Talk:Murder of George Floyd

BRD - Officers' previous alleged conduct

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

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

• User:EvergreenFir, don't you mean "directly unrelated"? To me, it seems directly related: there is a man who dies of excessive force, and the cop with his knee on his neck, and a cop standing by doing nothing, were known of having used excessive force. How is that not relevant? And there is no comparison with the Arbery case--Arbery was the victim. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean unrelated. Thank you. And in my view, the general exclusion of "past misdeeds" goes for all parties. While I completely understand why it's being reported, I do not think Wikipedia should include it unless it because part of the facts of the case. BLP applies to these officers as well (including WP:BLPCRIME). EvergreenFir (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight over this, and I know the BLP applies, but the facts presented here strike me as directly relevant. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of excessive force are just that: allegations. It does not mean they were "known of having used excessive force". This might be rebutted if the terms of the settlement acknowledged wrongdoing and, specifically, excessive force. However, this is not a necessary aspect of a settlement. In essence, you have unproven allegations which cannot indicate whether this incident is an instance of excessive force. I do think that if the officer's (unproven) past is retained, then it makes sense to have the decedent's past in the article. Both achieve the same end: allowing the audience to speculate about the incident. If we want speculation, we ought to make it balanced. Perennial Student (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: A victim's criminal record is not relevant to a case like this. A perpetrator's record is directly related and in this case has been properly reported in multiple reliable sources per WP:NPOV. If OP were taken seriously, we'd have to remove significant portions of Jeffrey Dahmer's early life section because he was never convicted of killing animals or underage drinking. Kire1975 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dahmer is long dead, so that comparison falls flat. I'll reiterate that in nearly every case like this, the histories of both parties are often brought up to attempt to paint a character portrait. Often, for black victims, the intent is to show the victim "wasn't a saint" to justify the killing/murder (especially by white officers). I always fight those on the grounds they are UNDUE unless they come up in court (in which case we should mention it in the trial portion, not the biography portion). But what's good for the goose... this should apply to the alleged perpetrators too. IMO, it's just a matter of time before we add that material but we should wait until the presumptive court filings. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Facts are facts, per WP:CRYBLP. Removing these facts because it reflects poorly on some guys who stood on a guy's neck for seven minutes while he was crying "Mama Mama" and did nothing but say "Don't do drugs kids" until he died before they get a chance to defend themselves in court is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Kire1975 (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, there is the possibility that the decedent's history is relevant (as has been pointed out below iirc). This is if it were known that the victim had a violent past to the officers and in turn caused increased anxiousness on the part of the arresting officers to control the victim. This is not known and, perhaps rightly, it ought not be included unless it demonstrated. But it's not true that criminal history necessarily bears no relevance to the incident. Perennial Student (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've posted on BLPN to seek more input on this. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_George_Floyd_-_Inclusion_of_Officers'_histories. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose; agree with Kire1975 and their reasoning above. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support including Chauvin's history. Amy Klobuchar opted not to prosecute him when she was Hennepin County DA in 2006. This could impact her in the Biden veepstakes. It's getting considerable coverage and seems highly relevant to this case.[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support or Oppose depends on whether the relevance to the article is clearly established and any material complies with Wiki rules for living persons 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:6 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support including Chauvin's history. It is relevant and it is covered in multiple RS. It also helps explains Chauvin's action. It is clear from media coverage that this was not a one-off and this article should reflect that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support including whatever portions of the officers' histories are treated as significant by RSes. I'd say that's at least their professional disciplinary histories, and possibly also matters beyond that. Also, can this be un-pinned and closed? Is it still a live issue? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support in as much capacity as it is reported in RS. Levivich and Quinn said it well.--Calthinus (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support including police officers history. I think it is important context as they are the aggressor. In contrast as George Floyd was not the aggressor and had the action done to him. I don't feel his past convictions are relevant as his actions are not in dispute. --Evertent (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of past records of police at this stage, per arguments of EvergreenFir, that consistency demands it pre-trial. In this particular instance, it is very difficult to see what these officers could possibly do to more completely destroy their own credibility than they have already done. However the inclusion of this info cannot serve any useful purpose, except to further prejudice opinion against them - characterise them as bad beyond what they have themselves done and allowed to be witnessed and filmed. In many European countries (inc UK), the publishing of this info before or during a trial would constitute contempt of court, since it makes actual trial little more than a 'rubber-stamp' of the 'court of public opinion'. Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support including Chauvin's history. RS reveal that he has had a disciplinary history revealing problematic behavior throughout his career. This is directly relevant to the case. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, less because of what it says about the officers individually than because of what it says about police departments' appalling tolerance of criminals in their own ranks. EEng 13:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• We should not report allegations of prior misconduct by either the officers or Mr. Floyd. Allegations against the officers where no findings or discipline resulted do not mean that misconduct occurred— anyone can file a complaint. Records of Floyd's prior arrests also mean nothing, especially given the racial disparity in arrests. It is arguable whether actual adverse findings in either situation are relevant, but we should not invite the reader to draw inferences from mere allegations of misconduct. Kablammo (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Kablammo—don't we have a section on this page where you can address whether we can address information about George Floyd? Furthermore, prison sentences should not be construed as "allegations of prior misconduct" as they follow on convictions legally obtained. And additionally you say "we should not invite the reader to draw inferences". That is correct. I agree that we should not write in a way that invites the reader to "draw inferences". On the other hand we should not deliberately omit relevant information prominently found in sources. That is suppression of information. Fortunately Wikipedia is not censored. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support including information on Chauvin's history as a policeman. Obscurely sourced information on Chauvin's history as a policeman should be omitted but prominently sourced information about Chauvin's history as a policeman should be included. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support including Chauvin's record of complaints and involvement in the death of several other citizens. Terasaface (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include relevant information. Relevant information would be the two times Chauvin was reprimanded for conduct complaints. The other 16 complaints aren't relevant; anyone can file a complaint. The accident he helped cause is irrelevant. The shootings that were found to be justified are irrelevant. The award for valor...probably irrelevant, unless he got it because he dragged other cops off a suspect they were beating up or something. Oppose including the irrelevant stuff. —valereee (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Header/main Photo

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

---

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

DizzyDawn, Wikipedia is not censored. Ed6767 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. The man could literally be dead in that photo, we don't post pictures of corpses or active killings in every article, do we? Just because the tech makes it possible in this case doesn't mean it should be done. You have a real twisted idea of censorship DizzyDawn (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is all you really have here, based on Wiki guidelines. Comment on the sources, not the editor, who didn't personally insult you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.50 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — 50.111.48.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DizzyDawn, the man could literally be dead, yes, but if it is the best photo that illustrates the incident (in this case the officer on Floyd's neck) then Imo, it stays. Yes, it might not be respectful, but this is what happened and people should see it. We shouldn't censor it purely to be respectful. Ed6767 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It is very illustrative, but I can see this being objectionable to some. We could do as we do on the Pornhub article and collapse the image by default. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, you can put the image somewhere else in the article, I'm asking for it to be removed from the header, again hardly censorship. Again, we don't put images like that in every article about a killing, just because it's available doesn't mean we should shove it in people's faces. This is literally traumatic for the black community. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not used to using the talk pages, I figured out where the info was to do it. I usually just clarify articles. @Ed6767:. Anyway, what @Thjarkur: said sounds reasonable. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

DizzyDawn, I'll let other people reach consensus but it is traumatic for everyone, but this is what happened. I don't think it should be moved elsewhere as of yet, and while a collapsible section as Þjarkur suggested may be okay in some other articles, here I don't really think so. Like articles regarding horrific historical groups and events like Einsatzgruppen have disturbing photos too, but these are not censored, yes because they are historical but shouldn't this be too? Ed6767 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: This question was proposed and failed in 2005. Kire1975 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kire1975: That was 15 years ago, Wikipedia has far expanded public use since then - maybe it should be re-evaluated. But the proposal was to make it a policy to automatically do it for all "disturbing" images. This is just one image in this case on an ongoing issue that many people may want to look up on wikipedia. DizzyDawn (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If your argument is "that was 15 years ago", then by all means open up a new discussion at WP:PUMP and gain new community WP:CONSENSUS with a new proposal. Consensus can definitely change, however you still have yet to demonstrate that such change has actually been established. Until then, you could argue that it was 30 years ago, 80 years ago, 300 years ago, or 800 years ago that Wikipedia made X, Y and Z decisions, and it would still not matter from a policy perspective. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that photo even kosher for us to publish? Has anyone looked at its provenance to see if we are allowed to use it? It look shaky to me. [3] -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Any WP:!VOTE that takes place here would be tantamount to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which in my perspective would be unacceptable. If change is desired, it should be a community-wide decision to change existing Wikipedia policy, rather than a local consensus to skirt around WP:NOTCENSORED policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm confused by your reasoning. There is no local consensus trying to "skirt around" WP:NOTCENSORED. I cited the Manual of Style, and a specific quote from it, which is a policy. Just because you also found a policy that supports your opinion does not invalidate that the MoS for lead images is also a guideline. No one is saying the image should be removed from the article. No one is censoring it. People are saying it's unfit for the lead image. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow... Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines ...and occasional exceptions may apply. (Emphasis mine). MOS:IMAGES is a guideline, WP:NOT is policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but I think you're misusing WP:NOTCENSORED. The point is that stuff shouldn't be actively omitted, not that a photo which can be placed in the article shouldn't be used as the lead photo if it's a photo of a dead, or likely dead, person. The example given in MOS:IMAGES is explicitly this. How is it that not using a photo of someone dead or dying on the Holocaust article isn't censorship but wanting to do the same here for the same reason is censorship? DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding the usage of a photograph which may contain dead or dying people within the infobox header is largely attributed to the western-centric cultural taboo that such photographs are disrespectful to the dead, and therefore should not be shared; this can be seen from the very first line at the top of this talk page section: It's literally a photo of a man being murdered, we could be more respectful of Floyd and the people who want to look up this incident. Thus, I would argue that the suggestion to remove or relocate images of the dead are, more likely than not, efforts to adhere to this western cultural norm. Making changes in deference to cultural sensibilities and anticipation of potential offence to the reader is one of the categories of censorship, in the same manner that removing depictions of the Prophet Muhammad or replacing the given names of deceased Australian Aboriginals with "auntie" or "uncle" would be censorship.

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

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

If your issue is with cultural implications, fine, but that isn't what I said nor is it my reasoning. It has nothing to do with death being taboo in Western culture or being disrespectful, my concern is that I heavily disagree with it not being a shock image. It's an image of a person actively being suffocated. The issue is not that he's dead but the means of death is violent and disturbing. Two of the factors listed there that make a shock image are something being racist, which this photo is widely considered to be, and something being violent, which this photo also is. There are plenty of other ways to illustrate this topic that doesn't contain those things. If your reasoning is assuming my cultural background (which I don't particularly understand since it's not something I've written about here on Wikipedia), I do believe there's reasons outside of cultural bias for the change. You mentioned something another person wrote at the top of the page to discuss that point. I agree with your sentiment and others that broader consensus is needed on this so I've put in an RfC to hopefully have other editors voice their opinion. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 04:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Would it help if the dying man in the picture wasn't actively being suffocated, as the ME says George Floyd wasn't? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find western-centric cultural taboo in the guidelines and policies. Also, developing consensus on an article talk page for issues pertaining to the article is normal editing. There is nothing here that requires site-wide agreement. I think that is a bit over the top. And DanielleTH has presented a valid point per MOS per shock value. I agree the image is shocking but I also think it is appropriate for this article. Perhaps someone can propose an image to replace the current lead image. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument, my reference to western taboos is within the context of explaining what censorship is, and was not in reference to Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the shock value of the image in question is a subjective matter, and cannot be concretely determined, so it's normal that there would be disagreement as to whether the "shock" aspect of the MOS applies here. For the sake of allowing the discussion to move forward, I'm willing to drop my WP:LOCALCONSENSUS position, however I still passively believe that such decisionmaking works against the general spirit of the policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, western-centric cultural taboo is the straw man in that such "taboos" are not part of guidelines and policies. That is sociology or anthropology but on Wikipedia it is WP:OR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are not here to improve this Wikipedia article, but rather here to "own" me and win an internet argument, given that you're so fixated on the semantics behind my wording, rather than the inherent message behind it. I see no benefit in continuing this conversation with you, since it is objectively non-constructive. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Benlisquare: I apologize if it seems I misunderstood your above argument. I re-read your insights behind how censorship operates in society. I think this is an excellent description of some of the mechanisms behind censorship. In fact, looking at this post in its entirety, this is the first time I can see what may be behind editors' motivation behind claiming NOT CENSORED.

However, it seems this cannot be a one-size-fits-all argument that should be applied to everyone here.

I think you have described one of the possible motivations behind censorship, i.e., being offended. But it doesn't mean, for example, people want the image removed strictly because they are offended, or because it goes against perceived societal norms. Trauma and racism are other valid arguments. For example, diminishing and trivializing the cultural heritage of the Aztecs:

At SDSU football games, a human mascot parades around the field, including during half-time, supposedly dressed like an Aztec warrior (please read this short article).

His job is sort of like a cheerleader, in an outfit that is probably not an accurate representation of an Aztec warrior, but is probably someone's idea of what an Aztec warrior should look like, from the perspective of the dominant culture in the United States. Native Americans consider this not only offensive but also racist. Here is another short article on that issue [4].

Another example is the name of the Kansas City NFL team, the Chiefs, and the tomahawk chop the stadium audience does during games. These are also seen as trivializing Native American culture and racist. Also, for example, I think it is a valid argument to remedy these situations, perhaps in the name of cultural sensitivity, respect, making amends, and acknowledging that Native American peoples have been relegated to an inferior place in American society.

And the list goes on with other cultures as well. I don't think it is censorship to make corrections just because people are attached to their alma mater, perceived superior status, or "this is the way things have always been done." So we see such arguments in this thread. Do you see my point? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Rather than we see such arguments in this thread, I mean that there other valid arguments for covering the photo, moving it into the body, or changing it out for something else. Having said that, as you can see below, I have expressed the opinion for keeping this photo along with my rationale. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, regarding desiring site-wide consensus. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a valid view. Also, I was thinking you meant something more than an RFC, which still be a valid view. It's just my view is different as pertains to that issue. Hopefully, I have managed to clear the air. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC: lead photo

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The overwhelming consensus (a rough headcount shows about a 3 to 1 margin) is that the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an appropriate representation of the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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

