Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Additional information about official autopsy report

Paisarepa, there is neither POV nor any OR in the entirety neutral and factual edit I made, which I’ve un-reverted—Andy edit further corrected some uncited editing and OR that was there prior. The following facts are neither POV nor OR and are noted in both the report and numerous RS, including but by no means limited to those cited in the article:

• Floyd’s arteriosclerotic heart disease is described as “severe” and “multifocal”.
• Floyd had an enlarged heart.
• Floyd’s toxicology was positive for THC, indicating recent cannabis use.
• Floyd tested positive for Covid both on April 3 and May 26, although the ME did not suggest it contributed to his death.
• Floyd had sickle-cell trait (which later features in Chauvin's defense filings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekpyros (talk • contribs) 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• The medical examiner found trauma consistent with restraint but “no life-threatening injuries”.
• Baden and Wilson’s commissioned autopsy was at a disadvantage because they did not have access to tissue, organs, and toxicology samples used by the ME.

In addition, there is no RS cited which says the “report does not list [Floyd’s April 3rd positive Covid test] as a fatal or other significant condition”—which is why I changed it. Indeed, it’s hard to see how a test could be a “fatal condition” and the report makes no mention of any “fatal condition” at all—nor does any RS of which I’m aware. I kindly request that before you revert my good-faith, neutral, and amply-cited editing, you explain what OR you believe has been added, and what is “non-neutral” about the additional information found in the edit or its inclusion in the article, as all of it was covered by many, many RS and is absolutely germane to an understanding of the autopsy report. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: maybe join discussion after recent rollback. WWGB (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Given the concerns over how "significant conditions" should be interpreted by a layperson, touched on at #Dishonesty in the lead paragraph and multiple times before, I don't think it should be expanded beyond the basic description in the ME's press release. Moreover, I still maintain that the "significant conditions" should just be deleted without more context on what it means.—Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

As of now, the article is misleading, and makes statements which are not properly cited. Further, why should it include that Floyd tested positive for Covid on April 3, but not at the time of his death? And I fail to understand the issue with including more precise information, especially given that it's been done so quite efficiently while adding very little in terms of length. In terms of the prior discussion, it strikes me that "enlarged heart" is substantially better in terms of MEDPOP than leaving it at "arteriosclerotic heart disease", especially given that Floyd died of a heart attack. There is a reason that both the report and many, many RS decided to include both. Why is it preferable to exclude the fact that Floyd's body showed trauma from being restrained? Or better to exclude that he had no life-threatening injuries? I fail to understand the problem with the addition of 40 words, in which significantly more information is included, all of which was considered noteworthy by many, many, many RS. When hundreds of articles have included more significant detail, what's the reason for arbitrarily limiting the information in our encyclopedia to the information contained in a state press release? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Floyd did not die of a heart attack, nor did he have one. An enlarged heart is also nowhere near synonymous with atherosclerosis, you're thinking cardiomegaly. THC and coronavirus did not contribute to nor immediately cause this death, but I generally agree with the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What do we say that is not properly cited? As to Covid (and possibly other issues) as you say "although the ME did not suggest it contributed to his death", so what relevance has it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The final clause in this sentence is not found in the two cited RS, and appears to be OR: "The report states that on April 3 Floyd had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, but does not list it as a fatal or other significant condition." I think you're correct that I should have left out "although the ME did not suggest it contributed to his death"—thanks for pointing that out! I also find it bizarre and even misleading to include the fact that Floyd tested positive for Covid-19 in April, but exclude the fact that he tested positive for it during the autopsy, in the section specifically about the autopsy. Thanks, Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I agree regarding the deletion of 'significant conditions'. These are overwhelmingly being misinterpreted as conditions that were significant contributors to Floyd's death, which is absolutely incorrect. Paisarepa 04:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Paisarepa, that's the correct interpretation, absolutely. Any layperson can Google "other significant conditions" and be reassured of this phrase's well-documented and long-standing meaning, by medical experts and crime reporters, if they choose. What they can't find is any alternative or more correct definition of "other significant conditions" to suggest there's any misinterpretation whatsoever. By you and Bagumba's broken logic, we should also remove the as-widely-reported "cause of death" and "manner of death", since somebody might not understand those standard medical terms. But since those findings support your baseless preconceived notions of this death, the reasoning somehow doesn't apply, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ekpyros You're trying to piece together snippets from multiple RSs to imply that the autopsies were incorrect, but none of the RSs make that claim. That is WP:SYNTH and the implication you're creating is WP:POV. There were two autopsies; both found that Floyd's manner of death was homicide and cause of death was, in the official autopsy, "Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" and in the independent autopsy "homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain". Other significant conditions are listed, but those performing the autopsies did not find that they contributed to Floyd's death. Your implications that the autopsies are incorrect is plain POV backed by SYNTH. Paisarepa 16:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken and have failed to accord my editing the good faith in which it was made. In no way have I tried to "imply that the autopsies were incorrect"—nor do I believe that. For what it's worth, I have no opinion about the autopsy's accuracy, and absolutely no reason to doubt it. On the contrary, I've tried to present more properly cited and widely reported information from the autopsy, as I believe a full and accurate picture is what our encyclopedia is about. I cannot imagine how any of the factual information I've included points to any "POV", let alone why you would believe that including more information contained in an autopsy report would form a challenge to its accuracy—if anything, it would seem rather the opposite. Please retract your meritless accusations and assume good faith going forward. Thank you, Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Then what is the point of your suggestion other then to add needles detail that tells us nothing about why he died or how?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Baden autopsy

Part of the Ekpyros edit was about the Baden report:

Baden and Wilson admitted they did not have access to the tissue and toxicology samples as well as some organs that the medical examiner relied upon.

References

Aside from the first two refs being the same and one should be deleted, it looks OK to me. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That sentence by itself is still WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. In addition to the first two sources being the same, the third is a blog (not a reliable source) and the fourth reinforces the fact that this information is not relevant and thus should not be included. From the article: "She noted that she did not have access to toxicology results, tissue samples or some organs. Those items are not likely to change the results, she said." We do not include every irrelevant detail in the article, and especially not in a way that creates an implication that is the opposite of what is actually stated in the reliable sources. Paisarepa 22:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a lot to correct and straighten out in your message. Let's see what others think about the edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a lot to correct and straighten out in your message. If you have a fact-based argument, please make it. Paisarepa 03:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the person doing a paid autopsy announces that it wasn't affected by lack of access surely doesn't make it so. Obviously the NYT and others noted the absence of the materials for a reason, not because it was "irrelevant" or because it "created an implication" that was false. MedPage is not a blog, it's a clinical news publication, and while Melinek's is an opinion piece, she is a renowned and widely read expert on forensic pathology —so dismissing what she's written as "not a reliable source" is akin to dismissing any book or article written by any expert in their field. I don't see how including the fact that Baden's autopsy had limited material to work with presents any sort of POV issue. I encourage you to work toward consensus and common ground here, please. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The link to the opinion piece is https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913 -- notice the word 'blogs'. Arguing that it is an opinion piece, not a blog, does not change the fact that it is not a reliable source. Please see WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. This is basic WP:RS and not an area where there is room for compromise. Paisarepa 04:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of the New York Times and Associated Press as sources for the information? Bob K31416 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue would still stand, by leaving out specific context clearly the information is being framed in a particular way. But to include the context basically turns it into a statement of nothing "we didn't have X but that doesn't matter" neither adds to the understanding of the case, or the forensics. It's the equivalent of announcing "I didn't get cake for my birthday" but omitting "but I don't particularly like it anyway". Omitted it looks like I am the unluckiest person alive. Included and it's barely relevant information about how I spent one day of the year eating trifle. Koncorde (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

We would be using the info in the same way as the sources did, to qualify Baden's remarks. Currently in the article is, "He {Baden] said Floyd had no underlying medical problem that caused or contributed to his death,...", which is misleading because it doesn't include the qualifying info. Bob K31416 (talk)

So do these source say Baden said anything different?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Baden said that. Inserting "qualifying info" that Baden did not consider qualifying is, at a minimum, superfluous - and at the other end is an attempt to dis-"qualify" the autopsy. Koncorde (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde—it is not "superfluous" because whether or not Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck was entirely the cause of death is of primary importance to this incident. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is superfluous because both autopsies determined this was a homicide, i.e., Chauvin's subdual of Floyd was precisely the cause of death. It isn't our role to play back-seat medical examiner and try to rewrite the autopsy report using our original research. Paisarepa 17:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The primary importance is decided by the reliable sources, not ourselves. We are not trying the case, we are not presenting evidence as if constructing the case notes for the jury, and we are not second guessing the intent and quality of the autopsy without an RS actually doing it. If the content stood by itself, and actually added something of value I am not about to oppose it. Koncorde (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde—you are saying "The primary importance is decided by the reliable sources, not ourselves". There is no decision-making involved. And Paisarepa—you are saying "this information is not relevant". Whether or not Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck was entirely the cause of death is of primary importance to this incident. It is axiomatic that all relevant information is ... relevant. We should not omit material of primary importance such as that which has possible bearing on a cause of death in this incident based on arguments that the material is irrelevant or superfluous. Perhaps you can quibble over the wording used but I don't think you have presented a good reason for omitting possibly relevant material. We should be apprizing readers. Our articles are not the final word on any subject. Our articles also serve as jumping off points for further research by interested readers who are motivated to dig deeper into a subject. Despite any argument that this detail may not matter, there is a broader argument in favor of alerting the reader to differences between the 2 autopsies. Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The decision making is the idea that you are assigning "primary importance" to this element of the autopsy, which the person writing the autopsy doesn't, and the RS do not either. There are editors then choosing to apprize readers over such information even though the information (per my comment above) both indicates that it is irrelevant, and of no importance to their autopsy. When someone somewhere makes the argument in an RS that it indeed relevant and of importance, let us know. Koncorde (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

By the same token reliable sources are deciding to apprise us of this information. You approve of some of the decisions made by reliable sources but you disapprove of other decisions made by reliable sources. Again: you can quibble over the wording used. I don't think you can present a sound argument as to why this factoid must be omitted. It is a factoid found at the heart of the question of Floyd's cause of death. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

They are, but they dedicate a single sentence to it in an article otherwise filled with information about the outcome of the autopsy. They are not assigning to it any weight, or placing their lack of information "at the heart" of any question. In fact they immediately say "Those items are not likely to change the results" and "The private doctors also said that any underlying conditions Mr. Floyd had did not kill him or contribute to his death". Out of a 1000 word article arguing those 10'ish words that are immediately downplayed, or refuted as inconsequential, should be included (regardless of wording) is very much akin to quote mining. Koncorde (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck was entirely the cause of death is of primary importance to this incident Both autopsies say that Floyd's death was a homicide, and that law enforcement subdual was the cause of Floyd's death. Neither lists an additional cause of death. To be clear, is your claim that the autopsies were incorrect in this finding? Paisarepa 21:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The core issue is not the sourcing, it is the misrepresentation of the sources. The edit places Baden's lack of tissue samples and toxicology immediately after the statement of Baden's findings and uses the word 'admitted'. The juxtaposition and word choice makes it read as "Baden determined homicide by traumatic asphyxiation, but admitted he lacked tissue samples and toxicology", implying that the second affects the first. The original editor has stated a similar sentiment in this thread, Baden and Wilson’s commissioned autopsy was at a disadvantage because they did not have access to tissue, organs, and toxicology samples used by the ME and The fact that the person doing a paid autopsy announces that it wasn't affected by lack of access surely doesn't make it so. However, this implication is in opposition to the information in both reliable sources cited. In the AP article, the paragraph immediately prior to that talking about the lack of certain tissue samples and toxicology states "the key difference between the medical examiner’s conclusions and those of Baden and Walker are the official finding of “significant” conditions for Floyd, including heart disease and drugs in his system". In other words, the difference in autopsies are details that do not involve the key finding: cause and manner of death. The NYT also includes further context, specifically the quote that the additional information would not likely have changed the results. Neither source states or implies what the editor is trying to imply with the inclusion of the information -- that the autopsy was inaccurate or otherwise affected in a substantive way by the lack of certain samples and toxicology. Without this implication the sentence is just another minor detail that is not important enough to add to the article. Choosing this minor detail to add to the four sentence paragraph about this autopsy would be WP:UNDUE even if it included the proper context and lacked the WP:POV tone and juxtaposition.

Further, the two articles were published before the official autopsy was even released. When these articles were released there had been on 29 May a charging document that claimed that that intoxication and heart disease contributed to Floyd's death and that law enforcement subdual played little to no role, and on 1 June a conflicting summary of the official autopsy was released. The full official autopsy report was not released until 4 June, but the two articles used as sources here were published on 1 June and 2 June. Once the official autopsy report was released and had findings that were extremely similar to the private autopsy the irrelevance of the lack of samples and toxicology became very obvious -- the official autopsy report confirms the statement that the additional samples would not have significantly changed the findings. Paisarepa 17:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, AP and NYT articles were on Jun 1 and 2, and referred to the ME results that were dated Jun 1.

Regarding adding the info to the article, so far it looks like,

Bob K31416, Ekpyros and Bus Stop support;

Paisarepa , Koncorde , and Slatersteven oppose.

Let's see what others think. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not a vote (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) and arguments that are not based in policy and guidelines carry far less weight than those that are. If this sentence is to be included then the supporting editors need to adequately rebut the arguments that it violates WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MEDPOP, in addition to finding consensus that the information should be included at all. Paisarepa 20:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, it is important to note that the articles relied on the preliminary summary of the autopsy, rather than the actual autopsy report. There is absolutely no reason to use the preliminary summary, or sources that rely on it, rather than the actual autopsy report that supplanted it just a few days later and sources that rely on that official autopsy report, except that doing so is convenient for the POV being pushed here. Paisarepa 21:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The press release of Jun 1 is a summary of the medical examiner's final results. It's dated Jun 1, the same date as the final autopsy results. Let's see if we can agree on this. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the summary was released on 1 June. The final autopsy results are also dated 1 June, but were not released until the evening of 3 June, after Floyd's family gave their consent. I incorrectly stated earlier that the date was 4 June, but the point remains that the full report was not released until after these articles had been published. Both of these sources violate WP:MEDPOP, which means their reliance on the summary rather than the full official report is just more straw on an already dead camel. Paisarepa 22:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the sources we use in the article depend on the Jun 1 Press Release for info, not the autopsy report itself. For example, the press release says it was a homicide but the final autopsy doesn't address that subject. I'm interested in seeing what you find if that's not the case. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize. I thought the summary (1 June) was preliminary and the full report (3 June) was official, but I was incorrect. Paisarepa 23:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• We've discussed this multiple times. Until we have a medical expert being quoted directly, or analysis in a medical source, this all violates MEDPOP. No urgency here; eventually we will get the right kinds of sources to be able to address this. —valereee (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• As discussed above, we aren't here to reconstruct or second-guess the conclusions of a public official. This is textbook prohibited synthesis - taking Fact A and Fact B to reach or even imply Conclusion C is not permissible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Baden is not a public official, and his conclusions are covered in the same sources that cover his relative lack of evidence. What you can see is naturally tied to what you can report, in any field. The reporters themselves thought a complete absence of toxicological data might be pertinent when a doctor popularly known for dishonesty, ineptitude and vulturing victim's families declares drugs played no part, effectively second-guessing an actual public official. We're just reflecting that same natural sketchiness. It doesn't take any connecting of dots when this "independent" appears alongside Ben Crump in the exact same press conference, either. You confusing a private investigator with a public official goes to show what can happen when we give equal weight to fringe opinions from people with conflicts of interest. By removing any sourced doubt from Baden's objectively more dubious claim, we give the impression that either man might be telling the truth, which is preposterous and hurts Baker's credibility unnecessarily. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Several minutes

"Several" seems to me to imply too small a duration of time. Based on the current wording I presumed it was something like 2-5ish minutes until I read the footnote (which I'd glanced over on the first read of the lead). I'll openly admit to being ignorant of the details beforehand, but is it possible to find a more accurate/precise/clear way to word this without giving the exact time?

A dictionary definition of "several" is "some; an amount that is not exact but is fewer than many". There are two problems here: firstly there is an exact time and secondly it could easily be said that Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for many minutes. What are others' thoughts on this? Jr8825 • Talk 04:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC) – For reference, I can see there was an RfC about whether to include the exact time in the lead in June.

• I think the lead should say "9:30" or "almost ten minutes", with the footnote retained, but without the wikilink to 8:46. Not sure how long it's been since we last beat this horse. Lev!vich 02:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• I was the one who replaced the then-constantly-being-reverted and edit-requested-to-change number with "several." I don't care if we change it, just want to find something that will keep us from having to go back to this over and over on multiple articles. :D —valereee (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, well, if it's a valereee edit, we can just ignore it then. :-D I boldly changed it. Lev!vich 20:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Can you arrange for multiple of my edits over the past couple weeks to also be ignored? I've been a wee bit cranky. —valereee (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  *looks at val's contribs* Welp, if editing articles about lesbian fiction isn't cheering you up, I'm not sure what can. Nevada memes? Lev!vich 22:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change @Levivich:. Jr8825 • Talk 18:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Would it be noteworthy to mention in the article that the police struggled to get him into the car as he was actively resisting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quit42 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

... Lane said that he first saw Floyd bleeding from the mouth at that moment, which he attributed to his "thrashing back and forth" in the car and hitting his face on the glass that goes to the front seat. ... Around 8:18, security footage from Cup Foods shows Kueng struggling with Floyd for at least a minute in the driver side backseat while Thao watches. doesn't do it? Lev!vich 18:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Another suggestion

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 follow the lawofficer.com website. They seem to be quite satisfied that George Floyd died of an overdose of Fentanyl. This is a common cause of death in the US. Would anyone like to discuss this possibility with me? Are.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• How does this relate to the article?—Bagumba (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The article should prominently focus on the autopsy, which is NPOV, and does not support the use of the word 'killed'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Are.u.sure (talk • contribs)

• The purpose of article talk pages is to improve the encyclopedic coverage of the topic based on reputable secondary sources, not to promote and discuss new theories or conclusions that aren't supported by credible sources. Not everything on the internet is a credible secondary source and Wikipedia is not a not a place for original research. The medical examiner listed the manner of Floyd's death as a homicide and that has been covered extensively in many credible secondary sources. The website mentioned above is not a credible source of information for the manner of Floyd's death. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The use of the word 'homicide' only appears with a careful contextual explanation on the same page. 'Manner of death classification is a statutory function of the medical examiner, as part of death certification for purposes of vital statistics and public health. Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process. Such decisions are outside the scope of the Medical Examiner’s role or authority. '— Preceding unsigned comment added by Are.u.sure (talk • contribs)

• They would say that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I have submitted a question to lawofficer.com to say that some Wikipedia editors consider their site to be unreliable. From their reply to me: 'It doesn’t shock us we are called “unreliable”. In today’s media that often means you aren’t following along with the narrative we want. I can assure you the article is accurate. Our sources are hyperlinked. If there is a specific issue you are interested in we will be glad to expand on it and provide further sources.

