wikipedia is the best index to access it again. So I'm left somewhere in the middle. I don't think there's a loss of context from just stating the relationship. I think, at this stage, naming the relationship is acceptable and appropriate, but naming her probably serves no encyclopaedic purpose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

For those that want to pursue adding the person's name, I also suggest establishing consensus at WP:BLPN, where there is a wider audience. Provide notification of the link here.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to employ some of the same language I used when Geo Swan dragged us through this before: JUSUS FUCKING CHRIST, THIS AGAIN?. GS is again looking at only half of BLPNAME: what it says is

  When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed

That second bit still applies here as far as I know, and if anyone needs a lesson in what or means, see disjunction. Why Geo Swan is obsessed with this, anyone knows. I've said before it's like Neelix. EEng 02:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• EEng, it would be better, for you, if a friend pointed this out to you. You have a real civility problem. Please don't swear. Please don't speculate on whether other contributors are nuts. Please do your best to confine your comments to civilly expressed, substantive policy-based points.
• As for the passage in BLPNAME that says "...or has been intentionally concealed", I think that yours is a clear misinterpretation of what this passage means. There are court cases where the judge places a publication ban on the identity of the victim(s). Where I live the press is never allowed to report the identity of minors, even suspects. I think this is how the term "intentionally concealed" should be interpreted.
• The individual in question started the steps to legally change their name. You are misinterpreting the policy to describe this as "intentionally concealing" the current very widely disseminated name. It is their new name that is being concealed. Their lawyer arranged to seal the details of the name change, so no one knows for sure what the new name will be. I support protecting the individual's new name, which does meet the "not widely disseminated" criteria.

  Yeah, I know you added speculation as to what the individual's new name would be. I don't know how you reconcile that with your other positions. Whatever, please don't do that again. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• It would be better for you if a friend pointed out that you're thiiiiis close to getting yourself blocked.
• I didn't say anything about nuts but if the shoe fits, wear it.
• Regardless of what goes on where you live, concealed means concealed, and the clear intent is assist individuals peripherally involved in events to remain private if that's what they have chosen.
• There'll be less swearing if you stop wasting everyone's time.

EEng 03:48, 24 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.

Question

I’m not familiar with US copyright laws. Is Chauvin's mugshot in the public domain? SK2242 (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That depends upon a number of things. For example, if it was taken by a US federal government employee as part of their official duties, then it may be per WP:PD#US government works. If it was taken by an employee of local or state law enforcement, then that would depend upon the copyright laws of that particular state, etc. In the case of Minnesota, it doesn't appear that works created by state or municipal employees as part of their official duties are considered to be public domain according to this. For reference, "public domain" and "publically or freely available" aren't one and the same as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

archive

EEng went on record, in their first comments here, immediately following the AFD, which they missed, that this article should be deleted or merged.

• ...even assuming he's notable, is a separate page the best way to present the information about him? As it stands the answer is 100% no...
• None of this has any place in this article.
• This article just provides one more place to fiddle with wording, one more place for people to vandalize and add conspiracy theories and unreliable sources, and so on.
• If there's anything left over to elaborate with. If the situation's the same in a month I'll propose merging.

Subsequently, they sent topics to the archive with the one-click-archiver, multiple times, including the following: [5], [6], [7], [8].

The instructions for the use of OneClickArchiver at User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver say "Respect a public page's posted archiving policy; if you are unsure, ask."

Okay, this talk page didn't have an archiving policy. I suggest, generally, no one should archive unfinished discussion sections. OneClickArchiver was written to allow for manual archiving of noticeboards where automatic archiving wasn't frequent enough to keep the noticeboard from growing to unmanageable length. This talk page has not grown to unmanageable length.

As someone who repeatedly went on record calling for this article to be deleted or merged, I particularly request EEng completely stop archiving any section of this talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

missing archive

Praxidicae redirected this talk page to Talk:Killing of George Floyd, which meant the initial 12 edits didn't make it into the talk page's archives. I manually cut and paste them there. Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here by pinging me 3 times about this, when you've already fixed it? Is this the Wikipedia equivalent of tattling? Praxidicae (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I restored two templates to the top of this talk pages, lost due to the redirection. Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you fixed a problem. What is the exact issue that required 3 edits to my talk page and a ping here? Praxidicae (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• My note on your talk page was an opportunity for you to fix the problem you caused yourself. Your reply indicated you weren't interested. I left a note here because the archives warns people not to manually edit it, but cleaning up after you did require (1) a manual edit; (2) an explanation here, for why I manually edited the archive, in spite of the warning. Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What you left on my talk page was effectively gibberish with no real or clear request to do anything. What you did was undo a redirect done by an admin to continue commenting on a page that had already been redirected. You were fixing your own mistake. Lay off it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Misleading/False Information redux

EEng sent the section entitled #Misleading/False Information to this talk page's archive on July 15th, apparently because an SPA started it. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. That discussion wasn't finished. EEng, please be more careful in future.

I'd like to reply to this comment Stayfree76 addressed to me, which reads, in part, "...this brings an interesting point to the matter, in my opinion. i guess what you are saying is, what source takes priority in the case where there is conflicting info."

Sorry, I see this passage suggesting that we should pick sides. What NPOV used to say, and I am pretty sure still says, is that we are supposed to aim for NEUTRAL coverage. If different RS assert conflicting information we are supposed to report all of them, bearing WP:UNDUE in mind.

Stayfree76, I'd be fine accepting the Prosecution's interpretation

1. if the Prosecution had been the only party who had done a deep methodical analysis of the recording
2. if the Prosecution explained why they had initially agreed with all the other analyzes;
3. and all the other RS then lined up with the Prosecution's new interpretation.

None of that is true.

Stayfree76, you wrote "from what i can tell, many people write information or state things as fact before all the evidence is gathered, or from looking at the scenario from a limited view so striking it out completely seems more fitting in those circumstances."

I was particularly impressed by the deep, moment by moment analysis done by The New York Times. So, your suggestion the other analyzes were "limited" - was that based on some particular reporting?

You refer to a transcript. Hmmm. Did you consider linking to it?

You refer to a white paper. What white paper? Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, you dont know how pleased i am for this response. most of my discussion simply are not being answered and it is a little disconcerting to me. first, you say Sorry, I see this passage suggesting that we should pick sides...supposed to report all of them. that's a bingo. the question i asked was done to draw the reader to the conclusion i was about to present. i tend to do that because when someone comes to a decision themselves they are more likely to connect to the idea. a direct quote from myself from my point says "that being said, im sure there is room to elaborate within the article regarding specifics of the case being updated over time." all i have been trying to do is pull the wikis back to reality and away from one sided personal viewpoints or flat out lies.

To your next point, ALL sources decided to use 8:46 as time in restraint with 3 minutes after he was showing no signs of movement. this has since been corrected to 7:46 which the wikis note, but for some reason the 3 minutes component has not. even in the sources already used by the wiki it shows that it was 1 minutes 53 seconds, not 3 minutes... as for the analysis by the nytimes, it does not show the full picture and cherry picks the information it provides. how can you have a deep analysis when the entire raw video is not used or shown. also, it is very possible for analysis to become defunked or outdated as more information is released. this source mentions mr floyd says "i cant breathe" 30 times (many prior to even being on the ground), where the analysis says less than 20. i linked the transcripts elsewhere, but i apologize i did not for this discussion. keep in mind this is official evidence (exhibit 2) in the case and the official audio transcript of the body cam footage.

As for the white paper it is pretty thorough and mentions 3 key points that can address your concern (keep in mind the officers were aware of excited delirium and also raised upgraded the ems code to emergency):

1. "Given the irrational and potentially violent, dangerous, and lethal behavior of an ExDS subject, any LEO interaction with a person in this situation risks significant injury or death to either the LEO or the ExDS subject who has a potentially lethal medical syndrome."

2. "While not universally fatal, it is clear that a proportion of patients with ExDS progress to cardiac arrest and death."

3. "There are well-documented cases of ExDS deaths with minimal restraint such as handcuffs without ECD use."

Stayfree76 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

based on a discussion elsewhere, the transcript is not usable per WP:OR so i will replace it with reliable sources reporting on the transcripts. [9][10][11]

also, based on that discussion and what OR and RS is, it looks like your nytimes video analysis does not meet WP:RS guidelines either. here is the policy: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." Stayfree76 (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, you are misinterpreting policy. The NYT is considered reliable for straightforward reporting, which includes that NYT piece about the video. Some of the content in that piece may have since been found to be incorrect, but it's not an opinion piece, editorial commentary, or analysis of the news. It's straightforward factual reporting which in this case may contain errors. —valereee (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

valereee it literally says "The Times has reconstructed the death of George Floyd on May 25. Security footage, witness videos and official documents show how a series of actions by officers turned fatal. (This video contains scenes of graphic violence.)" right under the video. this is analysis and they dont cite any source of any kind that they used to come to these "conclusions". there is no way that can be considered reliable. Stayfree76 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, you are misinterpreting policy. You can, however, go ask at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources if you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. —valereee (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Alleged Killing Phantomthrill (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The post regarding the RS component of this discussion on the WP:RS talk page went nowhere... :(. Anyways, i wanted to highlight an answer from the FAQ:

"Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual."

This seemed to have happened on multiple discussions, but i think that some (many?) editors take all content from a defined RS as being reliable, but according to the RS page that is not the case. I really do not like that NYT video analysis since its most made up stuff, but with that being said, i feel the original component of this discussion does not need to continue. Archive?? Stayfree76 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, WP:RSEDITORIAL does not apply to the NYT piece because it's neither an editorial by its editors or an op-ed from outsiders. It's true, we don't blindly trust sources. Errors do exist. However, whether we use a given piece or not or how much WP:WEIGHT we apply is always subject to consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, there are errors in that NYT video analysis, and we should definitely correct any that have been dealt with by later articles in RS, so if you're finding new RS that can correct any errors, definitely do that! Not sure what you mean by "since its most made up stuff"? This discussion will automatically archive after a certain number of days with no new posts. Some people object to manual archives, especially on contentious articles, if it hasn't been at least seven days since that last post. —valereee (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

valereee, tbh i was kinda tired so didn't feel like coming up with a more formal way to put it. basically, the "made up" is due to the person deducing certain things about what happened. Its ok though, I'm over trying to get that thing removed, i just feel the need to bring it up whenever its relevant to keep it in front of peoples minds (Pimsleur approach). It'll eventually get replaced with better sources/info as more time passes. as for the archive bit. there hasn't been movement on this discussion since your post on July 23, which is over 3 weeks now. anyways, i just thought it would be nice to get it out of the way so it doesn't take away from more important [current] discussions. Stayfree76 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Original Research Used as Source

currently the wiki uses this complaint violates WP:OR and should be removed along with anything relying on it. for reference there are 2 pieces citing it:

1. Chauvin was born in 1976.[4] (has no other source so should be completely removed unless a reliable source can fill place)

2. Hennepin County attorney Mike Freeman charged him with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter,[34][4] (the other source can hold this statement up.)

Stayfree76 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The birthyear already has a discussion above at #Semi-protected edit request: Date of Birth.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, it's not WP:OR, it's WP:PRIMARY. Guy (help!) 10:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: the murder charges, some people like supplementing with an "official", primary source citation. That in itself is not OR. No opinion if it's excessive.—Bagumba (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

an editor (Valereee) in the Killing of George Floyd said it was original research and cannot be used as any information presented on the topic is interpreted by the reader and we need to go off of secondary sources for data like this. quote: "Stayfree76, by "the complaint" you mean a document that constitutes original research? —valereee (talk)". everyone is also telling me the case evidence (body cam audio transcripts) are also original research. i am just trying to put everyone on the same page. every time i try to correct any small detail with anything i get immediately told "shut up, you are stupid" (paraphrasing.) i have found that the the 3 articles related to this incident contradict each other and that sentences within the articles are not even supported by the "reliable source" cited right after the sentence... i think i will just have to do an accuracy dispute as i have shown editors writing whatever they feel like in the wikis and cite sources that dont even back it up. Stayfree76 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I think maybe I must have been unclear. We prefer secondary sources -- we want to hear what the NYT is saying about the complaint (a primary source) rather than using the complaint ourselves as a source, if we can. We do occasionally use primary sources, very carefully. It's when we start interpreting primary sources ourselves to draw conclusions that we run into OR. Original research and primary sources are two different but related things. —valereee (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

i thought you were very clear. you said it was original research. it either is or isnt. you cant make it original research in one discussion then say its not in another. Stayfree76 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree, I must have misspoken. I've been known to do that. —valereee (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, an apology would be nice. i also believe you have mis represented or assumed my intentions for the wikis in question were in "bad faith" or "malicious". i have been asking for simple/ minor edits or modifications to the statements in the wiki if they are not actually backed up by their supporting documents. every single point i have made is literally just using the sources already cited for the things i talk about. my posts have been very direct and straight to the point. only when people completely disregard me or talk down to me that these discussions go crazy. i would highly recommend you read all of my initial discussion points. all of them are reasonable, and as mentioned, just correcting the sentence to properly state what the source actually says. like, can you just ctrl c, ctrl v the sources, please? Stayfree76 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, no, we can't just ctrl c, ctrl v. That would represent copyvio. Where did I say anything anywhere about your intentions being "bad faith" or "malicious"? That doesn't actually sound like me. I tend to err on the other side. And I don't think you're malicious. I think you're extremely wordy and have a problem communicating clearly and effectively, but I doubt you're doing that on purpose. —valereee (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

valereee, so you cant quote a source, then cite it? thats exactly what half of wikipedia does. also "I feel like maybe you just haven't done enough reading yet and you don't understand what we're doing here, and you've kind of...well, lost your shit. —valereee (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)". i know exactly what you are trying to do here. spread lies through your protected editor power and ignore anyones attempt to correct details. if you are going to incorrectly state what a living person said, then WE have a problem. for some reason you always ignore my posts that have 5+ sources attached, but respond to a response. once i get off work, i will be collecting all the nonsense, condensing it for ease of read, then filing an accuracy dispute and a request to remove your editor control over the three wikis related to the incident. Stayfree76 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

um...ok...—valereee (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

now that it is not original research i will bring up my initial point. though it has been discussed elsewhere so maybe go look there.

the wiki says "During the final three minutes Floyd was motionless and had no pulse." the complaint and an already approved/cited source show 2 minutes which is consistent with the correction in time in restraint to 7:46, though they say three minutes, the times in the article contradict that. Stayfree76 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, we need a RS saying that. And before you start shouting again, yes, sometimes we use primary sources. We very strongly prefer secondary sources, and I'm sure there's one out there if you just figure out what to google. I found two for your 'show me your hands' vs 'hands on the steering wheel' concern in my first try. —valereee (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, heres 7 sources. is this enough? (the seventh is the original source timestamps which clearly misread there own data.)