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

• Keep It illustrates the subject near as directly as photographically possible, every article should be so enriched. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep it is directly on point for this article. Passes WP:WEIGHT. It is most likely the most illustrative image for this topic and is in agreement with the coverage of this topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Meets MOS:PERTINENCE, meets WP:NFCC, visually depicts an essential aspect of the topic that cannot be easily and effectively replaced by prose. Does not meet the criteria of a shock image as there is no blood, no gore, no severed ligaments or bones, no skin deformations, no muscle wasting, no nudity, no sexual imagery, and does not serve to scare the viewer. The same still frame is regularly broadcast on local, state, national, and international television; if it were truly a shock image, this would not be possible. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• 'Keep It depicts the event. Simple. ~ HAL333 19:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per pretty much every other vote above. It illustrates the event appropiately and doesn't meet the criteria for a shock image. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• We should remove it. The photo is graphic in that it depicts a corpse. The actions of the police officer in the photo could also be interpreted as a reference to previous black lives matter protests (e.g., Kaepernick's protest in 2018 [5]) so the image is provocative. If this image has caused so much offence (which it clearly has) then moving it to the body of the article and replacing the header image with the photo of the victim (as was done in a similar article) seems like a reasonable compromise. For the sake of clarity, I strongly support the replacement of the lead image. KohrVid (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We know that he is not dead at this point (Though whether it was possible to save him, unclear), but to call him a "corpse" and thus a reason not to include is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 03:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure we do know that. This wikipedia entry describes him as "motionless" and "pulseless" when the ambulance take him away and states that the killer was still kneeling when they arrived. This PBS article [6] suggests that he was dead as far as the witnesses were concerned. KohrVid (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - this article is about the killing of George Floyd. This image is the best illustration of the incident and should remain the lead image. Ed6767 (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly support the removal of the image. Move it further down the article, replace it, keep it "hidden" as default. This IS a graphic image, this is a current event that has moved multiple countries to protest - it is the shocking active suffocation of a man. This is literally traumatic for Black people who live in and have seen police violence. It is not a historical event that has passed, the friends and family of the man are alive and on the internet today. The news organizations that show the video preface it with "this graphic video may shock you" a warning to people to click away - an internet equivalent is having the image shut by default. DizzyDawn (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not sensationalist, and it is not censored. It is an encyclopedia first and foremost. The point of the matter stands, it appropriately illustrates the event in question, and I have not seen a single support removal vote address that as of yet. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how a show/hide function is in any way censorship. Is it censorship for a movie to give a "graphic violence" warning (sure, restricting the ages is, but not giving a warning). Even moving the photo to lower in the article isn't censorship, you'd be stretching any definition of it. And before anyone says "no disclaimers" you can literally just label the photo. DizzyDawn (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Hard not to bring that up when "no disclaimers in articles" is a legitimate long-standing Wikipedia content guideline... besides, the whole disclaimer matter is already addressed in the content disclaimer page Wikipedia has anyway. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Please also refer to benlin's words on the section above. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Your comment still doesn't explain why simply moving the image to a different part of the article qualifies as "censorship". Also, I'm not sure if this is the intent but you seem somewhat hostile towards User:DizzyDawn. As they have already discussed at length their reasons for supporting the change earlier in the talk page, I'm not sure that your counter-argument adds much value to the debate here. KohrVid (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Censorship does not have a single definition. Like many things, it exists on a spectrum. Hiding something but not removing it outright, based on the justification that it may offend, is a softer form of censorship than book burning, but the existence of harder censorship doesn't mean that lesser forms of censorship are not censorship. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
            • So are all of the other articles about noteworthy homicides that don't use an image of the victim dead or dying as the lead image also examples of censorship? Why is this policy not equally applied to them? KohrVid (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
              • Because Wikipedia is a hobby and not a job, and I can't be everywhere at once, during every major news occurrence, and aware of every single situation. I also do not know the contexts behind those articles, I haven't been involved in any consensus-building discussion for those articles, and I haven't made myself bothered to look into why those articles are the way they are. Other editors are free to look into what's going on for those cases, but as of this current moment, I have no interest in concerning myself with those articles, because I am here. Maybe editors there have come up with a convincing policy-adherent reason to exclude those images, maybe an WP:NFCC-compliant image doesn't exist for those articles, maybe there was never any image used in the first place, maybe the local consensus at the time was in favour of one action or another, I don't know, and I don't need to know. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                • I think you should consider rewording that sort of comment in future. I don't know if you intended to come across as defensive but you do and that seems inappropriate in this context. I've pointed out what is a clear inconsistency in the way that this entry has been handled when compared to other similar Wikipedia entries which don't feature graphic imagery in the header. I've also alluded to the fact that the use of this image might actually serve to glorify the killer in an earlier comment. If you don't know how to counter any of the points I or anyone else has made then that's fine - there's no need to start a fight. KohrVid (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                  • Put simply, I'm focused on the here and now. The immediate issue to address is the content of this article, not the content of other articles, that's all there is to it. Any inconsistencies with other articles is merely a symptom of the user-generated nature of the Wikipedia project, and can't be perfectly avoided. It's a flawed endeavour to use precedent elsewhere as some sort of gauge of accepted norms, hence why "other articles do X, Y and Z" is generally an argument to be avoided or discouraged, and why I've refused to do what some editors have done here and search around for examples of articles that support their own talking points. I mean, I too could point out that Kent State shootings has a literal corpse in the infobox image, but what value does that even bring to the discussion? Zero at all. Just accept the fact that we will never ever see perfect consistency on Wikipedia, and move on towards focusing on this article. To repeat my previous comment, just so we're clear: I don't need to know what other articles do, and I don't want to know what other articles do. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                    • That example seems more like an outlier than anything else possibly because the event isn't as well known. To suggest that norms don’t matter in the context of the George Floyd article seems a little short-sighted in any case. If people come to this article expecting to be informed in an even-handed way and are instead distracted by a graphic header image, the article stops being able to do its job of informing the public in the here and now. This is why the norm of not using graphic imagery in this way that User:DanielleTH cited is important. Furthermore if we decide that these norms only matter when some people say it does, there’s a risk of alienating readers and potential contributors later on which could lead to a decline in the quality of Wikipedia entries overall. KohrVid (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
                      • "Isn't well known" is truly an understatement, they teach about the Kent State shootings here in high school modern history class, and I'm not even American. I think you've essentially illustrated the problem with all of this: Not only is everything inconsistent, but everything is also subjective. You claim that this famous event in history, known for contributing to one of the major shifts in public opinion towards America's military involvements overseas, isn't well known because you might not have heard about it. In three years from now, will people still remember the George Floyd murder in the same way other civil rights struggles are remembered? We don't know, and it's not our place to speculate on it, but it's a great question to ponder upon if you still truly believe that what you have said isn't the epitome of subjectiveness. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
                        • As a Brit under the age of 50 who took History for slightly longer than a lot of people in my country choose to, I can tell you that a lot of us didn’t get taught about that event in school. It really did look like you were scraping the bottom of the barrel on that one just to make a point (though perhaps it’s more well known where you’re from). In any case, no-one made any claims here about objectivity. I’m simply saying that there are norms regarding the use of lead images (as shown by the existence of style guide that mentions lead images) and the fact that they weren’t adhered to in this entry clearly surprised a number of readers. I think if we make a habit of ignoring that sort of thing, we do so at our peril. KohrVid (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
      • What I interpret letscreate123's comment as saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the reasons provided for removal so far have mostly fallen under appeals to emotion (e.g. your earlier post It is not a historical event that has passed, the friends and family of the man are alive and on the internet today.) rather than specific Wikipedia policy that governs what is expected of article content. The question is, are there any policy based reasons that you would like to bring forward to encourage the removal or relocation of this image? As of writing, not one person has provided an adequate challenge to MOS:PERTINENCE yet. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • As I and KohrVid said and defended, it is a shocking image. Just claiming no reason was provided doesn't make it true. DizzyDawn (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
          • As of writing, not one person has provided an adequate challenge to MOS:PERTINENCE yet. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep This is a quintessential use of a non-free image that is the subject of the topic that is causing the entire situation. WP is not censored nor do we mask sensitive images. Yes, understandably, it is "sensitive" in terms of what it means to Black Lives Matter, and the current situation around the US, but one can argue this would be similar for images of Auschwitz for Holocaust victims, Hiroshima in 1945 for Japanese natives, and so on. We recognize that sensitivity and respect a modest use of this image as a key image associate with this death, but we're not going out of our way to hide it further at this point. --Masem (t) 03:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Struggling to find examples of wikipedia entries that use images of the victims dying as lead images even in the examples you've given (Aushwitz, Hiroshima, &c.) KohrVid (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Pretty sure at least 120,000 people are dying in this picture alone, simply from the immediate heat blast, and I'm not even including the 106,000 people who would have died not long after the pictures were taken from local fires, falling debris, blood loss, and fallout poisoning. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I suspect a large part of why that image gets reused is because you can’t actually see the individuals dying as they’re dying. To use this as an example is quite a stretch as by that reasoning, an image from Google Maps would also contain a number of corpses KohrVid (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
        • If an image of Floyd being knelt on by a police officer potentially invokes horrific emotions among African American readers, does an image of the literal physical event that murdered 226,000 people invoke upsetting emotions among Japanese readers? Or, would it be easier to dehumanise the victims of this image because the death of one man is a tragedy, but the death of ten thousand is merely a statistic? How do we make the call for what is and isn't tragic and emotionally tolling for readers? Who makes the call? What makes the call valid? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
          • It’s not about whether it’s easy to dehumanise the people in that picture, my point is that you literally can’t see them. I think it’s enough to assume that most of our readers already have empathy - if reading the contents of the article isn’t enough to humanise the victims for them then said article should be be reworded. But to argue that a photo in which you can’t see any bodies is somehow as graphic as one in which the victim is visible but awkwardly positioned under their killer who takes up most of the frame strikes me as disingenuous. There may be people who find the “mushroom cloud” image offensive but there’s clearly a reason that it was used (both on Wikipedia and elsewhere in the past) and not say, a photo of the remains of one or many of the victims up close. KohrVid (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - the iconic image, widely used by RS, that represents this event. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep it doesnt look like a shock image and it is used in the TV and newspapers without even a warning.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Move the image further into the body of the article. Clearly the image ls shocking enough for MOS:SHOCK. Speaking from personal experience, I was shocked when I pulled up the page and saw the image of the homicide/manslaughter taking place and that the victim could already be dead. I think the image clearly belongs in the article because it does iconically represent the incident. I just think it would be better to move the photo "below the fold" so it is not necessarily the first item a user sees. If we require a photo in the heading we could use the photo of the victim himself. WilliamsJD (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep it, as it depicts the event the article is about -- ChaTo (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I don't think a more relevant image exists of George Floyds killing; however, I understand the shock value argument under MOS:SHOCK, but there really is no other possible image to use as the beginning photo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Iamreallygoodatcheckers - I absolutely hate the actions and the image however emotions aside there really is no better placement for this image and as per NOTCENSORED we shouldn't remove it (I completely agree there's SHOCK to the image but as I said there's no better placement for it). –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Replace or Move As others have stated, this image is shocking. It is basically a snuff image of someone being killed. And per Wikipedia's rules on lead images, MOS:LEADIMAGE, a lead image "should be of least shock value." Classicintense (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. MOS:SHOCK doesn't say the lead image shouldn't be shocking. What it says is: an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. Has "an alternative image that accurately represents" the death of George Floyd been proposed? I honestly haven't the time to read every comment in this RfC to find out. I'm not sure how we could be "accurate" without being shocking, but I'm open to suggestions.
  The closest equivalent that comes to mind is the lead image at Shooting of Walter Scott. Depicted there is Scott running from Slager, about two seconds before going down with five bullets in him. That is shocking, graphic, something rarely seen outside movies, but it's also the best available representation of the subject event. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the #1 photo used all over the Internet to represent Floyd's murder. It will stand the test of time, by the looks of things. We are an encyclopedia... how can we not use it? I understand it is graphic, but it is the most representative photo available for the topic of the article. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Change that to Move. This image is virtually synonymous with this article. Update: I have struck my earlier "keep" vote. My current thinking is the image should be moved to lower in the article. A preferable uppermost image would be of George Floyd alive. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The image encapsulates the entirety of the topic. It is iconic. WWGB (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Move. If an image accurately representing the topic without shock value is preferred (MOS:SHOCK), surely even a less tight photo of the same moment is preferable. I was shocked to find this as the lead image, I think may belong in the article but certainly not here. The videos of the situation provide plenty of options for more comprehensive and less abruptly shocking visuals. It's hard to get more spot-on with the subject but if it were possible to use photos of the aftermath or reactions to this event, I think that would also be more illustrative and less unnecessarily shocking. Clevelad (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• It is horrifying and heart-rending. It is also reality. Keep. Kablammo (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Kablammo one can still depict this reality without having it as the first image of the article. It's not like we have images of the piles of dead bodies for the Christchurch shootings page or Pulse Night Club shooting page despite the fact that dozens of such images exist. The debate is not about entirely removing the image, but about whether it should be in the infobox. I struggle to think of any other wiki articles on murders that depicts victims dying, so there is no precedent for featuring Floyd's death as the first image. Byconcept (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    Those are mass murders, not killing of unarmed black people by police officers. Apples and oranges. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Move While Wikipedia is not censored, that is no valid excuse to depict someone dying in the lead. Shock value is a stupid excuse to keep anything. The lead image of the Assassination of John F. Kennedy is not the up close gory photo of his head (which ironically is censored on here because it is so graphic.). Someone, I can’t recall whom, on Twitter asked why the media keeps circulating and perpetuating images of black death and trauma ad nauseam so prominently, compared to other races. Since people come to Wikipedia for information, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is, the very least we can do to change narratives, stigmas, and prejudices is to use the photo of his face that was ostensibly provided by his family. Trillfendi (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Trillfendi—I voted "keep" but I am sympathetic to the concerns. If a person close to the deceased—next of kin, close friend, significant other—voiced opposition, I would support moving the image to a lower position. I don't know how that could come about—by email, OTRS, weighing in on this page—but I for one would be receptive to such recommendation. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. This article is about a death of person A at the hands (or knee) of person B. What clearer depiction could there be about the subject matter? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Move It's an image worthy of being in the wiki article, but it should not be the first image on the page, especially considering it could be considered graphic as it depicts death and (arguably) murder. I know that wiki is not censored but to my knowledge, no other 'Killing Of' wiki page has the dead/dying body in the infobox (nor is this the case with mass killing pages), so there is no prior precedent for having a graphic image in the infobox. Byconcept (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  There's Death of Eric Garner, Shooting of Tamir Rice, Shooting of Alton Sterling, Shooting of Oscar Grant, Shooting of Terence Crutcher, and, as noted above, Shooting of Walter Scott. Murder of Laquan McDonald has the video of his death under the infobox. It's rare that an image of one of these kinds of killings exists at all, rarer still that the image becomes widely circulated and iconic, but when it does, we put it in the lead. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • of the pages you listed, Eric is the only comparable example. Terence's image is a blurry one where the person in question can barely be seen, Oscar doesn't depict the actual murder, Alton depicts the altercation not the shooting, and the Tamir image is so blurry that nothing can be made out. I agree that such images are rare, however. Byconcept (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. It's not a shock image at all, there is no blood or gore. – Anne drew 18:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not censored and what could possibly illustrate the killing of George Floyd better than.... the photo of the killing of George Floyd? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep it's not a shocking image absent from the knowledge of what is happening (no blood or gore), and even with that knowledge, it is largely realising the sustained cold-bloodedness of the action that shocks ... and what could possibly illustrate the topic better? Pincrete (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The image is not bloody or gorey. Although it displays a repugnant act, that act is the subject of the article, and prominent inclusion of the image is entirely due. Indeed, failing to prominently display the image may leave the reader with the wrong sense of the nature of Floyd's killing. Wikipedia is not censored. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep — this is a disturbing image that is now iconic, and no image can even remotely serve as an equivalent description of this event. To those writing that this image is traumatic: it is, and that is why there have been global protests against Floyd's killing. -Darouet (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Darouet—many of us feel it is abrasive to the sensibilities of people of the identity depicted. I wish you would weigh in about that. Why should we run roughshod over people of an identity? I think it is utterly unnecessary, which is to say it is gratuitous. Are we trying to impact the reader visually? The information contained in the image would be available to the reader if its placement were in a lower slot in the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

People of the identity depicted ... people of an identity – what does those even mean? EEng 17:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng—I would contend that in this image there are identities depicted. They are the superficial identities based on skin color and features, etc., but identities nevertheless. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You speak in riddles. EEng 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really. I am avoiding speaking only about black people. Any identity in an unflattering light, it could be argued, should not grace the uppermost slot of an article. That is an argument. It has to be weighed against an argument which says that it illustrates the article well, even if it depicts a given identity in an unflattering light. The photo currently under discussion definitely shows a man in a very unflattering light. I don't think it should be in the uppermost position in the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what are these "identities" you keep talking about. Any identity in a flattering light – I have no idea what that means. EEng 09:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"I have no idea what are these "identities" you keep talking about." There are many sorts of identity, EEng, but the most interesting one I think is Cultural identity. It could be difficult to totally define what is meant by cultural identity. But it is not unheard of for a person to either identify as black or white, depending on a variety of factors, including the milieu in which they've had many of their more meaningful experiences such as childhood or just "hanging out". Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That is an argument. What basis does that argument have in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or common practice? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—are we aiming for maximal visual impact? If not, this image could be in a lower part of the article. The information contained in it would still be available to the reader even if it were in a lower part of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What basis does that argument have in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or common practice? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—I believe I could ask the same question of you. Would policies and guidelines indicate its placement should be at the top of the article instead of lower in the article? No one is arguing for its complete removal. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

First, this article's subject is the killing of Floyd, not Floyd. The latter would be a biography of Floyd. Do you dispute that point? I hope not, since that would mean you understand very little about what makes a Wikipedia article subject. Let's assume you don't dispute the point for now.

MOS:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should...illustrate the topic [the killing of Floyd] specifically...". "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred". No alternative image that accurately represents the killing of Floyd has been proposed, so that passage does not apply here. Certainly the image you suggested, a picture of Floyd, does not represent his killing in any way shape or form. "Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value". Such as, for example, a case where the subject itself is inherently and unavoidably shocking. "Editors may assume, per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, that readers are aware that such articles may contain such images."

Okay, I have responded to your request for basis in good faith. Now please respond to mine in similar fashion, or stop commenting here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—could you please stop telling me "Now please respond to mine in similar fashion, or stop commenting here"? Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll consider that your concession. Have a good day! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a concession at all. MOS:IMAGES also tells us "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". It is one of those exceptions that we are discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - What I find offensive is that after more than half a century of front page news, it is still happening. That photo conveys a lot more than paragraphs of he said - she said. The story is not just the murder of George Floyd, but the context of that murder. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"That photo conveys a lot more than paragraphs of he said - she said." Wouldn't it convey as much at a lower position in the article, Chatul? Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

From MOS:IMAGES#Images for the lead: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; ... Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value,"

• Keep. Per MOS, The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. ..Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Indeed, this is precisely the image a reader would expect to see because this image is everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTCENSORED. WP:DISC. --letcreate123 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion for a compromise. Further down on the talk page, there's discussion of merging this article and the article for George Floyd per WP:1E. While it's true that the current lead image is the most relevant and descriptive, it is also true that it is shocking and that an alternative image would be preferable if one was available. Both these problems could be solved with the merger, as the most relevant image for the merged article would be an image of Floyd, but the relevant and descriptive image currently used as the lead would appear under the "Killing of" section. Thoughts? Pacack (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You are correct, Pacack. George Floyd and the killing of George Floyd are inseparable. Reader interest in one is inseparable from reader interest in the other. We are making artificial distinctions. I think we should have one article and we should choose an appropriately "biographical" image at the top. The second image could be the one currently at top of this article. I favor merging George Floyd into Killing of George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  The proposal is to merge George Floyd into Killing of George Floyd, deleting the former and leaving the latter – not the reverse. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification, Mandruss. I actually was confused about that myself. --Pacack (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Move This is a shocking image of a man moments before his death. At the moment of this image, he is pleading for his life. Yes, this is an article about his killing but I do not think it is acceptable to show a graphic image of a murder on the top of a Wikipedia page. I have read comments above that say this image is not "gory" or "bloody" but this man was asphyxiated and this image is the equivalent of blood and gore in this case. We should not continue to circulate images of black folks in the moments before death. It is disrespectful and dehumanizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terasaface (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As examples I have looked at the articles for Death of Neda Agha-Soltan and Emmett Till, both of which show images of the person at the top and the more graphic images down below. I suggest if this page is merged with George Floyd we use the photo of his face on that page at the top of this page Terasaface (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The image is shocking, but it's what RS are showing as the iconic image for this subject. I think that means that of course we have to use it. It's terribly upsetting, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful. —valereee (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are y’all calling the image of a man’s death “iconic“? He isn’t Jesus. Trillfendi (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There are icons, then there are pop icons or cultural icons. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Trillfendi, I don't want to speak for anyone else but me and my interpretation of the image, but I think you're missing the point. The lead image is not so much an image of George Floyd. It's an image of Derek Chauvin. To me, it's not an image of a man dying so much as it's an image of a white police officer with his knee on a black man's neck, with hand on hip and the clearest "What the fuck are you gonna do about it?" facial expression I've ever seen. That image sums up police brutality against black people better than any other image I've ever seen in my life. I think it's widely circulated and used as a summation or representation of police brutality for that reason. That, to me, is what makes it iconic: that it's so widely circulated. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the picture should be in the article. We are discussing whether it should be in the uppermost position. I don't think there is any justification for it being the topmost image. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The question at the RfC was not about moving the "lead photo", but about removing it. Therefore, none to few people suggested to move it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be the lead image, because it's the most iconic image of the killing of George Floyd. The image represents not just the topic, but the very reason the topic is notable to begin with. What triggered this event--the firings, the criminal charges, the protests, the riots, the reforms, all of it--is the circulation of a video showing police officers killing a man, slowly over the course of ten minutes, in broad daylight, while being filmed, with a "what are you going to do about it?" demeanor, preventing bystanders from intervening, not even getting up when the medics arrived... that is what this is all about. It's not even so much that it happened, as that we have it recorded on video. That's what makes the killing of George Floyd unique, even compared to other killings of unarmed black men by police. This still from the video is the essence of the topic. If I were to tell this story in two images, it would be lead image and the mugshot of Chauvin. If I picked three images, it would be the lead image, the mugshot of Chauvin, and probably that picture of the guy with the American flag upside down in front of a building fire. These are the images that best tell the story. This lead image is very much like the lead image at Phan Thi Kim Phuc. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. But I would say the photo of Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich—you write "If I were to tell this story in two images, it would be lead image and the mugshot of Chauvin." Wikipedia is not a Picture book. It is primarily verbal. And images wherever they are found in an article convey the exact same information. There is not more or better information contained in an image at the top of an article. It is simply the first image a reader encounters when landing on an article. Impact is increased by this particular image being in the uppermost placement of this article. And therein lies the problem. We should be endeavoring to decrease the impact of this particular image in this particular article. Wikipedia is not picture book. And furthermore our basic aim is to inform. The hurtful aspect of this image is the sorry state of the black man. We want to minimize our role in searing that image into readers' minds. Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with "We should be endeavoring to decrease the impact of this particular image in this particular article" and "We want to minimize our role in searing that image into readers' minds". To me, WP:NPOV means we don't do that; we don't decrease or increase or otherwise change the impact of anything. To the contrary, we should reflect the impact. If something is prominent or impactful in the sources, it should be similarly prominent or impactful in our article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you not contriving to develop maximum impact from the inclusion of that image? By arguing for its placement in the uppermost position, you are arguing to derive as much impact as possible from that image. But wikipedia is not about "impact". We are not trying to tug at the heartstrings of the reader. We are here to provide information. The image contains the exact same information no matter where it appears in the article. Please explain why it has to be in the uppermost position. Do you think perhaps the reader will fail to see it if it is in a lower position? This project is primarily verbal. Images can be misleading. I am not saying that this image is misleading. The fact that death followed soon after this image was made indicates that this photo is not misleading. But we should not get in the habit of of giving precedence to images over verbal information. We can't "adjust" images. They are what they are. If they happen to be misleading, the very valid argument can be made that the image represents visual truth. But that which is verbal is very different. The burden is on us to choose the language that best represents reality as conveyed to us by a broad array of the best quality sources. If an image is hurtful but nevertheless on-topic we should lower its position in the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not contriving to develop maximum impact from the inclusion of that image. Again, we shouldn't be concerned with maximizing or minimizing impact. The reason it should be the lead image is because it is the image that best represents the topic. It is also the image most associated with the topic. In a word, it's iconic, as val defines it below: so inextricably associated with an event that it can symbolize that event. The image that is most widely seen as symbolizing this event is that still frame of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have to unnecessarily hurt anyone's feelings. It doesn't matter if it best represents the topic. Are you saying the topic wouldn't be represented if the image were lower in the article? Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying there is no other image I'm aware of that's a better choice for the lead image of this article. To me, "best represents the topic" matters a lot; it's the standard by which a lead image should be chosen. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My original vote was to keep the present image. I am changing my vote because several people found it objectionable. I can understand those objections. And I don't think "lead image" means much more than "uppermost image". There is no great significance to placement, in my opinion, aside from impactfulness. It is less impactful to encounter an image when one peruses an article than to encounter an image at the moment one arrives at an article. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

A sample option. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

An option unlikely to be deleted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Trillfendi, just shorthand for 'an image so inextricably associated with an event that it can symbolize that event.' —valereee (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Remove from the infobox; the act of the "killing" can be portrayed by other means, such as picture of a memorial. The image of the mural was taken at the site of where he died. I share the concerns about the Lynching postcards expressed below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, that image unfortunately is up for deletion for being a derivative work. —valereee (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: there are other images on Commons that may be suitable, such as in Category:George Floyd Memorial. For example, this image shows the victim's last words that are easily recognizable: "Please, I can't breath. My stomach hurts...". There are ways to represent a "killing" without showing the killing itself and without invoking the spirit of a lynching postcard. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion Pasdecomplot was correct in comparing this image to a Lynching postcard. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. A killing is best represented by the killing. EEng 04:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, but the informational content is the same regardless of its placement in the article. Bus stop (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, the information content would be very different because many readers only look at the Figures and do not read anything. This is something all writers of scientific papers know. Ideally, the idea of a scientific paper should be obvious just by looking at the figures. This also led to introduction of lead/icon images in many journals like JACS. My very best wishes (talk)