Our publication has existed since 2005. We have over 24,000 articles published. It wasn’t until the death of George Floyd we started to be called unreliable. It wasn’t until his death, we took on serious digital attacks to take our site down. It wasn’t until the death of Floyd that Facebook reduced our reach 90%.

And, to this day, no one has pointed out one falsehood in our coverage. All of that should be concerning in our democracy.

LO Team'— Preceding unsigned comment added by Are.u.sure (talk • contribs)

• Cancer is a common cause of death in the US as well. By your reasoning maybe he died of cancer. I'm satisfied. EEng 18:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Are.u.sure: firstly, please always sign your posts (like this: ~~~~), otherwise it is difficult to ascertain who is saying what. Secondly: Wikipedia follows the significant viewpoints presented in reliable sources, per WP:DUEWEIGHT (a sub-policy of WP:NPOV) and our policy on verifiability. So, even if the source you've provided were reliable (and let's be very clear: it is not), the viewpoint expressed would need to be echoed in other reliable sources (it is not). As it stands, coverage in reliable sources support the current status of the article. So unless you can provide reliable sources which support the changes you'd like to be made, this discussion is moot. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

here is a link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/manner_of_death?wprov=sfla1

from the link

'In the United States, a manner of death is expressed as belonging to one classification of a group of six possible:

Natural

Accident

Suicide

Homicide

Undetermined

Pending'

in the article three references are given to describe these. Please read them.

From the autopsy

'No life-threatening injuries identified'

'NECK: Layer by layer dissection of the anterior strap muscles of the neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature. The thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone are intact. The larynx is lined by intact mucosa. The thyroid is symmetric and red-brown, without cystic or nodular change. The tongue is free of bite marks, hemorrhage, or other injuries. The cervical spinal column is palpably stable and free of hemorrhage.'

'The finding of sickled-appearing cells in many of the autopsy tissue sections prompted the Hemoglobin S quantitation reported above. This quantitative result is indicative of sickle cell trait. Red blood cells in individuals with sickle cell trait are known to sickle as a postmortem artifact. The decedent’s antemortem peripheral blood smear (made from a complete blood count collected 5/25/20 at 9:00 p.m.) was reviewed by an expert HHC hematopathologist at the Medical Examiner’s request. This review found no evidence of antemortem sickling.' Are.u.sure (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is. Didn't the coroner rule this a homicide? (edit: they did)EvergreenFir (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1 Are.u.sure (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Are.u.sure: Please answer the question. What is your point? What edit are you proposing we make? Sources say it was a homicide, so the article reflects that as well. On a side note, please work on familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's norms (WP:TPO, WP:RS, etc.). You can find a lot of useful links in the welcome template on your user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

just come here to warn all of you of the new evidence that will clarify some questions. https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/ExhibitA11162020.pdf https://www.mncourts.gov/Media/StateofMinnesotavThomasLane.aspx this is the source. Liondragon360 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, two contributors to the same section sign their posts at the beginning! Socks come in pairs, don't they? WWGB (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Liondragon360 (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)No,not a sock. Are.u.sure (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC) I have written to a few of you directly and the only thing that makes sense to me is that you consider the autopsy to be a primary source whereas I consider it to be secondary. In my view you are all using quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary,denary and so on, not secondary. This is like a game of Chinese Whispers. I have also looked through some of the hundreds of George Floyd related pages and I think I'm beginning to see a pattern:

'77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors, a majority of whom are anonymous.' Are.u.sure (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC) What percentages of reversions are made by what percentage of editors? How many are anonymous?

Are.u.sure (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC) I've just checked the lawofficer.com home page. Their contributors are real people (not bots, nor trigger-happy amateurs, making instant reversions with mouse clicks).

To quote: The Law Officer Brand began in 2005 as Law Officer Magazine and is the industry leader in law enforcement news, original content and training. Law Officer is the only major law enforcement publication and website owned and operated by law enforcement and for law enforcement. This unique facet makes Law officer more than just a media company – but a true advocate for the profession. now bias isn't an automatic disqualifier, but this would be a red flag to suggest that anything we use from them should be directly attributed to the opinion of the author. So lets see who these named authors are:

1. "Law Officer":[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] (note, this one is so obviously partisan and sourced to youtube and other far right commentators that the idea this source is "reliable" is clearly rubbish) [10][11][12][13]
2. "Leonard Sipes" :[14][15]

Around this point I got bored. After 3 pages I noted another two articles. There's dozens more all attributed to "Law officer". Unclear who this is. So not sure how Law Officer is, say, better than the alleged 77% figure for wikipedia articles. They use a variety of already reliable sources as their source - so we may as well use those - and they also use a litany of unreliable sources filtered through their own POV. Koncorde (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Are.u.sure (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC) to help you out a bit:

https://www.lawofficer.com/author/sgt-charlese-humesjr-ret/ https://www.lawofficer.com/author/jchudwin/ https://www.lawofficer.com/author/rjohnson/ https://www.lawofficer.com/author/timbarfield/

and so on. All professional police officers, not politicians, with many years experience and so likely to understand more than we do and to have contacts which others in the press don't.

1) Regarding the special use of the word 'homicide' in the Manner of death classification. I want the links in this article to point to the Manner of Death page, not the Homicide page.

2) As emphasised in the Press Release Report:

'Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process'

Therefore I want the word 'killed' to be replaced by died/death as appropriate.

Can any of you write a script to correct these? Else please point me in the right direction and let me try. I propose to ultimately roll out this other change to all the George Floyd articles and the various spin off articles about systemic racism in the police for example.

Your proposal goes against established consensus and violates policy, so the answer is no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also amusing that this is basically an argument from authority, where the authority in question, using their own tertiary interpretation of mixed secondary sources. In effect they are a self published medium, probably just above a blog but not by much.

No clear official affiliation, no obvious statements of editorial oversight or fact checking, and certainly no delineation between fact and opinion, the articles are published in the sites name and not an individual "journalist" in what appears to be the significant number of cases, and so, so, so, many articles whining about how hard their lives are and that Doctors kill so many more people than they do! Because we measure effectiveness of the police by how few extra-judicial killings they do. Well. Not necessarily a bad idea.

This is, probably, the least appropriate source imaginable if only because of the blatant COI demonstrated by the innumerable articles attacking Floyd, the prosecution, the union, the mayor, the Police Department superiors who sacked the officers in question etc. There is nothing of value from this series of unattributed blog posts. Koncorde (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Are.u.sure (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC) How do I change the 'consensus'? Not through reason I suspect. Are there any dissenting editors? Please email me with advice (confidentially).

Alex.Kurucz@gmail.com

By argument. Convincing people, you are right. Killed is not a legal term, it does not imply culpability or intent. I can be killed by a falling tree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Are.u.sure (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest

'Killed' doesn't fit

Liondragon360 (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)We need to wait,until January 1 or after trial 8 March,in my opinion if they are acquited the title needs to be changed to George Floyd Incident,just a suggestion."here´s what Andrew Baker has to say:https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/ExhibitA11162020.pdf

Are.u.sure (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation?wprov=sfla1

'homicide' used with two different meanings

Liondragon360 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Please,read the link:https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/ExhibitA11162020.pdf

Can users please read wp:talk and wp:indent, its becoming imposible to see who is posting what.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How about changing the title of the article to George Floyd homicide and adding an introduction about the meaning of the word as regards of Manner of Death? Are.u.sure (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Because homicide has a specific legal meaning which killing does not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

HOMICIDE HAS MULTIPLE MEANINGS, DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT

The public, and most journalists, don't seem to realise this. It's unfortunate, but the impression given is an assumption of guilt. We should presume innocence.

I'm British and there are a number of features of the US handling of this matter that seem very bad to me. I don't want the Wikipedia to make it worse than it needs to be. In particular, I would like the outcome of the trial, which will probably lead to acquittals, not to be followed by social disturbance. To this end, Wikipedia, which usually appears near the top of Google searches for questions like 'how did George Floyd die?' should give responsible answers and not imply that the matter is in any way settled. Are.u.sure (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Its lucky then we do not say it was homicide.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should have patience and wait for the trial which is 8 of march 2021. Liondragon360 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop Are.u.sure, you're ruining our British reputation. Koncorde (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

According to The New York Times, Derek Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. TechnoRobotPirate (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"After the release of bodycam in August,it was determined that Derek Chauvin Knee on back or side of Floyd neck for nine and a half minutes.Liondragon360 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This line in the article refers to the autopsy, using reference 19.

'Two autopsies found Floyd's death to be a homicide.'

It also links the word 'homicide' to the wrong meaning. it should be to the Manner of Death page or the Press Release (with its particular Comment section).

The subsequent line therefore gives the false impression that the homicide charge was a result of the autopsy. In fact the charge followed from the video alone and was lodged in May 29. Are.u.sure (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Not only does the autopsy not support the impression given by the primary sources, for example the video, but Baker, the Medical Examiner, said so in the FBI filing:

link:https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/ExhibitA11162020.pdf

Quote: 'Baker assumed that when asking if Floyd suffered from compressional asphyxia. that mechanical asphyxia of the neck was being referenced. There was no autopsy evidence that blood or air supply was cut off. There was no evidence of compressional asphyxia of the back.'

Can you stick to a single topic and perhaps explain what on earth you mean or are intending to convey.

1. Manner of death loops back around to Homicide so that's a red herring regardless of whatever you are trying to argue.
2. Press Release (I assume this[16]) says Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression. Manner of death: Homicide as with all other uses of "homicide" we are using the definition per their outline Manner of death classification is a statutory function of the medical examiner, as part of death certification for purposes of vital statistics and public health. Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process
3. The homicide charge is as a result of the autopsy. Chauvin was initially charged with 3rd degree. This was upgraded after the autopsy On May 29, 2020, Chauvin was charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, and held at Oak Park Heights state prison. According to the criminal complaint, police are trained that the neck restraint that he applied "with a subject in prone position is inherently dangerous".[103] On June 3, 2020, the charge against Chauvin was upgraded to second-degree murder, and the three other officers were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder.[104][e] we can't cover every possible level of granular detail in the lede.
4. Baker will not speculate. That's why his answers to the FBI are filled with "would not", "could not", and only where his direct medical experience existed did he offer opinion. But we're not interpreting this primary source. That is up to the press and lawyers as / when / subsequent to the court case being heard. Koncorde (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the Manner of Death entry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manner_of_death?wprov=sfla1

It doesn't loop back to homicide so it is not a 'red herring'.

Please try again. Are.u.sure (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Go to page. Scroll down to Categories by Jurisdiction. Read United States. See links back to the potential outcomes. One of the outcomes is homicide. Loop achieved. We link to homicide as that is the outcome listed on the coroners and reported by the Reliable Sources. Suggestion we should link to the Manner of Death page is a needless step, and either intentionally trying to mislead, or obfuscate.

Can you please learn to format you answers. Koncorde (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The autopsy is dated 6/1/2020 Are.u.sure (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The charges were UPDATED on June 3rd. Read the entire paragraph. Koncorde (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The autopsy is a 'secondary source'. It was produced by a third party not involved in the original incident. Newspaper accounts of the autopsy would therefore tertiary. Are.u.sure (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. The autopsy is a primary source. Pretty much any factual report published by a government or organisation, or official body is a primary source. Secondary sources by definition discuss other sources, usually reinterpreting them and or contextualising them per WP:SECONDARY. Koncorde (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to explain the fact that 'homicide' has at least 2 contextual meanings on user Koncorde's talk page. Here's an example 'The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument. Examples: I have the right to watch "The Real World." Therefore it's right for me to watch the show.' Are.u.sure (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Quote, Homicide, "Homicide is the act of one human killing another.[1] A homicide requires only a volitional act by another person that results in death, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm.[2]" we are not speculating about which of the "volitional" acts, only that they are being prosecuted under the proviso that the acts were volitional. Koncorde (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You infer that the charges were updated because of the autopsy? Do you think that follows from a reading of the autopsy? Baker did not have the power to do that. Other people did. We can talk about that and what their motives might have been later. Are.u.sure (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I am going by what AG Keith Ellison said. I'm not speculating about their "motives" with you. Koncorde (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That's good enough for you?

'Keith Maurice Ellison is an American politician and lawyer serving as the 30th Attorney General of Minnesota. A member of the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party, Ellison was the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district from 2007 to 2019. Wikipedia'

Oh, well, a lawyer and a politician! He knows how to read the autopsy - so you don't have toAre.u.sure (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ellison is a tertiary source. Unreliable.Are.u.sure (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It's good enough for me that the reliable sources reported prior to the release of the autopsy that he wanted to ensure the prosecution was done right and would review the autopsy. And that subsequently Keith Ellison expressed support for the prosecution based not just on the autopsy.

You're a chemistry graduate (allegedly) living in Poland (allegedly) of no note, repute, or apparent expertise (reasonable assumption). He's a qualified lawyer, and the AG of Minnesota with over a decades experience in law and a team of prosecutors whose sole job is to look at the evidence and advance the cases they believe can be advanced to the letter of the law.

Ellison is, depending on what we are using him for, a Primary Source (if we are quoting his words directly). However we use reliable secondary sources to present.

A tertiary source for the record is an index or textual consolidation of primary and secondary sources. If you have any kind of degree you should know this. Koncorde (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I started this thread writing about FENTANYL but you all seem to prefer playing at journalists, lawyers and politicians, don't you?

The Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is an encyclopedia. The autopsy does not support the charges brought. Why, after so many months, does the Wikipedia page not reflect this? Are.u.sure (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your source about Fentanyl is an advocacy group that is nowhere near a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a court. Your comments about the autopsy, a primary source, are original research. We don’t do that. O3000 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Are.u.sure, you need to invest the time to learn applicable Wilipedia guidelines and policy in order to participate constructively. As it is you're simply wasting everyone's time with your personal research and theories. I suspect this will be the last time someone warns you about this before you're simply blocked from editing. EEng 17:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My first source is the autopsy, take a look. My second is Andrew Baker's 9/01/2020 interview. Are.u.sure (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

These are primary sources. We don't use primary sources or draw conclusions. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Would the cause of death be in dispute?in the same way Jeffrey Epstein is?you have 3 autopsies,which say different things:1 autopsy cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained,police officer caused his death by strangulation,and Armed Forces say mechanical or positional asphyxiationLiondragon360 (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out why we don't use primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources. This includes reliable journalism. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the cause is in dispute. That's why there's a legal case. The title of this page is KILLING OF GEORGE FLOYD. Primary sources are witnesses, participants, videos, any physical evidence and so on. the secondary sources would include laboratory test results, autopsy findings, expert testimony based on statements taken. Comments by journalists are distinctly hearsay, except when they properly give supporting references.

Are.u.sure (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes,i am agree with you,but what change to the title would be? in my opinion "Death of George Floyd" is fine,and the add of (disputed the same way is in Jeffrey Epstein),good?.Liondragon360 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop putting your signature on a separate line. This makes the thread difficult to read. Laboratory test results, autopsy findings, and expert testimony are primary. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources, which includes news sources regarded as reliable. O3000 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC).

I am a Chemistry graduate. If laboratory tests are primary then my opinion must be secondary then. An unqualified person is not a secondary source in this case.Are.u.sure (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We are not reliable sources period. A reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper deemed reliable under WP guidelines, reporting on a laboratory test can be used by WP on the existence of the laboratory test, who did it, who paid for it, etc. The reporter need not have a chemistry degree. O3000 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We're at WP:COMPETENCE closing in on WP:NOTHERE as far as I am concerned. Koncorde (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Further evidence Are.u.sure doesn't understand how autopsies work and how his assumption of how something works, much like his complete misinterpretation of primary / secondary / tertiary and reliable sources, results in the absolute projection of his beliefs over any reliable source. Koncorde (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

References 87 and 88 are to Andrew Baker's work. References 89 - 102 quote from 87 and 88 and, to the extent that that is all they do, they are not tertiary. If they go beyond quotation, perhaps by adding editorial opinion or even bias, they become tertiary and there is a risk of information loss. Hence my comment about Chinese Whispers (also called Telephone)Are.u.sure (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That isn't what a tertiary source is. This has been said before. As a chemistry graduate you must understand sourcing. That you do not understand sourcing is incredibly worrying. Koncorde (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia, secondary sources are allowed to perform WP:SYNTHESIS and we can use that synth. That does not make them tertiary. This has nothing to do with Chinese wispers. You need to study WP:RS. O3000 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we please take all talk about users and their faults to their talk pages, and not clutter up what is already a hard to follow thread?Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing to follow. EEng 19:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think Are.u.sure means well, but this can't go on. To avoid having to resort to a CIR block I'm going to exhort my esteemed fellow editors to simply stop responding to him, and let him just run out of steam (though I predict that may take a little time). EEng 19:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if generous, CIR is the minimum issue with someone who is now off the range. Koncorde (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Both User:EEng and Koncorde appear to be attempting intimidation to silence my attempt to establish the place of the autopsy in this case. I am not impressed by their subtle approach.Are.u.sure (talk) 20:43, 9 December 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.

30/500 this page

...as a DS sanction under AP2. The cost/benefit ratio is there given the history of this article, especially the talk page. Anybody else think it's a good idea? Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it would,discussion is not leading anywhere.Liondragon360 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather deal with the users directly than restrict the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no issue with 30/500, but at the same time I don't understand why Liondragon360 would be in support of it as a new user. Koncorde (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 *looks at next section* either way :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think i confused with,now the discussion in the other section is closed,i retract what i said.Liondragon360 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Autopsy does not support homicide

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 homicide charges were nothing to do with the autopsy. They came earlier. The Press Release for the autopsy explicitly says this:

Under Minnesota state law, the Medical Examiner is a neutral and independent office and is separate and distinct from any prosecutorial authority or law enforcement agency.Are.u.sure (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, a homicide charge by a prosecutor != ruled a homicide by a medical examiner.

• County medical examiner rules George Floyd's death a homicide - The Hill
• Hennepin County Medical Examiner declares George Floyd death homicide - Fox 9 KMSP
• County Officials Rule George Floyd Death Was A Homicide -NPR
• George Floyd's death ruled a homicide by medical examiner - NBC
• George Floyd’s Death Ruled A Homicide By Medical Examiner -Forbes
• Two autopsies both find George Floyd died by homicide, but differ on some key details - CBS

And yes, of course, the medical examiner's office is independent from law enforcement and prosecutorial offices. In other words, their rulings are done without favor or consideration of prosecution or defense. once again, you are conflating a charge of criminal homicide with the medical examiner's ruling of a death caused by homicide. Not all homicide is criminal.