"...But timestamps cited in the document’s description of the incident, much of which is caught on video, showed Chauvin had his knee on Floyd for 7 minutes, 46 seconds, including 1 minute, 53 seconds after Floyd appeared to stop breathing." minnesota local cbs

now ill just list some off. latimes wcvs seattle times kvoa kstp Stayfree76 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

removal of content in early life

Let's talk first if anyone objects. —valereee (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Whatever this is, is it still going on? EEng 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Body cam footage will exonerate Chauvin

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.

---

Why isn't this on the main page? It's direct evidence. In it, you will see George Floyd resist arrest, and then complain that he cannot breath as he resists getting into a police car. It appears the coroner was telling the truth saying Floyd died of a heart attack, and it began before he ever got put on the ground.

https://brandnewtube.com/embed/abuMq4tZl2m9TEy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2320:9d60:182a:92ef:644:1618 (talk • contribs)

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.

Cha Ching Cha Ching Cha Chingery

Shouldn't we give the tax charges more significance then under personal life? I mean it is a felony, no? Should it not get its own contents section? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenFrogsGoRibbit, you can suggest additional text from whatever sources you're reading, but IMO probably not. There's not been a conviction, and these aren't inherently noteworthy issues or issues important for allowing the reader to understand the topic. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference to other officers

In "Killing of Geroge Floyd - Murder Charges" it states the following:

...; Minnesota sentencing guidelines recommend 12.5 years imprisonment on conviction of that charge.[41] Ellison also charged the three other officers with aiding and abetting second-degree murder.[2][42][41] Bail for Chauvin (who did not enter a plea) was set at $1.25 million,[43] and for the three other officers $1 million.[44]

Is the information of the other officers relevant in Chauvin's article? I feel it is not and just adds more details to get confused with. my suggestion is as follows:

...; Minnesota sentencing guidelines recommend 12.5 years imprisonment on conviction of that charge. Bail for Chauvin was set at $1.25 million.[43]

I decided to remove the plea part as it is covered it the following sentence. Stayfree76 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

i went ahead and edited (just restructured) the sentences in question since there has been no movement here, but in keeping with good faith, i left the pieces that i recommended for removal. It is much better when said in this manner actually, so i am thinking that it is probably not necessary to discuss the removal further. A part of me thinks it is still irrelevant here though it does provide potentially needed context, the main killing of article should be able to cover those details. Hopefully others can chime in. I guess soon there will be a revisit of deletion though anyways? how much effort is worth making this more readable without cringing every other sentence?

Stayfree76 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I think brief mention of the others is fine for context, as they are charged with being accomplices in the same crime. Its only a couple of sentences right now. —Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Proper Nouns / Grammar issues

I feel like proper nouns are being used far too much in the wiki. This is an opinion(kind of, but not really), based on my educational background, but reusing proper nouns so often makes sentences wordy and can be perceived sub par, from an academic perspective as it seems to highlight a lack of experience in writing long flowing/related sentences or paragraphs about the same or related topics. I have replaced two already, but before i go through it more i wanted to make sure people agree with this as the next edit i do could be a little lengthy in fixing grammar issues. Stayfree76 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Did your educational background not include the use of capital I for the first-person singular pronoun? WWGB (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. I think we're at times more concerned with adding "our text" and leaving the overall flow for later or someone else.—Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, feel free to challenge any actual edits i make on the wikis main page themselves. as you notice i mostly dont capitalize letters when discussing as it is not necessary. i mean my multiple bachelors degrees, and post grad work are pretty worthless though, so i see your point. all jokes aside, lighten up man. is it so important for you that every person always be 100% professional at all times? if we were being fully academic, we would not even use the word "I" and instead phrase things like this as when writing in that format you are not an expert and no one cares about you. ex. One who has nothing nice to say shouldn't say anything at all. Stayfree76 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Military Service

Bagumba, good edits on the military service and finding a source for it mentioning reserves. That being said, when i was initially touching it up without looking for additional sources, i made a point to remove the word "stint" from the sentence. "Stint" has no meaning in US Military service. If he was a reservist then he was most likely activated during those times for whatever reason OR, he was technically not even doing MP duties. Anyways, i feel that sentence should be restructured to side with more general verbiage since we don't actually know what that even means. Any US Military member (including myself), will die inside when reading that word, which was used by BBC who probably has no understanding of how our reserve/active duty contractual obligations work for the US Military. Overall, I am starting to feel much better about the article now though. Its starting to sound less like a fifth grader worded and structured its flow.

digital high five to all who take pride in making wiki sound professionally written. Stayfree76 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I'll defer to you or others on "stint". Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

i think something like this would be better, but im down to wait and see if anyone else chimes in. luckily the source mentions length of time which is roughly 15 months.

from: including two stints in the military police between 1996 and 2000.

to  : including about 15 total months with the military police between 1996 and 2000.

NOTE: the term "with" is because technically he could have been a cook assigned to an MP unit. Even cooks in the Army Airborne get to wear the patch.

Stayfree76 (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to piece together from the sources what an individual's military service record is when articles do not include the underlying documentation upon which the information is based. The sources that are currently in this article state:

• From MPR News of 2020-06-03: "Heavily redacted personnel files show that Chauvin, a 19-year veteran of the force, was initially trained as a cook and served in the Army as a military police officer. ...Records show that the 44-year-old Chauvin initially studied cooking before taking courses in law enforcement and doing two stints in the Army as a military police officer in the late 1990s, serving at Fort Benning, Ga., and in Germany."
• From the New York Times of 2020-06-05: "Mr. Chauvin initially studied food preparation and once worked as a security guard and a cook for McDonald’s and a restaurant called Tinucci’s in the mid-1990s. He then took courses in law enforcement and served in the U.S. Army as a military police officer in the late 1990s."
• From the BBC of 2020-06-08: "Prior to his career in the police, Mr Chauvin served two stints in the US Army. He was a member of the military police from September 1996 to February 1997, and again from September 1999 to May 2000."
• From Business Insider of 2020-06-10: "Chauvin started his career as a police officer in 2001 at age 25, after working as a security guard and a McDonald’s cook. He also served as a military police officer from 1996 to 2000, stationed in Rochester, Minnesota, and Hohenfels, Germany, The New York Times and the Star Tribune reported."
• From the Wall Street Journal of 2020-06-21: "He also served in the Army Reserve as a military police officer from 1996 to 2004."

A likely scenario is that he signed an initial enlistment contract with the usual statutory military service obligation (MSO) of eight years in the reserve components as he began service in Army Reserve; then he went to basic training at Fort Benning in September 1996, followed by advanced individual training (AIT) as a military policemen, then was released from active duty after graduation from AIT in February 1997. There is an Army Reserve military police company in Rochester, MN, where he could have served for his monthly drill weekends. Then he was probably brought on active duty again as a reservist from September 1999 to May 2000 for active service as an MP in Germany, before returning to active reserve status. He probably only enlisted for four years of active reserve service (1996-2000) and likely spent the last four years idle in the IRR before his MSO expired (2000-2004). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I dont know much about the military, but the overall timeline sounded conflicting until I saw that the WSJ said he was specifically in the Army Reserve, not the general Army, so I changed it to "Reserve". I think it's OK to remove anything that sounds inconsistent, likely because reporters also not that familiar.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, iirc, reserve contracts are a 6 year obligation with 2 IRR and active duty will generally be 4 active/4 IIR or 5/3. My contract was 5/3 in USMC, which is very uncommon. the other issue is that without going into OR territory we are at the mercy of the inconsistent and awkward reporting of his military service. with all that, i personally dont know what could be the most general way to bring it up without hardsetting any specific job duties, time, or type of service. being prior military it hurts me to see someone service mis-characterized (is that word...rip brain) even if in good faith, for example, saying someone was deployed in a combat tour who wasn't. (the person themselves would icky about it too.) Stayfree76 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Career

WWGB, i see that you reverted my change about Chauvin being an off duty police officer here and put it as off duty "security".

1. off duty security doesnt make any sense. 2. per the source cited it says: Chauvin was our off-duty police for almost the entirety of the 17 years that we were open," Santamaria said. you cant get any more clear than that. he was operating under full legal authority as a police officer.

i feel i dont need to say this, but can you please undo your change? i have never reverted someones edit, and personally, i dont ever plan to. feel free to clarify if there is something you think i am missing. thanks. Stayfree76 (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Per the cited source, AP News, Officer Derek Chauvin worked at the El Nuevo Rodeo club as off-duty security for nearly two decades. If you want to use "their off-duty police" per the other source, that's fine too. I'm happy with either one, just not "off duty police officer", which is not used in either source. I'm not even sure that he is still an "officer" while off duty. WWGB (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

right in your quote it says Officer Derek Chauvin. in the George Floyd page it says the following: In 2019, George Floyd worked security at the El Nuevo Rodeo club, where police officer Derek Chauvin also worked off-duty as a security guard. im the one that proposed this change, but it was made by another editor as i think the article was still locked.

that being said, in the US, an legal precedent has been set that an off duty officer working as a security guard is still performing that duty with full legal authority of a Police Officer. see the discussion in the GF Archive section "Misleading/False Information". a tldr: see: criminal law. here is an excerpt and all that needs to be said. "State v. Gaines, 332 N.C. 461 (1992) (holding that the murder of an officer who was providing security for a hotel was nevertheless committed against an “officer” who was “engaged in his official duties,” which supported pursuing death penalty). Accord, State v. Locklear, 136 N.C. App. 716 (2000) (“Even an off-duty deputy is considered to be acting under the color of state law when the nature of his actions involve official police action to enforce the law.”); State v. Pope, 122 N.C. App. 89 (1996) (applying Gaines to a “law enforcement officer who was engaged in secondary employment at the time of the murder”)."

to conclude, in the US a police officer does not lose legal authority when they clock out for the day and in this case, it is important that people understand that he was acting as a police officer during his interactions with "clientele". Stayfree76 (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we're getting into unneeded technicalities. Readers mainly need to know if he was assigned by the police dept. or being paid by another party. "Off-duty" conveys that. The danger is pulling in sources not about Chauvin and doing WP:OR. For example, in this case, you missed the part about an officer acting "solely on behalf of a private entity ... would not retain his or her law enforcement authority while engaged in that type of secondary employment." This also might vary state to state. Stick to what the direct sources say.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that's too technical. In addition, we need reliable secondary sources which directly discuss what Chauvin was doing, not original interpretations and synthesis if we were to say that Chauvin was off-duty police or anything of that sort. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, yes. And we have the added benefit that this is also how sources generally describe it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I tweaked it to try to clarify and smooth, and noticed we've got Floyd as 'security guard'? I thought he was a bouncer? Seems confusing to have Chauvin working security and Floyd as a 'security guard'—valereee (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: i agree 100% with you, but the sources do say he was an off duty police officer. the legal precedent i posted was simply to show other editors that in fact off duty officers can still uphold the law as a police officer in their jurisdiction. Stayfree76 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, is there some reason readers need to be clear on that to understand the subject of this article? If not, it's probably extraneous. You could maybe add it to Police in the United States or something. —valereee (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

valereee, yes, because as a police officer you are acting an an agent of your jurisdiction (government) and there is regulation and other legal matters, or considerations that apply. for example, if he was just a "security guard" he is only an agent of the employer and is not in an authoritative position to act as a government representative/entity. this is a side point, but might help make it a bit clear. When i was stationed in Okinawa, Japan in the USMC i was not there as a Japanese citizen. i was basically a foreign official and if any military or US civilian [military] contractor in japan committed a crime it would immediately be considered an international incident as it is as though the US government themselves committed the crime.

basically, as a security guard there is no policy that needs to be followed (they just stay within the confines of the law), but a police officer is a [generally] regulated component of us state government and a million other things become relevant when operating under that authority. Stayfree76 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Totally, but how is that relevant to the reader's understanding of this article? It feels completely extraneous here. Totally important at an article about off-duty police officers, but here it's just trivia. He's notable (if we decide he's actually notable) for kneeling on Floyd's neck while Floyd died, which he didn't do while he was off duty. —valereee (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

the way you [i think] have since reworded still seems a little loose and prone to misunderstanding (generally you shouldnt assume the reader knows things about the subjects in question if they were mentioned in other sections or paragraphs. this can make the general off-duty statement seem out of place or unclear), but fine. the problem i had is that the reference to him being a police officer off duty was missing making it look like he was just a security guard.