• You say "the information content would be very different". In what way would the information content be different? Please speak about this article rather than the "JACS". Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Move to a lower placement in the article. Bus stop (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Other articles on extrajudicial killings showing photos of the victims at lead image:
  • Lynching of Jesse Washington
  • Lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith
  • Willy Brown
  • 1920 Duluth lynchings
  • Lynching of Laura and L. D. Nelson
  • Lynching of Jay Lynch
  • James Clark (lynching victim)

Kablammo (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Kablammo—did you happen to notice that the examples you are giving are from the first half of the 20th century? Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What struck me that of all these photos including the one in issue, all of the participants are dead save one, Derek Chauvin, who is the only person who could benefit from a less prominent placement of his image. Kablammo (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The emotions evoked by an early 20th century image are different from the emotions evoked by an image from 2020. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If your point is that writings (even the encyclopedic ones) should not cause emotions, this is wrong idea. To the contrary, they should cause emotions if you want someone to read them. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

An image of George Floyd dying is objectionable because he is of our time and many of us are sensitive about depictions of death, all the more so when they involve our contemporaries. Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The question I ask time and time again, which no one seems to want to address, is how does that relate to Wikipedia policy? --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop benlisquare The policy WP:INFOBOXIMAGE states "When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used"; the policy MOS:LEADIMAGE states "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." Terasaface (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Terasaface—thank you for pinging me. I agree that this image is "disrespectful and dehumanizing". My feeling is that it should remain in the article but in a much lower position. As uppermost image it is maximally egregious and this is utterly uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree! Terasaface (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

What part of WP:INFOBOXIMAGE or MOS:LEADIMAGE state that they are policy? Futhermore, how do either parts of the Manual of Style that you have linked have any relevance to An image of George Floyd dying is objectionable because he is of our time? What part of Wikipedia policies, or hell, even Wikipedia style recommendation guides, make reference to the time period and contemporariness of a topic being a valid measurement of how article content becomes acceptable or not? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I still stand by the fact that a killing is best illustrated by the event itself, no matter how disturbing it may be. You don't exactly click on an article with "killing" in the title expecting puppies and kittens and lovely lush meadows, not to mention (if it indeed pays any relevance) media outlets such as Inside Edition consistently keep replaying this video, far more than any video of any memorial. Ed6767 talk! 11:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Move as already stated above. Shall we look at some other examples of folks who have been killed by the police and notice how none of these pages features a photo of a man potentially post-mortem? I again state that we must move this image further down the article and at the top feature either a photo of George Floyd or - as many of the following articles do - have a map of where he was killed at the top, a photo of Floyd in the background section, and the photo of the moment of death down further with the links to the video. It is not censorship to move the most graphic photo to further down the article. Looking at the Racial bias on Wikipedia, let's take a minute to acknowledge this a predominantly white platform arguing about the prominence of an image of a graphic death of a Black man. What may be "important" or "iconic" for a non-black person to see as a evidence of a police killing, repeatedly seeing these types of graphic images is causing acute stress and PTSD in communities historically plauged with police violence. Again, I am not advocating for removal or censorship, but it simply should not be the first thing we see on this page.
  • Shooting of Justine Damond
  • Shooting of Michael Brown
  • Murder of Laquan McDonald
  • Shooting of Kuanchung Kao
  • Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery
  • Shooting of Philando Castile
  • Shooting of Trayvon Martin

I would like to also bring up MOS:IMAGELEAD which states that "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred" and WP:INFOBOXIMAGE which states that "When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used." These both seem quite clear to me and I am not sure why we are still having this discussion around an image which on the basis of Wikipedia policy alone is clearly not the proper image for the lead photo in this article. Terasaface (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This is because MOS:IMAGELEAD tells: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." It is precisely the image a user expects to see on this page because it was published everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• That would be a reasonable argument if the photo would only show George Floyd (as the photos of victims on other pages). But the photo shows the actual killing, which is the subject of this page. In addition, on pages like Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery moving his photo to the infobox (instead of the map of Georgia, which really irrelevant!) would be a good idea. I would strongly support moving images of victims on these other pages to the infoboxes. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes I am not sure that I understand your stance, could you clarify? I am arguing that the lead photo should not be the most graphic image we can show. Are you saying that the graphic image at the top is what you would prefer even though it is not what MOS:IMAGELEAD and WP:INFOBOXIMAGE state as our Wikipedia policies? I agree that in the case you mentioned, a photo of Arbery would be better suited than the map as the lead image. Yet, I still argue we should use an image of Floyd alive rather than the image currently at the lead.Terasaface (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGELEAD and WP:INFOBOXIMAGE are not policies. It even says very clearly at the top of the page: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This image if fully consistent with MOS:IMAGELEAD. It tells: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." It is precisely the image a user expects to see on this page because it was published everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It can be "fully consistent with MOS:IMAGELEAD" and still be deemed best placed at a lower part of the article. This is a 2020 image being considered for placement in 2020. We should be concerned with the feelings of the contemporaries of George Floyd (as well as others). I think the informational value in the image is inarguable—it certainly should be in the article. The image tends to show a black person in a way that is so disrespectful that it is off the charts. The lower placement in the article allows the value to be retained while toning down the shock to the person just arriving at the article. I don't think this applies to all persons. And I don't even think it breaks down by black and white—some of us have constitutions that are unmoved by the depiction of things that send others into virtual shock. It is unnecessary and I think distasteful to present this image first. A picture of George Floyd in life would be far preferable. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Choose different video 'frame' for killing

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

Why would showing the condition of a victim be disrespectful? (Real question, not rhetorical)--ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The foam was there all along. When Floyd was removed from his own vehicle, Lane noted that there was "foam at the edges" of Floyd's mouth.[7] WWGB (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Pasdecomplot makes an entirely valid comparison to Lynching postcards. I don't think we should be choosing the most gruesome photo we can find for the uppermost position in the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks bus stop 8+ minutes of video images x 60 secs = 480+ possible screen shots. Issues in selected screenshot comparable to lynching postcards include 1.Killers (Chauvin in this instance) look pleased/smile for camera. 2.Scenes glorify the gore of mob violence; The very visible substance on Floyd's mouth contributes to the gore. 3.Postcards purposefully glorify racial domination of white supremacist mobs; in the image 'strongman' Chauvin's knee on neck, his facial expression & relaxed body posture, VS the 'weakman' white substance and constrained posture. All invoke strong comparisons to lynching postcards.WWGB Lane's statement may or may not be accurate, given history of police cover-ups. But, the white substance was not visible when filming began. So, at least 479 other screenshots are possible, meaning image at issue can easily be changed. Using another image where Chauvin looks less pleased, as in the mace moment, reduces valid comparisons to lynching postcards, thus is also more respectful ExperiencedArticleFixer because we're consciously not making an image similar to lynching postcards. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Placement matters too. There is no valid reason for this image to be in the uppermost placement. We are not trying to impress upon the reader the horror of this incident by means of an image. Images are used because they convey a variety of types of information. The exact same information is conveyed by an image no matter where it is placed in an article, which is to say that this particular image carries the same information lower down in the article as it does in the uppermost position. Many on this page have objected to its current placement. I think it should be moved to a lower portion of the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Clipping the image frame

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

Of course not because the subject of this page is not the victim or the killer, but the murder. That is what this image shows. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is NOT about George Floyd. It is about the killing of George Floyd. That's why the title is "Killing of George Floyd", not "George Floyd". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's common to keep related discussions together under one level-2 section. All of this is about the lead image and therefore related. Nothing here is closed as far as I can see. Anyway, I don't know why you're asking me specifically, as I'm not the editor who moved this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

RFC on Floyd's criminal past

Should we mention George Floyd's past crimes?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes of course it should be included because it is notable. If there's going to be a biographical section on Floyd then it is censorship to include only details that tend towards one kind of portrayal. 95.144.47.53 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
2. I think so... biographical details about both Floyd and Chauvin are relevant to the case because they are the primary characters. Biographical details includes their personalities, a brief description of their life, including criminal history if significant. Having info on Floyd, both good and bad, is better than having nothing on him. This is an encyclopedia, and details are often relevant even if they are not directly connected by the article's title. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Yes. If we are going to have a biography section for the individual, then the fact that (BLP violation removed) is probably a more important biographical detail than the fact that he liked basketball and hip-hop ("essential facts" which we currently deem important enough to include in the biography section of George Floyd). CrimeChecker (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)— CrimeChecker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

   CrimeChecker, how is that relevant to the death of George Floyd?, the topic of this article. Notice that we have a biography of living person policy on Wikipedia and that policy also applies to those who recently died. You are not allowed to make accusations without any evidence. The DailyMail is a tabloid and is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia ever. I have removed your WP:BLP violation. Please don't do that again.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   ^this editor was created today. Their comment should be ignored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   You can verify the Daily Mail screenshot by going to the Harris County Clerk website yourself. However, it requires creating an account and logging in. Lcaa9 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   Lcaa9, actually you don't need to create an account. You can search on harriscountyso.org using SPN 01610509. – RossJ81 ^Talk/_Cont 21:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Yes, because it's relevant to even a short account of his life. Jim Michael (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Yes, because it is an important part of his biography and has been reported widely. There is no reason to suppress it, and in fact suppressing it could be considered POV. BLP certainly does apply to him, as a recently deceased person, but BLP says we can include negative information if it has multiple reliable sources. The officer’s previous record should also be included, as it currently is. See my suggested wording under "discussion" below. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Yes. It is important to provide context. If the page mentions Floyd's background as a rapper and high school athlete, it should mention the rest of his life prior to his death. KidAd (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Yes, because whole his life should be briefly described and because this is something noted in RS on the subject of his death [8]. It is relevant because RS say it is relevant. All previous complaints with regards to involved police officers should also be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
8. Yes, unless the biographical summary sticks to the bare basics like at Shooting of Trayvon Martin (birth & where he lived, studied or worked at the time of his death). As it stands we mention Floyd's sporting and musical interests etc, but not this significant part of his life story. Jevansen (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   That's not a reasonable comparison, because Trayvon Martin has his own article, which is why the article on the event only has a small amount of background info on him. Jim Michael (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

9. Yes. If the history of George Floyd is removed, then the police officer's history should also be removed. Otherwise, this page is not neutral. Lcaa9 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
10. Yes, because a reader invests time in reading a Wikipedia article with the expectation of being informed about a topic. Virtually all of the best quality sources include material pertaining to who George Floyd was. He was a person most recently put out of work by the coronavirus pandemic. This is not presently in the article and this should be included in the article. George Floyd was an ex-convict. Being an ex-convict is not like being a person from a privileged walk of life. The status of ex-convict puts one at a distinct disadvantage in life. George Floyd was an ex-convict since 2014. His life had been a struggle, relative to someone from a privileged walk of life. He worked many odd jobs. This should be noted in the article. George Floyd relocated from Houston to Minneapolis to try to find work. This should be in the article. "After he struggled to find work in Houston, he left the city for Minneapolis...There, he worked two jobs, one driving trucks and another as a security guard at Latin American restaurant Conga Latin Bistro." George Floyd literally spoke out on social media against youthful gun violence. In a recent video on social media, he spoke out against gun violence, saying: "Our young generation is clearly lost". This should be included in the article. It is normal to include peripheral information in an article of this sort. Furthermore the incarceration rate is extremely high in the US relative to the rest of the world and this population is comprised decidedly of people of color. It is therefore especially problematic that we suppress this information. George Floyd's life was tragic from many perspectives. Five years wasted in prison, only to be unlawfully killed by police 6 years after getting out of prison. Our article should delineate some of these aspects of George Floyd's tragic life as this is amply supported in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
11. Yes, it is part of his identity and life context explaining his journey that brought him to be in Minneapolis. This is why reliable sources find it notable. I suggest the copy below at the beginning of "Discussion" by Melanie is notable, as a reliable source found it notable. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Yes, the best sources we have pretty much have all written about this. We summarize secondary sources; there is no reason to exclude this from our summary of the incident. However, what exactly to include, and how to word it, are all questions that need to handled carefully, following the lead of the top sources. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
13. Yes, were are doing the same for the accused cops why not for the victim. // Eatcha (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
14. Yes, since people have the right to know and not suspect that Wikisconceals something lkitross (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
15. Yes, especially if we are including other BLP details widely reported in RSs, such as Floyd being described as a "gentle giant" and the officer's previous disciplinary records. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
16. Yes, especially since the current version of this page includes the sentence "he was described as a 'gentle giant' by friends and family" with absolutely no mention of the other side of him—his criminal record. Either take out that sentence to better paint a more neutral picture, or include his other life details. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should not be trying to paint biased portrayals by omitting details that would change a reader's perspective on a person. Filia Pirate (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
17. Absolutely. Not only should the coverage on this topic be neutral, but it will also be useful due to the very reason provided above this. The man was not innocent throughout his entire life, and should not be treated as such, while the officer receives a full-on biography over the incident. 180app (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
18. Yes; if prior actions by a police officer are relevant and included to establish a propensity for violence (ie. Officer X has been involved in three shootings and was now involved in this fatal incident, so his past actions show he may have been violent here too), then the victim's criminal record, especially one indicating violence, is very relevant when the police argue that he was resisting arrest (which would be an issue of the victim using violence against the police). There is no other reason for including the police officer's history if not to argue for a propensity for violence; an otherwise unblemished career would no doubt have gone unremarked. Either way, for balance sake alone, the victim's criminal history is relevant as long as it is relevant to delve into the background of the officer (or officers) involved, and incident is not being described in a vacuum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.111.153 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
19. Yes - it has large WP:WEIGHT of coverage, is part of his life, and is part of what the Police chief said about him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
20. Yes; it's a significant part of the story, it's covered by RS, and there is no justification for censorship. That said, WP:BDP would probably apply to any specific additions. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
21. Yes absolutely. This is likely irrelevant to the court case, but relevant to the whole story for context. The article includes other biographical details on Floyd (music, basketball, kids) and ends up painting a distorted picture of him. Some would suggest that these details need to be removed too but I think many readers would be interested to know who the alleged victim was. Omitting this widely reported information is censorship. For instance reliable sources claim that from 2014 Floyd had turned his life around. Now this information has been omitted too (for it would have raised questions as to what was there to turn around in the first place). Russian Wikipedia includes one sentence about his criminal record and a reference (to an English newspaper article). That would be reasonable here too. BorisG (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
22. Yes - if there is going to be a biography section in the article, which there is, and which draws on such things as his school athletics record, then it should certainly also mention his prior significant interaction with the legal system. For completeness it should also include the evidence that in more recent years he was reformed and spoke out to turn young people in his community away from crime and violence. Include this huge part of his life, or remove the biographies of persons involved from the article. Can't have it both ways. 79.64.157.123 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
23. Yes - it is highly relevant to the death of George Floyd. A significant issue is whether he resisted arrest, and knowing that he had numerous experiences with law enforcement factors factors into the plausibility of this. It would be harder to believe a 46 year old man with no criminal record or history of assault or drug use would be combative with police than someone who does. So in concealing this information, wikipedia would be trying to deceive the reader. It makes the article propaganda, instead of impartial information. It is analogous to if police-supporters tried to delete ex-officer Derek Chauvin's previous complaints, disciplinary record, and shootings. On a human level, it denies the reader to obtain a fuller sense of the tragedy, because Floyd was attempting to turn his life around after being released from prison in 2014, so this facts (and dates) of his criminal past are not entirely negative. They contribute to the big picture of the person who died. Leaving it out would harm the perception of Wikipedia as an objective resource. Walterego (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Walterego: Can you point to RS coverage that he resisted arrest? Regards SoWhy 14:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, it is described in the coverage of the charge against ex-officer Derek Chauvin, the warrant describes Floyd resisting twice and cites the various videos and testimony from the other officers. It says he resisted being handcuffed, then was compliant for a short time once cuffed, and then resisted being put into the police vehicle. "Officer Lane handcuffed Mr. Floyd. Mr. Floyd actively resisted being handcuffed.....officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of squad 320 from the driver's side. Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers." https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/derek-chauvin-criminal-complaint-trnd/index.html https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/29/read-murder-complaint-details-george-floyds-last-minutes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterego (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Walterego:This more recent article from CNN interviews eyewitness reports that Floyd was not resisting arrest. The owner of Cup Foods, who originally called the police said in this interview that Floyd was not resisting arrest. Terasaface (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

24. Yes, but only briefly. I pondered this for a while but in the end, this is something RS have reported widely and thus needs to be included to maintain NPOV. However, one sentence should be sufficient and the phrasing should make it clear that at the time of his death, he was not under any restrictions or actively under investigation, i.e. that him being picked up by the police was not related to prior felonies (and by all accounts, the officers in question had no knowledge of those prior convictions when they restrained him). Regards SoWhy 14:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
25. Just be sure to point out that repeated scrapes with the law are capital crimes in Minnesota. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
26. Yes This is making Wikipedia look like an unreliable source and people are already making fun of Wikipedia on social media because of this. While the record has been covered by most major news organizations such as BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, ABC News, NYT/AP, Global News, Al Jazeera and local Texas Monthly; and added by numerous unaffiliated people and keep getting removed by the same person, remove-arguers have offered no other real argument except it's too unrelated to the case (even though it's obviously related) and belongs at his "upcoming own article". Where as if you look around the spot where people have been adding it, there are long yawnsome details of athletic experiences and musical affiliations and then of the police officers similar past infractions. There has also been a sentence with citation needed there for a long time! The purpose of this from the start doomed "discussion" is only to play time against something that is extremely well-sourced and clearly more relevant than everything surrounding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.205.116 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
27. Yes Of course. Why was the police called for him in the first place ? Because he was accused of using a fake 20$ bill. Using counterfeit money is a crime. George Floyd's criminal tendencies has led him to commit a crime that would be the cause of the police being called on him and ultimately leading him to his death 51.154.221.239 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    What? I favor including this information, but not for the reason you are presenting. His death is not because he allegedly committed the offense of using counterfeit money. The police handling the arrest were immediately fired and one was arrested—for good reason. One officer used unjustified force for an extended period of time—that caused death. The other officers stood around idly and did not prevent the officer who was in physical contact with George Floyd from inflicting harm on him. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

28. Yes to the limited extent proposed by SoWhy, no more than that. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
29. Yes. It gives compelling information on the backgrounds of both. Apparently Floyd "had landed five years behind bars in 2009 for an assault and robbery two years earlier, and before that, had been convicted of charges ranging from theft with a firearm to drugs" (NY Post), and for the Daily Mail "he entered a woman’s home, pressed a gun into her stomach and searched the home for drugs and money, according to court records" (Daily Mail). This doesn't look to me as an easy person to deal with—it's important to explain thoroughly, we need to WP:avoid victimization. --Foghe (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
30. Yes, because Floyd's previous experience with police(apprehension/arrest) indicates, that he would know that there are consequences to either complying with or resisting arrest. The officer's handling of Floyd is based on Floyd's behavior (resisted getting into the police car). Whether or not the officer's handling was disproportionate to Floyd's action. Lechatmarbre (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
31. Yes, I do not see why not. His past is very much related and is covered in reliable sources. --nafSadh ^{did say} 19:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
32. Yes - His past is covered in reliable sources so I see no reason to not include it here. –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
33. Yes, for WP:NPOV reasons and to provide a full account, but making clear that the officers who restrained him weren't doing so in relation to his past crimes. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
34. Yes, because it is variable, notable and relevant:
    • It is verifiable through official records.
    • It is a notable part of his biography: this wasn't a single misdemeanor in his childhood, there are a number of felony convictions over a long period of time that therefore had a significant impact on his life.
    • It is relevant to the article because he was killed by a police officer after being accused of a crime, so it is indicative of his past experience with the criminal justice system.