@Are.u.sure: to be blunt and clear, if you continued disruption on this talk page I will block you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The intent of this user is clear in their own words. They wont be convinced. They are "a compulsive truth-teller. When people stonewall or bully me they won't intimidate me for long." They are WP:NOTHERE and will not collaborate unless it suits them. Koncorde (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You have been asked to stop, your request has been denied, drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

On Twitter I'm @AlexanderKurucz - take s lookAre.u.sure (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No. O3000 (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I saved you the trouble. It's sad, really. EEng 05:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't even know what to make of that. Let me ping someone: Black Kite, is this crossing any lines or just odd? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no much to say. To quote his twitter "Many people have tried to edit this article. For 6 months they've pretended that the Medical Examiner brought the case. Not so." Nowhere in the article do we say or suggest this to be the case. He's tilting at windmills. Koncorde (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHEREper more talk page shenanigans probably emotionally vested in your viewpoints. Has a twitter feed filled with raging at wikipedia, personal declarations of belief and interpretation of primary sources, re-tweeting Dinesh D'Souza's conspiratorial claims about Ellison. Declares, what, 12 experienced editors have Cognitive Dissonance.

This is way beyond CIR. Koncorde (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick, everyone, they've figured out the autopsy was suppressed. Why did we not think someone would "read the Press Release in the Comments section"? Koncorde (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-board-reappoints-dr-andrew-baker-as-chief-medical-examiner/571199182/

From the article:

Commissioner Angela Conley, had raised concerns that the autopsy report — which ruled Floyd’s death a homicide — mentioned fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system, which she suggested downgraded the severity of the crime.

Andrew was risking his job. Like it or not, the decision to call it a crime was political and not anything else.Are.u.sure (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The phrase:

'which ruled Floyd’s death a homicide'

is mistaken. The Comments section of the press release shows this.Are.u.sure (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Are.u.sure: I suggest you propose specific text changes you want to make in the article. Otherwise, this degrades into a general forum about Floyd's death.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ Are.u.sure (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.

1. Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd
2. References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died
3. The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings
4. A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 1#Requested move 27 May 2020 is relevant here. WWGB (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see nothing in that link that says anything of the sort. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is exactly what the new page-level blocks were invented for: an editor with the potential to usefully contribute (in other topic areas) is out of his depth in a particular area, so much so that he can't even see it. I think what's needed is a block on this page (article and talk) and George Floyd (article and talk). There are 6 million other articles to which he can usefully contribute while learning things like primary vs. secondary. EEng 15:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 11 December 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.

• EvergreenFir, thanks for the quick action but based on the response [17] I think it needs to be indefinite. When he's shown he knows how to participate usefully in controversial areas he can request an unblock. EEng 20:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: I tend to like WP:ROPE. If he resumes the same behavior, it will be indefinite. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Solomonic indeed! That's why you admins get the big bucks. EEng 23:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to cover all of the bases...

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Law Officer Magazine ( lawofficer.com ). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Meanwhile, on Jupiter: [18]. I'll be very surprised if anything at all happens. EEng 05:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Something did happen: [19]

   [TROLL DETECTED] [TARGET AIMING] [TARGET LOCKED] [   BLOCK!!   ]
   .--------------. .-------------. .-------------. .-------------.
   |       o      | |      |      | |    \ o /    | |  \`. | .'/  |
   |     /( )\    | |   -- + --   | |   --(+)--   | |-- *PLONK* --|
   |______/_\_____| |      |      | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__|
   '--------------' '-------------' '-------------' '-------------'

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

In the beginning of the article, George Floyd is described as a black man. What is the point of including his skin colour in the very first sentence? I think "man" would suffice. Tuliodawidserafeimcabral (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Tuliodawidserafeimcabral, if you do not know why George Floyd is described as a black man in the first sentence, then I can only assume that you don't know what made the killing of him notable, and suggest you read the rest of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

[20][21] O3000 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In the United States, racism is a very real problem, and the strained relationship between people of color and the police is an old and still relevant problem. That is the context, so mentioning the race of those involved is quite relevant. Also, the fact that the officer who knelt on his neck knew him and still treated him like a worthless animal is good to know. That context says a lot. -- Valjean (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I know the video is ugly,it´s horrific and sad that he lost his life,but this article show a different story that everyone is talking about,so if you have a time(it´s long,but by far is the best article that describes the situation)please read. https://compost-bulletin.com/2020/06/the-george-floyd-incident-how-did-it-happen/Liondragon360 (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't post links to extremist blogs here. O3000 (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Because RS consider it important.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

handcuff time question

Mention of cuffs on the article currently say:

• "nine and a half minutes[a] after he was already handcuffed and lying"
• "Floyd exited the vehicle, either pulled out by police or willingly. Still handcuffed, he fell to the pavement"
• "Floyd, still handcuffed and prone on the pavement, responded"

Is there any information on at what time the handcuffs were removed from Floyd after he fell cuffed to the ground?

I noticed in this shot it looks like Floyd's right hand in front of his chest and while it's blurry I don't notice any cuff on it.

So was this a post-death photo where they took the cuffs off when he became non-responsive, but still kept kneeling on him?

I'd like to know if we could append some kind of time stamp as to when the handcuffs were removed (as eventually they must've done that at some point, even if in the morgue) in respect to when the kneeling began, assuming we know that. If the time is unclear but persists until end of all known video then we could say that.

The only live footage I've been able to find is from the left side of the car where the bumper is blocking view of arms, is there any continuous footage from the rear where the bumper doesn't obstruct and we can see this "hand angle" so it's clearer what's happening when that snapshot was taken? Can't tell from that blurry still if Floyd was moving or not.

Also a minor detail, but can we find a source which clarifies if his hands were cuffed behind his back the entire time, or if there was some point where they switched it to a front cuff? The article doesn't specify which side of the body although from the footage I've seen it only shows behind his back. WakandaQT (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

NYT: Mr. Chauvin actually keeps his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck from 8:19 until 8:28 p.m., for a total of nine minutes and 30 seconds. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich this does not answer my question, I'm asking how many minutes prior to 8:19 the cuffs were put on, and how many minutes after 8:28pm the cuffs were removed. A timeline could cover multiple details and points of events. WakandaQT (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Prone v Facedown

splitting off new section my response to this from Gonobo:

"please don't change the article to imply that Floyd was not face down"

Using "supine" does not imply Floyd was not face-down, it simply uses a more anatomically correct term to describe Floyd's posture. You are literally "face-down" holding this kind of handstand for example. The important aspect here was that Floyd's torso was prone (his back was facing upward) which is more important than what direction his face was.

Just as with "knee", referring to the prone position as "facedown" is simply an informal slang adopted by people so it can be understood by a public who are not familiar with the proper anatomical term for that posture. WakandaQT (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

NYT: The footage also offers a new view of the struggle to put Mr. Floyd into the squad car and an explanation of how Mr. Floyd ended up face down on the street, where officers would pin him for nine minutes and 30 seconds. This topic was previously discussed at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 2#"Facedown" or "prone"?; consensus in that discussion was hands-down "face down". The reason it's not "prone" or "supine" is because all of the reliable sources say "face down". I can't be sure, but I'm fairly certain no reader will be confused as to whether or not Mr. Floyd was performing a handstand. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich thank you for highlighting that old discussion, I was unaware of it.

I think User:InedibleHulk made a strong appeal there. Disagreements like "On his stomach may work better in simple wikipedia. But, let's pretend our readers know what face-down means" because O3 is basically agreeing IH is correct (that "facedown" is sometimes slang used for a prone torso even if the face is not down) yet it some appeal to use one form of slang over another. When we can simply link to prone position it becomes incredibly clear (Wikipedia even has a built-in hover-preview with an image) of what that phrase means.

special:diff/960986899 by User:FourViolas shows agreement with IH, the summary including "lying prone, with his left cheek pressed against the asphalt"

We don't even recognize facedown with an article on Wikipedia (it redirects to music bands) whereas prone position is clearly defined and used here and should take precedence.

I wouldn't use slang like "on his stomach" either due to its technical inaccuracy: the stomach being an internal organ and "stomach" being an informal slang for the abdomen.

I think there are adequate numbers who understand the word "prone", and hovering over the word reminds those who forgot.

I'm also not actually seeing a consensus established to use facedown. There also seems to be false insistance that prone was not used, even though many sources DO use it:

• https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/abc10-originals/deadly-restraints-by-police/103-02fd2f33-9ba4-46b6-ac89-61e62bf2cefa "most of the world wasn’t familiar with the dangers of a person being under the weight of officers while in a prone position until May 25, 2020, the day George Floyd died" .. "George Floyd was in a prone position"
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/george-floyd-police-training/2020/05/29/0aca572e-a127-11ea-b5c9-570a91917d8d_story.html "Floyd was kept prone with pressure on his neck"
• https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-George-Floyd-s-death-is-a-test-of-15301613.php "George Floyd, handcuffed and prone"
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-the-complaint-charging-ex-officer-derek-chauvin-with-george-floyds-death Floyd was not responsive for nearly three minutes. “Police are trained that this type of restraint with a subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous,” the complaint said.

Technical accuracy aside we can also appeal to efficiency: prone is a single monosyllabic 5-letter word as compared to a disyllabic 8-letter compound word which had people wasting time arguing about whether to have a space or hyphenate it. WakandaQT (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more: people have wasted far too much time arguing about disyllabic 8-letter compound words as compared to monosyllabic 5-letter words. They should be banned. (The people, not the words.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As a person banned from American political articles, I am unsure of my ability to discuss anatomical matters or issues pertaining to the proper cadence of criminal proceedings, insofar as they may (but do not) relate to adjoining racist and racial movements that can be reasonably construed as "something someone running for office might allude to or address". But I was pinged, and to not reply is unconstitutionally rude in my country. Suffice to say I stand by what I said, and continue to observe this unfolding in a neutral read-only mode, may the best stuff prevail. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich as I said that time was wasted in a discussion about how to stylize FD (of 3 ways) which was avoidable in using prone, agreeing with me must mean you also support prone, unless you're being cheeky. WakandaQT (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I try to stay cheeki breeki. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

sources being REMOVED for not supporting KNEE narrative

User:Levivich in special:diff/994916071 replaced the Stoughton/Noble/Albert piece in the Washington Post article here with the NPR piece by Booker here

This happened after I noticed this source (already present on the page, I didn't add it) included the quote "kept his shin across Floyd’s neck the entire time"

The piece by Booker which Levivich chose to replace this source includes no mention of "shin".

Dismissing the WP piece as an "op-ed" seems potentially disingenuous and a very convenient coincidence that its adjacent removal facilitates a chilling effect on its use in supporting "shin" over "knee" as the more technically accurate descriptor of the portion of Chauvin's left leg which was in prolonged contact with Floyd's neck.

The WISN-TV source I added by Derrick Rose was also removed by User:WWGB in special:diff/994915808. Rose wrote:

"shin on the man's neck"

"shin is pressed on the man's neck"

Derrick Rose is an anchor and investigative reporter and I don't think this piece by Rose can be dismissed as being an OP-ED.

Rose doesn't use the term "knee" at all.

Rose is clearly an intelligent and reliable source and his correct phrasing should be given prominence here.

Just because wider-circulation papers coordinate to use that term by parroting each other doesn't mean we should be censoring the more competent sources who use the correct term. WakandaQT (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Such shin censoring shan't shirk censuring! Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's hear you say that five times quickly. O3000 (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@O3000: thatthatthatthatthat Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

knee or knee AND shin

"the knee in his neck"

This might be a minor point, but if we consider "knee" to be an informal reference to the patella (the knee joint itself being a collection of internal structures which do not make contact) then in addition to the patella isn't it pretty clear from the image that the upper shinbone (tibia) is also making contact with the neck?

Looking closely it's maybe even possible the patella isn't making contact at all and is hovering on the air beyond, with the weight being born entirely on the proximal/superior ("top" if standing) half of the tibia.

This would be the logical way to kneel for keeping balance on a narrow object and also because people instinctively avoid putting pressure on the patella where possible.

This slight inaccuracy can crop up a lot, like "elbowing" being used to describe situations where it's the forearm (radius/ulna) making contact and the projecting head of the distal humerus isn't making contact at all.

Despite "kneeling" being derived from "knee" usually the structure making most of the contact is the shin, they just don't call it "shinling" because that'd sound weird.

When actually breaking it down into noun mechanics it seems like we should see "the shin on his neck" though, because the actual structure most analagous to the knee's placement (the patella) might not even be making contact at all.

If that were the case the officer probably couldn't have applied as much pressure, because you can apply a lot more force through the shin than through the patella. WakandaQT (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This strikes me as original research. A "shin on the neck" was not what happened, as evidenced by video and reliable sources. Also, please don't change the article to imply that Floyd was not face down. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Gobonobo prior to making this reply to me here at 4:54 you made special:diff/994909394 at 4:49 five minutes prior.

In it you removed the quote I supplied from the Washington Post:

"one officer — identified by local media outlets as Derek Chauvin — kept his shin across Floyd’s neck"

So the question here is, what happened here with you?

• did you do a quick rollback based just on the summary and not look at the contents where I did supply support from a reliable source?
• did you look at the contents and not understand that the quote came from a reliable source?
• did yo look at the contents, understand the quote was reliable, but for some reason chose to falsely accuse me of original research in saying "shin"?

Washington Post is a reliable source and they (with higher accuracy than "knee") describe the point of contact as SHIN shin: "knee" is simply an informal term to refer to multiple structures composing that hinge joint, including the proximal shin, patella, and distal thigh. When we have a reliable source using a higher degree of accuracy that should be retained. WakandaQT (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The same WaPo article states, in the first sentence, "One planted his knee on Floyd’s neck". You seem to be cherry-picking your quotes to suit your adopted position. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

1) You're moving the goalposts now if you've gone from accusing me of "original research" to "cherrypicking". Do you conceded that it is not OR or since I did supply a quote supporting "shin" in the edit you reverted prior to replying to me?

2) I guess that's what you get when three people co-write an article, but "planted" commits less than "kept": brief contact with the patellotibular tendon vs continuous contact with the tibia it connects to: "knee" is used once whereas "shin" is used twice.

It's just being overly literal to read "knee" as anything but slang and less technical reporting. It's a metaphor. You wouldn't literally but the kneebone (the tibia) on because it would slip off to one side or the other: it's clearly the tuberosity of the tibia ie the "upper shin".

Maybe the best compromise is to use both? Opera News takes that approach:

He is kneeling with his left knee and upper shin resting on the neck of the other man, and his right knee out of sight behind the van.

The other man is lying prone, with his left cheek pressed against the asphalt close to a painted line.

It's strange that this highly competent verbal description of the situation is absent in most of the mainstream clickbait.

This also brings up another issue: we should probably mention what the right leg is doing. I believe later footage established it was on Floyd's upper back.

I also recall some articles exploring that the right leg could've played the greater role in restricting breathing since that would impede lung expansion. Terms like "left leg" and "right leg" or "left shin" and "right shin" really should be used here to help establish the spatial arrangement.

Basic stuff like relative orientation (ie officer's knees were on Floyd's right side, feet were on Floy'd left side) would probably be also good to put into words for the benefit of those people reading Wikipedia with sight impediments. WakandaQT (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

time of Kueng and Lane standing up

Earlier Levivich referred to the 19>28 span where Chauvin knelt. Were the other two on that long, or do we have them rising at a slightly earlier time (like 26 or 27?) prior to Chauvin? What article presently says:

By 8:25, Floyd appeared unconscious, and bystanders confronted the officers about Floyd's condition.

Chauvin pulled out mace to keep bystanders away as Thao moved between them and Chauvin

Kueng checked Floyd's wrist but found no pulse

Did Kueng stop kneeling on Floyd's lower torso when he checked the wrist? Just wondering what time.

There's also no mention of when Lane stopped holding Floyd's legs: was he doing that a minute after the paramedics arrived, or did he possibly get up to assist Thao in keeping crowd back?

There doesn't seem to be a thorough accounting minute-by-minute of how all four officers might have changed their position in moments leading up to Floyd being loaded into ambulance. Obviously at some point all three who were grappling Floyd on the ground rose. The final mention is just of Chauvin leading me to think the other two possibly rose slightly earlier than the 28m mark when Chauvin did?

Just wondering if any source actually highlighted that. WakandaQT (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

How effective ARE you finding it to open THREAD after THREAD of fragmented one-sentence paragraphs wondering things OUT LOUD? EEng 07:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Eeng please do not make off-topic replies about users here, replies should be about the subject of the section. WakandaQT (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Happily, if I could tell what the subject of the section is. EEng 05:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I made a couple uses of all-caps words in my replies in previous sections to another user, so I understand why you might have similar habits for emphasis or perhaps to parody me. The subject here is basically if anyone knows if the disengagement times of the other 2 grappling officers was reported, or only Chauvin's. WakandaQT (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WakandaQT, your behavior here is disruptive. Please stop. —valereee (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee you have received a reply on your talk page requesting clarification for which aspect of behavior is disruptive. Your off-topic intimidation actually seems to be aimed to disrupt valid inquiry. Since you also contacted my talk page I would appreciate if further inquiry was kept there, this is not the place. WakandaQT (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

WakandaQT, I've responded at your talk, but tbh if I think I need to respond here, too, I will. —valereee (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"He got mace."

Current article: "Chauvin pulled out mace to keep bystanders away as Thao moved between them and Chauvin."

The context of a bystander saying, "He got mace." was removed from earlier versions of the article. Was there a reason for that? I couldn't find one in the archived discussion, but I might be missing it. One of the sources source cited [22] as well as others not cited in the article [23] note this fact.

Would this be a more accurate to include the bystander quote to explain the events? Do we know definitively that Chauvin had mace, or just that the bystanders believed he did and felt threated.

Proposed change:

By 8:25, Floyd appeared unconscious, and bystanders confronted the officers about Floyd's condition. Chauvin pulled an object out of his pocket. A bystander said, "He got mace." [24][25] Thao then moved between the bystanders and Chauvin.[74][75] Bystanders repeatedly yelled that Floyd was "not responsive right now" and urged the officers to check his pulse.[11]:5:22[15]:6:53[7]

If this has been discussed at great length already, my apologies, and I will move on. Thanks! Minnemeeples (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The attached source in the article states "the officer whose knee is pressed to Floyd's neck pulls out what bystanders identify as mace". The (inarticulate) statement "he got mace" adds nothing to this understanding. WWGB (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see your point about the actual quote. I think the key aspect though isn't the inarticulate statement itself, but that the bystanders identified the object as mace. Do we know definitively that it was mace or just that bystanders believed it to be mace? The sources say that a bystander identified it as mace.

Is this more accurate to say?