my entire point was to make clear he was not a security guard, but was an off-duty police officer providing security, which is correctly reflected in the "killing of" article, but wasnt here. :) Stayfree76 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, so the language at killing of is better? —valereee (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

valereee, sorry i misspoke. i meant the George Floyd wiki, not the killing of. (the quotes above were from George Floyd talk arhive/wiki). Stayfree76 (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, at GF it just says where police officer Derek Chauvin also worked off-duty as a security guard, no mention of the fact he still is operating under police regulations and still has police authority? What exact wording do you want to change? It's often best to say "Change X to Y." —valereee (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

valereee, as i have already mentioned, the current wording is good enough for me to not want to waste anymore time on it. also, if you read my initial inquiry, it wasn't about changing anything, it was asking/discussing with an editor about a modification they made to my edit. i, in no way, shape, or form, suggested we go into the details of "operating under police regulations"... Stayfree76 (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: the secondary sources do say that he was an off duty police officer. i did not include any OR. as stated above, the legal precedent was just for editor information. Stayfree76 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Stayfree76: let's focus here a bit. While we sometimes allow a bit of off-topic discussion, in a case like this I think it will be better to keep it mostly on-topic. Can you please describe what wording change you want and based on what sources which explicitly mention Derek Chauvin? Your comments here are very confusing since you say you're happy with the current wording, but from what I can tell so is everyone else. So what's the purpose of your comments here when it comes to improving the article (i.e. the purpose of this talk page or the "on-topic" part). I'm unclear why it's so important to focus on the off-duty police part based on the available sources relating to Derek Chauvin. This article seems to establish, as one would expect, that Derek Chauvin was employed as a police officer at the time, and saying he was working as security seems to clearly demonstrate he was not on-duty. Therefore, it follows automatically that he was off-duty as a police officer. It may be that in some other articles where it's less well established that Derek Chauvin was employed as a police officer, such distinctions matter more, but that doesn't seem to apply here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin was employed as a police officer at the time, and saying he was working as security seems to clearly demonstrate he was not on-duty.: Independent of your comments specifically for Stayfree76, it is possible for on-duty police to be assigned as security for events. For example: "The NFL prefers on-duty officers, such as these at the Vikings’ last Dome game, for security. An off-duty cop there was told not to bring his gun in."[12]—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, when someone is on duty as a police officer, they are working as police officer. They are not working as security guard, even if their specific task is security. Maybe things are different in the US. See also below. If an officer is working on-duty as security, IMO it needs to be clearly specified something like 'he was assigned to provide security for the club by the X police force'. If the article simply says he worked security, I think many people outside the US are going to assume this means as a security guard i.e. off-duty. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Technically we'd probably say they are on-duty police officers (paid by the government) assigned to work security. I don't think we'd ever call those policers officers "on-duty security", but I'm guessing that's the distinction when a police officer is described as "off-duty security" (at least in US).—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: the reason i put Floyd as a security guard is because of the way the previous owner spoke about the situation of their employment, which we are effectively quoting in that portion of the wiki. see: "They were working together at the same time, it's just that Chauvin worked outside and the security guards were inside." Stayfree76 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how saying Floyd worked as a security guard and Chauvin worked as off-duty security makes it clear that one worked inside and one worked outside. Again maybe this is an American thing, but from my POV, off-duty security is a synonym for security guard and either one could work inside or outside. I would suggest further clarification is required if you want to convey such things, based on sources which must exist if it matters. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

im not really trying to go into all that detail. the only reason these details come up is because i was challenged, and as a response i explained why i wrote what i did. essentially all i want is for it be explicit that.

1. Chauvin was a cop

2. he was working there to provide security as an off duty police officer

• they mention elsewhere he had his squad car there so he was prob in uniform aswell. alot of bars and places in the US have a police officer park a squad car there as a deterrent. not trying to say this should be included, its just that off duty police in America can still arrest people so it is important that title isn't stripped. generally police arent acting as an individual, right? they are administering local law as an agent of said law so they are able to do much more than a standard security guard.

3. he and Floyd had different duties StayFree76 ^talk 16:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

First week of active duty

The following text is currently in the article:

Chauvin was the field training officer for two of the other involved officers, who were in their first week of active duty

The current citation for this is the following opinion piece https://www.rrstar.com/opinion/20200610/police-reforms-long-overdue where the only text that describes the 'first week' is:

The day of Floyd’s death, he had two rookies shadowing him.

I do not believe that is an adequate citation (because it does not refer to any 'first week' and because it is an opinion piece). I am going to amend this section to read 'one of the other involved officers' and remove the first week reference.

Additional reasons for this is that the following Wiki:RS have only Kueng as being field-trained by Chauvin:

1. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/us/minneapolis-officers-background-george-floyd-trnd/index.html

1. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/08/thomas-lane-officer-who-held-george-floyds-legs-wants-case-dismissed/5399106002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjie (talk • contribs) 07:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Birthdate

Why can’t we use his full birthdate? Why can we only just use his year of birth? TarheelBornBred (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@TarheelBornBred:: You can refer to the previous discussion at Talk:Derek_Chauvin/Archive_1#Semi-protected_edit_request:_Date_of_Birth.—Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2020 (2)

—′÷

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 08:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Almost 8 minutes, revised times.

According to the very wikipedia link when we click on "almost 8 minutes" at the beginning of this page, we get this wikipedia page that claim:

"In August, police body camera footage was publicly released, which showed that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck for about 9:30."

Can someone replace almost 8 minutes by almost 10 minutes, or over 9 minutes?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.134 (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed the lead to several minutes, which is what's being used at related articles. —valereee (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Image

Is it allowed to add an image of him on the article or is there a policy that recommends not doing it? Super Ψ Dro 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, we can add an image, but generally in the case of living people we very strongly prefer to use a freely-licensed image. There's information at WP:FAIRUSE. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have not found any of free use. I guess I can upload one like this? It is used in the Indonesian and Armenian Wikipedias. Super Ψ Dro 18:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, the Indonesian and Armenian may have different rules than we have here. IIRC, that image has been considered and rejected by editors here. There'll be a free-use photo eventually -- some editor will stand outside a courthouse and photograph him walking in or out, at some point. —valereee (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I wanted to be sure before doing anything. Thanks for the clarification. Super Ψ Dro 19:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Private info

DEREK MICHEAL CHAUVIN DOB [redacted] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCvf9iuz1is — Preceding unsigned comment added by I20sc (talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BLPPRIVACY. EEng 15:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

naming spouse

Wiscipidier, we've already discussed this and decided there's no reason to name his former wife. Please check the archives for discussions. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

NO Proof but could be argued, has Chauvin taken the P-CLR

It is not unheard of, even seen as advantageous to put people in positions where empathy can cloud judgement, such as in surgery, frontline battles, firing people, even for someone that needs to tend to COVID patients in a vegetative state, the inability to identify with the client or perpetrator can actually be a big plus as those with empathy turn to jello in a warzone or the emotions may drive them to suicide in the case of say firing 60 people, as evidenced by "This American Life Episode 436". And such will offer no show of emotion which can be seen in the Video concerning George Floyd.. So while people may want to believe it was racism, it may have been just a general failure to identify with anyone, which is a symptom of this. I'm careful not to refer to the classification of this disorder as it is misunderstood by the general public and should be seen as a difference in brain development. Note the ones we fear are often abused or neglected as children.

--RofthoraxGmailCom (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

Change "killing" to "death".

This entry refers to the "killing" of George Floyd. It has not been determined conclusively that George Floyd was killed and did not die of a Fentanyl overdose. Toxicology reports showed he had well over the lethal dose of Fentanyl in his body at the time of his death. Fentanyl, like other opioids, in overdose causes respiratory distress and ultimately respiratory failure such as Floyd was experiencing. This entry should not refer to Floyds death as a "killing" until it has been determined to have been such by a court of law. 90.160.58.14 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please review the FAQ at the top of this talk page for explanation of the current wording. In addition, any such change to the article would need to be supported by a consensus of editors prior to being implemented. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Smoother wording at start

I have a simple request. At the start it says "Derek Michael Chauvin (born 1976) is an American former police officer known for his involvement..."

To make the wording smoother, I think we should change it to "Derek Michael Chauvin (born 1976) is a former American police officer known for his involvement..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:7100:7024:B06C:2F5:715A:DCDB (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. I've implemented the change. Super Ψ Dro 23:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, he's still American.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Chauvin's wife

I have read past discussions on this topic and am startled by the invokation of WP:BLPNAME to avoid naming Chauvin's wife. I came across this after finding it very odd that we did not refer to her by name (do women not have names? She's just an object in the possession of Derek Chauvin?) and being blocked from changing this by an edit filter. I found this particularly distasteful in that instead of a name, she is "a Laotian immigrant who competed in a 'Mrs. Minnesota' beauty pageant" first and foremost. No personality, no career, just a foreigner and a sex object. We cannot refer to a human being like this.

BLPNAME refers to a few scenarios. We can ignore the conclusion of "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" because this is not the case. The name has been widely published in reliable sources, including literally all of the sources we cite in the section "Personal life", which include AP, BBC, NPR and NYT. We are told that academic and expert sources "should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories", but this isn't the "brief appearance of names", but a lot of reliable sources focusing specifically on Chauvin's wife's actions (including allegations of her breaking tax law relating to her photography business and in buying the BMW) and the charges against her. There might be greater weight were there expert sources, but the lack of them isn't disqualifying. I see BLPNAME referring to people who might be tangential to a particular crime or incident, but she is not tangential—she is the subject of a widely-covered lawsuit. It is about her actions, not (just) Derek Chauvin's.

Overall, while we can exercise "Caution" in naming figures who are significant "primarily in terms of a single event", I do not see that in this specific case there is a strong argument to omit the name. Chauvin's wife is a central subject to a lot of coverage of this topic and she is not "loosely involved"; BLPNAME permits us naming her "if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion". — Bilorv (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the benefit to the reader in knowing her name? She played no role in the death of Floyd, and should have the option to remain an unidentified, obscure citizen. Naming her in perpetuity in Wikipedia serves no purpose to her or to our readers. WWGB (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the benefit to knowing any figure's name? Why not call Derek Chauvin "Police Officer #214982" or Jennifer Lawrence "American citizen #1249853"? A person's name is information that's necessary for people to discuss the topic, write about it, and research it further. Who said anything about the death of George Floyd? She's been covered in an array of reliable sources which focus just on Derek Chauvin and her. As I say above, she certainly did play a role in breaking tax law relating to her photography business and choosing to register in Florida when buying a career, at least if the lawsuit against her has any merit.

Since the information is verifiable, widely discussed in reliable sources and hence due weight, there has to be a reason for omission of the name. I see no reason for omission on the grounds of BLPNAME, as I've described above.

This edit filter and redacting the name on non-article namespaces has to be complete overkill. I see no RfC or sufficiently strong consensus that means I can't refer to the woman who I'm speaking about by name on this talk page. — Bilorv (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv: The last discussion appears to have been at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive313#Filter_1068.—Bagumba (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• No personality, no career, just a foreigner and a sex object. We cannot refer to a human being like this. – Overwrought, much? EEng 15:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  And it's not overwrought to invoke RevisionDelete when someone mentions a first name in combination with the surname "Chauvin", to refer to a figure mentioned dozens of times in articles we link to as references? — Bilorv (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree in spirit with what Bilorv is saying. I randomly ran across this article a few weeks ago and I tried to add her name. I was quite confused about the secret edit filter, and I even opened an Edit Filter false positive request before I figured out it was intentional. I'm fine with respecting consensus and I won't try to add her name back, but I just want to mention that this went against my instincts about her notability. I also quickly googled "her name" "beauty pageant" and I couldn't help but notice there were over 4,000 results. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

EDIT (Jan 13, 2021). Wife filed only days after the Floyd killing (May 2020). It was rejected by a judge in Nov 2020. See articles in the star tribune for validation. If you want her name - it's easy to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferson1717 (talk • contribs)

• I mentioned Derek Chauvin in Marriage of convenience#Divorce of convenience. I chose RS that did not include his wife's name in their url. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Leave out her name. She's an innocent person who is likely to become the target of threats and attacks because of what her husband did. Let other sources name her if their consciences permit; we don't have to. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. The fact that there is a filter against using her name suggests that consensus has already been reached not to name her. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

El Nuevo Rodeo and Blacks

This removal of his behavior at events, particularly at predominantly Black events, seems to go against WP:WEIGHT. In addition to the already cited May 2020 ref, it's also mentioned at least in June ("Santamaria, who recently sold the venue, said Chauvin got along well with the regular Latino customers but did not like to work the African American nights. When he did, and there was a fight, he would spray people with mace and call for police backup and half-dozen squad cars would soon show up, something she felt was 'overkill.'") and August ("But he was also quick to get aggressive, she said, especially on events that El Nuevo Rodeo marketed to attract Black customers.")—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a clearly attributed opinion and pertinent to the topic. — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone with access add like his mugshot or something? It won't allow me because it's "semi-protected" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.194.41 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jurors

Hey Tvc 15. Thanks for your work on this article. Let's be careful of the Jurors section though. The level of detail in the Jury section may be getting too high. Knowing that a juror was a white male in his 40's probably doesn't pass the WP:10YT or WP:RECENT. I won't trim this yet, but let's keep an eye on it. By the end of the trial, this whole section may need to go. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Novem Linguae (talk), thank you for this helpful message and info. After reread, I agree that the level of detail was getting too high. Age, occupation, and order/date of selection are likely less relevant. At least for now, per the example of O. J. Simpson murder case#Jury, I've limited the jury info to a summary sentence with only race and gender listed. I believe that race in particular is relevant given the nature of the case. --Tvc 15 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A Photo

Shouldn't we add a photo? His mugshot would be preferable, unless there is a reason not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.194.41 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello friend. Our WP:BLPIMAGE policy discourages unflattering images of living persons, including mugshots. I think the current consensus is to not use a mugshot for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the mugshot is not that it is unflattering, but that it is not a freely licensed image. It keeps being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons several times and deleted each time. Even if it were freely licensed it might not be suitable (but that's another discussion). Mo Billings (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Change the incriminating terms used as flagging him a murderer prior to being found guilty. Personal feelings are not subject to fact. Or you can leave it and have information obtained as inflammatory and degradation of character in an appeals court if necessary. Being charged with 3rd degree murder and being a murderer are very much different. Even the sickest are innocent until proven guilty. 2600:100F:B1DF:4C5B:6C09:25E2:E71F:B2A1 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please list the EXACT changes you'd like to make, with sourcing. I don't see where he's being called a murderer. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

Change: "in the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis" to "in the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis".