    – RossJ81 ^Talk/_Cont 21:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

35. Yes reliable sources talk about Floyd being an armed robber: BBC:[9]. He was also arrested accused of using a fake 20 dollar bill. So his crimes are relevant to the article. Also the wikipedia article contains background info about him playing basketball and working at a restaurant, how can someone claim that is relevant to his death but him being an armed robber is not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
36. Yes credible sources have discussed Floyd's criminal record. As long as remains in his biographical section I don't see a problem with it, Wikipedia is not censored. For those who are saying it's not relevant to his death, you're right its not, but neither is pretty much everything else in his biographical section. That section is supposed to discuss Floyd's background and his past criminal record is part of his background. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
37. Yes since factual biographical information that is relevant because if nothing else it speaks to Floyd's familiarity with the police & criminal justice system TcomptonMA (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
38. comment I think that if Floyd's criminal history is mentioned as a part of his personal background, then since this is an article about his killing by a police officer we must also include the former officer Chauvin's record as well. Chauvin had 18 prior complaints against him and has been involved in more than one other case of a citizen dying at the hands of police. Terasaface (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
39. Yes We need to list that information about him. A lot of news media mentions it, and if reliable sources believe its a notable aspect of this situation, we should also include it here. Dream Focus 22:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
40. Yes He had a violent criminal past. The officers say he was resisting. Some say he wasn't. His violent tendencies may well be considered relevant to readers. John2510 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
41. Yes (Redacted) Actor on The Flash was fired because of him. See the tweets (from 8 years ago) he was fired for, this is insanity. I never cared about all of this. But I love that actor and want to support him. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    1. That's got to be one of the worst cases of victim blaming I've ever seen. The murdered man being blamed for the misdeeds of others (like Sawyer) who have gotten in trouble for their racism. SMH. -- Valjean (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
       1. So fast to jump to conslusions. Sigh. The story also includes cyberbulling of that actor and looking for dirt, the tweets were not racist, only mysogenestic and the only one who liked his videos 8 years ago was black... and gay. Ah yes, the black woman that controlled her big cyberbulling army was already arrested once for that but still continues to do so, to destroy whiteness, racism, etc. The worst part for me is that even "the Flash" actor mocked the guy for that. People are very heartbroken under that mocking post and so am I. I commented in that actor's wiki talk page, if you for a second will forget that you are a liberal or whatever. 2A00:1370:812C:D131:2DBE:3EB:E942:5E8D (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
          1. Saying that Floyd "destroyed so many lives" because he was killed is just wrong. Don't blame the victim. Take your concerns about Sawyer elsewhere, as this article is about Floyd. -- Valjean (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
42. Yes Numerous RSs detail this and omission here would be noncompliant with NPOV.--MONGO (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
43. Yes, briefly. Plenty of reliable sources consider his background relevant. Obviously his involvement in the local ministry in the last few years should also be mentioned. Alaexis_¿question? 05:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
44. Yes per Walterego. Numerous RSs have mentioned this as a part of the background to the topic so it is worth mentioning it in this article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
45. Yes as it's very relevant to the entire situation. Also mention Chauvin's misdemeanor (or whatever is called) record.Fendergenderbender (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
46. Yes to a limited extent, as it was a part of his life. We can mention the conviction without specifically calling him a "criminal". Only use the best sources and don't go into too much detail. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

References

No

1. I can see no relevance to this. It tells us nothing about why this happened or how it could have been avoided. It is just a bit of title tattle.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
2. It's not relevant to the Death of Georgy Floyd (the arrest for forgery made zero mention of priors). What's more, George, who was killed by Derek, has no recourse to appeal his past convictions, and the police are notorious for making false arrests on the back of bigoted policing. Police records should not be considered as a reflection of reality. --Shadybabs (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
4. I don't see any relevance whatsoever to the article subject, which is Death of George Floyd. This is not a George Floyd biography article. If it becomes a notable part of the death (e.g. the US President starts tweeting about Floyd's criminal past), then it can be reconsidered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
5. No, and why are we discussing this again? Isn't this the third go-round? His past had nothing to do with this incident, and did not affect in the least the behavior of the police or anyone else. It is offered here, and promoted elsewhere, for the purpose of prejudicing the public against him. The incident happened 13 years ago and is not relevant to this event. Kablammo (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
6. No - I can't see the relevance of his past crimes to his murder. I also question whether this would meed WP:DUEWEIGHT. I've been following this story pretty closely in the news and I haven't heard anything about it so far. - MrX 🖋 22:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
7. No It is not at all relevant to the situation and only serves to blame the victim. Adding this attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE serves only to blame the victim. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
8. No It is irrelevant to this topic and Floyd's death. Such information would contravene DUEWEIGHT and introduce a FALSEBALANCE, essentially a rationale for blaming the victim. I think we need to impose a moratorium on this question. It seems editors have been over it enough.times already. This might be going into WP:DE territory. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
9. No - Irrelevant to the context behind the murder. Adding it would only create a false sense of balance and a sense of blame against the victim, which is a WP:BLP policy violation. --letcreate123 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
   • Vote withdrawn after further looking into the situation, particularly on the Discussion section down below. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
10. No the scope of this article is his death. Not his life. --Calthinus (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    Narrowly-defining "the scope of this article" is entirely the province of those arguing to omit information found in virtually all good quality sources addressing the same subject as our article addresses. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    The title of this article is "Death of George Floyd", so its about his death.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    You say below We do not need to know about his life prior to this unless it has a direct impact. Anything else smacks of trying to prove a point. What point, Slatersteven? Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, I suspect the point is that 1. he's a nice regular guy, look at his friends who say he was a gentle giant or his athletic record; therefore he's an innocent victim OR 2. he's a career criminal, look at the fact he's been arrested and jailed before this; therefore he likely deserved this or brought this on. These are the kinds of thing people look for to excuse or condemn the behavior by the police toward a citizen. —valereee (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    Exactly all of this is about saying either "Innocent victim" or "a villain, and a jailbird". We do not know if he was passing bad cheques, or id he was if he knew, we do not know if he was running a Muckiness Battle horn smuggling ring or if he was in fact the worlds second nicest man. Only (and only) if what he did led to this is it relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    He won't ever be convicted of passing counterfeit bills because a dead man can't be tried, but we do know what crimes he was convicted of, and this is relevant to people who are debating his character or the morality of the police. It isn't right for wikipedia to omit relevant details out of a political agenda.Walterego (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Nor to include it for the same reason, to imply he was a criminal even thought he had no convictions for 5 years. This is precisely why we cannot include it, we would be implying something about his character, and that violates wp:crime and wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Walterego, his character has zero to do with how he died unless it led to his death. A previous conviction for armed robbery, a high school football career, and friends who loved him had nothing to do with how he died, which is the subject of this article. If he had previous charges or convictions for resisting arrest, it could be argued to be relevant because resisting arrest could contribute to his death. By the same argument, the morality of the police is only relevant if it could be argued to have contributed to his death. Previous complaints of undue force could be argued to be relevant. Previous complaints of accepting bribes, probably not. —valereee (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Valereee—The New York Times writes "Floyd was charged in 2007 with armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston and in 2009 was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to court documents". Some of the "oppose" votes in this thread are saying that mention of this "only serves to blame the victim". That makes no sense. Good quality sources such as The New York Times don't try to "blame victims". And a 5 year period of time in prison is hardly an insignificant event in a person's life—that is the reason the best quality sources are mentioning this, not to "blame the victim". We should be following the many good quality sources carrying this information. We should be adhering to the general outline of coverage of this topic as found in the best quality sources. That serves the reader's interests. The reader does not come here to read political propaganda. They read an article such as this to get up to speed on the basic facts surrounding this incident. It does the reader a disservice to selectively omit basic facts. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, that information belongs in George Floyd (biography), but it's irrelevant here and WP:UNDUE. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Valereee, if the officer's prior use of force history is relevant, then the victim's history of violence is relevant, especially when the police are arguing that they used that force in response to violence from the victim (ie. resisting arrest). This goes directly to the heart of this article, which are the circumstances surrounding George Floyd's death. Not mentioning it only undermines the legitimacy of the article and implies, at best, that Wikipedia is trying to sugarcoat a victim's checkered past, and at worse, is actively covering up information in order to help create a narrative. 24.178.111.153 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    It depends. Complaints about the officer's undue use of force on the job are relevant. If he had a domestic violence complaint, I'd argue it's not relevant. Ditto for Floyd. A history of resisting arrest is relevant. But the commission of a crime twelve years ago is not relevant to his death, and covering it in the very short paragraph is undue weight, IMO. I am arguing that we remove all irrelevant details from both bios. And quite honestly "checkered past" comments make me feel this more strongly. —valereee (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

11. No, not relevant to the incident. I would support relevant material being included in an actual biography of George Floyd. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Include only details that could have contributed to leading to the death, which is the subject of this article. This is not a biography of Mr. Floyd or of any of the police, it's an article about Floyd's death. His athletic career, the fact his friends loved him, and his arrest record are trivia unless they have some relevance to the death. If he was ever charged with resisting arrest, that could be relevant. Otherwise it's WP:UNDUE to include them. Ditto biographical details on the cops other than as relevant to leading to the death. Charges or convictions of using undue force are relevant. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
13. No, only include irrelevant stuff that portrays him in a good light to push your agenda, his prior dealings with law enforcement should be hushed up. Also make sure to mention all four policemen were white. 85.238.90.27 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Valereee—the selective omission of information that is found in most sources addressing the same topic as our article addresses can constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. And we don't wear blinders when we write about a subject for which there is ample sourcing to set an example for how we should address that subject. This isn't a creative writing project. That would include the creative omission of information that editors dislike for non-germane reasons. We adhere to the findings of the best quality sources. For instance the BBC writes "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, I'm not saying selectively exclude relevant information. I'm saying exclude information that is irrelevant to his death because this article is about his death. It's irrelevant to his death that over a decade ago he was convicted of armed robbery. He wasn't committing armed robbery at the time of his death. He wasn't even armed at the time of his death. So it's irrelevant. If he'd had previous convictions for resisting arrest, that might be relevant to his death, and especially so if the cops say he was resisting when he was killed. This isn't me trying to paint him in a positive light; the information about his conviction and jail time is in his bio, where it belongs. Literally the only reason I can think of to include this information in the article about his death is that some people (like the above IP, which must have edit conflicted with you when you responded to me) will interpret that to mean WP is intentionally whitewashing the incident, and that doesn't feel like a good enough reason. —valereee (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

    No, it is not "irrelevant", Valereee, and thank you for pinging me. We aren't a creative writing project. You are making arbitrary distinctions that the BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, and a slew of other good quality sources are not making. We can talk about the Killing of George Floyd while also talking about his 5 years of incarceration. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, RS are also reporting his birthplace, number of children, athletic and musical career, high school, etc. etc. etc. Do you think any of those is relevant to the article on his death? I haven't seen a single RS say that any of the biographical details they're reporting was relevant to his death. We've included what they say about his biographical details in his biographical article. When some reliable source says, "His death needs to be understood in relation to his arrest history," or something similar, I'll say we should include it. —valereee (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

    It's not about portraying him in good light. The person could be a serial killer and it would still be wrong to kill him while he is not resisting arrest and begging for his life. If articles did not have titles and content that sticks to their titles then wikipedia will be useless. The fact that all four policemen were white is relevant to the situation. There are several highly cited events where white policemen killed black men, and this is one of them. The fact that some of them had prior complaints on them is also relevant. And your comment is in the wrong section. Tesatafi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

14. No None of which relevant to how he died and this is not even a biography of his life. We don’t even know this man’s birthday. Feel free to include the complaints against the offending officer. Throw Klobuchar in there too.Trillfendi (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
15. No Any prior record or arrests is irrelevant to his murder. Include in his biography article, should one be created. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
16. No or, if we do so, it should be in an extraordinarily cautious and sensitive manner. A decade ago, fully 1/3 of black men in the US had a felony on their record, a process that's been described as a part of the criminalization of the black population more generally in the US [10]. Whenever a black person is killed or dies in police custody and the death becomes well known, some media organizations (usually small, local media or right-wing media) bring out past criminal convictions, either minor or more substantial, that are unrelated to the incident but provide context appearing to justify the death. We shouldn't contribute to that, so if we do report this, we should do so very carefully. -Darouet (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Darouet—please explain how for instance incarceration from 2009 to 2014 could appear to justify the death? This is in response to your assertion that "Whenever a black person is killed or dies in police custody and the death becomes well known, some media organizations (usually small, local media or right-wing media) bring out past criminal convictions, either minor or more substantial, that are unrelated to the incident but provide context appearing to justify the death." Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

    Try reading some of the yes responses here, they say just that, "he was a villain and a jail bird, if he had not been one he would not be dead".Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Bus stop: by implying that Floyd is a criminal, and therefore deserving of punishment. I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you about whether mentioning "positive" or "negative" aspects of someone's life will influence readers' views. If we are making editorial selections about what content goes into the bio for each participant in this incident — and we are — we need to consider 1) how relevant is the information and 2) is it prejudicial? -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

17. No - not relevant I come from a country (UK) where publishing the records of the police officers would itself be an offence while a trial is pending (since it inevitably prejudices everyone's opinion of them and this case), so given the choice, I would prefer neither Floyd's nor their records to be included at this stage. However, that isn't the choice and isn't the question. Even if Floyd had been a serially violent criminal (which no one claims), applying lethal force, when someone is already restrained and has no potential to resist or represent any danger to anyone - is beyond comprehension. I cannot see how Floyd's (relatively distant) record has any relevance to him being killed, especially since there is no reason to think the officer's knew and certainly Floyd was not even suspected of being engaged in violent crime at the point he was killed, and even if he had been behaving in a threatening manner, application of force would only have been appropriate up to the point he was restrained - beyond that it is clearly 'punishment'. I'm sorry, but it is difficult to understand why anyone would think his record relevant, except in some way thinking that massively disproportionate force is justified, or understandable, if someone has a criminal record. There may be circumstances in which the record could become relevant, but not simply for the sake of including it or to achieve a spurious 'balance'. Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
18. No I do not support including George Floyd's previous convictions. George Floyd's actions are not in question here therefore it is not relevant. Furthermore adding it as part of the few details of his backstory suggests relevance as part of the event. --Evertent (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

    That is correct—"George Floyd's actions are not in question". I don't believe anyone has ever said George Floyd's actions were in question—or at least I know that I have never said George Floyd's actions were in question. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

19. No mentioning it is unnecessary, considering the topic is talking about his death. His criminal record got nothing to do with the incident surrounding his death. Idealigic (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
20. No per Slatersteven. Krakkos (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
21. No - reasons below, discussion section, in response to valereee. TLDR; Lack of relevance, arguments to include just because police history is included is WP:FALSEBALANCE for reasons I gave. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
22. No per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Along with other not-immediately-relevant details of his life, this belongs on George Floyd (which I think should not be merged here), simply per WP:DUE. This page has to start following WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and the number and WEIGHT of sources that discuss his past convictions is insufficient to justify inclusion in a brief, only-the-essentials summary of the event.

    The paramount importance of the WP:AVOIDVICTIM policy tips the scales further towards the presumptive exclusion of the information from this page. This consideration further stipulates that if the information is included, it should be made clear that sources agree the arresting officers were unaware of his record, to avoid making BLP-violating insinuations. FourViolas (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    That advises against prolonging or participating in the victimization of living people, impossible for editors in this case, since the victimization ended in death. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    The meaning of "living" in the context of WP:BLP, including AVOIDVICTIM, is defined by WP:BDP: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Floyd is a perfect example of someone in the "recently died" stage of life, whose reputation is still subject to being tarnished or burnished by the information we publish about them, and whom Wikipedia still owes a professional level of respect and consideration. FourViolas (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    No, living means living, in this context (the whole section is plain English). It relates to those famous victims of prolongable victimizations, like libel, doxxing and hate speech. You're reaching too far with this alleged murder victim, who was never known for getting tarnished or burnished. Even if noting his background was intended to hurt his reputation, dead people are immune to any real harm. A "professional level of respect and consideration" is evident in how the professional journalists have noted his background, we would reflect that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    The term living is used everywhere throughout WP:BLP, except where the WP:BDP section states that the whole policy applies to recently deceased as well as living people. The argument that "living means living" would therefore imply that BDP is never supposed to apply, which is absurd. FourViolas (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    BLP generally doesn't apply to material concerning the dead, you quoted this yourself. Exceptions can apply, but only where reasonably applicable. Saying we're participating in or prolonging this victim's deadly victimization is absurd, because we know it lasted just under nine minutes on May 25. Also, that part applies to biographies; saying the supposed victimization does belong in the biography is double absurd. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability_of_the_policy, before clarifying that BLP policy applies only to living people with the exception of recently deceased ones, states that BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. If a family member of mine were violently killed, and people made an effort to widely publicize irrelevant information from their past that others then used to insinuate that they may have deserved their fate, I would absolutely consider this to be prolonging their victimization. You're right that this makes it problematic to include the information in the biography, but that is a lower-traffic page where the information is appropriately contextualized as part of a comprehensive review of publicly available information about Floyd's life that is not essential to understanding his death. I apologize if my use of "absurd" came off as a personal attack; I meant it in the logical sense.FourViolas (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    This guy's notable victimization has nothing to do with how his relatives might feel bad about reading he had a criminal record. It was all about being kneeled on by cops. It's illogical to equate known physical victimization of a dead person with hypothetical emotional victimization of living people, especially if the latter material is considered irrelevant to the former topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    How would anyone "insinuate that they may have deserved their fate"? That is impossible, FourViolas. If you think you know a way, please tell me about it because I do not think any such way exists. Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bus stop, I was referring to comments such as this immediately above, asserting that George Floyd's criminal tendencies [...] ultimately [led] him to his death.

    InedibleHulk, differences of opinion exist over whether the dead can be morally wronged, for example by unfair reputational damage; for defenses of the position that they can, see Fisher 2001 or Scarre 2012. Given these differences of opinion, the strong language of WP:AVOIDVICTIM (editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to victimization, particular importance for people notable as victims) seems to indicate that we should take the more cautious view. In any case, the policy is clearly meant to proscribe some kind of non-physical victimization, as it's not common for people to be physically victimized based on how somebody edited WP. FourViolas (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, some non-physical victimization that some bio subject is notable for receiving and which might be prolonged, so nothing at all pertaining to this victim of entirely physical forces. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

23. No The article is about the killing of a person in the hands of the police. If we had information about the person resisting arrests or escaping from custody, and particularly if police acted with knowledge of that, then it would have been relevant. I disagree that Floyd's name would be unfairly tarnished if such information was published. The job of this article is to describe the circumstances of his death.Tesatafi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
24. No per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. 73.227.195.63 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
25. No as it's unrelated to his killing. The details about the police shouldn't included either normally but RS are giving those details some weight. As far as I can see, though, RS are not giving Floyd's criminal past the same weight. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
26. Hell no what a stupid question Kire1975 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    But is it a "stupid question", Kire1975? Wouldn't the reader want to know that George Floyd engaged in multiple acts of criminal activity spanning decades? The Federalist (website) quotes Candace Owens telling us of a string of criminal activity and prison sentences spanning decades. For instance "his record...includes jail sentences in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2007. His 2007 arrest...was for participating in an armed home invasion against a pregnant African-American woman, where Floyd held a gun to the pregnant mother’s stomach". Wouldn't multiple acts of criminal activity increase the incidence of adversarial engagement with cops and consequently the likelihood of bad outcomes for both cops and those people engaging in criminal activities? Bus stop (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Bus stop: The Federalist? Candace Owens? Hell no. Kire1975 (talk)

    Shouldn't we not be engaged in political writing, Kire1975? Adversarial engagement with cops results in a higher incidence of harm, to both cops and criminals, and criminal activity increases the likelihood of adversarial engagement with cops. Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Agreed. You should not be using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Keep Candace Owens and the Federalist out of Wikipedia. Stick to WP:RELIABLE and WP:REPUTABLE sources. And please stop pinging me. Kire1975 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Kire1975—increased encounters with police result in increased likelihood of negative outcomes for both police and those engaging in possibly criminal activity. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Maybe, but he did not have increasing encounters, as he had not been arrested for 6 years, that is decreasing encounters.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Each additional interaction of an adversarial nature between cops and citizens increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Actually using that logic every interaction does, confrontational or otherwise, Hell even being in the same street, town, country nation does, being alive does. Only the living can interact with the police, so... This is not valid argument to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    You are saying that "every interaction does". But certain interactions are more fraught with danger than others. "His life then took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    They should not be, (which is the point of the demos). If you are not violent you should not expect violence from the police, even if you are an ex-felon. There is no evidence that the police in this case knew he was a jail bird, or has reason to think he was a criminal. But I have had my say now, this look more and more like nothing more than an attempt to lead the reader into thinking this was a justified killing (you only have to read some of the yes votes to see that).Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    No one is defending the actions of the police. I agree with you completely and emphatically that "If you are not violent you should not expect violence from the police". I also have not seen any evidence "the police in this case knew he was a jail bird, or has reason to think he was a criminal". The question is: who was George Floyd? Reliable sources provide some information. Most of the good quality sources such as the New York Times, the BBC, The Guardian and many others tell us some background information including multiple arrests and multiple periods of incarceration. I have characterized these as "adversarial" interactions. Most people do not want to go to jail. Perhaps I have occasion to interact with police because I have a minor fender-bender. I would probably not call that interaction "adversarial". Due to the high tension involved in adversarial interactions, people tend to get hurt. This does not absolve the cops of what looks to me like despicable behavior in this incident. But we are not taking sides. We are writing a dispassionate article. You say that I am "attempt[ing] to lead the reader into thinking this was a justified killing". No I am not. Wikipedia is a source of information. Once we start suppressing information we are in the business of misleading readers. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    This rank speculation is really disgusting and should be stricken. WP:BLP O3000 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

27. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Just hasn't had the amount of coverage here. Likely place is in his bio article.Casprings (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
28. No - No connection to his death, the subject of this article, has been shown by RS. BLP DUE O3000 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
29. No. This is not a biography of George Floyd, and "past crimes" is a shitty way of putting it in the first place. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
30. No As it is irrelevant to this instance. If there was a criminal history that connected the officer and Floyd perhaps that would be relevant but in this case, it does not make sense to include irrelevant information about his history that could lead to disrespecting his character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terasaface (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
31. No This page is about the killing, and his criminal history is irrelevant to whether he deserved to have been killed. Avoid victim shaming. This discussion is more relevant to his standalone biography at George Floyd.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bagumba—you are linking to an article on Victim blaming. Does that have anything to do with Wikipedia policy or guidance? Of course there are instances of "victim blaming". But we are not doing that here. We are saying he was released from prison in 2014. By what stretch of the imagination does that constitute "blaming" him for the tragedy that occurred on May 25, 2020? Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Bus stop: There is no evidence that his criminal history made him a target for police brutality. Thus, I see it as unrelated to his being killed, and the WP:ONUS to justify its inclusion has not been met. His criminal past is already in his bio, where it is relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

    Bagumba—I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline relating to victim blaming or victim shaming and we cannot possibly be victim blaming or victim shaming. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

32. No it really has no bearing on the topic of this article Blindlynx (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on including record

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

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

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

Sources

The reference is already in the article, it's the AP/Atlanta Journal Constitution reference (#33). IMO this is well sourced and important to understanding him, even though there is no way the officers could have known about it; he appears to have had no brushes with the law during his six years in Minnesota. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I say its not relevant, as there is no indication he was a villain, sir. Or a jailbird. at the time of his killing. It tells us nothing about him other than at the time he was not a wanted felon.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither does his high school football playing, or his rap band, but we include them. It is typical to include basic biographical information about notable deaths or crime victims, whether or not it relates to the event for which they are now known. Examples from recent articles about similar deaths: [11] [12] [13] (By the way, I'm not a "sir". 0;-D) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Then we would need to include far more background information on the officers, details of each civilian complaint, the police response to said complaints, the nature of their past killings, disciplinary records, etc. Also more details for Derek's violent behavior at his security job. That's far more material to the case at hand and necessary for balance.--Shadybabs (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Not opposed to that, but another discussion will need to be established on including that content. One step at a time. KidAd (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

For DUE weight and balance, I can only agree on including Floyd's priors if added simultaneously with details regarding the former officers' disciplinary records. Until full transparency of disciplinary records are released to the public any attempt to include a history of wrongdoing of Floyd will be heavily biased against Floyd, due to the nature of criminal records vs the blue wall of silence. Such action perpetuates the state of racial bigotry in the American police and is wholly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that, while it is important to maintain WP:NPOV, any reason to include Floyd's prior arrest records is separate from the choice to include the officer's prior complaints/history. Again, there should be a full and separate discussion of latter. KidAd (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and have said so. We do not need to know about his life prior to this unless it has a direct impact. Anything else smacks of trying to prove a point.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The inclusion of this material would only serve to blame the victim if the reader can't distinguish between years. But most readers would have no problem making distinctions between years. The death of George Floyd took place on May 25, 2020. George Floyd was incarcerated from 2009 to 2014 for a crime that took place in 2007. Most readers would have no difficulty distinguishing between 2014 and 2020. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine. In general, people don't call the police on random strangers. Note that for George Floyd's 10 (!) previous arrests, they were all peaceful. Lcaa9 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• This article is about the death of George Floyd, there is no relationship between his death and his past. Including that would suggest that there is a relationship. If you want to create an article about Floyd's biography then go create it. It is not related to his death, so it is not going to be included.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, I hope you aren't replying to me, because you didn't reply to what I asked. Also you have this peculiar habit of saying what is going to happen before it happens, like you are the sole arbiter of whatever is in question, before it's been decided. It's very strange. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor—it is not spread to impugn the character of the alleged or apparent victim. Basic facts that are recurrent in the best quality sources should be in the article. People's lives are documented when addressing an incident. Our article is already using some of these sources to support material that is already in the article. It would be a contrivance to pare away the facts that we don't like. Did it have to be an angelic choir boy that was killed? It was a person who may have had flaws. Or maybe not. There are a huge number of Americans in prison at any time. This is a real person. They served a 5 year prison sentence. All we are doing is depicting reality. Wikipedia wasn't created to to present an idealized version of reality. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, I wasn't replying to you, so I will just ignore all of what you said but I will answer your question in my response to Bus stop. Bus stop, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this article is not a news article. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, we assume that the content here would stay relevant to the topic until at least 10 years. Now, the topic of this article is about the death of George Floyd, not George Floyd himself. You cant tell if a content about his past would be relevant or not. Until it is proven to be relevant we can't include it, if it's not, it's not going to be included. Yes, a small biography can be included as to give an insight/introduction for this topic. Tell me how does his past criminal record gives an introduction for this topic??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam: there is no relationship between his death and his past - so playing basketball is relevant to his death but a criminal record for armed robbery is not? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, you see, your argument is flawed. Your argument is only an appeal to hypocrisy. I said we will only include content that serves as an introduction for this topic. Does his past of what you call "criminal record for armed robbery" serves as an introduction for this topic? The answer no. It is not proven to be relevant to this very topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam Does playing basketball belong in the introduction? If so, how is a criminal record less relevant? Do neither belong in the article? I haven't decided whether his criminal record is an introduction to the topic, that's why I'm asking questions. Also you would be more convincing if you cited policy when making arguments. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, stop the whataboutism argument. It will only show that your argument is not based on objective reasoning. Will my answer to your first question change your position? I dont think so. My concern is that we will be attempting to poison the well by adding that irrelevant content. That content about basketball could be irrelevant but it is not harmful, it doesnt add anything and it doesnt poison the well.

  Here is an illustration

  • X was killed by Y Y OKAY
  • X, who played basketball, was killed by Y. ? Maybe MAYBE OKAY
  • X, who robbed houses in the 1990s and was jailed bluh bluh, was killed by Y. N NOT OKAY

  WP:OR makes this clear and also WP:TOPIC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  So my question is why is basketball possibly ("maybe") relevant but not robbery? (I can think of a specific possible policy based reason but I am more curious about your line of thinking.) If you are going to quote OR or TOPIC it would help if you quoted which part you are referring to. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIYeditor, that the content should be directly related to the topic. And WP:TOPIC says clearly, The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. I have supported the idea of an article about the biography of Floyd. Also, no, that tick doesnt mean relevant. I was saying what is okay and what is not. I have clarified now and edited the original comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I also think I have clearly said above why basketball is maybe okay. As I said, it doesnt potentially poison the well and imply that Floyd wasnt innocent when he was killed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think WP:AVOIDVICTIM is what applies here. I am not familiar with how that is interpreted though. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  So? What you are saying is ....? We're here talking about whether that content about past "criminal record" is relevant to his death or not. It is clearly not relevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is .... the rule I cited (AVOIDVICTIM) is what applies here, not OR or TOPIC. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  So you think that his "crimial record" content is relevant to his death? Both WP:OR and WP:TOPIC says that the content should be directly relevant to the topic of the article. I am not arguing to include his virtues. I am arguing to remove the irrelevant content about "crimial record" as it is irrelevant to this article and this is the topic of this discussion. This is the only topic of this discussion and it should be the only topic of this discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's a moot point because of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. How are you going to dictate what direction the discussion can take? —DIYeditor (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  His past is relevant to the article. If you think what his past has to do with his death, can you answer "why do we have officers past on the article?". George was a convicted criminal and the officers were abusive. Not including his past is not neutral and has a POV that George was the purest soul possible and officers were worse than Hitler which is not the case. Officers behave according to the criminal history of the convict, he has behind the bars for 5 years for for armed robbery in a home invasion case. // Eatcha (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor—WP:AVOIDVICTIM says don't include "every detail". Minor details obscurely sourced should be omitted. Five years in prison would not be a minor detail in anyone's life. The best quality sources, addressing the same topic that this article addresses, include this point about George Floyd's life. It would be a contrivance and a disservice to the reader to deliberately omit this information—not because it has bearing on his death—it doesn't—but because we don't exercise editorial authority—except to a limited extent. Basically, sources write articles. Basically, sources determine the content of articles. I don't think we should selectively omit information to make the eventual unlawful death at the hands of law officers seem more tragic; it is tragic whether the victim was an angelic choirboy or an "ex-convict". Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. (emphasis mine) My line of reasoning is that it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal, so including facts to support that perception which the officers did not know (as far as we know) is prolonging that victimization. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor—you say "it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal". I have to disagree. It does not appear that he was "killed because of being perceived to be a criminal". You are using figurative and imprecise language—but no offense is intended. We don't even know if he was "killed". Was it Chauvin's intention to kill Floyd? I would doubt that. I am certain that what Chauvin did constituted entirely uncalled-for cruelty. Floyd was handcuffed behind his back. Several other cops were present and apparently unoccupied, just standing around. Therefore Floyd posed no threat. How could he? What was he going to do—break loose of the handcuffs? But did Chauvin intend to end Floyd's life at that moment? It would be unreasonable to think so. But more to the point—do sources say that "it appears he was killed because of being perceived to be a criminal"? No, they don't, or at least not to my knowledge. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, those details also should not be included. But that's another argument, so don't base your !vote on this issue upon whether or not those have yet been pulled. Let's decide what's correct in THIS argument. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—what would be problematic in adhering to the general coverage of this incident as seen in the best quality sources? The best quality sources are addressing the Killing of George Floyd. Why would our coverage of the Killing of George Floyd differ significantly from the best quality sources? It is problematic to selectively omit information. This isn't being done inadvertently. This is being done deliberately. The reason for this deliberate omission is stated by several "oppose" votes: They argue that the inclusion of this information "serves to blame the victim". I vehemently reject that. We are writing an encyclopedia. And we have intelligent readers. An ex-convict who is unlawfully killed is not to blame for their death. The inclusion of information that the victim is an ex-convict does not "blame" the victim. That is nonsensical. It is an important fact as evidenced by its presence in coverage of this topic by entirely good quality sources. Deliberate omission of this nature is "political". Wikipedia should not be "political". Wikipedia should lay out the facts. Anything less is a disservice to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• I suggest we remove all information that isn't directly relevant. The basketball playing & the rap music and number of children and relationships aren't relevant. The previous criminal record isn't relevant unless there's a history of resisting arrest or history of some other behavior that the defense is using to justify using this type of restraint, which would be relevant. —valereee (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree with Valereee. WP should account for the real possibility of deliberate misinterpretation of events, and should exclude unrelated biographies and move them into their own article. I was inclined to go Yes about 15 mins ago, I'm now against it. The past history of police is relevant to show the kind of policing they do. The past history of the subject is not relevant unless (a) the police had a positive ID and (b) WP:RS believe that the criminal history was connected to how the police treat him. As far as I can see, that isn't the case. It is an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE to say we must include the latter just because we include the former. The relevance of each one is completely different. Hence, I support inclusion of the material at George Floyd, but not here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrasinatingReader—the incident leading to death takes place in 2020 whereas the prison sentence ended in 2014. How does one have bearing on the other? Is there a "possibility of deliberate misinterpretation of events"? Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• Agree SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I thought Wikipedia compiled multiple good quality sources into uncensored articles. Why would Wikipedia arbitrarily omit George Floyd's criminal past? If the reader wants to know, and if sources such as the New York Times, the BBC, and The Guardian, provide the information, why would Wikipedia deliberately omit the information? I think a reader would want to know who George Floyd is. Wikipedia exists to provide information where needed. Is there some reason we would fail at our purpose concerning this one piece of information? Why omit George Floyd's criminal past? Bus stop (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Because some readers/writers/voters are hypersensitive to what they perceive as victim-blaming, to the extent that they can't trust those who insist this is simply reliably-sourced background information, since some victim-blamers have lied (or seem to have lied) about their motives in unrelated earlier situations. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bagumba—we should not be relying on another article to make this article complete. We should be alluding to the criminal past of George Floyd in this article in order to enhance the credibility of this article. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

... make this article complete. No, that's a WP:COATRACK: writes too much about background and loses sight of the title. Either way, the existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there.—Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK concerns contrived add-ons. Note the distinction between the "nominal subject" and the "tangential subject". Five years in prison is not a minor factor in who George Floyd was. An article on an interaction between the police and a suspect concerns the backgrounds of the subject and the police. Floyd George was a person who was convicted of a 2007 armed home invasion—also not a minor unlawful act—for which he was sentenced to 5 years in prison. This is relevant background information. Do you think this is a Coatrack article for revealing negative information about George Floyd? No, this article exists because of a fatal encounter between police and somebody suspected of a crime. Not to be too moralistic but prior encounters with the law would not be a contrived add-on. Bus stop (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Slatersteven—omission of expected information only detracts from the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We have all had more than enough say, and any closer (I think we can assume) can read what we have said 50 times before.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven—when we write an article we don't put on blinders. Webster defines blinders as "a limitation or obstruction to sight or discernment." You are studiously arguing to omit information. But omitting this information does not accentuate the horror of what occurred in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020. Omitting this information simply detracts from the completeness of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal: 8'46"

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

UPDATE: I have changed my mind and now think it qualifies as a standalone article; see below. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Subjects stemming from a parent subject can become independently notable if large amounts of subject-independent coverage arrive on that child subject, as is the case with Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church. However that is not the case here, at the very least for the time being. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Vote withdrawn after taking another look at the article and at the nominator's own words further down below. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That article has had a complex life in a short amount of time - nominated for deletion, renamed and in the deletion discussion you changed your !vote about its status. So it may not be the strongest example. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge That page was not necessary. What if i create a 5 second chokehold wikiapedia. Will that be enough to create a page? Regice2020 (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If that chokehold was covereed in WP:RS, and thousands of people took to the streets, perhaps yes. So yours is not really a strong argument. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nor is the argument that a position which takes almost ten minutes to kill, if it happens at all, can be compared to a legit chokehold. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Regards SoWhy 06:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Reiterate support. Even the expanded article is at least half filled with information already on this page that would not need merging and the other half fits here better. I also don't see the "in journalism" section as relevant to the topic at hand. Regards SoWhy 14:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose MelanieN's opinion shouldn't be the only reason for deletion. Kire1975 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  No one is arguing for deletion. The proposal is to merge it here since it would be better covered within the context of this article instead of a standalone article. Regards SoWhy 10:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. Certainly deserves a section in the main Floyd article. KidAd (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per nom, by itself with seldom references from WP:RS, it doesn't hold enough content to warrant it's own article — IVORK _Talk 07:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The duration has become notable in itself because of the reporting and programming that has been produced with 8'46" as the focus. As the article states, a highly notable range of channels carried programming of this exact length, attesting to the significance and exposure of the public to this - Nickelodeon, BET, CBS Sports Network, CMT, Comedy Central, Logo TV, MTV, Paramount Network, the Smithsonian Channel, TV Land, and VH1. Speaking to the nom's comment: there is no Wikipedia policy around excluding content due to something being "jarring." In fact, one could contend that "jarring" indicates a level of notability that justifies the focus of the article. I've also added a number of "die-in" protests that are using the 8'46" as the focus. Note that 8′46″ is also currently in the navbox Template:George Floyd, added by others, so a "speedy" decision isn't the right route as others have deemed it worthy of more widespread exposure.

  Since the merge proposal is not being done on the associated talk page, a courtesy ping for all the other unique editors of the article - @CommanderWaterford, DividedFrame, Jadewest.catvalentine, Jim Michael, Koavf, Letcreate123, Paintspot, Pegship, and TJMSmith: -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't seem to be enough independent content (at least as of yet): merging this into a section that discusses language related to the protests (alongside slogans like "I can't breathe") seems reasonable as of now. May I also say how happy I am that this title uses proper primes instead of <'> and <">? (But also how sad and exhausted I am that we need to keep on fighting for African-Americans' basic right to life?) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Could probably just as a section explaining the meaning of 8'46" Tbrechner (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is very much a part of this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't require it's own page and people looking it up should pereferably find it under this article. Aaryan33056 (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Would fit better as its own section of the article, rather than being an article itself. Fernsong (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's become a common duration for commemorations and protests about Floyd's death. It's clearly worthy of an article on its own merits, expanding on that point. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's clearly becoming it's own thing and will continue to evolve. Let it be. I see the work of well meaning new editors and it's all scrubbed with one gruff opinion. If you weren't born with an indentured servant great grandmother or have been through the new user experience more than once you wouldn't know both sides like I do. Technophant (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Do not make assumptions or dismiss users opinions based upon who they are (or who you think they are) it is a violation of wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support and Merge Not independent enough yet; include the content here, then split it off later if it grows to the point where it warrants its own article. AzureCitizen (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It's part of the event. Wikipedia is not knowyourmeme. T8612 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The amount of time isn't notable, nor is it independently notable from the killing it is tied to. There are numerous ways to make reference to the killing of George Floyd (time his neck was compressed, his initials, a nickname), but we don't give each of them an article, do we? After Kobe Bryant died, numerous people made reference to him using his uniform numbers 8 and 24 as references. But we didn't give each of them their own articles because they aren't notable separate from the subject they are tied to. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's not a strong argument or parallel though. 8 and 24 were already established as his player numbers, and no one was using them in much higher stakes situtations like protests for justice or civil rights. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• SUPPORT it should be merged over, it just one part of this, not enough content to be off on his own. Dream Focus 14:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Better covered here. Popcornfud (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, I don't see why this should have its own article. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC) see below for new vote The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have changed my mind and I now oppose my own merge request. When I proposed it, the article looked roughly like this - a few examples of popular culture observances which could easily have been added to the article. But since then User:Fuzheado has expanded it to include more and different types of information, to the point where I think it is now a viable article. @Regice2020, SoWhy, KidAd, IVORK, CommanderWaterford, Koafv, Slatersteven, Aaryan33056, Fernsong, Mandruss, AzureCitizen, T8612, Y2Kcrazyjoker4, Dream Focus, Popcornfud, Thanoscar21, and The Spirit of Oohoowahoo: You all supported a merge. Do you still feel it should be merged, or do you think it now qualifies as a standalone article? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Still support - It's still not very expansive. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (again). Can still be covered in the main article without losing critical detail. Popcornfud (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Still support. I rest my case. T8612 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• The Commemorations section should be in the protest article. The section "In journalism" isn't really notable enough to be mentioned at all. The section "Safety" should be in the main article. And not enough "In popular culture" to justify its own article, anything notable should be mentioned in one of the two existing articles. Dream Focus 16:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • They can be in both in different ways. In fact, I didn't exhaustively list all the 8'46" events because that's not a good use of the article. I thoroughly used them as references for WP:N and WP:V purposes, but a thorough list is beyond the scope of the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Still support. Look, news coverage of the Shooting of Michael Brown very often, maybe even usually, mentioned that Brown was shot six times. That didn't warrant an article Shot six times. If and when this rises to the prominence of #MeToo, we might be able to justify an article 8′46″ movement. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a strong argument - no one was putting forth "Shot six times" as having any resonance in either protest themes or how to structure remembrances for Michael Brown. You are entitled to an opinion, but it's not a good analog for comparison. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• And of course you are entitled to your opinions about the issue at hand and the strength of my argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks MelanieN for recognizing the article's evolution and merit. I was confident it was worthy of its own article before, and while adding more details I was even more convinced of its far-reaching impact. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Still support - While recognizing that the article has definetly expanded from what it originally was when I first gave my support on it, there just doesn't seem to be enough on the article to justify it being its own separate page, rather than being a part of the Killing of George Floyd article. As such, I still support a merge. Fernsong (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Still support - Thank you for the mention. The article has changed since this request was put forward but it is still comparatively lacking in the capacity to be a standalone article. While it definitely educates the reader, it doesn't have enough to have it's own article. The points were categorized, and while that is a good effort, that's all there is. Hence, I choose to continue to support the merge. Aaryan33056 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It should be merged because the existence of 8′46″ trivializes the subject. The subject is this very serious subject currently titled Killing of George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Have you read the article? It does the exact opposite of what you claim by detailing how the 8'46" is being highlighted to bring attention to injustice. I hope any closer of this proposal recognizes this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• You are speaking in platitudes when you say the 8'46" article is "being highlighted to bring attention to injustice". Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, you need to read closer as I did not say anything of the sort. The duration itself is being used to "bring attention to injustice" and not the Wikipedia article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• 8'46" is a "catchphrase". A catchphrase is "a phrase or expression recognized by its repeated utterance. Such phrases often originate in popular culture and in the arts". I think the use of a catchphrase to stand in for a serious subject does a disservice to the serious subject. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• That it is merely a "catchphrase" is your opinion. If you read the article you will see that it is covered in multiple dimensions - in the context of forensics (as part of the charging document), popular culture, the media, and in protests. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• A phrase being a rallying cry does not make it substantial enough for an article. "A rallying cry or rallying call is something such as a word or phrase, an event, or a belief which encourages people to unite and to act in support of a particular group or idea." Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, as of today, a widely syndicated Associated Press piece refers to it this way: "8:46: A Number Becomes a Potent Symbol of Police Brutality." [14] Not just a slogan or catchphrase, but a symbol. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the source that you provided reads "All protest movements have slogans. George Floyd's has a number: 8:46". Especially in this instance we should not be creating articles willy-nilly as doing so trivializes the subject of the main article—which I would characterize as death in police custody as a result of abuse. Bus stop (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Article has been expanded related to the impact of the term and now has all the requirements to stay as an standalone article. Killing of George Floyd and George Floyd protests are already long articles so I don't think merging them is a good idea, given that article has sources and relevant information. --B1mbo (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Strongly. This is ridiculous. 8:46 is no more notable for being the time of the World Trade Center attacks than it is the time I was born (really!). Trillfendi (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a good (or cogent) argument. 1) No one has made a case for the time of the WTC attacks because the circumstances and significance are completely different and 2) there are not two-dozen reliable sources documenting the time you were born as notable. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I evidently juxtaposed two thing involving an 8 46 time period: one is an event that defines how we view modern history... the other is only significant to an astrology chart. It can take me 8 minutes and 46 seconds to bake Nestlé cookies. What other specific time has a Wikipedia article? This is the issue we run into when we just go making articles out of thin air. Recentism and exclusion. Trillfendi (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support 8′46″ does not seem notable enough to have it's own article. (Check WP:Notability) Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support at least for the present. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC).
  