By 8:25, Floyd appeared unconscious, and bystanders confronted the officers about Floyd's condition. Chauvin pulled an object out of his pocket that a bystander identified as mace [26][27] Thao then moved between the bystanders and Chauvin.[74][75] Bystanders repeatedly yelled that Floyd was "not responsive right now" and urged the officers to check his pulse.[11]:5:22[15]:6:53[7]

Just suggesting this clarification to enhance accuracy of the article. If this is not necessary to distinguish in the article, I'll drop it and move on. Thanks again for the discussion. Kind regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

IMO neither of those sources should be used because they're news articles from like the day after it happened. Too close in time to the actual event, too "primary" news. There are better sources, written more recently, that have the benefit of the bodycam video, etc., which are much more reliable than anything published in May. NYT, BBC, WaPo, several others have published timelines post-bodycam-video-release (I believe they're all cited in the article already, and if not they should be; if somebody checks, let me know if they're not and I can find them). I don't know what those sources say about the mace, but we should follow those sources. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

For that matter, a lot of the facts in the article, including what everyone (bystanders, police, Floyd) said and did, are based on sources that were published before bodycam video was released, and those sources have since been updated, but I'm not sure our article has. The whole thing could use a pass with an eye to which details are covered in the most-recent reliable secondary sources, and making sure our article gives due weight to the details accordingly. I'll probably do that at some point but I encourage others to do it for me so I can play more video games instead. Thanks. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This document(from Minneapolis high courts,but the source is courthouse news,same document)https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/hennepin-fbi.pdf says a lot,should we put some of it in the article?.Liondragon360 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Jury selection starts/trial will probably not be in march 8 2021

Liondragon360 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)So,i don´t know if any of you see this,but jury selection started https://dam.tmz.com/document/4b/o/2020/12/22/4bc6aa45af474b2c9a4cb144cc8ea3a1.pdf,"Our best prediction is that jury selection will last from March 8, 2021 to March 26, 2021. You will have to appear at the Hennepin County Government Center for 1-2 days in that timeframe (your time to appear will be assigned later). If you are selected for the jury in this case, you will have to appear every weekday starting March 29, 2021 until trial and deliberations are finished (estimated to be three to four weeks). Is there any significant hardship or reason why you cannot serve during this time period? this is what says in the document,what it means?.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liondragon360 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't really know what the above comment means, but I note that the pdf linked instructs prospective jurors to USE BLACK PEN ONLY. Why only black pens? Why not white pens? Shouldn't all pens matter? The whole system is biased. EEng 04:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

EEng, it means the trial is scheduled to begin on March 29, not March 8. Our article is three weeks early, should be adjusted. Do not use Wite-out! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba, you seem active, want to update the trial date? Many mainstream sources agree, not just something TMZ hacked out of a dumpster. The old date was "tentative" for a reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk: You should have permissions to edit the article. Am I missing something? —Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm topic-banned from American politics. This facet of the story seems strictly apolitical to me, but the article itself has been politicized. Playing it safe, no bold edits. Figured letting you pick the source is neutral. Or anyone else. Can't paste, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not on top of this, but Google has AP saying on Jan 1 that "The trial has been scheduled for March 8". [28] Perhaps jury selection part of the trial beginning?—Bagumba (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the jury needs to already be there when the trial starts. Google "March 29" and "Floyd". One week ago, roughly, you'll see them. If you want, I can call WWGB or someone else over for a look. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Earth to Levivich, "The trial is expected to begin March 29 and last three to four weeks", you thinking what I'm thinking? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You're back on Earth already?! Welcome home! Anyway jury selection is part of a trial in the US, typically the first thing that happens after pre-trial motions and before opening statements. So yes the trial starts March 8 with jury selection, with opening statements scheduled for March 29 (that could get moved depending on how jury selection goes). The secondary sources know this, which is why they're correctly reporting the trial is scheduled to start March 8 (not March 29). Wikipedia editors confused by this should remember this is why we stick to secondary sources instead of trying to interpret primary sources like jury questionnaires. :-) If the secondary sources change the date, then we should change the date, but not until then, not based on jury questionnaires. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I defer to your wisdom. But I wasn't quoting some editor confused by a primary source above, that's from a December 23 USA Today report, by Wyatte Grantham-Philips. It links and interprets the questionnaire. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well that changes everything! If secondary sources are saying the trial date is March 29 then we should say that, too. Especially if the newer date is from a newer source than whatever is currently cited for the trial date in the article. Is there a link? Did I miss the link? I haven't looked into the trial date at all, going just off of what's in this discussion. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't add a link to this discussion, can't paste and shant memorize the URL. I gave you all the reporter, the outlet, the date and the quote. Liondragon360 showed you the rest. I will not relay the headline of my non-confidential source, it verges on political opinion. Now good day, gentlemen! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are conflicting reports: 1) USA Today, Dec 23, 2020: "The trial is expected to begin March 29 and last three to four weeks." 2) AP (on USA Today), Jan 1, 2021: "The trial has been scheduled for March 8 ..."—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

How about just saying "in March" so we don't have to fuss about it. People planning to buy airline tickets so they can be there will just have to do their own research. EEng 19:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

EEng: No objection. —Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If three regular editors can't tell jury selection from the opening statements that open trials, I'm fine with preventing readers from learning when either is reportedly expected to start in this case, beats arguing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Like the wise man said, "An ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation." EEng 20:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR LOL.—Bagumba (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

See now you've gone and made me google: "At trial, one of the first things a prosecutor and defense attorney must do is the selection of jurors for the case.". Also, jury selection rules are part of "Part VI. Trials", of the FRCP and MNCP. A jury trial begins with the selection of the jury; USA Today is wrong and AP is right; but writing just "March" means sparing the others our witty back-and-forths. Sacrifices must be made. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing, boss. You see what you want, I'm jumping into a volcano. Remember me for my more popular interpretations of common knowledge! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Move requests to current title to Murder of George Floyd

Yes or No?,Change now or in other date?Liondragon360 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No. WWGB (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Change it to "Death of George Floyd". He wasn't murdered. He wasn't killed. BOTH autopsies have proven this. Kepps8812 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Kepps8812 Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and most state he was killed with suspects charged with murder and/or other crimes related . This cannot be called a murder until someone is convicted of murder, but since Floyd is no longer alive, he was killed. What and or who killed him is a different question, but he was killed. 331dot (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is not a murder until someone is convicted of murder. 331dot (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, as a matter of epistemology it either was or was not a murder as of the moment it happened, even if God and Chauvin are the only ones who know which it is at the time. For a variety of reasons we can't (or don't) call it murder until there's a conviction. EEng 04:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• We've also got Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). —valereee (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh. I was going to suggest something like that guideline be constructed as I have failed in the past to stop renaming to murder in cases that have not been adjudicated. No matter how obvious a case; I think we need the patience to stick to killing since murder is a legal term. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually (and, to be clear, refining what I said a bit earlier in this thread) we do sometimes use the label murder (whether in the article name or in its text) without an adjudication e.g. The Black Dahlia. Typically this is because of WP:COMMONNAME, or because the case is so old there's no one left to be offended. EEng 19:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please change the title to Death of George Floyd. He overdosed, he wasn't killed

He overdosed on Fentanyl, that's how he died. He was not killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3A0:4940:A838:F847:C94F:1F6 (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That opinion is not supported by the article content, which is based on credible secondary sources. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see FAQ #4 in the banner at the top of this talk page for an explanation as to why the title uses 'killing' rather than 'death'. You can also search the archives (also through the banner) if you would like to review in detail past discussions regarding this title. Paisarepa 20:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin will stand trial alone in march 8,the others(Tou Thao,Thomas Lane and J Alexander Kueng in 23 august)

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/01/12/george-floyd-case-derek-chauvin-to-be-tried-separately-in-march/Liondragon360 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the trial context was way out of date. I cleaned it up and added that source. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Trial of Derek Chauvin - separate article?

Trial of Derek Chauvin redirects to this article. Is there support for creating a standalone article for the trial of Derek Chauvin? The forthcoming event is already notable enough on its own. The trial process, potential for civil unrest, etc. may overwhelm current articles in the George Floyd series that are already pretty lengthy. Thoughts? Minnemeeples (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is only 24kB readable prose size, which isnt WP:TOOBIG yet.—Bagumba (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Added trial sections within the article and properly aligned content to subheadings. Just trying to set up a space for context about the trial, and trying to make it as easy as possible for editors to contribute trial information without overwhelming other sections. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Darnell Frazier

Why is Darnella Frazier not more prominent in the account here? These murders happen all the time but it is the filming & reporting of this one that made it different so she is significant. If there is some reason why her name should not be in the first line, thats fine but she could still be referred to as a person, who took certain actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.93.236 (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Because she is not George Floyd, and the article is about his death.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And four people already prominent in the lead each shot way better videos of the event. She's not a reporter, not a documentary filmmaker, she's a kid with a cell phone whose certain actions were pointing, clicking and uploading. She didn't ask questions, didn't capture multiple angles, didn't start at the beginning. Her choice of amateur framing pretty much painted the whole early picture of racism and brutality that inspired/incited a nationwide movement. For BLP reasons, Wikipedia should not suggest a previously-unknown minor is even inadvertently responsible for a wave of civil disobedience/crime, especially by name, especially prominently. She had no way of knowing her shoddy clip would be taken the way it was by actual reporters and columnists, and has a right to be forgotten, like all living children caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"5/25" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 5/25. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#5/25 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Death of George Floyd (Killing has not been determined by the court as of 02/19/2021) 146.71.0.114 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We all saw him getting killed in the video. Whether or not it meets the definition of "murder" is up to the courts. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

How can you determine the cause of death from the video? Spork Wielder (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well as there was an autopsy we can go with that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death"

"Fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death" This seemingly false statement managed to slip through. The autopsy found no signs of drug intoxication to my knowledge. Can someone remove this? Colonizor48 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's in the cited New York Times source about the autopsy, so it's from a reputable source. Can you explain more about your objection to that statement? What other sources indicated that is false? How should that information be covered? Minnemeeples (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh i was wrong. Sorry. Colonizor48 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for brining it up for discussion. It is always good to have the opportunity to review sources, and think about how to improve an article. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead without source

The first sentence says "...while being arrested for allegedly using a counterfeit bill." Since it makes a statement with allegedly, why isn't there a source for it? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Because we do not really put sources in the lead, and its well-sourced in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarify Dismissal

The third paragraph of the introduction begins: The following day, after videos made by witnesses and security cameras became public,[16][17][18] all four officers were dismissed.

Maybe it's just me, but I found this confusing because I thought it meant charges against them had been dismissed. I'd suggest changing the end to "dismissed from duty" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xueimel (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm also just me, but the way I see it, saying the officers were dismissed is enough. "Fired" is shorter, though, and you can't fire charges. Not in this context, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete paragraph about supposed autopsy discrepancy

The first sentence of the third paragraph in Autopsies claims there was confusion about the manner of death. This is not backed up by the cited story, which makes clear only the cause of death (asphyxia) and other significant conditions (drugs, heart disease) are in dispute. Every examiner, report, news story and preceding paragraph in this article about the manner agree: Homicide.

Misinterpreting the sources to synthesize a debate nobody is reportedly having is not helpful, just adds to the confusion. If not outright deleted, it should at least be reworded to explain the actual discrepancies discussed in the sources, that are important to culpability at trial (though simply comparing the differences between the two sets of findings already given by the doctors would get a reader the exact same info quicker).

Any reason to not delete? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Minnemeeples, this question is particularly (but not exclusively) for you, as the reverter. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the whole part starting in "However," is confusing. Are you trying to say what prosecutors selected from the preliminary report on the cause is diminished/augmented/affected by being preliminary, or by prosecutorial use or by the final determination of the manner, or..? It's clearly intending something, or it wouldn't lead with "however", but I really don't follow fully. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion! :) This aspect of the article has been the subject of several edit conflicts in the past. The paragraph in question was the result of many editors reaching a consensus understanding and it stabilized that section of the article. That paragraph could be better, or may ultimately not be needed, but a discussion is needed to sort that, especially so this issue is not a source of future edit conflicts. Really, the entire autopsy section should be re-written with non-primary sources as news articles from late May and early June 2020 are too close to the event to offer the best perspective for an an encyclopedic article. I am glad there is an opportunity to discuss.

This statement is flagged as failing verification: "Misinterpretation of the two autopsy reports by the public and media created initial confusion about how medical examiners were characterizing the manner of Floyd's death".

The cited 538 source says, "Do the autopsies of George Floyd agree, or not? News reports from last week suggest the report produced by the Hennepin County medical examiner and the one produced by an examiner hired by Floyd’s family disagreed on his cause of death." It also states, "Some of the public confusion over Floyd’s autopsy reports can be blamed on misinterpretation by the media and the public."

That seems to verify the statement in the article. Of course, it could always be stated better, but I don't think it outright fails verification.

The cause of death is not the manner, at all. You seem to be conflating the two repeatedly. That's the root problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Help me understand your objection better. I am genuinely trying my best to help provide encyclopedia coverage of the topic according to the sources cited. The sources use the word "cause", and the article use the word cause. Is your objection to the article or to the talk discussion? I apologize if my arguments were sloppy, if I misstated something using a particular word, and for any typos or bad grammar. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It says "cause" because I changed it. But you had it as "manner" for weeks, and restored that false claim today. The only disagreement and confusion referenced is about the causes and significant conditions, never the manner. But the entire paragraph seems to end with this notion that since both examiners agreed on the manner, the very real disagreements about the causes no longer exist, or were a misunderstanding caused by selective prosecutors, or something. Since homicide was never in question, it makes no sense to combine it with the questionable stuff. And since that stuff (drugs, asphyxia, heart disease) is already covered in the same section, it makes no sense to repeat it. It's hard to explain how mixed up and wrong it is adequately, it never should have been spliced together, even by someone who knows the difference between the terms. Unintentional, plausibly, but still a confusing jumble of truly separate things. Burn it, I still advise, not really salvageable. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for properly editing the article to use the word "cause". Please assume good faith of editors. "You had it as..." could be better stated as, "The article said for weeks that...." :) The paragraph emerged after this edit by another editor [29]. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's who Koncorde gets to blame for the "in discordance" remark, but when I said you had it as "manner", I didn't assume anything, good or bad. Just checked the edit history, and you did have the article say that exact wrong word at 2:20 on February 12. And you restored it earlier today. I'm not knocking you for it, humans make mistakes, same as hulks. It's how we learn to not make them three times. I could have held the article responsible, but it's not human, would never learn. Cheers to constructive criticism? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This statement flagged as dubious: "However, the preliminary autopsy findings were not intended to be released publicly and only portions of the preliminary report were selectively quoted by prosecutors in the filing of charges against Chauvin."

The cited Star Tribune source says, "The preliminary findings were summarized by prosecutors in the initial charging documents against former officer Derek Chauvin...[and] hung over the case for five days before Baker released the full autopsy report.... The way the preliminary results were first presented confused the public..... 'The details that we initially saw were cherry-picked by prosecutors,' said Mary Moriarty, Hennepin County’s chief public defender. 'They were taken out of context of the entire report.'"

The sentence could be improved to say that the the preliminary findings were released persecutors, not the medical examiner, and portions of it were selectively quoted in the charges filed against Chauvin. I will make that change now to better align the sentence to the source, but I don't think it is entirely dubious. Does that address your concern?

Thanks again for the discussion on how to improve the article. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"said Dr. Judy Melinek" (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Prosecutors, not persecutors. Everything confusing in the prelim is still confusing certain readers the same way. The controversial causes and contributing factors prosecutors saw and released in court did not change in the final public release, and the manner was never said, by anyone official, to be natural, suicide or accident. That part was always agreed. And the disparities/discrepancies/divergences on the rest is already fully covered in the first two paragraphs. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've named Baker and clarified that the combating causes created confusion in the first sentence, per source. So that tag's settled. I still find the line with the dubious tag dubious, and seriously still doubt this paragraph serves an educational purpose, maybe even less so now that the intro lines up with what the source really says and means. I'm done again here for now, you other folks take it from here (or leave it at that, if that's consensus). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the unintended typo of persecutors (I meant prosecutors). That was not intended and was corrected by another editor before I could correct it myself. The initial public perception of a controversy over the two autopsy reports is an important part of the aftermath of Floyd's death, criminal charges, judicial process, protests, etc. Confusion about the autopsy report led to the second autopsy, to Keith Ellison taking over some aspects of the prosecution, etc. It will likely be a source of contention at the trial of Chauvin. The article has been edited a few times to suggest the two reports were in conflict, as even editors are confused. And the public confusion itself has been the source of significant coverage in reliable sources. Discussion of that public confusion serves a very important educational purpose, in my opinion. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That other editor was me. You thanked me for the correction. There is a controversy over the two autopsy reports, not only initially, still. But it has nothing to do with the manner of death. And the family paying Baden led to the second autopsy, nothing to do with confusion or the public. They knew exactly what they wanted to hear from him, heading into a lawsuit, and he delivered. Whatever you mean about Ellison wasn't part of the paragraph. Maybe public confusion belongs in a Reaction section or spinoff article, but not in Autopsies. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Why can't this be summed up more concisely? We put a lot of words on the page to say "some people were confused, but they shouldn't be". Also the phrase "in discordance" is clumsy when "was discordant" would suffice though that is also unnecessarily deep for the purposes of saying "they had materially different interpretations". Then we throw in some speculation about whether or not the autopsy was cherry picked by the prosecutor. All this from 1 source per sentence reads kinda WP:SYNTH when the person making the claim is "Mary Moriarty, Hennepin County’s chief public defender". It needs recomposing to attribute such comments rather than put them in wikivoice. Koncorde (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree it could be summed up more concisely. Minnemeeples (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you two agree the basic idea ("it") is that the confused people shouldn't be confused? Or just shouldn't be confused after what the criminal complaint told the public became public information when the autopsy report was released five days later? I'm still confused about this. Possibly because I have personal experience with roughly seven editors on this talk page alone who were still confused by that report for months afterward, and might still be. Check the archives, I shit you not. Verifiability beats truth, though, so if this is what "it" is, can someone start with directly quoting somebody who claims the confusion resolved itself at some point? We can build from there, rather than upon the innocently mistaken premise the longer, more winding paragraph started with on February 12. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean I have no real idea why the paragraph exists, never mind why it is how it is or where it is. The Maggie Koch article says way more interesting things about public perception, but her actual clarifications feature a bunch of specialists saying WHY interpreting such things and the content and context is complex and goes into a whole bunch of tangents of discrepancies between how people might hypothetically write such an autopsy. Koncorde (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

To further complicate matters, I have no idea if Maggie Koch exists. I see no reference to any Maggie Koch article in our article or talk page. But the way you call it the Maggie Koch article does make it sound way more interesting, as if it's something everyone should indeed know. I'm going to Google it. Who knows, maybe it's not as hard to summarize as everything after the "but" totally suggests it will be. Be right back with an informed opinion! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, all I see is a Toledo Blade story about an entirely different homicide case where a "Maggie Koch" is a Lucas County assistant prosecutor, not a columnist or reporter, and only the judge mentioned the George Floyd protests, so I need a link or I'm out. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Maggie Koerth. The 538 article. No idea how I got the name so wrong. Sorry for the confusion. Koncorde (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I'm getting used to it. Plus, I learned something new about the Cherrywood Crips' rivalry with the Gear Gang Crips: it does exist! I could hazard a guess at why "Koch" slipped out, but that's all it would be, a hazard. No offense intended, just kidding! Seriously though, 538 got us into this mess, I think I'm done with it, from any angle. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I boldly edited the autopsy section to add a January 6, 2021, New York Times source with perspective on both autopsies. Feel free to revert, revise, etc., or go in a totally different direction based on this discussion. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Much clearer, thanks. I also like how it introduces the overall dispute now, rather than opening cold with one side's findings or the other, more neutral. All I would add is a small clarification on how two pieces of the immediate cause of death (asphyxia and subdual) are also contested, alongside the contributors. I'll also replace "Chauvin kneeling" with "neck compression"; an autopsy report never gets into the whos, hows and whys behind a body's condition, that's the court's concern. And the media and public's, of course, on a different level. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Also changed "released" to "publicized", since only Baker showed his work, but there's probablly a shorter synonym that could also cover both. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I added additional content to the autopsy section that as of now is more what I had been intending all along, to provide a timeline and understanding of the two autopsies to help navigate through all of the confusing media coverage when findings were released. I tried to avoid synthesizing information and describing autopsy developments as controversial; I tried to just present what exactly happened when, if that makes sense. Kind regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

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.