At this time the death of George Floyd has not been determined to be a homicide or manslaughter nor has it been determined to be an "accidental death". The connotation of the term "killing" suggests that he died as the direct result of another person's actions. There is substantive evidence that George Floyd was not "killed" but rather died of complications from drug use.

It is important for Wikipedia to remain a non-biased and fact based resource that avoids inflammatory descriptors. Should any of the officers be found guilty on any charges the entry should be changed to "killing". Moleary517 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Moleary517. Thanks for your suggestion. However,  Not done, because an article exists named Killing of George Floyd, which means a consensus of Wikipedia editors prefer that term over other terms. We examine reliable sources when reaching consensus on topics like this, so it is likely this is also what reliable sources refer to it as. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Related is FAQ Q4.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If it was 'murder' I would agree with you. But the conclusion of both autopsies was that this was a homicide (i.e. his death was brought about by the stress placed on his body by the police restraining him) so I think killing is reasonable at this point. LastDodo (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

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 that sections Derek Chauvin#Trial be split into a separate page called State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with the split proposal, but why not use the simpler and more common Trial of Derek Chauvin? WWGB (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Article titles Articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I extend this proposal to cover Killing of George Floyd#Trial of Chauvin. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Minnemeeples (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A split will be beneficial. --Scherben808 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the split proposal as well, once case has opening statements much more info about it will come out and new page will be necessary. Iowauniguy (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the split proposal and extension to cover Trial of Chauvin, but State v. Chauvin would be a more appropriate name per MOS:LEGAL: Unless needed for specificity, leave state names out of the title, e.g., use State v. Elliott, not State of Vermont v. Raleigh Elliott, et al., and redirect the latter to the former. See Category:U.S. state criminal case law.Tvc 15 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this trial is one for the ages. Johnfreez (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree Information from this will grow rapidly and it's apparent a dedicated page will be needed. A new page name may be needed later, for example the page for the OJ Simpson trial is "O.J. Simpson murder case" and not the official case name. Regardless, it's clear a new page is needed and will provide better reading for readers. 07:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb 1223 (talk • contribs)

Agree as opening statements already received significant media attention. Lookunder (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree Heart ^(talk) 17:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Split: obvious sigcov is obvious. SITH (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

Please change "Police Officer" to "Former Police Officer". 142.114.146.62 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That is what is stated already. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021

Chauvin kneeled on Me. Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. It stated in this article “nearly 8 minutes”. Tbs198621 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sources seem to hesitate between 7:46 and 8:46. Not 9:29... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

New Picture?

Uhm. Can't we just show his mugshot instead of the picture of him kneeling on Floyd? That picture is unflattering imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekristenjokes (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thekristenjokes, someone already removed the photo. Probably best to have no photo. WP:BLPIMAGE discourages unflattering images of living persons, including mugshots. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Why ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:D48:BA96:F58C:1EE1 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

What specifically about the link are you questioning?—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Fro my understanding of the rules, images like mugshot are discouraged if they are taken out of context, this is not the case here. Here, the context and main event as described by all medias is that Derek Chauvin was kneeing for several minutes and later got arrested. This is the only reason for which Derek Chauvin is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.132 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The kneeling shot is not a free image. While there is special justification for using it in the killing article, the waiver would not apply here for the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - Can we not just crop his mugshot, or crop the infobox photo at Killing of George Floyd? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Jax 0677: A cropped non-free image is still non-free. The rationale for allowing it in the killing article is that it gives visual indication of the described act. That rationale doesnt apply to his bio's infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

In the initial paragraph it states “ known for his involvement in the killing of George Floyd”. This is misleading and implies intent in the tragic loss of life. The statement should instead say “ known for his involvement in the death of George Floyd” where “killing” is changed to “death” as it still conveys that George Floyd died but does not imply that the officer intended to take the life of the man. All instances of the word Murder(ed) and Kill(ed) used in a similar context should also be changed to similar contexts. At least until the trial has concluded and a verdict has been reached. This would help avoid false information and bias within the biography and prevent the wrongful tarnishing of this officer. 2601:C2:8201:2B30:2931:92A:9B36:1909 (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"know for/famous for" wording in leads are obscure and the worst. I changed it to what actually happened, namely, he's been charged with murder.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

Known for: Involvement in the death of George Floyd rather than the "killing" of George Floyd since the trial is still currently underway. 2601:445:37F:ED50:195:38E9:2208:EDF1 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see Q4 at top of page. WWGB (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

(X)known for the involment of killing George Floyd. (Y)Known for killing George floyd,

Using the word involment is hugely disreptfull and missleading, as he is the sole perpetrator of such horrid Murder crime. The other officers had an involment in the killing of George Floyd. Reliable sources are any video in relation to the case on the world wide web. Thank you for your tIme. 90.240.241.212 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: He hasn't been convicted, so unless he is we won't word it like that. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit wiki properly and for that I apologize, but it's undisputed that he killed George Floyd; what he's on trial for (and has not been convicted of) is murder, which expressly indicates intent - or knowledge that actions taken could result in death and disregard for that fact. Additionally, whether his killing of George Floyd is criminally punishable (i.e. was not justified in the regular course of policing actions) is a different question than whether he killed George Floyd (the answer to which is, again, not disputed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivti (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy for WP:BLPCRIME WP:CRIMINAL. For anything involving a living person, they are presumed innocent unit convicted in court of law. It's not a matter of what he did or didn't do, its a matter of policy. Also Please sign your post using ~~~~ WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this issue has been settled now that the verdict has come out. In these type of cases, there is always an appeal but believe that the requested changes can be made regardless. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Prior to the conviction it was disputed (and it still is by many) whether Chauvin killed Floyd--that was a major point of contention during the trial. Compare to the statement that Joe Biden won the U.S. Presidential election--there's no rational basis for believing otherwise, but it certainly is disputed. -- Jibal (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

He's on trial in Minnesota State court, not Federal

Greetings, fellow Wikifolks! I've added a few words to the lead, to specify that the trial is in Minnesota State court, not Federal court. I did this because the reason I looked up this article was that I wanted to make sure that the trial isn't in a Federal court, where the outcome might be even more predictable than it is. (Federal prosecutors win more than 96% of their trials; I don't know the number for Minnesota state courts). It seems to me the reader shouldn't have to read more than one or two sentences in order to verify that this is the state, not the Federal government.

In fact, I think maybe the article could be improved with an update to say what the current status of the case in Federal court might be. Currently the article only says that Chauvin's lawyer has tried, unsuccessfully, to negotiate a plea-deal which would have covered any Federal charges as well as the state charges, and, the title/reference of one of the references says something about a Federal grand jury.

On the other hand, maybe I'm failing to respect the "NOTNEWS" principle. So maybe the information about the current status of the Federal case would not be appropriate. I feel strongly that the fact that the current trial is a state-court trial ought to be in the lead paragraph, or, at least, somewhere near the beginning of the article, because having to spend more than three seconds in order to confirm this fact annoyed me!

But of course, it's up to the rest of you to decide; feel free to revert my entry, or argue about it, or leave reproachful replies to me here, if you feel they are merited. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you HandsomeMrToad and made the request change to the lead to reflect where the trial occurred. I believe it is relevant and important. 22:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Photos for the article

https://search.creativecommons.org/search?license=cc0,pdm,by,by-sa&license_type=&categories=&extension=&aspect_ratio=&size=&source=&q=derek%20chauvin&searchBy=&mature=

https://fist.toolforge.org/fist.php?doit=1&language=en&project=wikipedia&data=Derek+Chauvin&datatype=articles&params%5Bcatdepth%5D=0&params%5Brandom%5D=50&params%5Bll_max%5D=5&params%5Bcommons_max%5D=5&params%5Bflickr_max%5D=5&params%5Binclude_flickr_id%5D=1&params%5Bwts_max%5D=5&params%5Bgimp_max%5D=5&params%5Besp_max%5D=5&params%5Besp_skip_flickr%5D=1&params%5Bgeograph_max%5D=5&params%5Bforarticles%5D=noimage&params%5Blessthan_images%5D=3&params%5Bdefault_thumbnail_size%5D=&params%5Bjpeg%5D=1&params%5Bpng%5D=1&params%5Bgif%5D=1&params%5Bsvg%5D=1&params%5Bogg%5D=1&params%5Bmin_width%5D=80&params%5Bmin_height%5D=80&sources%5Blanguagelinks%5D=1&sources%5Bcommons%5D=1&sources%5Bflickr%5D=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.190.243 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

The jury verdict has come in and they have declared him guilty on all three charges. 72.182.105.144 (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Judge Peter Cahill dismissed the third-degree murder charge?

In the "Bail" section, it says the judge dropped the 3rd degree murder charges. Were they dropped and reinstated? Chauvin was just found guilty of 2nd and 3rd degree murder both. He was charged with 3rd degree murder. I don't know the history here, but could someone fix this please? Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the judge denied the request to reinstate the charge but the appeals court said that was improper and reinstated it themselves. https://m.startribune.com/ruling-trial-judge-improperly-refused-to-reinstate-third-degree-murder-charge-against-derek-chauvin/600030719/#:~:text=The%20Minnesota%20Court%20of%20Appeals,the%20killing%20of%20George%20Floyd. Ala Bahma (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I see now. I just found a citation from the State v. Chauvin article, and I pasted the relevant text and citation into this article. (I think the pasted text is brief, and it flows just fine.) The judge was ordered to reconsider his dropping the charges (or refusing to reinstate them?) upon appeal, and the state supreme court declined to review that appellate ruling. The charge was formally added back by Judge Cahill on March 11, 2021. Dcs002 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

In the opening paragraph it states that this incident sparked off protests. The verdict and the murder are mentioned prior to that. Stating "The murder of George Floyd sparked off the protests" would be more clear 104.220.36.114 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The wording of the first sentence is currently under discussion at #First sentence. You're welcome to weigh in there. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Images

This article lacks any images aside from the one that describes his criminal complaint. Would other editors with access to a useable image please post? Would definitely benefit. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

InvadingInvader, I think everyone understands the usefulness of an image, but Wikipedia has a strict policy on image copyright, and no free images of Chauvin appear to exist. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The mugshot`s out there..was taken down before something about prejudicing his reputation 2600:1702:2340:9470:9CAE:A2B9:9362:D8CC (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The mugshot is not a free image, and per WP:IUPC, we can't use it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Most U.S. mugshots are in the public domain but others aren't. It depends on the jurisdiction. So, it would be necessary to verify what the law is in Minnesota. Per WP:MUG, it is rarely appropriate to include a mugshot of a person who has not been convicted, because these images imply that the person is a criminal. Chauvin is now a convicted murderer, so I would support including his new post conviction prison mugshot if we can verify that it is in the public domain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357, can you provide a link to a reliable source verifying that Minnesota mugshots are not in the public domain? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I was going off of the lack of a State of Minnesota work PD tag at Commons:Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). It sounds like you know more about mugshots than I do. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where the deleted mug shot was from, but mug shots/booking shots in Minnesota are public record data*. [13][14] Subd. 26.Booking photographs....(b) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a booking photograph is public data. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiVirusC, what's the appropriate Commons license tag? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't know if Minnesota has its own special tag, but a Public Domain tag and explanation can be done on a per image basis. It just has to be proven. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

According to this website, public data is synonymous with public domain, but I do not know if that is definitive. I am pinging Diannaa who is an expert in copyright issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's up to us to prove that the photo is public domain and available to use. "Data" refers to facts and statistics, not to photographs, in my opinion. Regardless, not all public data or public records are public domain. According to this page, Minnesota does copyright its material. This article is talking about photos being "public" as opposed to "investigative". Making something available to the public is not the same thing as releasing it to the public domain. As far as I know the only states that don't copyright their stuff are California and Florida. So to sum up, my opinion is that Minnesota mug shot photos are copyright and we can't use them. — Diannaa (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

In general the article was old opinion discussing public and investigative, but had a note about the change in law the year after. But the clarification of the law still just says public data, not domain. So general access to public is required, but it seems I was mistaking that as available as public domain before. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021 (2)

Derek Chaviun was Born on March 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.165.41 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021 (3)

Hi, I feel that this article should include an image of Derek Chauvin. With what he is associated with, it is important to attach an image of him, after all a name is simply a name KharnOdit (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: See #Images. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Why does the introduction use the word "riots" instead of "protests"?