• Support - 8'46" pertains to George Floyd's killing and isn't (yet) related to any other topic outside of that (if so, very few low notable topics). It should be merged with Killing of George Floyd. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• 8:48 is not related to anything that I know of. 8'46" is, however, and the article makes it rather clear how it has wide resonance in vigils, protests, popular culture and in the media. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Corrected the error, thanks for pointing that out. The uses of the term and resonance among corporations and groups all seem to stem from reactions to George Floyd killing and protests, making it easy to keep all of that under separate articles (i.e. Reactions to the killing of George Floyd, Reactions to George Floyd protests). 8'46" itself should redirect to Killing of George Floyd - EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support, with the option to also keep this article. This is only a noteworthy time interval in the context of Floyd's killing (and in the 9/11 attacks, but that one is sufficiently disambiguated). It should be merged for now, but we can un-merge it if we decide if this has long-term notability later. epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• "only a noteworthy time interval in the context of Floyd's killing" - Yes, and? There's no policy I'm aware of in Wikipedia that prescribes this as a problem in terms of article-ness. It is a time period made famous by Floyd's killing, but now has resonance in multiple domains. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think the more important thing to think about is the long-term notability, i.e. would 8:46 still be repeated in 1 year? 10 years? Or would this be a phenomenon that fades out next month? WP:10YT should probably apply. I can't breathe, a similar article, is an example of something that has since become a widely-spread catchphrase, and is obviously noteworthy. Let's see if the same applies here, too. I think it may apply, given the widespread usage on social media, but we can't really predict the future. epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• WP:10YT makes an excellent case to oppose this merger for now, and revisit the decision later. It says we should "wait and see". Yardenac (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - This is really not that well-known and deserving of a dedicated article. Xxavyer (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have changed my mind, this article definitely provides unique content. Is it necessary to exist? No. Will a lot of people see it? Probably not. But I don't think the specific stuff it has is worth merging, so the only other option is deleting. And I don't think something not being absolutely necessary or not likely to be seen is grounds for deleting, if it will nonetheless be of educational value to those who end up reading it. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, you can't have two votes here. Since you have changed your mind, you should strike your "support" vote above. If you don't know how, here's how: <s>'''Support'''</s> -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know (I am relatively new here, just joined in 2020) The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article has been significantly updated, and I think a lot of the content on it is not worth merging with the main George Floyd article, or the article on subsequent protests. It should stand alone as an article related, but separate from those two. Reminder that not everything regarding those events needs to fit into one of the main pages - it's okay to have supporting articles on related topics. I think the topic that is notable enough to warrant its own page. The current page primarily discusses specific use of that time (8 min 46 seconds) in protests and popular culture, not Floyd's murder itself. Coffeespoons (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and perhaps revisit the question in 6~12 months. I feel merge decisions like these are best made with hindsight after the article has been allowed to develop freely - especially for current events. If there was a real case for existing, that will have made itself clear with more content and sources. If there wasn't, then the decision to merge can be made with more confidence. But for now, give it room to grow. Already several supporters of merging have changed their minds, citing the ongoing progress the article has made. Yardenac (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose proposition but I support merging into George Floyd protests not Killing of George Floyd because the time is primarily used in protest.Waters.Justin (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge Doesn't have much coverage outside the US and is essentially encompassed by the death page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reminder: coverage outside the US is not a determining factor in our policies. Even if it was, there has been significant coverage "outside" the US because of Associated Press coverage [15], and the fact that major US news outlets are internationally read. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as the article is expanded and contains details that wouldn't be useful in the main Killing of George Floyd article. I concur with Yardenac above that this can be revisited in a 6 months or a year. Plus, the main article is large; we do not want it to get unwieldy. TJMSmith (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, on top of which the Killing of George Floyd article is probably too long already and ought to be split into more sub-pages. Brad (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as the subject is too specific for its own article. It easily be covered in this main article. Slight support to merge into George Floyd protests. GoodCrossing (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge Per nom, KidAd (talk · contribs), and IVORK (talk · contribs), it's certainly worthy of a subsection on the Killing of George Floyd article but doesn't have enough WP:RS to warrant it's own WP:SPINOUT page. --— Preceding comment posted at the request of 172.101.5.82 (talk · contribs) actually added by Mdaniels5757 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The nom has changed to oppose and there's no way it will be speedy anything. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons listed by other uses above. (Let's revisit this one in a few months.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge Even with expanded content there is significant duplication that is already covered in the main article or protests article or can be combined with the Responses section, especially if that gets spun-out as a subarticle instead. Reywas92^Talk 03:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• oppose for many reason, including that this article is already far too long, and is already stuffed with too many related but distinct topics. Geo Swan (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the 8.46 article is now big enough to be a stand-alone page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. truflip99 (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - The Associated Press ran this story which is being picked up in syndication by many news outlets around the world, "8:46: A Number Becomes a Potent Symbol of Police Brutality" [16] [17] - Fuzheado | Talk 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"All protest movements have slogans. George Floyd's has a number: 8:46" You are arguing for a standalone article for a "slogan". Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Untrue. 1) One should look up the difference between a slogan and a symbol, as they are quite different. 2) The above !votes show this is not going to be merged. Best for all to focus on productively writing an encyclopedia. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are not engaging in dialogue. No surprise there, as your "argument" is for a separate freestanding article on a "slogan", according to the source that you provided. (Couldn't the Killing of George Floyd article explain the existence of the slogan 8′46″? Probably in about 2 sentences?) You are not explaining what you see as the "difference between a slogan and a symbol". Instead you are saying "One should look up the difference between a slogan and a symbol". Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you are trolling or not. I have been thoroughly engaged in dialogue on this page. The difference is so simple I didn't think it needed explanation: shouting "8 minutes 46 seconds!" is a slogan. Lying down for a "die-in" for that amount of time, turning on the lights in Dodger Stadium for that amount of time, putting a black screen on TV with a pulsing "I CAN'T BREATHE" for that amount of time or Google telling employees to be silent for that amount of time are all symbolic. Let's not continue pointless debate - AGF and keep on editing. Cheers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are simply citing manifestations of a slogan. Indeed it would be surprising if there were not manifestations of a slogan. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The entire field of semiotics would have a problem with this definition. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge No need for a stand alone article on this topic. The subject is too specific for its own article and much to obscure. Lightburst (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Merge ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Merge & Redir. At this moment, 8'46" might be getting some coverage, but it has not turned significan/long lasting enough to warrant separate article as of yet. Merge and redirect. --nafSadh ^{did say} 19:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Five days after my original evaluation, things have changed a lot and 8'46" has become significant enough to warrant a standalone article of its own. --nafSadh ^{did say} 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy Merge and this should be renamed and trimmed. Like George_Floyd insided or something. Jack007 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The content in the 8:46 article warrants inclusion, but per Wikipedia:Article size and WP:SPINOUT most of this content should not be in the main article concerning the killing of George Floyd. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge to this article - if it's merged anywhere, it should be merged to George Floyd protests (but that should be addressed in a separate merge proposal at Talk:George Floyd protests). In relation to the Killing of George Floyd, 8'46" is a coincidental detail--the time period Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck--other than being too long of a duration, it has no more meaning than that the time of day was 8:30 p.m. or that it was a Monday, etc. In relation to the George Floyd protests, 8'46" is a significant symbol. Thus, if it's not on its own page, it should be on the protest page, but not here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Killing of George Floyd is already too long. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Even though the main article is too long, an article about the duration of an event, however terrible it is, does not have enough encyclopedic relevance in itself. If 8'46" was not a timelength, but a movement, I would probably oppose for now. Ron Oliver (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article has been expanded considerably since nominated and now meets notability guidelines. This symbol has made its way into playlists and commemorations as part of Blackout Tuesday and is being used as a symbolic time for moments of silence and die-ins across the world. I also trust the judgment of the nominator, who has reversed their position. gobonobo ^{+ c} 09:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merging or deletion — When there are activist movements, there is often a rush to create lots of articles based on initial hype and media coverage, and then there's a process of tidying them up later—think about the Occupy protests and the many tiny Occupy offshoots that ended up going to AfD and being merged. That is indeed a risk. But if this were at AfD, the test of standalone inclusion in terms of WP:GNG etc. are fairly clearly satisfied—it is well-sourced. There is a risk it is too soon, but this is equally balanced out by... well, if it is, and the use of 8'46" as a means of memorial, protest, activism (etc.) fades away in a few weeks or months, there's nothing stopping us from having a deletion discussion about it then, since there is no deadline, and as others have noted, this article is getting quite long already. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merging or deletion - The subject of this article passes WP:GNG. A standalone article is justified per WP:SIZESPLIT. Krakkos (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I don't think this is a good-faith comment, as he has obviously become notable after his death. And this discussion isn't over whether George Floyd is notable, but rather over whether 8'46" should exist as an independent page. Coffeespoons (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong merge support per nom. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the support crowd better explain where this articles information should be placed. As of now all other articles are huge already. This does not justify merging etc. So I oppose a merge.BabbaQ (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support It would do as a section in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P,TO 19104 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Basically Support, although some of that material should go to George Floyd protests instead.--Khajidha (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems notable enough to merit its own article. If it’s merged, I think that the “Calculation of timespan” section should be merged into the “Killing of George Floyd” article & everything else should be merged into the “George Floyd protests” article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. 8’46” is a reasonable standalone article meeting GNG. It needs further development to show the cultural impact of the time but that’s regular editing. This article is already too long and needs content spun out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support or afd the [8′46″]] article as completely unnotable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  @RichardWeiss: Do you have any sources to support your claim that the article is "completely unnotable (sic)"? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

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

@RichardWeiss: It is, actually, in this instance, as you are claiming something counter to the myriad sources provided on the article page. The onus is on you to prove the topic is not notable. Of course you can't (because it is notable), but you are certainly welcome to try. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Nope, those sources prove his death was notable, and we have this article for his death. There are no sources before May 25th because he wasn't notable in life. I await your sources, your claim that the article is full of sources which I have to magically find that allegedly claim what you say is not an adequate response, as per the way we do things on Wikipedia, esp when BLP is involved, as you should know well given your 15 odd years of editing here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: Your ignorance of what the sources say does not change your burden. It also appears you aren't clear on what even needs to be notable for the article to qualify for notability. You might want to re-check what you're discussing. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. There is no reason within Wikipedia guidleines for there to be a separate article. As described in that artcile's talk page, there are only a limited number of direct references to the time. Move the information to this article. Additionally, from a strictly technical view, the inclusion of single- and double-quotes in a title can cause issues on some browsers. Although there is a discussion to rename the article in Talk:8′46″, it makes more sense to eliminate the potential issues and move to this article. 18:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Whenever a big event happens there's attemtps to capture every single event and over detail everything. this is not WP:News and having way too much of a WP:RECENTISM bias is big. Imagine if we had Wikipedia in 1921 and how over detailed we'd make pages? Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Abstain - I believe there needs to be more evidence presented for this concerning the notability of the article and its context to warrant its own page.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support There is no reason why it needed its own page in the first place. Anon0098 (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Merge the article has no content other than a list of vigils that were held for this duration of time, if we dedicated a paragraph to it in the existing article it would be enough to cover all the main points. Gammapearls (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal: Reactions to the killing of George Floyd

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

• Support It's only going to get bigger. I think we'll eventually need Trial of Derek Chauvin too. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the reactions section instead. George Floyd protests is the article about the reaction... or at least, the reaction that is notable or significant enough to record in the encyclopedia. What media outlets have to say about the killing, what pundits have to say, what politicians have to say, what world governments have to say... none of that matters. I mean, "the world was horrified and condemned the killing"... duh... that's really all there is to say about "reactions". The protests, the legal cases, if there are any resulting changes to the law or police procedure.. these are the significant reactions; what everyone thinks about it is not significant. Second choice, support splitting. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think everything in the article is obvious, there is a lot of really significant stuff in there, like Floyd's family's reaction, Trump's comments, etc. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current readable prose size is 35 kB 31 kB. Per the rule-of-thumb guidance at WP:SIZERULE, "Length alone does not justify division". The current length is hardly unmanageable for readers. I would probably oppose at anything below "Probably should be divided", or 60 kB. Just for comparison purposes, Shooting of Michael Brown is at 61 kB and I don't recall any split proposals (that is, beyond at least one split that has already occurred, Ferguson unrest). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Updated RPS. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There has to be more of a reason than mere file size (I know of many articles with more than 100 kB size and no one had been complaining about their length), and I don't think "reaction" to the event should have its own article - that doesn't seem like the kind of thing someone would search for, amd if it isn't then why are we asking them to find a whole separate article? I do think that the Trial of Derek Chauvin would make sense though, when it comes. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose current article size does not seem to be a valid reason for splitting, per sizerule and sizesplit. And I think the "reactions section" has been managed well, so another rationale for not splitting - the content is under control. The section contains information directly relevant to this topic. So article management and topic relevance has been maintained considering the amount of editing that has happened with this article. So for now, it seems to belong with this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The section contains too much trivial and predictable detail ("the leader of Foobar said ..."). Such content is better placed in a separate article, so that it does not dominate the more important content of the main article. WWGB (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I notice there isn't a ton of material in the Reactions section and it is not over bloated, which again is a surprise considering the amount of editing and the number of editors. Anyway it is all relevant at this time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Idk, it looks to me like the reactions section is maybe 40% or 50% of the entire article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Idk, So, like I said, there isn't a ton of material in the Reactions section, it is not over bloated. Also, @Levivich: please do not directly respond to me on any talk page. It would be much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• SUPPORT As the tag at the top of the article reads "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings." That section can stand on its own. Category:Reactions Many articles split off their reactions to things. Dream Focus 03:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. We already have a protest article. I think for the time being we should decide what are the most significant reactions and place them here and/or in the protest article. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I support Darouet's proposal. Really good. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support of the split. I think it’s too soon but there is now a butterfly effect of major (even unprecedented) events happening because of it so, inevitably, it should be split. Trillfendi (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: since the article will grow. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support- I think we should give main articles to Floyd and Chauvin. These are now globally known individuals. George Floyd alone was the individual who’s murder startled worldwide protests. He deserves his own article because his life will be discussed in history books years from now. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support like trillfendi, for sure this article gets split at some point in the future, but do we need to do it today? As for now it is all in one nice place. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is very tightly related to the subject matter itself. So, unless this section becomes way too large (which might eventually happen), keep it here. --nafSadh ^{did say} 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:SIZERULE uses readable prose, not page length. Readable prose is just 31k characters. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, this falls into the category of "Length alone does not justify division". Splitting may be required in the future, but currently it would be very premature. Other premature splitting related to this event has caused information scattering, so I think some of these closer splits/merges need to wait until we better know where this is going. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for all of the reasons stated above. As a side note, I think you should stop trying to split articles for the time being with no other justification other than size, which as mentioned above, "Length alone does not justify division." DTM9025 (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think the reactions section can reliably be assumed to be growing quickly, particularly international observers (anecdotally, three more countries have made statements since I last checked a few hours ago). For major international events--which, by nature of the protests, this clearly meets--there's of course plenty of precedent; Reactions to the ROKS Cheonan sinking comes to mind for its comparable length. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional observation: the International reactions section of the George Floyd protests article I think shows that a third one is necessary. First, the international reactions are not very pertinent to protests per se, since they contain mostly statements by government bodies, heads of state, etc. Second, there is information there that does not appear to be in this article, and vice versa, even though both sub-sections nominally cover redundant content. A third article seems useful. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Wikipedia:Article size and WP:SPINOUT. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support due to article size and expected continued flow of reactions and comments. Juxlos (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support since it would help increase clarity. All the other reasons above are also very valid. DoggieTimesTwo (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support The incident has a wide coverage and there are possibilities that the development of the George Floyd incident to get bigger wide attention. So I unanimously support to split main article. Abishe (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mandruss above. Split decisions are always based on readable prose, and this articles' readable prose is 31kB. Per WP:SIZERULE, that length (alone) does not justify division. This article is a long way away from even the "may need to be divided" recommendation at >50kB. This article is not unwieldy at this time, and it would be premature to split it. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose also per ProcrasinatingReader: A negative consequence of splitting would be information scattering. The strength and breadth of these reactions are one key thing that makes the killing of George Floyd so different from other killings of black people by police. We should avoid that split until it's necessary. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted the section about "International community leaders"' reactions should probably be re-formatted as prose, and not bullet points, to avoid becoming a trivia-like list. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support due to the large size of the section The creeper2007^Talk! 18:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• Support split some stuff listed on the article are either to big to be kept in the same article or doesn’t make sense to be on this article at all.BigRed606 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support No brainer, its a darn big section, and it is providing undue weight at the moment. Alternatively, if not split, it will need to be cut down to size to focus on just the most notable reactions. Though the article itself is not yet too big, the section is overwhelmingly large compared to the rest of the article, and seems to be growing much faster than the rest of the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - in present state of this section. For the reasons of readability. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Way too many noteable reactions to be squeezed into this page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support — agreeing with Levivich that the protests are the more tangible reactions, and they should not be given less weight in this article by simply being linked. Mouthpity (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Utterly predictable reactions by public officials, heads of state, celebrities, college presidents, corporate executives, and the pope, of the form "Our heart goes out to the family, sad commentary on our times, shocked and saddened, we pray for justice" etc etc and so on and so forth, enlighten the reader not at all and should be banished to a separate article where they will remain accessible for those doing statistical studies on the linguistics of mourning and consolation. In this article we should pass on a few RSs' brief summary of worldwide reactions; only reactions especially noteworthy for their stupidity (e.g. the Finnish "Pink Floyd" moron, and whatever Trump said) or their effectiveness of expression, or whatever should be presented here. EEng 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The reactions and outrage isn't going to slow down anytime soon, splitting now is a good premptive step. Aza24 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support it's to big to navigate effectively Blindlynx (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for many reasons, including that this article is already far too long. Geo Swan (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support it's too big and to hard to read 21928namtran (talk) 15:34, 11 June (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't see any reason to create a new article about such a specific topic. Articles about reactions to certain terrorist attacks have been deleted for similar reasons. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose For a few reasons. 1) The article is not that long in view of its importance and I don't see how it affects the "readability" of the article at all. 2) Reactions to George Floyd's death is largely the reason why this article is so important; 3) probably most important: there is already a very substantial article George Floyd protests (and subarticle progeny) that is directed to the presumptive growth other statements assume will be needed by the response section. It is unclear where proponents of moving the "Reactions" content want to put this material. They are not arguing this information is irrelevant. Instead, I believe that it is incredibly relevant to this subject--"the killing of George Floyd" and should not be divorced from this article. Msherby (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of George Floyd into Killing of George Floyd