---

This entry doesn't put forth any evidence of the Floyd death. Calling it a murder after ample evidence from the coroner states that he had extremely high amounts of fentanyl in his system is wrong and misleading. This is an entirely opinionated piece and should be fact checked and researched before this information is wrongly pushed onto the public that uses your platform. 2603:7080:D40:241:E949:25A9:3D11:39D9 (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Nowhere does this article call the killing a "murder". It states that the officers are facing murder charges. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 9 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.

Move page

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.

---

George Floyd was a victim of first degree murder. He was not killed, but murdered. For this reason I think we should change the article's title to "Murder of George Floyd". Kuro・(Kuro's talk page) 04:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's even charged with first degree murder, nor convicted on the existing murder charge. For WP:BLPCRIME reasons, you're too soon. Wait and see, might make sense later. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 9 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.

George Floyd wasn't killed

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.

---

He had a fatal level of fentanyl in his system.

He claimed he "couldn't breathe" WELL BEFORE police restrained him on the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.215.190 (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You are hardly the first to bring this up- so think about why the article might say what it says. This is because Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not our own personal interpretations. Most RS agree that he was "killed"- the means is open to debate as is any legal responsibility. That's what the trial is for. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also urge you to review the frequently asked questions at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So he is still alive?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven There are conspiracy theories that claim the video is just that-a video- and that no one actually died. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but I will judge the users suggestion on what they ask, and present to support it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Barring any presentation of reliable sources, this should be archived as WP:NOTFORUM.—Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 11 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.

Chauvin's pre-trial section needs chronological ordering

October currently precedes August, so motions seem to be dismissed before they're made. I can't copy and paste. Should be easy for anyone who can. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

$27M settlement

Does the $27M settlement [30] mean that the criminal charges will be dropped & the family/estate will not pursue the criminal case? --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:6895:4282:F93E:64E5 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I mention this because there are numerous precedents where criminal cases are withdrawn when the plantiff accept enormous settlement funds. $27 is the highest settlement sum I've heard of and believe since it is being reported by Reuters. [31]

1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson#Settlement is an example of a withdrawn criminal case.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:6895:4282:F93E:64E5 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Jackson was facing a civil case which could be withdrawn. Chauvin is charged under criminal law, brought by the authorities. A financial settlement has no bearing on criminal charges. WWGB (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Jackson was also facing a criminal case. The accuser declined to cooperate after the financial settlement.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:6895:4282:F93E:64E5 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Facing charges, but never charged. Chauvin has been charged. Big difference. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Most civil settlements stipulate that the plaintiffs take back their criminal complaint. The estate of Breonna Taylor and lawyers (Benjamin Crump) accepted $12 million in exchange for agreeing not to hold the local city police criminally liable.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:6895:4282:F93E:64E5 (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Attorney General of Minnesota is handling the prosecution, not the family. An out-of-court settlement can entail virtually anything both parties negotiate. But paying off a prosecutor in criminal court is bribery (even attempting it is illegal). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, when you're dealing with a private (alleged) molestation, there usually are no crowds or cameras. One uncooperative witness can (and often does) sink a case. Here, dozens watched live and millions saw parts at home, many state witnesses with no part of that money would go on without the family now, if needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious article

I'm surprised Wikipedia accepts articles so prejudicial to the findings of a court. It should be said more prominently that Floyd had taken an overdose of fentanyl, and had a weak heart. It should include, moreover, that according to the NHS web site: “It is possible to have a serious allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) to fentanyl. Anaphylaxis usually develops suddenly and gets worse very quickly. The symptoms include: breathing difficulties... a fast heartbeat, confusion, anxiety and collapsing or losing consciousness.” https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/anaphylaxis/ Geordie2 (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Or we wait until the court decides what its findings are (which are not going to be based upon what we say), and read wp:or and wp:synthesis (and actually reading what wp:tenditious means might be a good idea).Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

REPLY: Waiting until the court decides before titling article thus would indeed be better. Tenditious? Never heard of it. What does it mean?

"@Geordie2: We don't include things that "could" be, like anaphylaxis. We report on what reliable sources say. And the sources say the medical examiners ruled the death a homicide. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC) REPLY: Medical examiners rule? News to me they do that. Also, I read the results of the examination commissioned by the family were never published. If true, that might also be said.

Ruled as in found.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If true, that might also be said.: Feel free to provide specific sources that support your proposed addition.—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Article has discrepancies.

County Medical Examiner's report officially confirmed George Floyd did not die of asphyxiation. Somebody forgot to write that little piece of factual information in the article. Cop8675309 (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The article quotes the report as homicide caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, what did it find the cause of death to be?Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The cause of death only says what Baker thinks did kill Floyd, like in all reports. The absence of any sign of whatever else is sufficient to dispel it. Like how we also strongly imply Floyd wasn't beaten, shot or electrocuted, by simply not saying so. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

Under the section titled “State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin” there is a typo. Please change “office Mohamed Noor” to “officer Mohamed Noor.”

Context: “Prosecutors unsuccessfully sought a Court of Appeals injunction to postpone the trial, to review how the unrelated murder case of former Minneapolis police **officer** Mohamed Noor...”

Thank you. Djw1138 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible Outcome of Trial / Change in Article Title?

Although I'm very well clear on Wikipedia's stance on George Floyd's "murder", I am quite curious to know from Wikipedia staff / administrators themselves. With the trial currently going on as I write this out, and with a strong possibility (due to overwhelming evidence in his favor) that Derek Chauvin will NOT be charged for murder in the Death of George Floyd, is Wikipedia going to follow suit with the possible verdict from the judge and rename the article title to "Death of George Floyd" rather than "Murder of George Floyd"? --ZoomerEnlightenment (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The medical examiner already officially established this death was a homicide ("killing"). If Chauvin is convicted (he's already "charged") of second or third degree murder, the title will change. If acquitted, the title is retained. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If there's a mistrial, the title will also stay the same, but less conclusively and maybe not permanently. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If the defendant dies during trial, he'll never be convicted or acquitted and the case will simply close forever with all charges necessarily dropped, but he will no longer be afforded the basic human rights that currently prevent us from prejudging and libeling him with a page move. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Redundant question by OP, article is not called "Murder of". Koncorde (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

He or she asked whether it would move to "Death of" rather than to "Murder of", given an acquittal (I think, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant as any acquittal would be for homicide. Which does not rule out killing (after all you can accidentally kill someone [[32]]).Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody can be acquitted or convicted of homicide, it's a manner of death, not a crime. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

And is killing a crime? what has Chauvin been charged with?Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Two kinds of murder and a manslaughter (our lead and infobox are still missing the latest). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

To go back to the point. They want us to change the name of the article from "Murder of" to "Death of". There's no other way of reading OP. Unless we assume they meant "Killing of" to "Death of" which is an entirely separate issue for which the answer is "No". Koncorde (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

ZE presumably knows we're moving it to "Murder" from "Killing" if Chauvin's found guilty. Asking then, if he's found not guilty rather than guilty, will we move it to "Death" rather than to "Murder". But yes, the short answer is "No". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Excited delirium"

This issue has been discussed on talk already here. The autopsy section awkwardly references that neither examiner mentioned "excited .delirium" In my opinion, it is not necessary for the autopsy section to say what examiners didn't mention, and to refute possible court strategies. That seems argumentative and synth-ish, though the 538 article does discuss the context. It am going to suggest deleting the last paragraph of the autopsy section. It's not necessary there.

I do think it is worthwhile for the event narrative to note that Lane questioned Chauvin if they should roll Floyd on his side, but Chauvin said no. That is when Lane said, "Okay. I just worry about the excited delirium or whatever." (e.g., this source). The article discusses that bystanders were worried about Floyd's condition. But it doesn't mention at all disagreement among the officers about Floyd's condition. That seems to be important context. Any thoughts or concerns? Minnemeeples (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, if the autopsies did not say it we should not point out they did not. As to the officer's "disagreement", that is a separate issue, and we need RS saying they disagreed (and ) can't view the presented srouce).Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If one reads our excited delirium article I believe that one can see the importance of including it in our article. IMO this information should not be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove. The things not mentioned in the report (and press conference) could fill a book. Even the untouched topics that were mentioned by the cops that day could fill a pamphlet. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So we seem to agree that it doesn't belong in the autopsy section. What is worth having in the course of events, if anything, about "excited delirium"? It was brought after Lane asks if they should turn Floyd over and Chauvin says no. (The New York Times article July 8, 2020 and transcript). That's when Lane says, "Ok, I just worry about the excited delirium or whatever". Thoughts? Minnemeeples (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs anywhere. It was a passing thought, not a diagnosed or diagnosable condition and an inherently controversial term. This article has enough confusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No this should not be removed. Please read our Excited delirium article, "controversy related to policing techniques" section. Police squeeze this in to show that their uncalled for intervention was warranted. Gandydancer (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want general information on general police use of the term, yes, the article generally about it is where you should find it. But unless you have something pertinent to Thomas Lane's brief and non-exculpatory utterance in this case, please stop using the talk page as a soapbox. There's a far wider, longer and deeper schism between cops and blacks in America, we get it, it's not good for society as a whole. How would you like it if an anti-black crusader was going on likewise about how we should hype up Floyd's use of words and phrases unrelated criminals have often told arresting officers to make themselves seem sympathetic or innocent? Just focus on the facts of this encyclopedic subject, like the rest of us who are trying to appear unbiased and civil. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Third degree murder

The dropped charge came back, seems pretty important, but I can't copy URLs and won't memorize them. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Device limitation?—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep. I could dust my laptop off. But it seems a lot for two edits (counting my unanswered request above). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk: Old device? Cuz IOS and Android generally supports it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a TV box, not a phone. Can't even highlight. Are you going to help or just shame my hardware? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I got the ball rolling in Chauvin's Pre-trial section, citation needed. They're out there! The lead, infobox, State charges section and whatever else will have to wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, seems someone fixed the rest, good stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Discovery of fentanyl/methamphetamine in both vehicles; some chewed and with Floyd's DNA on them

Minnemeeples has reverted my edit with information about drugs found in the car Floyd was driving and the squad car he was briefly put in, asking me to explain the "relevance" (rather than articulating any objection). I should think it's obvious: AP and the other cited RS explain the relevance, pointing out that defense attorneys for the men charged in Floyd's death have argued and will argue that Floyd's drug use, including allegedly swallowing pills at the time of his arrest, caused or contributed to his death. Specifically, they note:

• Chauvin's defense attorney has noted that "fragments of a pill with Floyd’s DNA on it were found in the back of the squad car. The fragments contained methamphetamine and fentanyl…"
• The ME listed "heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, recent methamphetamine use and Floyd’s bout with the coronavirus as other 'significant conditions'" at the time of Floyd's death.
• The drugs speak to "the critical question of how much the high-profile trial will revolve around Floyd’s own actions on May 25"—and while the trial isn't the subject of this article, Floyd's actions obviously are.

Police officers have testified that a man who died, with fentanyl and meth contributing to that death had just swallowed white pills… then white fentanyl-and-meth pills were found in both cars he was in, some chewed and with his DNA. How could that not be relevant to our article about the events of and his actions on that day? If the (patently absurd) claim that Floyd was "calm" is deemed "relevant"—then surely the fact that half-chewed drugs with his DNA were in the car is, too? The real question is whether there's any conceivable reason our article shouldn't include the actual (and in this case undisputed) facts of the event, as reported by AP and other RS? Elle Kpyros (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I noted an objection in the edit summary, but did not adequately articulate it. Let me explain more.

What was discovered in the car in December 2020 should not be presented in the events of May 25, 2020, in my opinion. There were two searches of the car. The pills were recovered in the December 2020 search (as reported in this article). Perhaps that is better suited in a subsection under the investigation?

I would not argue to keep the "calm"/"thank you" sentence, which is based on the prosecution filing, and is either an interpretation of the situation, or a quote of Floyd. One source says he said the word, "calm," while the other source describes Floyd demeanor as calm. It is also not clear at what point he was calm and for how long. The whole context of "thank you" is also weirdly presented in sources.

There should be caution about synthesizing arguments in court on March 16, 2021, by Eric Nelson, Chauvin's attorney, about the events of May 25, 2020, even if Nelson's arguments were reported by multiple, reliable secondary sources. And there should be caution in selectively citing the Washington Post source, which largely refutes the overdose argument. Minnemeeples (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely misleading (regardless of intent) in "Initial events". Words like "later" or "subsequently" still suggest it happened before the next paragraph, since everything else is chronological. Searching vehicles and collecting samples seems like "Minneapolis police response" to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We already know he took the drug, what new does this add?Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the thoughtful discussion! In response:

• I don't believe it's WP:SYNTH—it's clearly mentioned in the articles as being relevant to the story of Floyd's death that day.
• Yes, there is already a presumption Floyd took the two drugs, since they were found in his bloodstream—but prior use is a bit different from what the police allege, which is that he swallowed at least some of them in the minutes before he died (allegedly echoing his actions in the 2019 arrest).
• I don't see how the fact that the drugs were discovered later means they shouldn't be included in a timeline of events of that day—much of what has been learned about that day has come from subsequent investigation, including video, autopsies, etc. What's the substantive difference between downloading video from Cup foods and searching the cars? What if the Cup Foods footage had only been discovered six months later? Or if the pills had turned up hours after, rather than months? That said, I have not the slightest objection to adding the dates of the searches.
• In terms of "selectively quoting" The Washington Post—I could hardly quote the whole article, so of course I selected that part which informed my response to the issue of relevance. I wasn't claiming Floyd "overdosed"—I simply included the fact that the ME reported the drugs in Floyd's system contributed to his death, which seems to me a factually true and uncontroversial statement.
• This seems like new information—as far as I'm aware, only one of the searches was widely reported upon before—and I assume more will be revealed. I'm certainly not opposed to putting it under an "Investigation" section—which could also include the alleged similarities with Floyd's 2019 arrest. (That arrest is currently relegated to the Geroge Floyd article, which seems odd, as it's not so much relevant to his biography as a hip-hop artist, but to his 2020 arrest and death and its subsequent litigation.)
• A final question: similarly to the last point, wouldn't Derek Chauvin's trial (and those of the other officers, assuming they proceed), be better either in this article—as they are direct fallout from the article's subject—or in a separate article? Having the trial in Chauvin's article when he's not notable for anything else seems a little strange to me, but am curious what others think.

Thanks, everyone, for the continued input and discussion! Elle Kpyros (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The videos, once downloaded, still show the events they recorded at the time. Not at all like the vehicle searches, which started and finished well after the arrest. If police searched his residence or interviewed his associates later, that'd also be part of the follow-up investigation, not at the scene. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The original edit by Elle Kpyros says "subsequently" which is completely correct. The car had been in storage for all that time and theoretically should be in the same state at it was at the time of his death. If the evidence has been tampered with in the meantime (a large thing to allege and something that has not happened to date) there are quite bigger problems. Un-revert the original edit. Nweil (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Both sentences are correct, if vague. But having a subsequent or later event described in a section named and otherwise all about "initial events" is plain absurd. Might as well describe the handcuffing part in "Minneapolis police response" with the word "earlier" attached. In this timeline, we use clock time, not indefinite time. Jarring to jump back and forth. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The police car has been held in secure storage as evidence since the event, so the date the pill was found is only relevant if an allegation is it was planted there. This would be an interesting allegation seeing as it's police prosecutors who handed this evidence over to the defense team, not vice versa as the prosecution are the ones who searched the vehicle a second time in December. As always I think MORE information should always be in an article rather than less as a reader cannot be over informed on a matter, only under informed. 118.208.9.74 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

More real information is good. But we have clearly-labeled relevant sections for it. If a "Minneapolis police response" (or whatever else) didn't happen between "Arrest and death" on May 25, it belongs somewhere more appropriate. No idea about any hypothetically interesting allegation. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the thoughtful comments, everyone! I do hear the concern about introducing subsequently discovered information into the "Initial events" section. No RS of which I'm aware have suggested that the pills were not there with Floyd's DNA on them all along—and at least some were visible on video and photos (which is in fact what prompted police to re-search the vehicles). I'm not sure that I see the difference between:

• Information gained later by reviewing images (e.g., specific quotes).
• Information gained later by reviewing images and then re-searching the cars.

Again, some of the pills were visible in images—so surely it must be acceptable to at least include those pills in "Initial events"? But by the standard proposed, the remaining pills—those found in the subsequent search but not visible in images—would then have to be in a different section, along with the analysis and DNA tests of all the pills? For me, at least, that lacks common sense—and it sure seems simpler to simply note that the pills were discovered later.

Hope my broader point is also clear: I don't see a rationale for excluding elements that were (thus far undisputedly) present during the "Initial events" because they were only subsequently discovered. This seems an exceedingly difficult standard to maintain—for example, in the Killing of Daniel Prude article, the "Arrest and death" section includes: "On August 20, the family's lawyer, Elliot Dolby-Shields, received 88 minutes of body camera recordings…" followed by the content of those recordings. And the instant article includes information from Officer Lane's subsequent "interview with crime investigators"—information about the "Initial events" that, in contrast with the pills, didn't even exist at the time of those events.