The introduction to this page inaccurately states that Floyd's death set off "a series of riots" across the United States and the world. National and international protests were held, with some limited rioting -- but it is entirely false and misleading to essentially characterize the reaction as a series of worldwide riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.32.247 (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the glass half empty or half full? It's since been changed to "protests"—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Time span

Not about nine minutes, exactness more than nine minutes HandiiMan (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

death of Floyd, not killing of Floyd

death of Floyd, not killing of Floyd 98.219.182.102 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

See above comments on this talk page. Ladysif (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The official ME ruling was homicide and the official conviction is murder, therefor he was murdered. TAXIDICAE💰 23:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

as well as killed..he did not die of old age..he was murdered on camera..there cannot be any debate on that 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Murder of George Floyd?

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.

---

Given that the subject sole notoriety is because of his crime, wouldn't it make sense to merge the two articles? Skrelk (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Chauvin's role in the notable event was substantial and coverage of him has been heavy for almost a year, and is almost certain to continue, though at lesser levels as time goes by. WP:BLP1E offers this example: "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The article was kept after its AfD in 2020.—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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

First sentence

​​I don't think it's necessary to say he's a convicted felon/murderer who murdered George Floyd. That seems redundant. I and others have removed the convicted felon/murderer bit but it keeps getting re-added. What should the first sentence be? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Option 1:

Derek Michael Chauvin (/ˈʃoʊvɪn/ SHOH-vin; born March 19, 1976) is an American convicted murderer and former police officer who murdered George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, 2020.

Option 2:

Derek Michael Chauvin (/ˈʃoʊvɪn/ SHOH-vin; born March 19, 1976) is an American former police officer who murdered George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, 2020.

Comment I like the version that it has now morphed into:

Option 3:

Derek Michael Chauvin (/ˈʃoʊvɪn/ SHOH-vin; born March 19, 1976) is an American former police officer who was convicted of the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. next paragraph: On May 25, 2020 [...]

— Goszei (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 Avoids redundancy while identifying him as a convicted murderer. The date of Floyd's death remains in the lead, but later. I imagine the exact date will become trivial to the lead over time, eventually being reduced to just the year.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment While I understand the need to identify him as a murderer in the first sentence, it is implied with "convicted of the murder". I'm not sure that will satisfy the masses however. ~ Ablaze (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's not just "implied", Option 3 directly states that he is convicted. The masses are invited to discuss this to reach a consensus, though some are inevitably just drive-by editors blindly tagging felons early in a sentence, repetition be damned.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I don't think the current version changed to by Eleutherodactylus (which they did not explain) is accurate, as it says Chauvin "was charged" with the murder, which seems to imply he was not convicted. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the current version of is an American convicted criminal and former police officer who was charged with the murder of George Floyd is that a reader not already familiar with the topic might not grasp that he was not only charged with murder, but actually convicted of murder. —Bagumba (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment Desertarun has reverted it back to option 3, which I will take as a !vote here too.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Option 3 is the standard used across WP. I see no reason to deviate from the standard. Desertarun (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 is clear/preferable as well for me. We should stick with the strictest/most narrow phrasing, so if someone was convicted, we don't need to mention they were indicted, charged etc.. The article itself can delve into how the initial charges even changed slightly, but that's not lede worthy Shushugah (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3, with a slight preference for 3. I really don't like option 1, it reads rather awkwardly and the "and former police officer" clause seems jarring and misplaced, the sentence would read much better without it but then you loose some of the key context surrounding his conviction. I have a slight preference towards 3 as it seems slightly better worded to me, but option 2 would be OK too. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Plus option 1 is worded to say he's a murderer then elaborated that he murdered someone, which is just redundant repetition. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

So the consensus seems to be option three SRD625 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Prefer 3, 2 is fine, 1 is not, simply because his career ended with murder, it was not defined by it (Madoff was a fraudster who frauded, Chauvin is a cop who murdered). There are good faith arguments for all, but 2 reads to me as closest to NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 is my preference as it's the most succinct. Do we really need to point out Chauvin was convicted if we're going to say he committed a murder? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Convictions of white cops with non-white victims in the U.S. is the exception, not the norm. Thus, the conviction should be stated. —Bagumba (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Bagumba, that's not my point. Murder is a legal term. If we call him a murderer, that necessarily means he's been convicted of murder. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Tartan357, I see your point. However, it might be too nuanced to a layperson when phrases such as "getting away with murder" exist. Specifically saying "convicted" is like NPOV for those who might think he didn't really do it. —Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As a random passerby I read the article and I understood that he was a "murderer" before the Floyd event, that is that he had been ready convicted before. The wording is confusing. If I can vote, option 3 is the one I prefer --188.64.206.49 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you can vote. Welcome! ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment "Murder" or "murderer" should be in the first sentence because that is the only reason for his being notable. His murder of George Floyd sparked everything else that followed. Redundancy is a bad idea, but the details aren't that important to me. Dcs002 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 is best, although I could accept Option 3. Option 1 shouldn't even be here, as it is poor writing style because of wordiness and redundancy. Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sundayclose, I agree about option 1 being unacceptable. For the record, I only included it because it was the status quo when I started this discussion, and was what drive-by editors kept changing it to. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also vote 3, as I believe it now currently is in the article, as it reads clearly, and given the rarity of convictions for police officers I think that convicted is an important word to include which adds clarity and is factual, and option 1 makes it sound like Chauvin was already a convicted murderer when he killed Floyd. Dauwenkust (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I also think Option 3 is the best way to state the facts without namecalling or labeling. It is in the article now and I hope it stays. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

First Sentence

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

---

The first sentence of the article " Derek Michael Chauvin (/ˈʃoʊvən/ SHOH-vən; born March 19, 1976) is an American former police officer who was convicted of the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. " is incorrectly worded..it should be worded "Derek Michael Chauvin (/ˈʃoʊvən/ SHOH-vən; born March 19, 1976) is a former American police officer who was convicted of the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Forrestgump420 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done He's not a former American. He has always been an American and is currently an American. Sundayclose (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You are incorrect...this is fundamental rudimentary junior high school english..the ethnic description is secondary to the primary...he is a former cop..his citizenship is irrelevant Forrestgump420 (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no "ethnic description". Yes, he's a former cop. He's was and is an American. He is an American former cop. This is done in many Wikipedia articles. If you want to describe him as a former American, you need something to back that up, i.e. a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

his citizenship is irrelevant: Wikipedia bios generally have citizenship in the lead sentence. —Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sundayclose. We almost always put a person's citizenship as the first descriptor in the lead sentence. In Chauvin's case, he was and is an American; that's the first thing. He is also a "former policeman"; that's the second thing. To word it otherwise would be saying that he is a "former American". -- MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It`s grammatically incorrect..if you remove the word american the intent of the statement remains the same..if you remove the term former police officer the statement has no meaning..wikipedia is inundated with corrupted language..the jefferson airplane was a band right ?

This is from the wikipedia article on adjectives :

" In many languages, attributive adjectives usually occur in a specific order. In general, the adjective order in English can be summarised as: opinion, size, age or shape, colour, origin, material, purpose. [11][12][13] Other language authorities, like the Cambridge Dictionary, state that shape precedes rather than follows age.[11][14][15]

Determiners—articles, numerals and other limiters (e.g. three blind mice)—come before attributive adjectives in English. Although certain combinations of determiners can appear before a noun, they are far more circumscribed than adjectives in their use—typically, only a single determiner would appear before a noun or noun phrase (including any attributive adjectives).

Quantity - adjectives of number (e.g. two, ten) Opinion – limiter adjectives (e.g. a real hero, a perfect idiot) and adjectives of subjective measure (e.g. beautiful, interesting) or value (e.g. good, bad, costly) Size – adjectives denoting physical size (e.g. tiny, big, extensive) Weight - adjectives denoting weight (e.g. slim, fat, thin) Age – adjectives denoting age (e.g. young, old, new, ancient, six-year-old) Temperature - Adjectives denoting temperature (e.g. cold, warm, hot) Humidity - adjectives denoting humidity (e.g. dry, wet) Shape – adjectives describing more detailed physical attributes than overall size (e.g. round, sharp, swollen) Colour – adjectives denoting colour (e.g. white, black, pale) Pattern - adjectives denoting pattern of colour (e.g. spotted, crackled) Origin – denominal adjectives denoting source (e.g. French, volcanic, extraterrestrial) Material – denominal adjectives denoting what something is made of (e.g., woollen, metallic, wooden) Qualifier/purpose – final limiter, which sometimes forms part of the (compound) noun (e.g., rocking chair, hunting cabin, passenger car, book cover) This means that, in English, adjectives pertaining to size precede adjectives pertaining to age ("little old", not "old little"), which in turn generally precede adjectives pertaining to colour ("old white", not "white old"). So, one would say "One (quantity) nice (opinion) little (size) old (age) round (shape) [or round old] white (colour) brick (material) house." When several adjectives of the same type are used together, they are ordered from general to specific, like "lovely intelligent person" or "old medieval castle".[11] "

Former proceeds american which proceeds police which proceeds officer in standard and/or proper english.. for example the word standard generally modifies (describes) the word proper which in turn generally modifies the specific term [in this case a word ( a term can be more then one word..for example police officer is a term )] which is english...as it does in other written languages Forrestgump420 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 00:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That's oversimplified when it comes to former. Consider the difference between a former child actress and a child former actress'.[15]—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Your statement makes no sense..why don`t you explain it ? Forrestgump420 (talk) (UTC) 23:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In mathematics the order is plus minus multiply divide...technically..add/subtract multiply/divide...If a basic math problem is not solved in this order the answer will be wrong...It is the same in language...the big red dog...not..the dog big red..The description always moves from general to particular..This is not personal political opinion it is fact 2600:1702:2340:9470:7095:3CE9:8ED8:7234 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not math. This is language - journalism or encyclopedism. The citizenship goes first, and in particular it must go ahead of "former" - because "former" does not modify "American", it modifies his profession. He is not a former American police officer, he is an American former police officer. End of discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the English Language ( not Language English ) and there are rules..I am not a linguist and I am probably not explaining it correctly but this would not fly in composition 101 the one required class in most colleges here in the US and whoever wrote this should have caught it...the gist of which I`m saying is correct..description moves from general to specific...former which is vague and unspecific..to American which is more specific...to police officer which is very specific Forrestgump420 (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

2600, let me first say that not only are you making a good point here, but that Wikipedia editors have agreed with you on many other articles, e.g. the Frank Hill (American politician) and Barney Frank articles both describe their subjects as former American politicians. But this is purely a stylistic choice; neither alternative is objectively right or wrong. I don't see guidance under WP:MOS for how to handle this one. I think "...American former police officer" sounds awkward, but I wouldn't bother changing it if I found it in an article. Nor would I feel any need to change "former American police officer," no matter what I thought about the relevant rules of grammar. In practice, it takes exceptionally unusual circumstances for someone to become a "former American;" that construction is rarely likely to mislead anyone. I'd avoid it in an article that deals directly with citizenship-related matters, but otherwise, I'd just let it go either way. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I never said he was a former American..I said he was a former American police officer..one of these statements is grammatically correct the other is not..please read Adjectives#Order specifically item 5 which relates to age and 11 which relates to origin Forrestgump420 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adjectives-order as well..I`m not trying to pick a fight..this is not opinion I`m simply stating a fact..the first sentence in this article is grammatically incorrect..being new I have no idea how to resolve this but apparently there are channels which exist to resolve editing disputes which eventually lead to some type of third party objective arbitration which I intend to pursue..I don`t understand why anyone would object to this..why wouldn`t Wikipedia articles written in English be required to adhere to the rules of standard English ? Forrestgump420 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As a random third (well, actually fifth) party, "American former police officer" is definitely an unnatural adjective order, but we often use an unnatural adjective order when it helps clarify things, in this case that the "former" only applies to "police officer". In this case, people probably won't get confused by the meaning of "former American police officer", but really both are acceptable. Having a quick search, it seems there are articles that use both, but more with "American former police officer" than "former American police officer" in the lead section of different Wikipedia articles, so what little bit of implicit consensus we have across Wikipedia would probably be in favour of the current wording. Personally I don't think it really matters, and agree with everything that 67.188.1.213 said above. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You did not answer the question..why would a Wikipedia article written in English not be written in standard English ? Forrestgump420 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It is standard English, as Baguma's article above describes: For example, consider the subset of adjectives called operators, which often take part in cumulative constructions. Such terms—“former,” “alleged,” “fake”—fundamentally change the meaning of whatever follows. (An “alleged” thief may not be a thief at all.) Therefore, when dealing with operators, the precise idea you want to express determines the order of adjectives, and a furniture dealer is not at liberty to oscillate between “fake Malaysian ivory”—a material masquerading as Malaysian ivory—and “Malaysian fake ivory”—a not-ivory material from Malaysia. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I`m disputing this then seeking arbitration if this isn`t corrected Forrestgump420 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Forrestgump420: don't make threats. Using threats like this to try to get your way is uncivil and may lead to you being blocked from editing. Also, the arbitration committee does not settle content disputes, so this would not be a very good use of your time anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I take the unpopular view that his nationality isn't so central to understanding who he is, and is implied by the profession and the place where the crime occurred. I'd drop American. But I think mine is a minority view. Mcfnord (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not obvious that he's American to people who have never heard of him before, we usually always include people's nationality for context, see MOS:CONTEXTBIO. I also don't understand what you mean by his profession implying he's American, every country in the world has police officers of some form (even Antarctica). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "American former police officer" is grammatically awkward, but also agree that "former American police officer" is factually wrong. Is there a way the entire sentence could be reworked to solve the awkward phrasing? I tried a few examples but didn't come up with anything better than what's there now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

How about something like "Chauvin is an American convicted felon and former police officer.." or something to that effect? My thinking is that the descriptor of "police officer" is no longer as relevant as his conviction now. Valeince (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Him being a police officer was a central factor in the notability of his criminal case and in the actual murder of Floyd. I don't think there's all that grand of a problem with "former American police officer" or "American former police officer", and that suggestion is probably not as good as either of those alternatives. For instance, what goes after the dots? Chauvin is an American convicted felon and former police officer [who was convicted for the murder of George Floyd]? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

How about "American and former police officer"? Would that be more clear? Or "former police officer who is also American"? Zacharycmango (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of these suggestions are grammatically correct therefore valid and acceptable although stylistically unconventual..however "American convicted felon" is not as the word convicted which is a general term would come before American which is more specific which would come before felon which is specific..my original suggestion is the most concise and stylistically correct and contrary to above not factually wrong ....if an English teacher in a classroom were to read this as is points would be deducted...it violates the grammatical rules of the English language..otherwise a ? maybe a suggestion to state it otherwise..the purpose of standard language is to convey information accurately...the real issue is whether Wikipedia should be written in standard English although the answer to that should be obvious and is probably already buried somewhere in the minutia of Wikipedia policy..good luck finding it 2600:1702:2340:9470:3838:F756:BC03:1B83 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Probably lost in the shuffle, "The Secret Rules of Adjective Order" (linked earlier) written in Slate discusses the use of former, and how it differs from most adjectives in that it modifies what follows.