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

---

WP:1E clearly applies. Also, this is going to cause duplication of effort and content divergence. nafSadh ^{did say} 20:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are probably ten articles surrounding George Floyd right now. I think the article subject has become more than just a single incident. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nafsadh: can you quote what language exactly you're referring to when you say "WP:1E clearly applies?" What part of 1E says we should merge these two articles? Because I'm reading 1E and it says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." And I agree that clearly applies, but it seems to suggest not merging. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: That article was just split out of this. It pretty much only covers the information that was in the 'George Floyd' section on this page. If that article is continued, it would effectively just be a replacement of large parts of this article. In other words, that article's existence requires this page to be split. I don't think there was an attempt at trying to obtain consensus before the split here, but it's a drastic change due to the amount of overlap, which is already evident on that page. It's premature, for now, and regardless requires more discussion if it's to be done in the future. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrasinatingReader I think you'll find there's actually been quite a bit added since it was split out. —valereee (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

valereee You're correct, there has. But outside of summary info, there's only really 960 characters of novel info (in the Biography section), plus a further two sentences about memorial. imo that can cleanly be presented here under a heading. And I'm not sure how much more can be added there without overlap here. I'd support that page, if we can agree to split this page almost entirely (like Rodney King, who doesn't have a page about the incident). In the absence of that, I think that article just splits and causes poorer access to info by readers, who only know of him in relation to the killing, and at present, for the most part, that's all the info we have. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrasinatingReader, I'm not following. Nearly the entire bio section in the 'Killing of' article is no longer in that section (because with a bio article, it's unnecessary and irrelevant there). The whole point of doing a separate article is that there was so much bio information irrelevant to his death -- his high school athletic career, etc. -- that now can be trimmed from the 'Killing of' article. —valereee (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

valereee, I think I now see your point. Though, I do think background on an involved individual can be summarised in this article, as it usually is for involved people on similar articles, and that (at least currently) there's not enough background on the subject where it would become convoluted to have it here. Nevertheless, I recognise that more background may be added, and hence that article may have its purpose alongside this. I think that article may be appropriate, as long as it doesn't elaborate any further on his death and sticks to the person only (imo this article should be preferred for developments in the killing). I do still think most people, when they search his name, are mainly looking for events surrounding the killing, and his biography is only a subset of that. Hence I still support the change and feel the information is best kept here for the time being, albeit it's more of a weak support now. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Paging nafsadh. You started this proposal, so could you please return and explain yourself more fully?

In particular, Valeree reminded you that other related articles exists, including George Floyd protests, which you explicitly endorsed. Surely you realize it would be far better for Killing of George Floyd, George Floyd protests, and a whole bunch of other articles, could link directly to a standalone George Floyd, rather than Killing_of_George_Floyd#People_involved. Note: wiki-linking to a subsection heading is a dangerous technique, and is done incorrectly 99 percent of the time. This section has gone through at least three names over the last week.

Please return and address the explicit wording of BLP1E that allows the creation of standalone BLP articles for individuals who are central to an event, when the are widely covered by RS.

Yes, duplication of content, and divergence of content, is a concern. Newsflash, even though we are all volunteers, working on the wikipedia can be hard work. When the topic is controversial I think I can guarantee you hard work will be involved. So justifying a merge based on hard work seems like a bad idea to me, particularly as there would be other sources of hard work if your merge proposal succeeds. Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:1E states, "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered." In this case it is open to interpretation. However it follows with "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." There can be many exceptions and those can be made here too. Now it says, "... individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Now, even though the event has shaken many including myself and has become a very significant one, it is about the event and not the person. <POV alert/> He symbolizes all the victims of police brutality and this event was a tipping point <end POV/>. A significant event will cause creation of many articles and we see that there is already 4-5 articles in development. That being said, people searching for George Floyd is looking for the information about the event and not about the person's biography. The person's biography doesn't alone pass WP:N. So, in my interpretation 1E suggest that the short bio be covered in this article. Clearly some editors disagree. So, looking forward to hearing from both side. --nafSadh ^{did say} 23:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the George Floyd started as a draft and someone suddenly decided to skip AFC discussion. --nafSadh ^{did say} 23:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nafsadh Any autoconfirmed user is free to move a draft to article space when they feel it's ready, which is what I did. Are you under the impression this was somehow improper? —valereee (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Not wrong but was a bit WP:Bold, which is often a good thing. --nafSadh ^{did say} 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Re. linking to subheadings, and the dangers of it: I don't believe that is required per MOS:REDIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProcrasinatingReader (talk • contribs)

• Weak support - Not enough unique content to justify an individual article at this time. Much of this is already repeated in the Killing of George Floyd article. Love of Corey (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support, for now. As I stated on the other page, this will cause an overlap of information with this page, as is already happening (eg the reference to the state autopsy which is repeated, for balance we're now going to have to add the independent autopsy, and as you can see, this quickly becomes repetition of material). Although some page splits and merges are needed, I think merges and splits are currently not being discussed enough and are being done hastily. I think perhaps some more waiting should've been done before creating that page. The current design might just cause confusion, poorer access to information by readers, and repetitiveness. For that page to be proper, we would have to butcher a lot of content out of this, which people seem to be unwilling to do currently. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• The eventualist in me strongly opposes per the passage Levivich quotes, and the immediatist in me strongly supports per ProcrasinatingReader. I'm left somewhere in the middle. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support As above, there is not enough info on GF to justify a separate article. All it can hope to do is repeat the story contained in Killing of GF because that's the only notable thing about GF so far. Perennial Student (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Opposite There is as much reason to merge George Floyd page with George Floyd Protests. There are multiple wiki pages surrounding the topic of George Floyd. If someone was looking for a biography of him, how would they know they should go to 'killing of george floyd' instead of 'george floyd protests'. I say don't merge.Byconcept (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Using a redirect, as it was before. And for those looking for a biography from outside Wikipedia, Google suggests Death of George Floyd for the search term "George Floyd". ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose This page is becoming too sloppy because people are falling over themselves to cram as much information into it as they can without regard to quality and policies. His biography should be separate for this reason. Trillfendi (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is sloppy in the lead and its description of technical events (done in far too much detail). The brief bio was probably the leanest part of the article prior to the GF page creation, given the robustness of debate about what could be included. Perennial Student (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - As User:Levivich notes, the referenced policy suggests the opposite of merging. In addition, while it is very unfortunate that George Floyd's notability began with one event, it's equally clear from the preponderance of interest and further activity that his notability already exceeds that one event and continues to expand.  Frank  |  talk  21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The man is important and notable enough to have his own page on wikipedia. To have only Death of George Floyd conveys a lack of regard for the man whose death started a global protest movement. There will be books written about Floyd, songs sung about him, and many deep dive articles written about him. He is notable enough for a biography page.Comm260 ncu (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merging pages. George Floyd is now important enough to have his own page, plus I think there is an added respect to those close to him that his murder is not the only page of his and they can see one that is about him directly. --Evertent (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge His life was not all that interesting, and certainly not biography material. His death is the only reason he is known and written about. WP:BLP1E Lightburst (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above; the oppose votes were convincing enough for me. Quahog (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The protests are largely centered around Floyd and have even took his name. He is the protagonist in this situation and not just some side person who was involved. Additionally, information about his life is is present. 23:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Killing of George Floyd is already too large. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose, his name will be known in the history books. Vinnylospo (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, purely because Killing of George Floyd is already getting rather large, but then there's also a risk of this page being repurposed as a memorial. Ed6767 (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure if size concerns valid at this stage. Size is 31k char, and hence per WP:SIZESPLIT "Length alone does not justify division". ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- Killing of George Floyd is getting too large and cluttered. Miss HollyJ (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per WP:BLP1E; he played a significant role in a significant event. There are plenty of sources to support a stand-alone page: BBC News, Rolling Stone, The Economist, NBC News, The Independent (UK), Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, CNN and many more biographies from which we can draw. Including a full biography in this article will make this article too long. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • After considering the arguments from other editors, I'm no longer sure that having two articles is best. I'm also not sure whether "the one article" should be titled "George Floyd" or "Killing of George Floyd". To me, I think under our policies, we have discretion to do it either way, and it's a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue about which presentation is best for the reader. On that score, I'm just not sure. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Levivich—"George Floyd" is not a "topic". "George Floyd" is the title for a "biography". WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". But "George Floyd" is not a "topic". There can be articles on "topics" relating to "George Floyd", but there cannot be a "biography" on "George Floyd". Policies such as WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL obviate the possibility of a "biography" on "George Floyd". Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support - per our policies: WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, just like we did with the Shooting of Michael Brown. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge (strongly) – and not just because the article on the "Killing of George Floyd" is getting quite long. ...The man himself is becoming more and more notable by the day. The fact that he's "only notable for one event" is negated by the fact that he played a very significant role in quite a significant event (one that had effects on a sizable percentage of the Western world). (Also, it's not as relevant, but his rap career!) Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Paintspot Infez Exactly. Although he was killed, his existence, background, and everything leading up to the moment of his death has emotionally resonated with other human beings. To call for justice for this person is to celebrate his life before the tragedy. Comm260 ncu (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Comm260 ncu: This includes the bad things he did, such as home invading the home of a pregnant wooman and holding her up with a gun while looking for money for drugs. We don't have articles to celebrate the lives of people, we have them because peoople are notable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maximum Oppose, he is known for far more than the one event that brought him to the attention of the world. And the legacy he leaves will likely endure for generations. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Do you have sources to verify your unusual views? And what did he do in life that would warrant a Wikipedia article? I can't think of a single thing. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Not to deviate from the gravity of the issue, but George Floyd as a person is not sufficiently noteworthy. The thing he is most known for is the unfortunate manner of his death. Had he not been arrested and killed, he would not have been mentioned at all in Wikipedia. It is clear that he is recognised for one (tragic) event only, per WP:1E. People who type "George Floyd" in the search box are likely seeking information on his death, not the extensive details of his life. I support incorporating/merging certain details in the George Floyd article into the Killing of George Floyd article, but certain other information such as his "Discography" (which do not link anywhere else) should be omitted or used in other existing articles e.g. Screwed Up Click. Yekshemesh (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support Following the comments and points above, George Floyd shows no signs of notability other than in the present context of his unfortunate killing. DoggieTimesTwo (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as a clear example of WP:1E. With all due respect, the details of his life are not particularly relevant to his death or the aftermath of his death. Wikipedia is not the place for obituaries. Again, I mean no disrespect, but he actually didn't play a significant role in this event, in the sense that it could have been any unarmed black person in his situation at that time and place, and the results would have been largely the same. His education, criminal history, employment history, etc. don't really have anything to do with the reaction to his death. That being said, the "Biography" section of George Floyd is only three short paragraphs, so that could be merged here without losing much content at all. If there is to be a split of Death of George Floyd due to article size, the "Reactions" section would make more sense as an independent article than "George Floyd" would. Surachit (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - George Floyd's discography would suggest that he's noteworthy for more than just his death. KohrVid (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as per all the arguments above. He is certainly notable based on all the press coverage this incident has received. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The killing of George Floyd is long enough. Also I wanna keep his Discography. -- Toby Mitches (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. Let the fact that every single cited source in the article in the George Floyd article was written after his death and discusses in the context of the killing speak for itself. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Clear WP:BIO1E, Floyd was unknown prior to his death. There's nothing here that would not fit into the "Killing of" article. Also, the discography needs a better source than the unreliable discogs. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, given recent coverage of his past life. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's clear under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators George Floyd is notable for being murdered and his life was not a significant factor in his victimhood. Relevant biographical details could be rolled into the "Killing of George Floyd" article. Sean0987 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support This dude is only notable for his killing, having a separate article is completely unnecessary and I suspect motivated by sentimentalism from certain users here. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support - Though as per policy it requires so and also the content regarding biography but since he got much media coverage due to widespread movement, separate page may also be fine. USaamo ^(t@lk) 07:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as per all the arguments above. --IndexAccount (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ambivalent On the one hand he is in fact only notable for this one incident (and frankly it should not have got this big, but that is a discussion for another site). On the other hand this has become a massive event. If anything it is not him (or even the killing) that is notable, its the protests. So if anything that should be what WE concentrate on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per tabled evidence. ItsPugle (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I support the subsuming of information on the person into the article on the incident. Bus stop (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think the merger should be done Sinon01 (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. George Floyd is clearly notable per WP:VICTIM (1), as he had "a large role within a well-documented historic event." A standalone article is justified per WP:SIZESPLIT (An article the size of this one should "almost certainly should be divided") and WP:1E ("If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."). Krakkos (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - clear example of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Merging prevents this from becoming a WP:MEMORIAL filled with trivial life details, when the notability is based solely on the event. -- Netoholic @ 12:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per the fact his career in entertainment gives him some (admittedly borderline) notability independent of the killing, per the unique and unprecedented nature of the world wide protests, and per Krakkos (especially WP:SIZESPLIT - if we're putting the reader first, keeping the separate article is essential, IMO.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge He is notable for a single event WP:SINGLEEVENT. Neither his music or basketball career nor his criminal history get anywhere close to the notability threshold. - BorisG (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Floyd is now notable for multiple subjects Killing of George Floyd, George Floyd protests, etc. Check the related articles in the George Floyd template. TJMSmith (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• (＋)Strong Support According to Wikipedia notability guidelines a criminal cannot have his own article. I had created this page "George Floyd (killed African-American)" and my page was redirected to Killing of George Floyd. Should merge George Floyd to Killing of George Floyd. --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge clear one-event notability as argued by others. The split which would make sense is the "Reactions", ie the political fallout/protests etc. No disrespect to George Floyd, but it is solely the fact and manner of his killing that has made his name known outside family and friends. It is fairly sentimental IMO to pretend otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge per WP:SINGLEEVENT. His legacy can be covered in the Killing of George Foyd article or a separate "Reactions" article if the former is getting too large. We don't have an article at Stephen Lawrence, despite the huge media attention and ramifications of that case.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge Like others mentioned, WP:SINGLEEVENT Amazingcaptain (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin (2nd nomination). If Trayvon Martin has his own article, so should George Floyd. Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Theres nothing unique in this article; Floyd is not notable past this event. Just put some of the his biographical information into the people involved section of his killing article. Everything else in this article is mentioned elsewhere. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Floyd is now notable enough as a man, not only as the victim of police brutality. The media is exploring his life and background independent of the events of 25 May. Moncrief (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge the simple reality is George Floyd would not have had a Wikipedia article if it wasn't for this one event. That defines the 1E rationale. Having them split is also more confusing to the reader, who is likely here looking for information on the killing more so than his personal background. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Oppose: I still think WP:BLP1E applies. Even though there is now more coverage of George Floyd's life, it is still "only in the context of a single event," which is one of the criteria of WP:BLP1E.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bait30 THat seems to be an argument in support of the merge; unless I'm missing something?-- P-K3 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: The way I'm interpreting it, all of the coverage about Floyd's life is still only in the context of his murder as the coverage is not independent of it. In other words, even though there are WP:RS covering Floyd's life, that coverage is solely a result of the murder. If Floyd wasn't killed, this coverage wouldn't exist.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Pawnkingthree Oops you're right. I forgot which side was oppose and which side was support. I'll edit my !vote.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Floyd is a person in his own right - even if he is better known for how he died – and why. There are times - as with JFK and the JFK assassination - that someone's death stands on its merits as a separate topic from their biography. Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Wikiuser100: It sounds like you support, rather than oppose. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thank you for calling attention to my sloppy grammar. I have revised my statement to be clearer. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wee owl maek misteaks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Seems like a decent amount of content here and merging that into the death of will only cause bloat or we will have to excise a lot. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: His biography is not notable, but his murder is.--Sakiv (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: George Floyd has already become such a notable individual after his murder and the resulting mass protests and riots. Many other African Americans have been unjustly killed, but Floyd's one has had a much larger impact. His name will be go down in African American history in the same way that Emmett Till's has. I believe there is enough information about him to justify an article about him, and as the weeks, months and years pass, information on his life and who he was can only grow. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think the difference with Emmett Till, and other similar individuals, is that they do not have an article solely covering the event of the lynch itself. There is no Lynching of Emmett Till and multiple other articles didn't spin out of the event. Note that there's very little on his background in that article; it mostly covers on the lynching, his death, the trial, and the aftermath. In this case, that cannot be done for Floyd due to the fact that this article exists.

  An article on Floyd would remain most useful if all the details of his death are in there. That may well happen, if other proposals made on this page for splitting sections to other articles go through (eg splitting Reactions). Then we'd be left with little article here and be forced to merge into a George Floyd. But, for the time being, since most interest is related to his death, I don't think it's the appropriate time. Perhaps in a month or two it should be revisited and this article split and merged. I think we should also stop discussing each split and merge separately and discuss and overall strategy for how to organise content relating to Floyd and the protests.

  I'm not opposed to Floyd having his own article. I would be happy with that, in fact. In the long term, I would not mind the breaking up of this article and the information on his death being transferred to George Floyd. But, at present, I think it would just be messy, unless we can gain consensus on breaking up and scrapping this article. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for various reasons, including:

1. support opinions are ignoring the elephant in the room. Killing of George Floyd is far too long. It is far too long because multiple related topics have been stuffed in there, which would be covered better in a constellation of smaller more focussed articles.
2. BLP1E is routinely misinterpreted as barring the establishment of any standalone BLP article for individuals mainly known for their involvement with a single event. This is wrong. BLP1E explicitly allows standalone BLP articles, for several reasons, most importantly, when their role was central. Other aspects of Floyd's life are now highly documented, so BLP1e assertions are not relevant. Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Geo Swan, Support opinions are not ignoring your first point. The article is, again, 31k characters long. Which, per WP:SIZESPLIT, means length alone does not justify division. There's already a proposal to split out reactions / merge with George Floyd protests. Other than that, this article is only 7 sections long (6 if you ignore the comment on neck restraints, which imo should be in Minneapolis Police Department#Misconduct and internal affairs). This article, currently, does not conflate unrelated topics in those 6 sections. If anything, this article is too short, and will only be shorter if reactions is moved out. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Whether 31K is too long or not - please consider how fast-moving this story is. When I tried editing this article, a couple of days ago, I kept being hit by edit conflicts.