Interested what others think, as always. And if the consensus ends up being that this should go elsewhere—where would be appropriate? It seems like "Minneapolis police response" is currently limited to public statements—but maybe it could be simplified to "Minneapolis Police Department" and also include the search and any other MPD investigations? Thanks again! Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Pills are not events. They are objects. The later events here (all conducted by the Minneapolis Police in response) are the searches, the discovery and the chemical analysis. These all happened later, not initially. In videos, one can watch the initial events play out. Not at all like those later events. A response doesn't need to be verbal. That's just the only kind that have been added yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed the part about the later interview. It can be re-added to Lane's pre-trial section, if someone thinks it's important and due. I don't think this small cut (information on which of course existed at the time) matters, relative to death, and don't think we should have a potential defendant interjecting his version of events here; keep it somewhat objective. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I put something in the pre-trial section. The judge recently accepted this as evidence that Floyd swallowed drugs when arrested in 2020, making that similar part of his 2019 arrest admissible as evidence. Do you think that's sufficient? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

wp:or and wp;v are quite clear, we do not analysie anything, we quote RS doing it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"hooping" wording removed

Floyd said he'd been playing basketball earlier and "hooping" is common slang for playing basketball. To bring in some sort of weird idea that it can mean using drugs is very biased wording for our article. To not mention that the sources used also said he said "please" nearly five dozen times and repeatedly said he was sorry, called the officers "sir" and said, "I’m sorry, I’m so sorry. God dang, man. Man, I got, I got shot the same way Mr. Officer, before," and saying that he was recovering from COVID, and yet use the same three refs to report that he had foam around his mouth shows blatant bias. Gandydancer (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the issue was discussed in an archived conversation on talk here. Sincere questions: Why should the article change now, given the discussion and consensus that was reached then? Minnemeeples (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sorry that I missed that discussion. I can't see as that it was settled at all. Reading the article as written I felt that a reader would come away with the impression that Floyd was referring to drug use. Why he would have been referring to drug use is beyond me when he had just said he'd been playing basketball and had just said that he said he wasn't on anything (though it was shown in the tox report that he actually was using a couple of drugs). And why is "foaming at the mouth" so prominent and worth mentioning while we skip so much else when it may not have been "foaming" at all, which comes with a clear image of "foaming" which may just as well have been traces of spit at the corners of his mouth (which I think I might as well have had in a similar situation, pleading for my life, etc). And why don't we mention that hooping as well, and more likely, means drugs up the butt for illegal transporting of drugs. Reading what we've got one gets the impression that foaming at the mouth may be a sign of drug intoxication, which it is not. This is especially important right now as this trial is underway. The best and most fair and unbiased way to solve this is to just remove it's mention from our article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you quote Floyd mentioning basketball? I can't find it in the transcript. The foam is relevant to the hooping because he directly responded to "You got foam around your mouth, too?" with "Yes, I was just hooping earlier." Seconds prior, they were discussing his apparent drugged state. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a problem with removing that part of the conversation entirely, just with saying Floyd said he was playing basketball. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

On that subject, there is no indication hooping, in Floyds context, explicitly meant drugs. What we are doing is relying on conflicting news sources speculating on the meaning of a particular word in a certain context... and some blatantly using Urban Dictionary as the source, or similar prison slang website. I have no issue with its inclusion, but we should certainly not be pushing a certain interpretation of the word. Koncorde (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) The Tribune seemed to understand what he was saying and reported he was playing basketball. This is not hard to understand. He had just finished saying he was not on any drugs. Would he then turn around and say he had just put drugs up his butt? As for his supposed foaming at the mouth, can you find a medical side effect of drug use suggesting mouth foaming? Dry mouth is more likely, and that might result in spital at the corners of his mouth. As for saying that he had confessed to foaming, it should be easy to see that he was mostly interested in not being argumentative and would have likely said if Mr. Officer says I have foaming, OK I have foaming. Gandydancer (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't presume to know what people mean when they're freaking out. Floyd said he can't breathe and can't choke. Wanted to lay on the ground and get up. Not resisting and not getting arrested. Did nothing wrong and understands the forgery complaint. Claustrophobic and didn't want to get out of his small car. Best to just quote his words, not try to interpret them or believe any columnists can. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

For your own personal consideration, not a shred of evidence has emerged suggesting Floyd had in fact recently played basketball, but plenty suggests he had recently taken dangerous drugs. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

And no, I don't believe meth makes people foam at the mouth. But it does make many talk excitedly and continuously, breathing rapidly. Since it takes air to talk and breathe, more spit is naturally frothed up and ejected. Not very far, just around the mouth. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to understand something. Police lie and they lie for their fellow officers when they are investigated. And when people are afraid for their lives they lie too. At least for the most part white people only need to worry about killers and rapists but people of color, especially dark skinned people, need to worry when they are taken out by an officer of the law. You need to read the Death of Elijah McClain article. Read for yourself as the cops set themselves up in their excuse for their behavior. And read for yourself the absolutely heart-breaking last words of Elijah including his saying he's sorry for throwing up after he was held in a choke hold. Gandydancer (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You "need to understand" that I'm a white guy who has been subdued, choked and pinned by friends, enemies and police more times than I can count. I also used to work at a newspaper where lying was rewarded and encouraged by advertisers. Let's stick to comparing pertinent facts, not sprawling irrelevant opinion, this ain't Twitter. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The LA news source used to source the use of the meaning of hooping has a paywall. It seems that it is about an attorney's opinion? Could someone supply some copy here? The other source is a British Conservative Sunday paper. For such a notable fact, is this really adequate? Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Sunday Times is the paywalled one, the LA Times presents the opinion as the author's, and neither are used to support a fact. Some editor here has just set up a footnote with dueling opinions on a now-useless word to wonder about. All outlets agree Floyd did drugs earlier, and none report a basketball game. Deleting this part won't change that, it'll just stop readers from thinking maybe Floyd actually was playing basketball that day. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

They are both paywalled for me. Since the LA source is not paywalled for you could you please add the info here. As for "none reported a basketball game", yes I know that. However three sites that I first looked at reported that he said he'd been playing basketball (not putting drugs up his butt). Gandydancer (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Asked whether he was "on something," Floyd said he'd been "hooping," or taking drugs. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What an absolute misrepresentation! Lane asked Floyd if he is "on something right now", and Floyd replied "No, nothing". Kueng asked Floyd about foam around his mouth, to which Floyd responded that he had been "hooping". WWGB (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A lying newspaper? Somebody call the news! Seriously though, I'm just the typist here. You can contact Seattle Bureau Chief Richard Read with any suggested corrections. If indeed that is his real name. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the current reporting of foaming/hooping, and the footnote, is comprehensive, balanced and stable. No need to change anything. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we as editors of this place are expected to read the RS so as to know what to include here. I will ask again that an editor that has been able to get through these paywalls to please include quoted information here for me and any other editors that are interested in a fair and unbiased article. There should be no concern about a copy vio if the information is attributed. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been able to access the Sunday Times article. The relevant portion is: In the video Floyd also refers to “hooping”, which appears to be an allusion to drug use: fentanyl and methamphetamine were found in his system, according to a toxicology report. Regards, LewisMCYoutube (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Per WP: "The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended." This source needs to be removed from this article. Now I need the LA source information with a quote and the source of the quote. Gandydancer (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: I think you're confusing The Sunday Times with The Sun. The former is generally reliable per RSP. Lester Mobley (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Lester. Never the less, I still feel that only two sources, and one from the UK, are supposedly knowledgeable about American slang and are sufficient to establish that Floyd may have been referring to drugs up his butt. Numerous sports figures and sports organizations spoke out at his funeral suggesting that they considered his sports connections notable. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

And I already gave you the other quote, first time you asked, Wikilink to the author and all. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

With that I think we should close this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

With what? No consensus? Keep? Delete? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Holy Cow! This is a first for me. Close a section I opened as though I'm a pesty one article newbie? Stay around this place long enough and you will see it all...Gandydancer (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, as of three days ago, Jonathan Turley of USA Today still thinks it means taking drugs. Last week, Lenny Bernstein or Holly Bailey of The Washington Post said Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank and private attorney Neal Katyal thought last September it meant playing basketball, and Chauvin’s attorney, Eric J. Nelson, believing the Urban Dictionary, went with "ingesting drugs rectally". Steve Brown of the The Sidney Herald Leader (whatever that is) seems to think butt, too, on March 10, taking drugs via suppository. If nobody knows what we're talking about, we shouldn't be talking about it. Just let the known facts we already relay about his recent meth use, and the absence of reports of a prior basketball game or drugs found in his ass post-mortem, speak for themselves. I'm boldly removing it now, but feel free to revert, if anyone prefers confusing people. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

George Floyd died from a drug overdose and a heart attack. He resisted arrest swallowed drugs and died 98.179.104.148 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

And the knee on his neck had nothing to do with it? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It did, and so did most of the rest, but the heart attack has always been innocent. It gets framed by idiot newswriters "on both sides" as a synonym for cardiac arrest. Not just in Floyd's case, either, obituarists in India are the worst offenders I ever saw. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless you find reliable sources that claim that as a fact, rather than as defense claims/attempts, it'd be inappropriate in Wikipedia's voice. Especially when it contradicts autopsy results that confirm windpipe compression and asphyxiation and that this is the best explanation for what the world saw on film... —PaleoNeonate – 21:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is the picture a police officer not George Floyd himself

Why does the Picture look like a police officer and not George Floyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

its of both.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a standard picture at George Floyd, his biography. This article is about the killing, which obviously focuses on the actions of the police officer as well.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The picture conveys the subject of the article, just as does Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém. Koncorde (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Medical homicide vs homicide

Hennepin county's medical examiner has ruled the killing a homicide, but a medical homicide is different from a the legal definition of homicide. Shouldn't the article acknowledge this and in any instance referring to the coroner's report findings specify it as a 'medical homicide', possibly with a note? Fullmetalalch (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it? "Medical homicide" as a term usually refers to death as a clinical negligence. Do you have a source that defines this definition with regards to Floyd? Koncorde (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to something such as this which does not create an alternative definition of a "medical homicide", only that it is categorised as a homicide as an official conclusion of the coroner, and not a legal conclusion. The definition of homicide in both the coroners sense and the legal sense are broadly the same: something or someone in some capacity, for some reason or not caused the death of someone else. The court is there to settle the multitude of additional permutations of the thing, the one, and the capacity and intent. Koncorde (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Other way around. "Criminal homicide" is the illegal act. Plain ol' homicide is the medicolegal ruling on a death as cause by another person. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"Floyd exited the vehicle, either pulled out by police or willingly"

The current version of the article says:

Then, according to NPR, Floyd exited the vehicle, either pulled out by police or willingly.

Well, which was it? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Both, in a sense. He willingly told police he wanted to exit the vehicle and lay on the ground, right before they agreed and helped him get there safely (relative to letting him flop out headfirst in cuffs on his own, not saying the subsequent restraint was safe or consensual). That's not "according to NPR", though, and I doubt any source that opines how Floyd asked for any part of what he got (in any words) will be considered "reliable" here. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No it was not both. If one reads the transcript [33] it is clear that until the police tried to force him into the squad car he was compliant. This article is a perfect example of what happens when we cram breaking news into an article and then never bother to update it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

We're talking about that very squad car. Police got him in, then complied with his demands to get out. Everything before he was in it is irrelevant to this part. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Are we on the same page here? No, we are talking about the time before he was forced into the squad car (with a "scuffle" BTW, seemingly related to a similar incident in which he was shot by police). Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the second-last sentence of "Initial events", identical to the line in the OP. Chauvin has arrived and gotten him in, against his will. Then, according to NPR... InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW, the article also claims there was a "brief scuffle" as Floyd exited his car. This is based on a Wash Po commentary of the video and dated in May, very early after the incident. Later reports do not usually mention any "scuffle". Many say he was "yanked" from his car, which is more what I see as I watch the video and read the transcript (which was released several months later). Gandydancer (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The yank started the scuffle, not mutually exclusive at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, per Dictionary.com "a rough, confused struggle or fight." This is not what I see. If it happened at all it certainly was very brief, and in fact so brief that it is not important enough to mention in this very brief article about a complicated incident where we mention only a short report of what actually happened. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It was important enough to immediately attract the cop's partner, then eventually the backup who became the main players here. Followed the part where Floyd refused to show his hands and refused to step out and face away, but before he refused to walk upright and refused to go to jail. If you see compliance instead, you either have the wrong video or the wrong dictionary. In any case, we're currently discussing the wrong car. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

And you've totally lost me... I will leave it up to other editor's comments. Gandydancer (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Clearly, this has no chance of achieving consensus at this time. Closing per WP:SNOW. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Killing of George Floyd → Death of George Floyd – "Death of " is more of a NPOV title than "Killing of".

The title implies/assumes a verdict's result and the truth of this controversy even before the completion of the trial: insinuating before the jury votes that Floyd's death was caused by another person instead of being attributable to his drug use and underlying health problems.

This sort of POV-pushing isn't acceptable. The reason of El_C's expedited closure of the discussion at Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_1#Requested_move_27_May_2020 in under a week does not seem justified: supposedly this early closure happened because people objected to the move prior to the weighing-in of medical examiners.

This premature closure appears to rely on speculation that those opposing would have changed their mind to support the move based on the statements of the examiner, even if it might be based on other grounds for objection such as the trial not having concluded. How many of the opposes actually redacted their opposition and changed to support?

A "wait for verdict" approach makes a lot more sense than a "wait for autopsy" approach, and the autopsy no/media/3-Terabytes-faster/Videos/Anime/TVted at 11nG/mL (nanoGrams per milliLitre) there was nearly 4x the lethal does (3ng/mL) of Fentanyl in Floyd's system, and noted they'd rule it an OD if someone were discovered alone with those levels.

The coroner did also note that 3ng wouldn't be lethal for someone who regularly took the drug and built up a tolerance, so overdose isn't a given either, of course. Which is why "death of George" would be an acceptable middle ground between "killing of George" and "overdose of George" since both of those are presumptuous to conclude before a trial verdict is reached.

I propose that since the June 2020 happened without adequate time to discuss the May 2020 nomination (that it was closed prematurely and unnecessarily) that this article be immediately be moved back to the neutral title of "death of" that it originally existed under.

Any motion to put it back at "killing of" should require a brand-new discussion with much longer time to weigh the pros and cons, at least a couple weeks if not a month. Really it should wait until there's a trial verdict: why should there be a rush to rename it before then? WakandaQT (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - The trial is not about whether or not it is a killing, but whether or not it was murder. Several independent autopsies have already established that Floyd died as a direct result of Chauvin's actions (and it even says so in the article). It is unambiguously a killing, and to describe it simply as "death" gives undue weight to the provenly incorrect theory that Floyd would have died if he wasn't pinned down and choked. We don't need to wait for a court to rule whether or not it was a killing, and more importantly, even if the court finds Chauvin innocent, that doesn't mean it wasn't a killing. Builder018 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Counter-Oppose - That claim is patently ludicrous. There is a toxicology report and other facts from the case which strongly indicate that the cause of death was related to a toxic overdose. F. Pacifica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpacifica (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Hennepin County Medical Examiner [34]: Manner of death: Homicide. That is a killing. starship.paint (exalt) 03:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per consensus of 27 May 2020. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous consensus. He was killed. He didn't just "die". POV would be to call it a "murder" without a jury's verdict. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Counter argument to opposition - A "Killing" is often used to describe a murder. Most readers on this article will be a layman to the semantics of these terms given the incident's fame. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harambe. To be clear, a "Killing" to most readers describes the TYPE of act that causes death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing. You caught yourself out with your mistake on line 2 of your reply, when you determined that the court *could* determine it not to be a killing. Furthermore, stating that Chauvin's actions "directly" caused George Floyd's death is false, and evidence will be put forward at trial. Medical experts are due to arrive in the court to give their testimony, the same way we have only seen footage of George Floyd in Cup Foods just today. I argue that the wording of "Death" is much more neutral, and respectful to our justice system. We Wikipedia editors should not hold the power to decide how an ongoing event is defined. That is precisely what the justice system is for, and the result of their decision is PENDING. We know for CERTAIN that George Floyd is deceased. I agree with the other users here that the title should be changed and any opposition to this can be argued once we have the result of the trial. (Anonymous23) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:ce10:d900:24ed:4bc8:42a9:33ac (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The FAQ specifically addresses that your assertion that "A "Killing" is often used to describe a murder" is irrelevant, as it is not exclusive. Consensus is that, regardless of what the court rules, Floyd was killed, he didn't just die. The second half of your argument falls apart with that discarded, as determining whether or not something is a killing requires no legal opinion (such as where there was no case to determine it in your example of Harambe), since "killing" is not a matter of law but of biology, sociology, and anatomy. Please also remember to sign your posts. Builder018 (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Consensus is that, regardless of what the court rules, Floyd was 'killed'". You misunderstand. It is the court's job and AUTHORITY to gather the evidence and determine Derek Chauvin's guilt. You are NOT the authority to determine his guilt. You are an anonymous user editing the information millions upon millions will view and trust as a reliable source. Where is your source on the consensus? Your claim is in dispute. That's why there's a trial. It is not "agreed". Please remember that our edits are tracked by IP, and at the time of writing you were the only opposition, negating any need to sign my post beyond. Thank you. (Anonymous23) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:ce10:d900:24ed:4bc8:42a9:33ac (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

1. It is common courtesy to sign your posts using four tildes (these things: ~) in a row, so that people can understand who made what comments and follow the discussion easier.