Secondly, a person's nationality is different from origin in the simplied order of adjectives in schoolbooks. One's nationality is not necessarily tied to their birthplace or hometown, nor is it always permanent. It's not the same with a Danish cookie, Swedish meatball, or Russian doll.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Slate magazine is not the last word on English grammer.. Cambridge which is a primary source with regard to English as well as as other reliable sources which say otherwise....you have cherry picked your source to justify your opinion...again https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adjectives-order see item 7 which which reads : " origin - Dutch, Japanese, Turkish " as examples also in Wikipedia adjective#order see item 7 which states: " Origin – denominal adjectives denoting source (e.g. French, volcanic, extraterrestrial) " also with regard to origin..how do you figure nationality doesn`t describe origin particularly in his case as he was born in the US ? Why are you challenging this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:f47a:a06f:a0a6:bdd3 (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Former modifies what follows. He is not a former American, he is a former police officer. Cambridge doesn't dispute this, nor does it say that this order is absolute, instead saying the order is the "most usual sequence of adjectives." This is seen in American English especially (Cambridge is specifically British) in examples such as this, where they are "American Former Prisoners of War" not "Former American Prisoners of War" and at List of American former child actors - Aoidh (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

how do you figure nationality doesn`t describe origin: Read "not necessarily". Also, the lead sentence generally includes a person's nationality per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. We should not blindly restrict ourselves to a simple schoolbook example and convolute the expected meaning of "American" as a nationality—not a person's origin—in a biography's lead sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Written correctly does not say he`s a former American...the writers here are are making that up...they have twisted these words to fit a specific agenda as for this entire section...every one of these reliable sources say otherwise...in addition there is a virtually endless list of others written by educators as well as journalists...a trip to the library may clear this up as published liturature tends to be more reliable than the internet.

https://wps.pearsoned.com/wps/media/objects/6524/6681325/Order_of_adjectives.pdf

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Order-of-Adjectives.htm

https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/order_of_adjectives.htm

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/what-is-the-word-order-of-adjectives-/4775294.html

https://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/order-of-adjectives.html

https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/adjectives-order.htm

https://www.really-learn-english.com/english-adjectives.html

https://www.hip-books.com/teachers/writing-about-reading/adjectives/

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/writing/order-of-adjectives

https://www.grammar-quizzes.com/adj_order.html

including these which are written for children :

https://www.englishworksheetsland.com/grade4/4ordering.html

https://www.k5learning.com/free-grammar-worksheets/fifth-grade-5

https://makingenglishfun.com/2021/03/08/how-to-teach-order-of-adjectives-with-teaching-resources/

https://www.turtlediary.com/lesson/order-of-adjectives.html

https://eslgrammar.org/order-of-adjectives/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:cd84:eee4:67ca:8419 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I went through the first ten of those references. None of them even mentions "former." These arguments that there is only one correct way to proceed here are tedious and unpersuasive. "Former American police officer" and "American former police officer" are both awkward, but neither phrase is seriously problematic. Let it go and move on. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

In every one of these example age which is related to time comes before origin..in proper Enlish there is a specific order to the placement of adjectives for a reason as I have stated before..it reads awkward the the way it is because it is incorrectly worded..if it doesn`t matter to you why would you have a problem with changing it ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:D8E7:3B2:7787:9E7B (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything else to say about this ? Forrestgump420 (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Forrestgump420 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as none of those links show when former should be used, there's nothing really more to add, since what needed to be said has been said, and nothing additional has been presented that would require discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is..former is related to time Forrestgump420 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Per what, exactly? Former modifies another descriptor; it itself is not a descriptor, and none of the links make any such claim. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Enough...I`m taking it to arbitration...Ivanvecter`s threat as well Forrestgump420 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, but without backing up what you're saying you're not going to get anywhere there either. You're claiming something, you should back up what you're claiming, otherwise you can't expect us to take your word at it and call him a former American just because you feel it belongs that way. Taking it to arbitration because you're asked to provide something you claim exists isn't likely to end the way you want, especially since you also requested the same at the Teahouse and at WP:DRN and didn't get the answer you wanted there either. Sometimes the consensus is just against what you're proposing, that's the nature of things. - Aoidh (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(Also Wikipedia:Arbitration isn't the place to take content disputes.) - Aoidh (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also relevant here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 206#Derek Chauvin. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

While the DRN was quickly closed, I see that my name was mentioned, but I never received notification. The WP:FORUMSHOPPING using IPs and registered accounts is peculiar.—Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Related Teahouse discussion was here. At best, no consensus for any change there either. It's OK to think that we are "right", but sometimes it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. At any rate, you one can refer to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Forrestgump420: It's not clear why you see a need to remove your old IP signatures over what you allege is a "threat" from Ivanvector. I've restored it. Readers need to be able to identify the source of all comments. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed my signature because I interpreted Volteer1`s post above as a personal theat..by signing with my Wikipedia account name one cannot see my IP address. By reverting it as far as I`m concerened I now have to worry about my own personal saftey. Apparently I have to go through dispute resolution before arbitration which I am now doing now..I will be including his post in my request Forrestgump420 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Video

OP blocked as a sock of Harvery Carter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Video of the incident shows his knee was never on Floyd's neck: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/04/05/derek-chauvin-defense-shows-video-clip-to-suggest-officer-knelt-on-george-floyds-shoulder-not-his-neck/ (Westerhaley (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)) Pretty sure this is incorrect given he's, you know, convicted for his murder already. YODADICAE👽 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Many people have been wrongfully convicted. He is to be given a retrial. (Westerhaley (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC))

dispute requested

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`ve been informed that I have to inform you regarding me disputing the above discussion which I am now doing. Forrestgump420 (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You are supposed to inform the individual editors, which I have done for you. The discussion can be found here at DRN. - Aoidh (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

... which has been closed yet again. WWGB (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

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

RfC at George Floyd protests

I have started a discussion at Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#RfC on Status of George Floyd protests regarding the current status of the George Floyd protests. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

The word "won" in "Personal life" should be changed to "competed" (neither of the sources show her winning)2A00:23C6:8A14:AF00:DCAE:C87C:7843:8951 (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I added this source.—Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Repetition and poor wording relating to the 2017 arrest

There's alot of repetition regarding the 2017 arrest under the Misconduct complaints section and the Civil rights violation section. A description of the events of this arrest is duplicated three times and it being inadmissible at the trial is mentioned twice. It also has out of date sentences or the wrong tense. It says "Federal authorities are said to be considering filing charges in both cases, in addition to the state convictions " when charges are already filed. The following paragraph is badly worded and says they are weighing or planning charges when charges have been filed. "Following Chauvin's murder conviction, the investigation was still underway, with the DOJ reportedly weighing whether to bring criminal charges against Chauvin for the 2017 incident.[84]

Federal investigators plan to charge Chauvin and the other three officers for federal civil rights violations, and intend to ask the grand jury to indict him for both the 2017 and 2020 incidents.[85]" LutonDi (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the "Federal authorities are said to be considering ..." sentence. To summarize, I think you are saying that the Misconduct complaints and Civil rights violations case repeat the same information about the 2017 incident. I agree, but don't have a quick fix. Feel free to suggest specific wording to change.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

passive voice in first sentence

Why is it that Chauvin is described in the first sentence as "convicted in the murder of George Floyd" and not as a "convicted murderer"? Imay fix this myselfJaydenwithay (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC).

His occupation at the time seems notable to the crime and worthy of inclusion in the lead sentence. What alternatives would you suggest?—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed the use of passive should be avoided. Suggestion: Derek Michael Chauvin (/ˈʃoʊvən/ SHOH-vən; born March 19, 1976) is an American former police officer and the convicted murderer of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.128 (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Edit the criminal status from 'awaiting sentencing' to '22.5 years in prison. 108.52.128.132 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Living Concrete (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

"Chauvin, also on May 7, 2021, was also indicted by the..." and everything that follows in the same section: Per WP:BLP, this claim of additional charges needs to be removed unless and until a reliable source is provided. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, of course he is facing "additional charges": federal civil rights charges. Here it is from the New York Times today: "Mr. Chauvin is facing federal civil rights charges in connection with Mr. Floyd’s death, meaning anything he said during the sentencing hearing could be used against him in a future trial." https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/25/us/derek-chauvin-sentence Zedembee (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

That does not support the uncited material. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Now done. The source from The Independent earlier in the section mentions the additional indictment. The info about where the attorneys are from is currently unsourced, but not a BLP issue. We may not need that info at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! (My head's still spinning trying to understand how anyone could suggest WP:BLP somehow lacks consensus, however.) 92.24.242.202 (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible plea deal

Apparently Derek Chauvin is in negotiations to agree to a plea deal with the federal government where he would get a 20 to 25 year sentence instead of possible life in prison. If he does plead guilty, it automatically takes away any chance of early release, and he would be serving both his state and federal sentences in federal prison. This applies to the charges he faced in relation to George Floyd's death and it will not affect his trial on another civil rights charge. It could also collapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXInE9JuvU4 https://news.yahoo.com/derek-chauvin-close-federal-plea-230447685.html https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/derek-chauvin-close-to-plea-deal-for-federal-case-over-george-floyd/ar-AALyHQ9?ocid=BingNewsSearch https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/derek-chauvin-nearing-federal-plea-deal-report-says/ar-AALyVoW?ocid=BingNewsSearch. 2607:FEA8:88A0:420D:A4FD:A230:21DF:1920 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Delayed tax trial

Chauvin's tax evasion trial has been delayed until at least July 30, apparently the person who schedules Chauvin's criminal cases failed to inform the Chauvin's about the tax evasion trial, and it now wont start at least until July 30, and likely later. I ask that the tax evasion part of Chauvin's article be updated to reflect this new information. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/derek-chauvins-tax-fraud-hearing-postponed-minnesota/89-14028701-412f-4c31-bf7a-ad42fe0491c4 2607:FEA8:88A0:420D:A4FD:A230:21DF:1920 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC) 16:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Changes to Derek Chauvin' civil rights violations charges as well as tax evasion, as there have been multiple talks about a plea deal regarding the charges from George Floyd's murder possibly, which would result in Chauvin getting 20-25 years in prison, and Chauvin's tax evasion trial has been delayed until at least July 30, maybe longer. The original lines on the tax evasion have it starting today and nothing happened, so it is clearly out of date, and the possible plea deal on civil rights charges are in direct reference to George Floyd, not the case where he is charged with hitting a teenager in the head with a flashlight. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/derek-chauvins-tax-fraud-hearing-postponed-minnesota/89-14028701-412f-4c31-bf7a-ad42fe0491c4 https://news.yahoo.com/derek-chauvin-close-plea-deal-170800060.html

Thank you.2607:FEA8:88A0:420D:A4FD:A230:21DF:1920 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC) 2607:FEA8:88A0:420D:A4FD:A230:21DF:1920 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

On Derek Chauvin's tax evasion trial, please change the date from June 30, 2021, to July 30th, 2021. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/derek-chauvins-tax-fraud-hearing-postponed-minnesota/89-14028701-412f-4c31-bf7a-ad42fe0491c4. Thank you.2607:FEA8:88A0:420D:A4FD:A230:21DF:1920 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done In addition to changing the date, I removed the bit about it happening five days after sentencing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Derek Michael Chauvin (/ˈʃoʊvən/ SHOH-vən; born March 19, 1976) is a former police officer who was convicted of the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 66.216.205.59 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

The first sentence of the article is grammatically incorrect..it should read read former american police officer..this is because the word former is the primary modifier of the word officer..the easiest way to explain it is if you remove the words american and police the statement is still correct...if you remove the word former it is not. 70.62.112.26 (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think it was changed to avoid the implication that Chauvin used to be American, but that would be phrased "formerly American police officer". I don't have time right now to dig through the history and see who changed it, but I'd love for someone to ping them and get their input. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before: Talk:Derek_Chauvin/Archive_1#First_Sentence_2, and the lead has been like that for quite a while. It is indeed an unnatural adjective order, but we often do that with words like "former" where the placement of the adjective changes the meaning of the sentence. As I said the last time this was discussed, both are probably fine and I don't really care or think it matters, but there was previously consensus for the first sentence of the lead to be written as it is now. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow that got ugly. Thanks for the link. I agree the stakes are low and wouldn’t support a change unless there’s a clear consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thread was started by user with similar geolocation as user reverted a week earlier for block evasion on same topic.—Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

New image?