2. Killing is not a matter of guilt, as is established by the FAQ and past discussions on the matter (this is hardly the first time this request has been made). The source for consensus is the vast majority of all reliable sources, plus months of discussion, which you can find in the archives found at the top of this page. The trial is to determine whether it was murder, not whether it was a killing - murder implies criminal guilt, whereas killing does not. Builder018 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

1. No thank you.

2. I really should not have to repeat that the court explicitly determining Derek Chauvin's guilt is the only authority on the matter. Footage of George Floyd's visit to cup foods was only just released TODAY. Beyond the reach of your "reliable sources" and especially out of the reach of the users here. If they do not have the full evidence, they cannot make a correct judgement. The trial is making this judgement. As the result is pending, is it our responsibility to make sure every reader receives unbiased, sourced information. The evidence provided at the court has the last word on any sources you claim to provide. You are welcome to read above the sheer number of users visiting this article and contemplate how much of an affect a misuse of our edits, pretending to be an authority on the matter will have. (Anonymous23) I'm off to bed, feel free to have the last word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:ce10:d900:24ed:4bc8:42a9:33ac (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You can repeat yourself all you want, but that doesn't mean you're correct. There is a clear distinction between killing and murder, as marked by months of discussion on this article's talk page (again as I said you can check the archives), years across all of Wikipedia, and decades among scholars. Even from the page on Homocide, which is the most common synonym for killings, "A homicide requires only a volitional act by another person that results in death, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm.[2] Homicides can be divided into many overlapping legal categories, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war (either following the laws of war or as a war crime), euthanasia, and capital punishment, depending on the circumstances of the death." Homocide and its synonym, killings, does not require legal authority to dictate, as has been established as strong consensus. If you want to challenge that, you'll have to bring actual policy-based arguments or make a significant case for the changing of policy in the proper channels for that, not say how everyone else is wrong because the court hasn't made their (as far as this discussion is concerned, irrelevant) decision yet. The discussion is open for no less than a week unless an administrator pre-maturely closes it (for example for having a snowball's chance in hell). Builder018 (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It is truly a concern that you believe the evidence being presented at trial to be irrelevant. (Anonymous23) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CE10:D900:A966:94F6:F5E5:9AF5 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

IP, Builder018 did not say the things that you think he said. Your proficiency in English is clearly lacking (your posts are riddled with with incorrect grammar), and if you have a poor understanding of a language, that pretty much disqualifies you from arguing over the meaning and usage of words in that language. Good day to you, sir. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Firejuggler86, There are civility rules you must adhere to when participating on Wikipedia. We are expected to be professional. This type of angry behaviour only solidifies that those who oppose are only arguing out of emotion, and not logical reason. (Anonymous23)

• Support. Crescent77 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Crescent77, A vote is not an argument. It's generally recommended you supply some sort of argument instead of just saying support or oppose, as most people pay little attention to simple votes without reason. Builder018 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - The death was ruled a homicide by official autopsies. Whether or not his death was a murder is to be determined, but there is an overwhelming weight of sources to support "Killing." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Counter-Oppose False. The official autopsy - and there was only one - did not rule the cause of death was a homicide. F. Pacifica

  Wrong. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner [35]: Manner of death: Homicide starship.paint (exalt) 03:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Wrong. Where does the official Hennepin County Autopsy report say Homicide? User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Check the PDF Starship.Paint linked. One line under cause of death, it says manner of death: homocide. It's hard to miss, and ctrl+f will find it for you if you can't find it yourself--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:18C7:73E1:3E1D:670E (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Lol what the heck is a homocide? If you ctrl+f, you'll be able to see that the PDF starship cited is a press release. However, I am absolutely done discussing this issue here. CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose It is a given fact that George Floyd died as a direct result of the physical altercations that took place on the day of his death. To say merely "death" instead of "killing" would implicitly discredit this fact. Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, he was killed, he didn't just die. I don't think killing assume murder in this case.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Two autopsies ruled his death a homicide (as in the medicolegal meaning, not the criminal meaning). Per the State, he was killed. The article's title reflects that plain fact. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir:, That makes Derek Chauvin a "killer", in Wikipedia's voice. Do you see the overwhelming preponderance of statements in support of that from reliable sources, sufficient to override WP:BLP? BLP is policy, and calls for immediate removal of such statements. Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – Wikipedia article titles are determined by policies and guidelines. Among them are Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). WP:NPOV has no bearing on article titles. The WP:AT section on WP:COMMONNAME is the most relevant in most cases. However, in more recent cases of deaths, killings, shootings, etc., sufficient time has not passed to allow the use of Google Ngrams which usually gives the clearest evidence of COMMONNAME. Without clear evidence of COMMONNAME, discussion on article titles based on subjective Google-sleuthing has often led to inconsistencies, counter to WP:CONSISTENT, and with clear signs of WP:Systemic bias. An RfC on December 10, 2020 led to the creation of the explanatory supplement WP:DEATHS to deal with situations just as this where a clear COMMONNAME cannot be determined – until it can be determined.

Unless someone can show that Death of George Floyd is the COMMONNAME, we only have WP:DEATHS to guide us. The current title conforms with WP:DEATHS and this page should not be moved until someone demonstrates that any other title is the COMMONNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for the point to WP:DEATHS, that's an incredibly helpful guide for situations like these where no common name has yet emerged/can yet be found (in part because, as you said, it's too recent for tools like Google's ngrams to kick in). Builder018 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to show anything of the sort. We have to read policy, namely WP:BLP, which calls for immediately removing such material without discussion. WP:DEATHS isn't policy; it isn't even a guideline. It's an explanatory supplement. WP:BLP governs here, and the path is clear. Mathglot (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons stated by Builder018. Another angle to this is WP:DUE: the proposer claims that we should strike a balance between "killing" and "overdose", but that would violate WP:DUE because the preponderance of reliable sources (e.g. official autopsies) agree this is a homicide. The question that remains for the criminal justice system is whether the nature of the homicide meets the legal definition for murder or manslaughter—even if the jury were to return a "not guilty" verdict on all counts, that would still be insufficient to change the title of this article because it is possible to kill someone without committing the crime of murder or manslaughter. Mz7 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Builder018, 162.208.168.92, Muboshgu, NorthBySouthBaranof, Tyrone Madera, Ortizesp, EvergreenFir, C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) and Mz7. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose why argue over your own opinionated semantics? If we are looking to be precise and accurate then why not use the term that the Medical Examiner used? If the professionals call it a homicide, why would you not just name the article "Homicide of George Floyd"? 75.181.72.119 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A person can be killed in an accident, by accident or even by diseases or drug overdose.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Two medical examiners said it was a homicide. The title of the article is not dependent on the trial's outcome. Other articles used the term "killing" even when the police officers who were involved were not convicted of crimes (e.g., Killing of Eric Garner and Killing of Aiyana Jones). Minnemeeples (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The editors on wikipedia do not get to decide what is and what isn't the truth. They are not an authority to dictate whether this was a killing or not. The trial is still in progress, and includes evidence out of reach of anyone pretending to be an authority on the matter. e.g. The cup foods footage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CE10:D900:A966:94F6:F5E5:9AF5 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The title should be ‘Death of George Floyd’ given that ultimate responsibility for the death in question has not been legally assigned through conviction. ‘Killing of’ implies that the death was a result of an intent to deprive of life, which has not been established. There is reasonable doubt as to whether or not his death was caused by the officer or other factors independent of the arrest. Were this article posted by a major news outlet with this title, it could very well be considered libel. Unless a conviction occurs, the title as it currently stands is completely inappropriate. Whall005 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Whall005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If it was libel it still would be, Wikipedia is subject to the law like every other website (and see wp:legal).Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not correct. It is possible to kill someone without intending to do so. If the trial ends in a conviction, we would move this article to Murder of George Floyd, which would imply intent (or alternatively depraved indifference). Mz7 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous consensus. Two autopsies determined Floyd's death was a result of homicide, regardless of whether it was murder or manslaughter. If Chauvin is convicted of murder, page title should be Murder of George Floyd. Tvc 15 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC) See WP:KILLINGS. Tvc 15 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the title should be 'Homicide of George Floyd'. Call a spade a spade. 75.181.72.119 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The central question in this trial is whether Chauvin's actions (or inactions) contributed to the death of George Floyd, or whether the death resulted entirely from an overdose while Chauvin applied a standard, department mandated, non-lethal restraint technique. It has not been proven that Chauvin's restraint was cause for asphyxiation - one cannot restrict airflow by kneeling on the side of the neck without causing severe damage which was not found in any autopsy, and a so called blood choke would have resulted in unconsciousness within seconds. To call this a killing preemptively asserts a finding for which evidence has simply not been established at this time. Given that the predetermined narrative of a killing is a major part of the justification for last year's civil unrest, to do so would only add to the increasingly blatant progressive bias on wikipedia. Testit01022 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Testit01022 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delaying this change until after trial is hugely irresponsible. As an "authoritative source", misleading the public with a title that preemptively implies guilt while the case is ongoing would only serve to falsely inflame the already violent mob in the case of an acquittal. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, it seems most of the editors on wikipedia have already ruled in their own personal courts of public opinion and do not take issue with the clearly biased title. Testit01022 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Testit01022 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support – WP:BLP trumps editor opinion on whether he was killed or not. This stinks of WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS and rush to judgement and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The trial will be over soon, there is absolutely no reason to violate WP:BLP now, in order to label Derek Chauvin a killer, a few days or weeks before reliable sources do. Wikipedia is not a leading indicator; let's wait till the overwhelming majority of reliable sources label this a killing; then, it will be appropriate for Wikipedia to do so. In the meantime, any such claims in the article must be accompanied by double quotes, and in-text attribution, to make it clear it's somebody's exact words, and the name of the person who said it. Wikipedia must not make that claim in Wikipedia's voice, until the sources do. Imho, the oppose votes are unsupported by any guideline or policy-based argument, and are just just opinion, fired by the emotions of the moment (I know, because I have exactly the same emotions). But they should play no part in the outcome of this discussion. If you oppose, fine; but make it based on Wikipedia policy. WP:BLP argues for a move. All you oppose votes, you'll get your wish in a few weeks; just be patient; you don't have to storm the castle, the doors will open for you, as soon as the trial is over. There's no point beating it down now. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, consensus is that a killing does not carry criminal liability, and that if he is in fact ruled guilty by the court, it is a murder; if he is not, it is a killing. BLP was brought up and dismissed in previous move requests as irrelevant. Killing does not as you state imply that Chauvin is guilty, but is instead a simply statement of fact that Floyd was killed. Builder018 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Not in the real world it isn't. Anyone who sees "Floyd was killed" immediately makes the assumption that Chauvin is guilty, contrary to your claim. Everybody has seen the video; "Floyd was killed" means one thing, and one thing only. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The relevant distinction here is that whether Chauvin killed Floyd is a medical decision to be determined by a medical examiner and whether Chauvin is guilty of the crime of murder or manslaughter for killing Floyd is a legal decision to be determined by a jury. Just because Chauvin killed Floyd does not mean that he is guilty of any crime; it is possible to kill someone accidentally or without sufficient evidence of the depraved indifference required for the killing to be considered murder. Wikipedia's description that Floyd was killed is a reflection of the prevailing medical opinion, based on the two autopsies, that Floyd's death was a homicide. It is certainly not "unsourced or poorly sourced content" that would warrant immediate removal under WP:BLP. Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mz7, to concur, it's not even that much. By definition, it's not even to do with particularly Chauvin's involvement, merely that Floyd was killed by another person. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, It's not about whether it's a medical examiner decision, and it's not about whether Chauvin is guilty of murder or manslaughter (and I noticed you left off a possible verdict of innocent; why is that?) The relevant point is what Wikipedia policy says, and that is clear: BLP forbids this, due to the current state of reporting in reliable sources as of 2 April regarding whether Chauvin killed Floyd; they don't report that. Therefore, per BLP, we may not say that. In a few days or weeks, that will change massively (most likely, but WP:NOCRYSTAL) and then it will be fine. But not now. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have worded my comment better. I meant that the question for the jury is whether or not Chauvin is guilty of murder or manslaughter, not that Chauvin is either guilty of murder or manslaughter, and it's just a matter of which one. At the moment, the article is worded in a way that says, "Floyd was killed, and here is a description of the events that surrounded his death", then allows the reader to draw whatever conclusion they want from that information. This is a policy-compliant way of resolving your concern about the separability of "Floyd was killed" and "Chauvin killed Floyd" while recognizing the medical/legal distinction that I draw above. As far as the question of whether Floyd was "killed" goes, as I mentioned above, the prevailing medical opinion on this question ("homicide") has been widely reported [36][37][38][39]. This is already sufficient to use Wikipedia's voice to state that Floyd was killed. Even if the jury returns a "not guilty" verdict on both murder and manslaughter, the title of this article should still remain "Killing of" unless there is a change in the prevailing medical opinion on the cause of death. Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Whether he was killed or not is not an opinion though, it's a proven (and verifiable) fact based on reliable sources. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Support. The use of killing prior to a jury ruling is libelous. Killing means 'the act or action of causing death, as of a person' i.e. murder or manslaughter. We do not use killing in regards to suicide, overdoses or health issues. Homicide may have been the autopsy term, but legally that does not assign guilty, unlike common use of the term where it is understood (incorrectly) to mean murder. 人族 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

As has been stated before, the FAQ and the consensus it's built on establish that the idea that killing is libelous, is equivalent to murder, or assigns guilt is plainly incorrect. Builder018 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to this, I'd like to point out just how emotionally invested Builder 018 is with this dicsussion. This isn't www.Wikibuilder018.com. Getting your alt account (Firejuggler86) to scream at people who destroy your arguments is just childish. How many support arguments are you going to reply on here with implying your statements are the truth (They're not), without evidence or sources? I sense a strong emotional bias.(Anonymous23) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CE10:D900:85D3:D8CA:10E:3FB4 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether a killing carries a criminal liability. It's irrelevant if it ends up as a murder or not. The statement that "Killing" is "simply statement of fact that Floyd was killed" devoid of any accusation against Chauvin being the killer, is just wordplay; every person who comes to Wikipedia article around the world and sees "killing of George Floyd" is going to know who we say did it; they all saw the same video, too. It's disingenuous to try to decouple "Floyd was killed" from "Chauvin killed Floyd"; in the real world, you just can't do it; if you say the first, the second will be understood. This isn't a legalistic thing about what killing means; it's about whether the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources say, "Chauvin killed Floyd". If you can show me that they do, then that overcomes WP:BLP and I have no objection to it. If you can't, it flies in the face of BLP and must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis in the original). Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, do you not understand that autopsies hold the authoritative position on whether a death is a 'killing' or 'just a death'? And HOW can you possibly say that it's irrelevant whether the verdict is guilty or not, RIGHT AFTER you got done saying the doors will open for you, as soon as the trial is over. then as soon as that arguments refuted, suddenly the trial doesnt matter anymore. Well, if the trial doesnt matter, then the only thing left that can matter is the AUTOPSY. And there are two of them. have a nice day. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firejuggler86: I do understand the importance of autopsies in forensic medicine and law, but that is completely different than the question of what is permitted in an article on Wikipedia. For the latter, as a tertiary source we depend on reliable sources, policy, guidelines, and so on. In this case, the governing guideline is BLP. As far as the trial verdict, either I was unclear or you misunderstood. Following a guilty verdict, roughly every newspaper in the United States and around the world will all say, "Chauvin guilty of killing Floyd", or words to that effect. It will be universal; the article will have a choice of more reliable sources reporting on this than any article on Wikipedia. The number of newspapers reporting that now, is, (counting them up... wait for it... ) zero. So, because of BLP, Wikipedia may not say that now. Just wait a bit; after the verdict, it will be no problem. Thanks for your comment. Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Support.Counter argument to opposition Builder018's prima facie case alleging that a killing is not analogous is factually groundless and has zero legal basis in these circumstances, especially in the U.S.A. under the well founded criminal law definitions. Floyd died that is clear. The MANNER in which HOW his death occurred is what the Court and the Judicial system is for. None of you have any knowledge of U.S.A. Criminal Law outside the Wikipedia articles you have read and or edited. Others have mentioned a preponderance of sources, which would qualify for a civil suit but that is not the criminal law standard which is beyond a reasonable doubt. There are conflicting autopsy reports as to Floyds cause of death and that is a question of fact for the jury to decide. NOT a single one of you. There are different kinds of culpability in regards to "killing" without intent and that it is true that you can kill someone recklessly or negligently without intent. However, that does not mean that you directly caused their death. Killing implies that, on some level, Chauvin caused the death of Floyd, which fortunately is not your decision to make, since you cannot strip yourself of bias. The question the court presents to the jury is whether Derek Chauvin did recklessly or negligently cause the death of George Floyd. I do not recall jury members being allowed on the internet while being on duty. I guess that is not any of you. Change it to death until the verdict is returned. By the way, it is highly unlikely Chauvin will receive either second or third degree, no matter how many news sources you can cite. User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.71.121 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a jury, nor is a jury the total arbiter of truth outside of legal status, nor is a jury the source of verifiable evidence outside of the legal dimension. See Illinois vs. August Spies et al. in the Haymarket Affair for an example of this. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder why you cite that case my friend. The jury reviews evidence and makes a decision. There is the court and then there is the court of public opinion. That is what is occurring here, the court of public opinion. But what I'm really curious about is why you would decide to cite a case regarding jury bias. Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1 (1887) affirmed the trial courts decision and stated they did not have just cause to dismiss the juror who was going put aside their bias and try the case on the evidence. Something the court of public opinion here is refusing to do. User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.71.121 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I cited the case as a famous example of a jury getting something wrong. Nothing more. If you want to sift through legal records to find a different, better example of this, then be my guest. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello? You cited the case for your purposes discussing evidence, truth, juries and legal topics and discredit all that based on your opinion. Apparently you are the sole arbiter of truth and fact. In fact, you discredit yourself by stating, "Floyd died as a direct result of the physical altercations that took place on the day of his death." Not once did you mention "killing," which is the point you claim to represent. Not only that, you claim that Floyd was killed and this was a fact. You are NOT the finder of fact, which is what a jury IS. You do not review the evidence, a jury does. You claim that in Illinois v. Spies the jury got it wrong but following a second appeal, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. You sir do not know what you're discussing and are merely asserting opinion. I'm asserting evidence, not sifting through legal records, but backing it up. User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.71.121 (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Please assume good faith when I say that I cited the case as an example of juries getting a case wrong. It's not out of some hidden agenda; I am legitimately trying to build a better Encyclopedia. This means relying on reliable sources and fact, but most of all reliable sources. Juries are not reliable sources in and of themselves outside of the legal sphere, and need to be looked at in context, and one only needs to look at examples of jury nullification to see examples of this. I am not the sole arbiter of truth and fact, nor do I claim to be, and neither are juries, and neither is Wikipedia, but if you want to dismiss that as opinion as well then go ahead. But I digress. When I say that "Floyd died as a direct result of the physical altercations that took place on the day of his death" I use it as longhand for killing, although I can see now how that could be interpreted more broadly. Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Tyrone. I never assumed you cited the case for illegitimate purposes. My first response attests to the fact that I read your profile and tried to be friendly. I have ADD too (proper/diagnosed). Any and all discussions are presumed to be under good faith dude. However, I'd like to point to the facts (disputed or not) that the media bolsters to direct a narrative (for whatever reason) and the division that they create. Have a look at the LSAT. User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding unsigned

Support. Sometimes when a police officer kills a person, the fact that the police officer was responsible for the person's death is not in contention. The questions are "Was it self defence?" "Was it in accordance with police procedure?" etc. From what I've seen of reporting of the trial of former officer Chauvin, his defence seems to be that Mr Floyd died of natural causes coincidental to his arrest and restraint, rather than that the officer admits to causing his death for legally justifiable reasons. If he is found guilty, I assume that the page will be renamed "The murder of…", if he is found not guilty; because of his defence it will have to be the "Death of….". Which I will find obnoxious from a personal point of view but needed for a neutral pov AlwynapHuw (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That's wrong. As has been established multiple times, if he's guilty it's a murder, if he's not then it's a killing. Death is only for natural causes, which we know from autopsies that that's not the case. It would do new commenters some good to read through and see that multiple users including an admin have confirmed that's not how it works before commenting this line of thought for the 8th time. Builder018 (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Except not only has that not been established that's completely false. Per the autopsy report cause of death is cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression. In other words Floyd had a heart attack, he wasn't choked to death. Drugs are noted but not listed as the proximate cause of death. Note too the homicide finding does not automatically make Chauvin et al responsible for Floyd's death. If Chauvin is guilty of killing Floyd then he will be found guilty of either murder or manslaughter - prosecutors are charging him with both but that seems to be a case of trying to have their cake and eat it too, and this piece ought to be retitled per the relevant charge. If Chauvin is found not guilty of killing Floyd - the jury concluding Chauvin acted reasonably, that drugs were a major contributing factor etc, then killing is, as mentioned, libelous. Either way killing is inappropriate in this context. 人族 (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No words in the whole report mean "heart attack" in any words. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Except that cardiopulmonary arrest does mean "heart attack" in those exact words. User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.71.121 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

False. "Myocardial infarction" is fancy medical jargon for a heart attack. A "cardiopulmonary arrest" is what a layman might call Death. It happens to everyone who dies, basically just lets others know they're no longer alive. A paramedic under oath confirmed this to a jury today, if you don't trust my inedible words. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Really? Death is only for natural causes? Someone who overdoses from their own actions is killed? Everyone who dies in a plane crash is killed? Someone who dies in a single car crash is killed? Calling me out for being a new user is fine because you're right, but you're absolutely, unequivocally incorrect in regards to this. Killing under these circumstances implies that Chauvin caused Floyds death. Murder requires different degrees of culpability, purposefully or knowingly, killing/manslaughter requires recklessly or negligently. You're out of your realm. After reviewing WP:DEATHS naming the article "killing" implies that you do know the manner of Floyds death when you do not, nor is it your decision to make. For all intents and purposes the article should be renamed "Death" until it is determined by the proper authorities the manner in which Floyd died when that fact is still under dispute.User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.71.121 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In normal English usage if a person "kills himself" and his death is seen as worthy of a Wikipedia article it would be titled "The suicide of . . ." If a person died in a car or air crash, and the death was worthy of an article it would be titled "The death of. . ." . "Killed" would be used where blame was assigned to another person.
I understand and share your anger. My personal view is that Chauvan is as guilty as sin and should be put into gaol, with the key thrown away. But I can't allow that opinion to affect how I write about this case on another language's Wikipedia page 03:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynapHuw (talk • contribs)

• Oppose Only descriptions of crimes suggest crimes strongly enough to literally presume guilt. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In "Common Law" areas the only "presumption" is that of innocence until guilt is proved, until a verdict is delivered none of the evidence legally presumes guilt, no matter how strong or persuavive it might appear to be. At the moment Chauvan is "assumed" inoccent untill the legal process comes to it's end that assumtion remains.

AlwynapHuw (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Presumed, assumed, both. You're preaching to the choir, check the archives. Calling a case that has already been officially ruled a homicide a "killing" is not prejudicial, though. Every murder trial follows a homicide determination; it's 100% prerequisite public knowledge, and nothing more. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy , I responded to the unsigned comments they are not "created by" me AlwynapHuw (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

AlwynapHuw: Are you referring to your 03:26, 2 April 2021 response? If so, the threading already made it clear that you were responding to 67.233.71.121.—Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Bad timing This article has been at the current title for a while, so I see no need to rush to change it. The verdict will be out pretty soon, and then we can examine this with the matter closed. We should not waste copious editor time arguing over something that may change entirely in a months time. This ought be closed early and revisited once the verdict is out. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I can understand and appreciate the argument that the title has been what it is for some time. However, considering a criminal trial is underway, articles regarding the incident have the responsibility to remain neutral until a verdict assigns guilt (or not). One could make the argument that ‘killing of’ doesn’t specifically imply that the death was intentionally caused by another person. But the average person who visits this page will interpret it as such. ‘Death of’ remains strictly neutral and has the positive effect of compelling the reader to read the article to find out why the person died. On that note, similar incidents should have their titles changed as well. Whall005 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek: I could understand a "bad timing" argument, in just about every case except BLP. Maybe it's been some time since you've read the policy, and it's time for a refresher: "Contentious material about living persons ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Even if it's only for one day, or one hour, this should be changed immediately, we should "rush to change it", until the verdict is out, and it is reported. At that point, it will be fine. Now, it is not; it should be immediately changed. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear, the full quote is Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (italics added) The official cause of the death of Geroge Floyd determined by medical examiners is homicide, and this information is verifiable through multiple reliable sources cited in the article. Immediate removal without discussion applies to a very specific set of circumstances that are expanded upon at WP:BLPREMOVE, and it is very clear that this is not one of those cases. The question for the trial is whether there is enough evidence to hold the defendant criminally responsible for the killing of George Floyd; it's separate from the medical question of whether the cause of death was homicide. Mz7 (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as many others have said, the death is already officially determined a homicide (which is a killing). Juries don't decide whether a death was a killing. coroners decide that. juries decide whether a killing was a murder. Whether the verdict be guilty or not guilty, a killing is still a killing. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

False. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner who performed the first autopsy, including a toxicology report does not mention homicide ANYWHERE. The Family commissioned autopsy that excluded a toxicology report or unspecified bodily samples somehow concluded that Floyd was in good health and the death was a homicide. Now, the jury is called a finder of fact and they will determine which autopsy report is correct and determine whether Floyd DIED or was Killed. Murder carries different levels of culpability (see above) of which Chauvin won't have. None of you are fact finders nor would you be because you'd be booted really fast for having bias. By the way Hennepin's autopsy is public available and I strongly suggest you read it, instead of drawing erroneous conclusions based upon an autopsy you can't read. User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.71.121 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hennepin County Medical Examiner [40]: Manner of death: Homicide. starship.paint (exalt) 01:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Everywhere that I have read on Wikipedia and in the opposing posts that claim the most relevant authority in determining the cause of death is an autopsy report. Consistently, I have been referred to a press release. If everyone wants to draw distinctions, you should at least ensure its accuracy, which clearly there is a lack of interest in doing (see cite for autopsy report).User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You said, "Juries don't decide whether a death was a killing. coroners decide that." and you are so right! And neither juries, nor coroners, decide what is allowed in Wikipedia articles involving contentious statements about living persons. Wikipedia decides that. In this case, Wikipedia decides by using a policy called WP:BLP. Saying it is a killing now, on April 2, during the trial of Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd, is a potentially contentious statement about Derek Chauvin. Per BLP, Wikipedia may not say that. Not now. After a guilty verdict, definitely. Not now, though. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Please make your case, and make your case as well explained as possible, and please avoid WP:BLUDGEON. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as above. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• CommentRead wp:legal, if it has not been found libelous, it's not libelous as we are 0only saying what RS are saying, and they have not been sued.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional Oppose Hennepin county's coroner's report declared the death a medical homicide. If Officer Chauvin is found innocent or if expert testimony finds that other complications (heart disease, stress, drug ingestion) would likely have caused Mr. Floyd's death regardless of actions taken by MPD officers, then this discussion should be reopened (and I would support the move). Fullmetalalch (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Per below, I can't find any support for "Medical Homicide" referred to in this sense. Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose reliable sources routinely refer to it as a killing. We're not here to do WP:OR about legal liability or anything else but to reflect the reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Autopsies are the authoritative sources on manner of death, bar none. You must discredit the autopsy to say that it should not be considered a homicide, ergo a killing. Does Wikipedia have the potential to get sued for libel? No, because it agrees with the autopsy. Does describing it as a killing improve the encyclopedia? Yes, because it is the medically and legally more accurate term than simply "death" and per my previous argument. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Explain to me where the official autopsy of Hennepin County states George Floyd died as a result of a homicide or "killing." You moved your Oppose to Strongly Oppose so if you can point out the where the information that indicates that Floyd died as a result of a killing and or a homicide, I'll gladly change mine over to an oppose. User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.71.121 (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Right here: https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you just cite a press release instead of an autopsy report? The Autopsy Report! Read it! User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO

You mean the official press release found on the medical examiner's county website page? Yes, I did. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. So instead of acknowledging the lack of homicide or other injuries indicating a homicide in the official autopsy report, you decide the press release is the most dispositive information you can find. Are you saying the press release is more "official" than the official autopsy report I cited? Have you ever heard jury instructions before? Trust me, press releases won't be in the Discovery ;). User:CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO

The autopsy report doesn't mention the manner of death ruling. But a statement from the medical examiner's office saying "update" did. Wikipedia isn't a court and discovery isn't an issue as we don't establish facts of a case through any judicial process. The press release is just fine for our purposes, as are the dozens of reliable sources that say the ME ruled it a homicide. Again, the trial (which this article isn't about) is to determine if the homicide was criminal. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO was right to correct me on the autopsy report, but I maintain my strong oppose per EvergreenFir, and the medical examiner's office's report, and per more or less my previous arguments but instead using the medical examiner's office's report rather than the autopsy. I believe that I got the two confused, but Wikipedia should still be free of liability, given that the existing, strong evidence supports killing and the autopsy is not contradicted in any way. Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Both of you have made good points as to why the article should not be changed, especially by Wikipedia standards. I am/was trying to clear up misconceptions and misinformation as per the legal field. I'm not even from the US but practice law here. The State has a large mountain to climb and we're still on the Prosecutions case in chief. The Court of Public Opinion is often drastically different than the Court of Law. We saw this in the George Zimmerman case where a vast majority of the public thought he would be convicted. The Court of Law's standards to convict is high and the burden of proof is on the State to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why I have been discussing the varying approaches to the degrees of mental culpability. Every crime requires an actus rea(the act itself) and a mens rea(mental state) in order to convict. The State is going to have a hard time proving the mens rea because of the legal requirements and subrules that it entails. If Wikipedia and those rules, that apparently EvergreenFir is well-learned about, indicates that Floyd was killed, fine. I'm trying to tell everyone, that it is highly unlikely that Chauvin will be convicted of Second or Third/Depraved Heart Murder. If anything, Chauvin may be convicted of manslaughter but it will be to a lesser degree. Most importantly, I don't want to see another city burn because the public didn't get what it expected. CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO(talk) 23:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for now The article title has remained this way for nearly a year. Why does it need to be changed, coincidentally during the middle of the trial? Why don't we wait to see where this trial ends up and keep it where it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Buffaboy ^talk 21:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Buffaboy: But it is broke, and we must fix it. The reason it must be changed now, after a year, is this, and it's not coincidental at all: for the last year, "killing of George Floyd" was more about George Floyd's death and the injustice of it in the domestic context of discrimination, racism, and differential treatment by police. Just about *everybody* knew the name "George Floyd"; people held massive marches with protest signs not only in the U.S. but around the world, with George Floyd's name on them. The phrase "killing of George Floyd" brought to mind only one thing: his death, and the unfairness of it, and the demands for civil rights, better policing, and so on. Nobody had "Chauvin" on a protest sign, or knew his name.

A year on, and things have changed dramatically. It's still about justice and fairness and civil rights, but there's something new: the meaning of "killing of George Floyd" has evolved in people's minds, to the question of "will they find Derek Chauvin guilty of killing him, or won't they?" and everybody knows his name now. So, it isn't coincidental at all. It is precisely *because* of the trial, that the phrase takes on added urgency now, and is prejudicial to Derek Chauvin (a living person). Per the policy of WP:BLP, this is negative material about Chauvin, and unless supported by overwhelming support from reliable sources, should not be in a Wikipedia article touching on him. As soon as the verdict is in, it will be a completely different story; within hours, every newspaper in the world will say Chauvin killed Floyd. But none of them say that now. Since that contention is highly negative, and nobody is saying it, Wikipedia can't say it. After the verdict, we can.

By the way, I think Chauvin killed Floyd, too. But the point is, per Wikipedia policy, we must transcend our own beliefs, and follow policy; that's why we must support the move. Read WP:BLP, and decide for yourself. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The literal very first page of this article's history is already edit warring about Derek Chauvin's name, BLP status and whether he's a murderer yet, on May 26. All that protest stuff came later. Maybe you were late to this way of thinking, but that's just you. We all remember seeing different things, slightly or otherwise. That's why we log the story (even I, while actively investigating and working alongside Starship.paint, had no idea till today that he planted the original "seed/spark/stones"!) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - I was surprised to find out that it was I who created this article from a redirect, so thanks for reminding me. Right place, right time. What I do remember creating is this. starship.paint (exalt) 13:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice! You ever hear of Human rights in Guatemala? I blew that whistle before it was cool (in the English world, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - two coroners found homicide, ruled top-tier RS. [41][42][43][44][45] That is killing, so there is no WP:BLP violation. Same top-tier RS also use "killing". [46][47][48] Murder is unlawful killing. We do not say Floyd was murdered, his killing may have been lawful, pending the trials. starship.paint (exalt) 01:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - as long since established, the coroners ruled that he was killed. The trial is simply over whether his killing was a homicide, or somehow self-defense[!], or the combination of Chauvin's knee pressure and Floyd's medical condition. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support - "Death" is a more neutral word than "killing", the latter of which can imply action to end the life of another. There is speculation that Floyd died in part due to underlying medical conditions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea that Floyd died as a result of an overdose is completely bunk by this point, as multiple autopsies have confirmed that's not the case. Death is in fact less neutral, as it implies ambiguity that doesn't actually exist and gives undue weight to a disproven fringe theory. Builder018 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss the current happenings of the trial, declare certain documents best, speculate on the outcome of the trial, or snipe at other editors. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To be clear, this idea is not bunk, not disproven and not fringe. The only legit autopsy was, is and always will be Andrew Baker's, and he's the one that told us drugs and a bad heart were significant contributing factors. Eric Nelson hasn't even begun calling (or even cross-examining) the relevant expert witnesses yet. Just stopped for the weekend, like both sides did. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC) To be clear, by far, bar none, InedibleHulk spreads the most misinformation regarding the legal system and its requirements. You're absolutely right that the only official autopsy is Baker's Hennepin County Report for Floyd. What you don't know and clearly lack knowledge of is Nelsons ability to call expert witnesses during the State's case in chief. You discussed Minnesota Law being finely worded; cite to the procedural rule that allows the Defense to call witnesses during the States case in chief. If you can't, you're wrong. Nelson will have amply opportunity to cross examine the States expert witnesses (which he did for the paramedic), when the State calls them. You stated, ″It's more about whether he accidentally helped kill him while behaving like a normal cop should have, or accidentally helped kill him during a depraved, reckless assault and/or use of excessive force that was eminently dangerous to others.", which isn't even a legal question and disregards any legal standards. Dude, do me a favor and stop touting yourself as a legal expert. Nelson can start calling his expert witnesses when the States case in chief rests. You're opinions regarding intent and intent to kill not regarding second and depraved heart murder are exhausting and demonstrative of your lack of awareness regarding the mental culpability states regarding the required mens rea for criminal liability. If you want to be a legal expert, study the law. If you want to be a Wikipedia aficionado, be my guest, don't pretend to be both and discount others based on those grounds. Chauvin will possibly be convicted on involuntary manslaughter and if you know so much, please tell me the prescribed mens rea that it will entail. CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The coroner ruled his death as homicide, so in simple terms "killing" is simple and informative, while "death" adds a level of vagueness, a certain euphemism. Adding unwarranted doubt is inconsistent with NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and I hope some claims about Floyd's death not being a homicide will be treated with as little weight as comments not grounded in fact must be. Wikipedia does not aim to replicate the U.S. legal system or the court of public opinion. If something is a fact then the U.S. legal system may give you the chance to have one person arguing against it for every person arguing for it, but Wikipedia will simply repeat it as a fact. Floyd was killed (we will soon see if that killing was a murder according to U.S. law or not) and our naming conventions in this area have been much-discussed and well-established, so that this article title is a simple application of a broader community consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This probably will need to be renamed to "Murder of George Floyd" in a few months. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. If this article name was “killing of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin“ that would be circumstantially more problematic. But, it's entirely logically possible for Floyd to have been "killed" without the killing being by the current trial defendant. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - A "homicide" is, by definition, a killing, not just a death. The claim that Floyd was actually murdered by the police instead of being killed unintentionally is up to the court to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Biggus (talk • contribs) 09:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the types of murder charges laid against Chauvin do not require the prosecution to prove he intended to kill Floyd. It's more about whether he accidentally helped kill him while behaving like a normal cop should have, or accidentally helped kill him during a depraved, reckless assault and/or use of excessive force that was eminently dangerous to others. Minnesota law is finely worded, to say the least. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Strong support - per the toxicology report's official comments: >Fentanyl — 11 ng/ml. He said, "that’s pretty high." This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf LordParsifal (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: two autopsies, including the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's, concluded that it was a homicide [49], which is the legal term for a killing. As has been repeatedly pointed out above by others, "killing" is not the same as "murder." If the defendant is convicted of murder, then the title should be changed to "The murder of George Floyd" but unless amd until that happens the current title is both correct and appropriate. UrielAcosta (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

In what way does the Hennepin County Autopsy "conclude" homicide? Explain the legal term for "killing" and its relation to the definition for your purposes. Distinguish "killing" and "murder', then apply it to Chauvin and Floyd. If you cannot, you should and would have provided a jury with reasonable doubt.CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO(talk) 05:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It was in every way a killing per all major WP:RS, I with most contempt oppose any move to the vague word "death" which likely implies natural causes, and we go by the WP:RS, it is widely accepted as a murder so the article is appropriately named murder/killing of George Floyd. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Death" does not always imply natural causes and does implicate the fact that the cause/manner in which Floyds "death" occurred is still yet undetermined or the fact that Floyd did indeed die. So many people here are ready to rush to conclusions. "Killing", however, does imply that Chauvin caused Floyds death, which as of yet is undetermined by an official autopsy. For the purposes of Wikipedia and a preponderance of sources rule, I keep hearing about, apparently press releases and newspaper articles citing that press release are suitable. "widely accepted as a murder", by whom? This is ridiculous, I cannot believe this. I hope one of your loved ones never has to face this kangaroo court. CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO(talk) 05:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Widely accepted as murder/killing by WP:RS and it is stated in WP:RS provided as killing/murder, just like you are telling not to assume that Floyd was killed by Chauvian before an official autopsy is made public, the same can be to you not to assume that Floyd was not killed by Chauvian, murder charges are ongoing and if the trial verdict is different then we can change the topic, but until then its what WP:RS calls it that matters not the personal words/opinions of individual users. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

An official autopsy report is public. (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support; For me, 'Death' sounds more detached. Somehow, 'Killing' makes the article seem more like a news piece or an opinion piece--I mean, he was killed, but I still prefer 'Death', being the more general and objective term. Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 05:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - reliable sources describe the end of Floyd's life as a murder or a killing. WP:NPOV requires that we repeat what reliable sources say, and WP:BLP (WP:BLPCRIME) requires that we don't describe things in criminal terms without a conviction, so we're left with "killing". "Softening" what is published by reliable sources so as not to offend readers is censorship and goes against NPOV. The current title is correct. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

References

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

Inclusion in "political scandals" category

As can be implied by the title of this section, this article is included in a category related to political scandals in the United States (as of the time of this writing), along with the deaths/killings of Elijah McClain, Manuel Ellis and Javier Ambler. Do these really count as "political scandals"? I do not see anything inherently political about police/police brutality. While many of these deaths have caused political controversy, I do not see how any of these specific incidents should be qualified as political scandals while others are not. Should it be removed from the category? Painting17 (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as the killing was not political, not were any politicians involved. As to the other articles, this is not the place to discuss them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not so much the police/brutality that's been politicized as the racial inequality part, from my perspective, which seemed huge in the last election. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove Political scandals are scandals (actions seen as scandalous or wrong) by politicians. This does not fit here. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Political scandal says the outrage can be caused by "government officials", too, which police are. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Removed. WWGB (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)