Hi there, Wikipedians —

So, I uploaded a more recent mugshot of Derek Chauvin taken in June. This article is currently using the mugshot from April. Should we use the June mugshot taken after sentencing, or the April mugshot after conviction? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — SANDBOXES — LOGS — 18:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Honest Question:

Is it common to use a mugshot as the primary photo? I understand including it in the Wikifile, but there are many other photos of Chauvin. Does Wiki do this for primary photos of all felons? Is this guidance for all or just a choice for Chauvin? just a honest question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.24 (talk • contribs)

Hello there, 152.7.224.24,

A lot of Wikipedia articles about felons use mugshots or booking photos as their primary image, such as El Chapo and Ted Kaczynski. However, this is not always the case. For example, the article about Charles Whitman used a yearbook photo instead.

As for your question about if this is a guidance for all, I wouldn’t say there really is any guidance, as I couldn’t find a policy. I would say the reason why you see Chauvin’s mugshot rather than anything else is because Chauvin is currently imprisoned and other free media has rarely been taken, or, it doesn’t illustrate Chauvin correctly (e.g.: Chauvin had a mask on). I hope this helps, and happy editing! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — SANDBOXES — LOGS — 00:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Charles Whitman is not really a parallel example, as Whitman was killed during his shooting spree and therefore was not booked and had no mugshot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:9258:14E0:83A:DA4C:889D:3231 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

In this Wikipedia article, the article does not speak about Chauvin's misconduct past in the introduction. Yet, on George Floyd's Wikipedia page, Floyd's criminal past is listed in the intro, in the second paragraph.

For an unbiased perspective, the facts should be clearly given in the introduction.

Change: "Chauvin had knelt on Floyd's neck for about nine minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street calling out "I can't breathe" during an arrest made with three other officers on May 25, 2020. He was fired by the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) on May 26 and was arrested on May 29. The murder set off a series of protests in the Twin Cities and across the rest of the United States, later spreading around the world. "

to: "Chauvin had knelt on Floyd's neck for about nine minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street calling out "I can't breathe" during an arrest made with three other officers on May 25, 2020. He was fired by the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) on May 26 and was arrested on May 29. The murder set off a series of protests in the Twin Cities and across the rest of the United States, later spreading around the world. Prior to Chauvin's arrest in 2020, 18 complaints had been filed on his official record throughout his career as a law enforcement officer with two resulting in disciplinary action." Abracadmbra (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Spouses' names

I've reverted Fijipedia's edits per the presumptive privacy we afford non-notable people specified in WP:BLPNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Her name has been intentionally revealed to the public. My edit does not defy any BLP policy. Fijipedia (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Get consensus. There's no reason to list her name EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding in the former spouse's name, especially so prominently in the infobox, does not improve the article. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BLPNAME. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Chauvin’s former spouse is not a notable person. We don’t need to mention her name. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have protected the page on the version which does not include the non-notable person's name per WP:NPF and WP:EDITWAR. Iff there is a clear affirmative consensus to include it, ping me and I will revert. In the absence of such consensus, anyone who adds this again will be blocked. If I don't get to it, any admin should restore the previous semiprotection once this issue is resolved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding full protection, which has since expired

• This warranted a full protection? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Diplomatic option. Personally, I'd have blocked the editor that kept re-inserting the material (and had been warned about warring before).—Bagumba (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Enough to warrant a ban? I think it's clear by my edit summaries I had no bad intentions nor broke any policies. Fijipedia (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  On your 2nd revert, you said in your edit summary that no one listed objections in the "K. Thao vs Kellie Thao" section, when you knew three editors were objecting in this section. That's a form of bad intentions. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Full is warranted when extended-confirmed editors are trading reverts instead of discussing, especially so on high-profile BLPs. A rule of thumb: if you're using the edit summary to justify your edit (instead of just explaining what you're doing) you're probably better off going to the talk page. I'll drop the protection back to semi once I see a discussion here about whether or not Chauvin's spouse's name should be included in the article. What I see here is one discussion treating as a foregone conclusion that we will not add it (above) and another assuming we will (below). You all need to put those two together, and talk to each other.

  And to be clear, Fijipedia: the policy you're violating is WP:CONSENSUS (explained at WP:BRD). You made a bold edit, you were reverted, now you discuss. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  The problem here is no one seems to care enough to discuss about this minor issue. While Fijipedia's edit may have been in law considered edit warring, I think he made it in good faith and a ban would be a disproportionate punishment. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to avoid any confusion here, nobody has suggested Fijipedia be banned, only potentially blocked again if they ignore WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR, etc. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"When you knew three editors were objecting in this section." They did not list their objections in the "K. Thao vs Kellie Thao" section, and instead listed them in the section which I am typing in right now. Your statement is simply factually incorrect. Fijipedia (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

When I said "this section", I meant this section, the one we are typing in right now. My edit summary was also very clear, referring to the Talk Page section "Spouses' names". You knew that three editors were objecting here on the Talk Page to what you were doing, yet you ignored their objections and claimed in your reverts that there were no objections. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I never claimed there were no objections in this section, I said that in an entirely different section. The two sections "Spouses' names" and "K. Thao vs Kellie Thao" were completely unrelated until an editor put the latter section under this one. Fijipedia (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary at 22:12, 23 March 2022 incorrectly claimed: No objections on talk page about changing name to Kellie Thao. At any rate, a relevant policy is WP:ONUS:

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

There has no been consensus for inclusion.—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I assumed consensus because in the section I created, there were no objections. Fijipedia (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Except the subsequent reverts by others were, in fact, objections.—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet there were zero objections in the section that I created. That's why I assumed consensus. I clearly stated this in my edit summaries. Fijipedia (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

K. Thao vs Kellie Thao

Do you think the spouse name of "K. Thao" should be changed to the actual name "Kellie Thao"? Fijipedia (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There is RS for Kellin Thao. We don't typically censor a persons spouse in the infobox. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there much in the way of RS coverage? I'm seeing a small smattering. Not enough, I think, to counter the strong presumption of privacy for non-notable family members. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There is reliable coverage. Fijipedia (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

His wife's treatment of him post-Floyd's murder is somewhat significant to this biography. She divorced him, ostracized him, etc. It's covered in RS with her full name, I'm struggling to see the compelling reason to depart from typical biographical norms, which is to include the non-notable spouses name. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

With regard to biographical norms, we see the spouses of notable people listed on their BLPs all the time, but those articles do not have the odious context of listing an otherwise non-notable ex-spouse's name in an "Infobox criminal" template, sandwiched between "Criminal Status" and "Convictions" (that's where the template forces the spouse's name to go). More importantly, WP:BLP states "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." The fact that Chauvin has an ex-wife is certainly relevant to having a complete understanding of the subject and the article currently includes that content in the "Personal life" section without using her name. To add her actual name, however, requires a consensus that including her name is also relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Is it? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The name is relevant to the article and the average reader's understanding of it. Chauvin's ex-wife is mentioned multiple times in the personal life section (which is important) and as I mentioned, she has reliable coverage. I don't see a reason to not add her name. Fijipedia (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing anything in your response to substantiate why including her name is necessary for readers to have a complete understanding of the subject, Derek Chauvin. Every known relevant fact about her is already conveyed in his "Personal life" section (his ex-wife is a Hmong refugee from Laos who won a beauty pageant in 2018 and works real estate agent and photographer; they have no children and she divorced him before his trial). Since she's not notable in her own right, why exactly do readers need to know her actual name in order to have a complete understanding of who Derek Chauvin is and what his circumstances are? That's the question you need to answer. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

She's notable in her own right and multiple RS have mentioned her in articles. Fijipedia (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No, she's not notable in her own right. Do you need assistance in understanding Wikipedia's policies regarding what makes a subject notable? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't need help in understanding policies. WP:NOTABILITY might be of help to you. Fijipedia (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Good to see you read up on policy today. Would you like to try presenting your best argument now as to why you think she's notable? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

She meets the WP:GNG and WP:NOT guidelines easily. It's really simple to understand why she's notable. She also doesn't defy WP:BASIC. Fijipedia (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY is not applicable to page content:

These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Funny how you're using this as an argument when other users were mentioning notability first. Also, my point is Chauvin's ex-wife would easily fit the guidelines to have her own article created. Fijipedia (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not an argument. It's merely a recital of policy.—Bagumba (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:WABBITSEASON?—Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Sentence structure and grammar

This sentence under the heading ‘Civil Rights Violations Case’ currently reads as, “Chauvin, also on May 7, 2021, was also indicted by the same grand jury for violating the civil rights of the 14-year-old boy he arrested in the aforementioned September 2017 incident.”

“Concurrently, Chauvin was indicted for violating the civil rights of…” flows more smoothly and is less wordy with repetitive information.

Thank you for reading my suggestion! 2603:8001:3E00:5BFF:C40:C54B:926D:6AB6 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

In the last paragraph before the drop-down sections, it says his plea was excepted and it should say accepted. 72.75.247.201 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed that whole sentence as unnecessary detail for the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

New articles

Hi, I am quite new to wikipedia. Anyway here are some recent articles can anyone incorporate them in the article: https://www.complex.com/life/corrections-officers-color-barred-guarding-derek-chauvin-settlement https://www.huffpost.com/entry/officers-of-color-barred-from-guarding-derek-chauvin-due-to-race-get-15-million_n_62f50e45e4b0da517ef6511a https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/09/us/derek-chauvin-correction-officers-lawsuit-settlement/index.html https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/08/10/minnesota-officers-barred-guarding-derek-chauvin-settlement/10285001002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.128 (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

links to paid subscription resources

Citations with links to paid subscription resources should be removed as there is no way to verify (short of paying for a subscription) what is actually said in the article. Having citations with links to paid subscriptions also represents a conflict of interest where there is a current topic that wikipedia readers may wish to view and the only way to do so is to pay for a subscription. This is IMO almost tantamount to a sales pitch for signing up for a particular subscription. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:8000:BB:D1B9:3739:779C:B0D6 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That's contrary to the WP:PAYWALL policy:

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.

—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not “apprehended”

Derek Chauvin was NOT apprehended. He turned himself in after indictment. Writing that he was “apprehended” suggests that he was on-the-lam and being sought by law enforcement. Torito468 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Apprehended means taken into custody. It does not imply he was on the run. WWGB (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It DOES imply, he was on the lamb. Which is why it immediately made me do a double-take and do the research because I was not aware that he had fled. Torito468 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2022

Derek Michael Chauvin (/ˈʃoʊvən/ SHOH-vən; born March 19, 1976) is an American former police officer who was convicted for the murder of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African-American man who was under the influence of multiple time the lethal dose of fentanyl at the time of the incident in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Chauvin was a member of the Minneapolis Police Department from 2001 to 2020. 170.103.23.30 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

When discussing the murder of Wayne Reyes by Derek Chauvin, the sentence should refer to Wayne as “an Ojibwe man” rather than just “an Ojibwe”, it is not proper language within the Indigenous community (of which I’m a part of). Thanks! 74.12.74.232 (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

first sentence

the first sentence is grammatically incorrect..it should former American police officer per standard English 2600:1702:2340:9470:A17E:8216:55A4:CE3C (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

While that would be nicer grammatically, editors have pointed out in the past that he is still an American, and phrasing it that way could be misconstrued as him being a "former American". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Not the point…it is incorrect..anyone who misconstrues standard English needs to take a writing class 2A01:CB05:62E:7300:D0B1:F080:DDB4:E7A9 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

Source #117 does not support the claim that Kellie Chauvin was ever a radiologist in the state of Minnesota, and a search of the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice license database does not reveal that she ever held a license to practice medicine in Minnesota. I would ask that the reference to her being a "radiologist" be removed unless it can be substantiated by a reliable source. Genaio88 (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Unarmed juvenile?

it says he was convicted of killing a unarmed juvenile. Last time I checked the juvenile with somebody under the age of 18 years old 2603:9001:5300:6C95:7524:4425:896E:95FF (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the article says anywhere that Chauvin "was convicted of killing a unarmed juvenile". If you do find such a claim, please indicate where it is so it can be fixed. Chauvin accepted a plea deal that included admitting to civil rights violations related to a non-fatal violent encounter with a 14-year-old. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

False neutrality

This Derek Chauvin article uses passive language to describe a non-passive action. "Derek Michael Chauvin... is an American former police officer who was convicted of murdering George Floyd" instead of "... who murdered George Floyd". This phrasing is textbook copaganda. Because Derek Chauvin was convicted for murder, then this Wikipedia article may safely, neutrally identify him as a murderer.

Notably, the proper phrasing is used in the article for Mark David Chapman: "Mark David Chapman is an American man who murdered English musician John Lennon..." If the phrasing is acceptable for Mark David Chapman, then it's acceptable for Derek Chauvin. 2600:4040:9488:8C00:A0B0:59A6:6941:C1A6 (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "who murdered George Floyd" is better, and I made the change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Even though the facts of the case show that Floyd died of a drug overdose, and that Chauvin's actions did not in any way cause Floyd's death, you still think saying "who murdered George Floyd" is better? Or are you just continuing that false narrative that has been pushed for the last few years? LeeeroyJenkins86 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If the facts show that he died of a drug overdose, then it was incumbent on the defense to present that evidence. And if the court did not allow the evidence to be presented, then the issue should have been presented on appeal. As neither of those happened—and Chauvin was represented by competent and experienced attorneys—it is clear that your version of the facts of this case is incorrect. Kablammo (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't tell if I should laugh or link a bunch of WP: for you EvergreenFir (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is Newsweek's fact check of Tucker Carlson's claims. Those claims are the actual "false narrative". Kablammo (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

And here is a summary of the actual testimony of an expert at trial on the force exerted on Floyd's neck. The jury's verdict was based on the facts. Kablammo (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

And this article details how the initial police narrative changed when the bystander video came out. Kablammo (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

2603:7081:2E00:8AC9:2962:A2A8:D245:5515 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Prior arrests and use of excessive force by Chauvin

This new CNN report shows police video of two incidents of Chauvin's use of excessive force several years before George Floyd's death. In the first one Chauvin struck a suspect with a metal flashlight on the head and knelt on his neck; in the second he dragged a handcuffed suspect out of a house and knelt on her neck. The City paid over $8.8 million to settle the brutality claims.

Kablammo (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

In november of 2023 a documentary The fall of Minneapolis was released, produced by Alpha News. The film interviews several ex-colleagues of Mr. Chauvin who is questioning the trial that convicted Derek Chauvin. Holding George Floyd down with the help of his knee, they claim he just did what all of them where trained, according to their MRT manual. The film also contains an interview with Chauvin himself. The film shows the autopsy showing that Mr. Floyd did not actually die from strangling, but it describes that Mr. Floyd had traces of 19 ng/ml Methamphetamin and 11 ng/ml Fentanyl in his system, in addition being infected with covid 19. Abrovig (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The article quotes from Chauvin who said in the documentary that he thought the conviction and sentencing were a "sham." The article states that Chauvin's petitions to the Minnesota Supreme Court and Supreme Court of the United States were not successful, which means the state criminal conviction for murder stands. The article also states that Chauvin recently filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea in the federal civil rights case. If a hearing is granted on the motion and/or there are further developments related it, this article will follow what reliable sources say. The documentary and Chauvin's court filings do not change the official autopsy results and case. The article, murder of George Floyd, covers the autopsy results in detail, including noting that Floyd had COVID-19 and the relevance of fentanyl intoxication--that is not new information. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2023

152.86.135.196 (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

He didn’t kill George Floyd. The drugs the George Floyd took is what killed him

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

The first line should state that he "was convicted of murdering", not "murdered". That is not quality reporting or writing. Lizbethpowell (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See also the thread #False neutrality (above), where "convicted" was discussed.—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there an actual democratic process to create that alteration? I, and many other people, would vote for said alteration. I continually notice across all of Wikipedia a plethora of locked articles, lorded over by left wing academics. This was obviously a politically charged result, with blatant disregard of the coroner absolving Derek of wrongdoing.

Now an innocent man has been gravely injured. The actual innocent man in this case - Derek Chauvin. 24.235.210.58 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we don't vote on the facts. We cite them. You've repeatedly stated that the coroner absolved Chauvin of wrongdoing. It should be an easy matter to cite that. Bkatcher (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bkatcher a conviction of murder is just that, a conviction. Plenty of people have been convinced of murder, only to be exonerated years or decades later. 🙄 47.132.127.113 (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I bet those convictions didn't present clear video of a murderer kneeling on a man's neck for over 9 minutes. 71.125.31.194 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Attack on Chauvin in prison

NYT: "Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who was convicted of murdering George Floyd during a 2020 arrest, was stabbed at a federal prison in Arizona on Friday, according to the office of Keith Ellison, the Minnesota attorney general. No details were immediately available on his condition, but one of the people with knowledge of the incident said that Mr. Chauvin, 47, survived the attack." https://www.nytimes.com/article/derek-chauvin-stabbed.html CNN: "Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who was convicted in the 2020 murder of George Floyd, was stabbed Friday in a federal prison in Arizona, the office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has confirmed. The attorney general’s office, which prosecuted Chauvin in the Floyd case, said early Saturday it was notified of the assault and was told Chauvin is in stable condition." https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/24/us/derek-chauvin-stabbed-prison-george-floyd/index.html AP: "Chauvin was seriously injured in the stabbing. The person spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the attack. On Saturday, Brian Evans, a spokesperson for the Minnesota attorney general’s office, said: “We have heard that he is expected to survive.”" https://apnews.com/article/prosecutors-say-derek-chauvin-may-survive-stabbing-23c704a8cd441d270b7b542e835b69fa Lesless (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

why wasn't the attacker named? he should be named. 122.148.8.208 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Relevance? Why mention his political affiliation?

I fail to see any need to note that he was a registered Republican in the Personal Life section.

For how many people who are not involved in politics do we make note of this detail? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 21:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I see no need for the mention either. Kablammo (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We mention the political affiliation of so many people who aren't directly involved in politics. Just looking at Minnesotans, and just at Republicans, we have Brock Lesnar, Peter Graves, John Sargent Pillsbury Sr., and others. Some reliable sources (more than are cited in the removed content) think this is worth mentioning. I favor restoring it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that the first source already in the article attached to that section is very specifically about this political affiliation and the second source also stresses that contextualization it seems due to mention it in the article when the sources already being used emphasize it. Why is where he's registered to vote relevant but not which party he was registered to vote with? - Aoidh (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

RiverKiki (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

George Floyd the full report autopsy concludes Floyd died from “cardiopulmonary arrest,” not an overdose or murder

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6992-george-floyd-full-autopsy/4c5bdf52fbbd775ce156/optimized/full.pdf

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you intend for the article to not state that Chauvin murdered Floyd, please note that because there is a criminal conviction for murder in this case the article uses that term per WP:MURDERS. Tollens (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And that autopsy report says that the cessation of heartbeat and breathing ("cardiopulmonary arrest") occurred because of law enforcement subduing ("subdual") and restraining him ("restraint") and compressing his neck ("neck compression"). That was the basis for the murder conviction. You are correct that there was no overdose, but the actions of Chauvin were murder. Kablammo (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic

@Kablammo if I fart loud enough in a Cafe and startle an old person enough to induce a heart attack and they die... would that make me guilty of murder? 47.132.127.113 (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC) if you place knee on an old person's neck in a cafe and they die of a heart attack, then i would say that'd make you guilty of murder 2600:1014:B194:BEB3:7718:CE5F:6BD0:414 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Watch the fall of Minneapolis 50.24.80.161 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2023

Derek Chauvin convicted of murder. Leaving out convicted leaves an undertone of biases. 67.61.229.85 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The article already says he was convicted. What change are you asking for? RudolfRed (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Due to recent discoveries the term “murder should be taken out” 23.25.125.121 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Biased Writing.

The opening paragraph is written in such a way as to convince the reader of the guilt of the subject by citing unrelated and unquantifiable prior negative issues. Whilst they may be true, it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to persuade it's readers to think or respond in a specific way. The issue is not the content but rather it's delivery. 82.31.70.248 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph unduly emphasizes negative incidents, and does not give us any context for them. We are told that he had two letters of reprimand (is that a lot for his length of career?); was involved in three police shootings, one fatal (same question); and had 18 complaints against him (same question, and what were the resolutions?). Not until the "Career" section do we get a little more information on them, and the fact that he received two commendations and one medal for valor. The third and fourth sentences in the lede serve no purpose. Kablammo (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, they seem out of place. I took the minimum action and moved them later in the lead (diff). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And I have mentioned in the lede his commendations and medals for valor. Kablammo (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

9 minutes and 29 seconds

Please update this to specify that Derek Chauvin knelt on George Floyd's neck for exactly 9 minutes and 29 seconds, as proven by body cam footage, instead of "about 9 minutes." BabelMD (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I have changed it to "over nine minutes". Kablammo (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias

"is an American former police officer who murdered George Floyd"

Strong words for a highly contested case that has strong evidence to the contrary, and a case deeply hampered by a desired political outcome. In the very least, the article should state that Derek was convicted of murder, not simply that he "murdered George Floyd". We know the courts sometimes seek out political outcomes and that their ultimate ruling does not represent what much of the public knows is to the contrary. 24.235.210.58 (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources are unanimous on what happened. You claim it’s disputed but that’s simply not the case. Not even close. There’s a video of it so it wasn’t hard to verify. 25stargeneral (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is unanimous, for anyone capable of independent query, who doesn't take their idea of unanimity from old guard media.

What is also unanimous is the one party state rule of Wikipedia, apparent in the legion of locked articles by left wing "academics", almost immediate attempts at refutations, and reversions of my edits. Which is why many people have washed their hands of the whole thing, and you have increasingly dwindling right wing representation on this platform, and why I may only interact with the platform once a year, if only engaging in exercises of futility. But enjoy your echo chamber.

I know you're not supposed to impugn motives and try to be objective on here. but the time for that passed long ago for me, when I noticed the severe imbalance of power here.

Blood on your hands, you whole lot, of an innocent man. 24.235.210.58 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No injuries were found on Floyd consistent with the neck injury narrative. The coroner said as much, and was pressured politically to change their opinion. 24.235.210.58 (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You'll never change their minds. It's not even worth trying. 2603:6000:A602:121D:7E09:BF15:32A3:B103 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

All true. No asphixiation found in the autopsy. 2600:1014:A019:7A20:112F:FFDC:C831:B6E9 (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I miss when Wikipedia wasn't run with bias 2601:18C:600:7510:A2AE:3E0C:2CEE:151 (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree- 2600:1014:A019:7A20:112F:FFDC:C831:B6E9 (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I find this wiki ‘statement of fact’ also surprising. With the plethora of drugs in Floyd’s system and the known factors of some of these drugs to cause overdoses / death, I’m sure that the page should actually remove the “murdered” aspects and replace it with something less definitive. Convicted in the death of Floyd is a much better way to describe.

The coroners report / autopsy is readily available online for anyone who wishes to read it.

I firmly believe he wasn’t murdered but died as a result of drugs and the officers actions. 205.206.76.168 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the article should say Chauvin was "convicted of murdering" rather than "murdered George Floyd". The reason is simple logic. Most criminal case decisions have the chance of two types of errors--false negatives and false positives. Therefore in general wikipedia should say things like "was convicted of murder" or "was convicted of child sexual abuse" or " was convicted of fraud" Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd. That is a factual and legal determined by a jury and court and the challenges to it have not succeeded. The only blood here is that shed by Mr. Floyd while a uniformed police officer ground his knee into the back and side of his victim's neck until that victim's heart and lungs stopped. Kablammo (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think you know everything about that case at this point. See the new documentary, The Fall of Minneapolis. Very revealing. 2600:1014:A019:7A20:112F:FFDC:C831:B6E9 (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not how legal decisions are made--they are made on a reasonable doubt basis, and doubt in most cases never goes down to zero. A conviction or aquittal does not discover a fact (except the fact of conviction or aquittal). In other words, there are always possibilities of type 1 or type 2 errors. So wikipedia should not be writing "Depp is not guilty of assault" rather "Depp was found not guilty of assualt". If Chauvin is ever exonerated of murder, wiki should not then say "CHauvin did not murder Floyd"--it should say "Chauvin has the murder conviction overturned by..." And currently, wiki should not write "Chauvin murdered ...." it should say "Chauvin was convicted of murdering..." This argument is AIRTIGHT. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, Chauvin disregarded his training and knew that his actions could kill someone. On June 23, 2020 Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo said that Chauvin had been trained in the dangers of positional asphyxiation and characterized Floyd's death as murder.

"knew that his actions could kill someone" It seems that he went out of his way to kill, not just risking a death. Dimadick (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Chief said:

“Mr. George Floyd’s tragic death was not due to a lack of training — the training was there. Chauvin knew what he was doing.”

“The officers knew what was happening — one intentionally caused it and the others failed to prevent it. This was murder — it wasn’t a lack of training.” [16]

References

First Sentence

The first sentence is grammatically incorrect ..he is a former American police officer..if you take away the word American the statement is still valid..if you take away the word former it is not...descriptors move from particular to general..just like in mathamatics and for the same reason Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a debate I'd rather not get into, but I'll at least point out that those on the other side tend to say that "former American police officer" implies that Chauvin used to be American but is no longer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think he's still American. Brunton (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with anything..the statement is grammatically incorrect..he is a former police officer..his nationality is secondary to that Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn’t murder

George Floyd wasn’t murdered. He very likely overdosed. 68.169.131.99 (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Murder of George Floyd/FAQ § Q4 —Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"who police said pointed a shotgun at them"; "according to police"

In the first para of Career, there is unwarranted use of these terms when talking about factual events. The truth of these facts is not just from the police but witness testemonies et cetera. I just point it out as it is evincing of a writer who is trying to add something political with subtext. 2A00:23C5:6433:4301:DBA4:150D:4C56:D5B3 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

43 or 23?

In the heading to Career: "He received a medal for valor in 2006 for being one of several officers who fired 23 shots on Wayne Reyes..."

But later on:

"On October 29, 2006, Chauvin was one of six officers who opened fire on Wayne Reyes, killing him, after he reportedly stabbed his girlfriend and a friend and fled in his truck.. Police shot 43 rounds in four seconds."

Which one?

Edited as initially ctrl + entered whilst incomplete by mistake. EPEAviator (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered that they may have missed 20 shots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:6433:4301:DBA4:150D:4C56:D5B3 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)