    So, ProcrasinatingReader, how about we reserve WP:SIZESPLIT for articles that aren't about highly active current events? Geo Swan (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose It would not make sense to cram everything in one article. Their is already talk of moving and creating new articles revolving around George Floyd. See discussion abouve about splitting parts of the page into multiple articles.BigRed606 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support Quite unfortunate that this was created without consensus to split this main article. There's no "cramming" here, this content belongs in the killing article, and there's no reason to have a separate page with divergence and duplication. If your concern is length, there's already another discussion to split the Reactions section, which would make for a much better subarticle to be summarized. Even if Floyd's life has now been well documented, no part of it warrants notability separate from his murder and BLP1E absolutely applies here, consistent with other articles on such unfortunate incidents. Reywas92^Talk 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Floyd is notable only because of his killing. The same applies to Stephen Lawrence (note the redirect) and many other similar cases where there is no article specific to the individual. There are some exceptions such as John Hinckley Jr., but they are few in number. The current Wikipedia guidelines would suggest merging. Arcturus (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support You might say "other stuff exists" but precedence here is not for the victim to have a page about their life. See Shooting of Bijan Ghaisar and Murder of Botham Jean --Bangabandhu (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Also, WP:SIZE doesn't matter here that much. Little can be said about Floyd before his death, so his bio can be accommodated within the killing article (and any potentially trivial details could be trimmed down). Brandmeister^talk 22:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support unless it can be demonstrated that he was notable prior to his death. M4DU7 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Literally the name in everyones lips. There has been plenty of events after his death related to him personally that justifies inclusion. Good third party sourcing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SPINOFF more than WP:1E: there's more reliably published and plausibly encyclopedic information about Floyd's life that would fit in this already unwieldy article. A separate page allows us to keep this information for readers who really care about the details of his biography; after a while, when historians produce more serious and thoughtful discussions of Floyd's life and what it means for his extremely notable death, WP editors will then be able to sweep away the WP:INDISCRIMINATE details (e.g. his high school basketball career) that are currently accumulating. FourViolas (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• OPPOSE merge, just DELETE WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. He is only notable for one event, there nothing written about him before this, and he isn't going to be getting coverage for anything else he ever does after the event since he's dead. The One Event guideline states that someone can become notable from coverage after an event they were involved in, but the example listed was a guy who got called before congress and was notable for what they did after the one event. Dream Focus 00:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are reliable sources on the web on Mr.Floyd's life that would satisfy notability requirements. Additionally, the article is off to a good start and I feel as if people should continue to add more details about George's life as different aspects of his life are being reported by trusted sources. --- Dwayne wuz here! ♎️ 01:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose due to him on his own being notable enough post-death. You wouldn't merge Rodney King's article into his police beating article, for example. 109.76.87.125 (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  But there is no "police beating article" on Rodney King. There is only one article. Just as there should be here.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose as his bio IMO isn't small enough to contain to one article, and he's notable in his own right now. We'll look back at this and wonder why we did it. Buffaboy ^talk 02:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given huge significance of the multiple events related to him and his death (the protests, etc.), this is no longer a case of WP:1E. It makes sense to have a separate biography page to describe his life in all details. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Yes, however all those events, unfortunately, are related to his death. For the protests we already have another article. There's nothing much interesting about his life that qualifies him for a biography in my opinion. --Amazingcaptain (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In the context of these events, it is really important (and interesting for many readers) to know what kind of person he was. For example, some say: "hey, but this guy was a career criminal!". But he actually was not (well, in my opinion). This is something one can learn only by reading his biography page. This is the case when not only death, but the life of the person was important. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And why can't we include that in this article? We can mention that he used to play basketball and was a rapper here and the other details as well. There are just a few things in that article that are not already here or in the protest article. --Amazingcaptain (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is why. There is an RfC just above [18] where many people argue that certain important info about his life should not be included because the page is about his death. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There are information in this article that would make the other article even harder to navigate. Just the huge number of people that have given their opinions on this very page existence are proof that Floyds article is needed. To merge this article into the Killing of.. article would not benefit Wikipedia. Nor the covering of all aspects of this historic event.BabbaQ (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support As per one event. Not notable for his own article, merge to this leave a redirect as someone will search for his name. All those saying his notable for this that and the other after his death are missing the point. He is not notable because of all the stuff which happened afterwards, he did not start the protests. The protests are a reaction of his death. Also see Yetunde Price, sister of Venus and Serena Williams, she did have her own page but was renamed to the death of Yetunde Price as she, herself is not notable and is only notable by association. Games of the world (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Locke Cole reasons. Also per WP:SIZESPLIT. Feelthhis (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - normally I would support, but there are some special considerations here - the article on his killing is getting very large, and too much information (which I think many find interesting) would likely be lost in the merge. George Floyd's character is of particular interest right now (for better or worse), so it makes sense to have a separate page where people can more easily find information specifically on that topic. As far as notability, there's really no question he is notable now IMHO. Danski14^(talk) 15:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:1E says,

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

• So tell me, is does Floyd likely meet the standard of Rodney King or Haward Brennan? I think clearly he does. I would further argue that all the officer involved likely need an article also. Casprings (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on more or less the same basis as above – he's likely to be notable in his own right, and it's better to make a decision like this with a bit more hindsight to determine long-term significance – but also a bit less cautiously, since WP:1E explicitly recommends keeping articles on individuals who played a large role in a highly significant event, which would be an accurate description of this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I see that there is a clear split with almost equal number of editors in favor of and in opposition to merger. Some are opposing on the basis of size and some think there is clear WP:N. IMHO, WP:SIZESPLIT should not be sole determining factor in this case. WP:N of George Floyd is solely based on single event. A good number of editors who mentioned Rodney King article as a precedent failed to mention that WP:1E was applied on Rodney King and there is one single article covering mostly the event. I also like to remind you that WikiPedia is not a memorial. Given that a consensus is not reachable at this moment, let us hold a moratorium for a month and then revisit this issue. --nafSadh ^{did say} 00:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed1 Games of the world (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nafsadh consensus isn't needed to leave the articles separate. Consensus is only needed to merge. "No consensus to merge" would mean the articles would remain separate, at least for now, though you could nominate to merge again later if you still thought it was appropriate. Or you could take it to AfD. —valereee (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee By saying "let us hold a moratorium for a month" I meant since there is no consensus [to merge], let us keep this as is (i.e., separate). Someone also mentioned SNOW close. This thread is not going anywhere. --nafSadh ^{did say} 18:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the significant event and figure exemption in BIO1E. Highly significant figures of deaths like Trayvon Martin, Emmett Till, Matthew Shepard and Leo Frank get their own articles. GuzzyG (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• support no notability outside of tye context of the other article. Merge. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am surprised people are supporting merging based on WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Both make clear and explicit exceptions for those who, as WP:CRIME puts it, "had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." How is that criterion not met here? blameless 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have have commented on Talk:George_Floyd#General_Organization_of_all_Related_George_Floyd_Pages, that George Floyd is the logical head page for all relatedGeorge Floyd pages. In particular, this page is short enough to be merged into that page. On the other hand, the page George Floyd protests is probably way too long to be merged into that page and should just be linked to from that page. Finally, WRT notability,

George Floyd is far more notable in death than he Black Dahlia Elizabeth Short who was an un-notable 22 year old woman, prior to her death. Similarly, I agree with the notability comments about Emmett Till and Rodney King made by others above. Please see my further remarks at Talk:George_Floyd#General_Organization_of_all_Related_George_Floyd_Pages . I'm not sure if I should transcluyde those remarks here. Abelian (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm see some really hypercritical arguments now. Elizabeth Short (black dahlia) and Emmett Till do not have a stand alone articles, their deaths and consequences of are what the articles are about not their life. What we have here is people wanting to source lots of information about Mr Floyd from prior to his death which is not notable. Come on people at least do some research and read what the article is about first before making a point! Games of the world (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• strong oppose he's become Rodney King levels of famous Kingofthedead (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Killing of George Floyd is already unwieldy. Keep. Kire1975 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - there's enough written about Floyd now to justify a stand-alone article, and this article is too longer to merge anything more into it. Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as he has had an abundance of coverage. Andysmith248 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose He is now himself a central figure of the BLM movement and the protests that have followed. More will come as a result of his death beyond being directly related to his death. Calcium17 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Both articles are too large to merge, and notable enough to deserve separate pages. Hextor26 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support he is only notable for this event. WP:BLP1E applies.
  SSSB (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:1E. It does not matter than the target article is "too long"; if it is, that is a separate issue to be dealt with at that article. This person was not notable except for one event. The protests and movements resulting from his unfortunate death have nothing to do with him as an individual person. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Someone should not be defined by their killing. There is more to George Floyd than this incident, his killing is just what made him widely known. Smith0124 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Subject is not notable outside of event. SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Could we have a tally of the votes thus far? It's hard to keep track of such a lengthy list. Love of Corey (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:1E, George Floyd is known for one major event. Additionally, it solves the problem being discussed above of the lead image being a shock image currently. Combining the articles solves two issues at once. Pacack (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like this line of thinking that he is "only important for his killing." While I recognize that that is what he is most notable for, his death was a far larger shock than that of Ahmaud Arbery or Breonna Taylor and deserves to be recognized as such. The coverage on him was international and has lasted for a week. (and will undoutabely for many more) - Aza24 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The George Floyd article has enough material to stand on its own; moreover, if our goal is to keep this article at a manageable size, I don't see how merging the Floyd article would be helpful. Davey2116 (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support I support the merging. Michael Brown doesn't have his own page. Ahmaud Arbery don't have his own page. Breonna Taylor don't have her own page. There is also nothing notable about him other than his killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NamelessLameless (talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Davey2116, Hextor26 and others. This article is for material too detailed or inappropriate for the "Killing" article. Jusdafax (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Subject is notable only for his death. His background in this detail is unnecessary and irrelevant. There is no need to build a cult around him.--Norden1990 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Subject is not notable. The event is.Oathed (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support WP:ONEEVENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoebringer (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose good for cataloging. Easier to find. Linked from several articles. Name used in many circumstances. --Igor Yalovecky (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Per WP:ONEEVENT KidAd 01:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. wp:ONEEVENT No longer applies, there is now legislation and worldwide protests in his honor. Georhe Floyd is a reasonably good article that could easily double or triple in size if the biographical information was researched out of reliable sourcing. It’s already a good article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's inconsequential, Gleeanon409, that "there is now legislation and worldwide protests", as this is subsequent to the life of George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we would just have to have our different opinions. Very few white on black murders have been elevated to this degree.

In any case a biographical article serves the reader best as far as I can tell, rather than truncating their life to only fit a murder victim narrative. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You refer to "truncating their life" but they would not meet notability requirements based on "their life". Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

He meets GNG regardless, how we serve the needs of readers is the main question. I just don’t see a sprawling article doing that; and the separate bio helping the overall effort. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Please tell me—what is "remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual" about George Floyd? Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well there’s the rather obvious, people around the world are marching in his honor and legislation in his name is being passed. He clearly meets GNG by any metric. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Though it is a kind of WP:1E, the subject is very much notable. The worldwide historical protests calling Black Lives Matter started only after his murder. Abishe (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Abishe—wouldn't "after his murder" mean after his life? Bus stop (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Due to the length of this article, it would be difficult to cut out his biography and merge it into the article of his death. Abstrakt (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Much of it does not call for merging. Are we going to merge "Protests in response to both Floyd's death, and more broadly to police violence against other black people, quickly spread across the United States and internationally" into this article? Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support In my opinion 1E certainly does apply. If there is sufficient notable content to be produced from the protests alone that can be another article, but he has no personal notability beyond his death (which is covered here). I'd also say that just because there's been a media frenzy about these protests, doesn't mean that they can't be summarized concisely and this whole mess of articles trimmed down a lot. Zortwort (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure, 1E applies. According to WP:1E, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Hence we need two pages here per WP:1E. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support There’s just not much on GF, so it can be merged, and he is not notable outside of the context of the killing, so it should be there. Plus I think the article with the material merged in would be a better article. The prominence here is the demonstrations, which are based on the actions of the officer and that it was on video, not from or extensive in his life details or that it was him per se that this happened to. The reaction is more that it could happen to *any* black man. I think WP:1E applies. This is partly that coverage does not seem to meet the 1E requirement that coverage “devote significant attention to the individual's role” - the coverage is not mostly on what he did or what his life was. It also is partly because of similar restraints in WP:BLP1E which also says WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.

Alternatively, I note the 1E example is Matthew Shepard which went the other way - putting the killing under his name. But in this case where it has only shown historic coverage in the last few days, that same coverage has shown the coverage is on the demonstrations, the posturing and photo ops of politicians, and on potential law changes - not on this person and not about what he was doing in the killing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose To merge would be to ignore an obvious and indisputable fact. Subject has clearly become larger than his murder. He has become an international, transformational figure. Not unlike Rosa Parks, whose simple act of sitting on a bus made her a historical and transformational figure. Or Emmett Till, whose murder made him a historical figure. Or others, whom history ordained would become transformational for a single event or act. Of course subject also passes WP:GNG. But those arguing that WP:1E should apply, are also correct. But they should re-read it:

  "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

Surely, if an assassin can be notable, so can a victim. Again, think Emmett Till. Or Rodney King. This action should have been speedily withdrawn. Easiest "strongly oppose" of my decade-plus on this project. X4n6 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I am already on record in opposition to a merge above. But I want to make sure those participating in this debate, and whoever closes it, are aware of this New York Times article. The notion stated above that "There's not much on GF" is, quite frankly, nonsense. Rely on reliable sources--that's what WP does. The reliable sources are telling us this is a notable life, not just a notable death. blameless 21:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Blameless—you write "I want to make sure those participating in this debate, and whoever closes it, are aware of this New York Times article." And you link to this New York Times article. But I'm not seeing anything in that New York Times article establishing notability for George Floyd. Can you please point out for us the material in that New York Times article that you feel establishes notability for George Floyd? Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Blameless On the contrary for both points.

• First, factually there just is not much WEIGHT of the coverage given to GF. There's a lot on this march or that riot and that it's gone global. There's a lot on the photo ops of President Trump and Speaker Pelosi or candidate Biden. There's a lot on the calls to defund the police or the various reform efforts at various cities and the Democratic proposal or Republican proposal, But not much about the life of GF -- and even in his killing, the coverage is not on what he did during or before the event so much as discussing the actions of the officers and bystanders. There was some coverage of his daughter speaking about him - but even today his brother testimony in front of Congress ... it's a political show, not much about GF himself.
• Second - your precedents are of cases where there is no second article. There is no second article about 'killing of' for Matthew Shepard, or Emmett Till, or Gavrilo Princip -- and no second article fro Rosa Parks or the other figures mentioned here. So a merger is natural, and in this case I believe the killing of and protests are larger than the life story so it should go that way. Alternatively, I could see merging all that into here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I gather both of those are addressed to me, but I haven't mentioned those precedents. As for your first point, I think you're defining notability in a way contrary to Wikipedia policies. At WP:GNG, a topic is presumed to be notable if it is the subject of "Significant coverage" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" in reliable sources. That is clearly the case here. You may not think of Floyd's athletic career or his family life as notable--but if the New York Times, Texas Monthly, and similar sources treat them in detail, then they meet our definition. blameless 02:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Blameless—I shouldn't be responding for Markbassett but the New York Times only wrote about George Floyd after his death. And his death was not an obscure event. His death consisted of a videotaped encounter with law enforcement that appears to my untrained eyes to consist of an act of torture. The videotaped subduing of and subsequent death of George Floyd set off much indignation in many people and protests focussing on the need for police reform among many other things. Reliable sources write about widespread unrest and political demonstrations. But nothing in the life of George Floyd would confer notability on George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Then why do major news outlets continue to write in-depth biographies of him? The latest I've seen is by The Chicago Tribune. It is very clearly a biography, not a story about the protests. blameless 05:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this article needs to be split up as is Blindlynx (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Sometimes a figure becomes more significant than the particular events that they were physically involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.17.128 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per all the reasonings above that are oppose to the merger. George Floyd will also be remembered for not just the protests and riots but changes in years to come. Swagging (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Not notable outside the killing and the George Floyd protests (and the many other articles about those events) that already have articles. Should be merged. Amqui (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose under WP:1Q. I've seen plenty of RS articles that mention Floyd with the expectation that the audience knows who he is. If a reader knows nothing about the events surrounding George Floyd's death, and sees a mention of "George Floyd" in the news without sufficient context, they ought to be able to look up a Wikipedia article on who this "George Floyd" is. The hundreds of thousands of daily page views should demonstrate this. userdude 07:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC); edited 07:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I think a SNOW close would be more appropriate. There is already a bill named after Floyd and efforts to name streets after him [19][20]. Enough people have commented on this discussion to warrant a close without waiting the full seven days, and right now we're putting an ugly {{merge to}} tag in front of hundreds of thousands of readers' faces. userdude 07:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• UserDude—yes, there is a "bill named after Floyd and efforts to name streets after him". This is subsequent to his death. What is notable about George Floyd in his life that would warrant an article? We don't just write biographies willy-nilly. Please see WP:BIO. A person is sufficiently notable for a biographical article if they are "remarkable" enough, "significant" enough, "interesting" enough, or "unusual" enough, to "deserve attention". Nothing in reliable sources establishes this for George Floyd. We find further guidance on this in WP:MEMORIAL. It says that we do not create articles for the purpose of memorializing deceased individuals. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased individuals. Bills can be named after him and streets can be named after him but Wikipedia should not be creating articles willy-nilly to memorialize people that obviously do not meet notability requirements for biographies. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Bus stop: if we're talking about WP:BIO, Floyd absolutely meets WP:BASIC. I thought this was a question of whether or not WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E applies. I believe criterion 1 and 3 of BLP1E are not met, and the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one so per BIO1E a separate article is generally appropriate. But, even if consensus decides BLP1E/BIO1E mean there should not be an article, my position is that the article should remain per 1Q/IAR. "SNOW close" was probably the wrong wording; "Speedy close" would have been better. userdude 19:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I moved this to article space because there was major disagreement over which details of Floyd's life were appropriate for inclusion in the 'People involved' section. There were many biographical details that were irrelevant to his death -- arrests and convictions from more than a decade ago, for instance, and how many children he had, and where he was born and raised, the work he did, why he moved to Minneapolis. None of these is relevant to his death. But they are appropriate for inclusion in a biography about him. The bio article has 60 sources, many of which are purely biographical, lengthy, and only about Floyd. That would be enough to prove notability for anyone, no matter why they were notable. Scholarships and legislation is being named after this guy. Public artwork dedicated to him is being created internationally. This has moved so far beyond one event in the week since this merge was proposed that I'm surprised there's recent support to merge. —valereee (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—by your byzantine reasoning anyone would would meet notability requirements. But wikipedia is not here for the purposes of the canonization of non-notable people. Wikipedia does not have to get aboard a bandwagon of transforming a non-notable individual into a highly notable life lived. Wikipedia is not a creative writing project. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that determine eligibility for biographies on individual lives. Nothing about the life of George Floyd meets any of the criteria for a biographical article about the man. Please see WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm sorry, I'm not following...what Byzantine reasoning am I using that would allow anyone to meet notability requirements? —valereee (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—"how many children he had, and where he was born and raised, the work he did, why he moved to Minneapolis" are the sorts of details applicable to any person's life. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, well of course they are, and if those kinds of details about a person get significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, we often call the person notable and create a biography about them. How is that Byzantine reasoning? —valereee (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—most people walking the Earth are not notable for Wikipedia biographies. We have policies and guidelines which serve the purpose of screening out 99% of Earth's population. It doesn't matter "how many children he had, and where he was born and raised, the work he did, why he moved to Minneapolis". You can't pull the wool over people's eyes. WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL are still applicable. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop I disagree that this represents a memorial. I'll state again: when these kinds of details about a person receive significant coverage in reliable sources, we often conclude that person is notable and create a biographical article about them, and we include those details in that bio, even if those details aren't important to the reason the person is notable. You appear to be assuming bad faith on my part; please strike that accusation. —valereee (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You are going round in circles, Valereee. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles...The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it...The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article". Of course "we include those details in that bio, even if those details aren't important". Nobody argued otherwise. You are setting up straw men and knocking them down. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop You have accused me of trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. In general I'm happy to continue debate in a civil manner, but if you're going to assume bad faith, I won't bother. Please strike the accusation of bad faith. —valereee (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

OK Valereee, I have struck it. See above. And I apologize for any offense. But the point remains that it doesn't matter the number of children he had, where he was born and raised, what work he did, or why he moved to Minneapolis. Quotidian details don't establish notability. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks! I think we're talking past each other. I believe you are following policy as you see it; I too am interpreting it the best I can. It's fine for us to disagree. The policy on this is open to interpretation. —valereee (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You are saying policy is "open to interpretation". How so? If you invoke WP:IAR, policy would be "open to interpretation". But you have not invoked WP:IAR. For Wikipedia purposes there is nothing notable about the life of George Floyd, and I won't be swayed by emotional appeals. It doesn't matter the number of children he had, where he was born and raised, what work he did, or why he moved to Minneapolis. This has nothing to do with notability. George Floyd should not have a biographical article if Wikipedia abides by its own policies, aside from WP:IAR. In my opinion Wikipedia should steer clear of jumping on this bandwagon. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I think the basic argument is that he now meets WP:GNG by a lot. You may not feel there should be so much coverage. And I can even see a WP:BLP1E argument. But to just argue he didn't do enough to have an article would be to misunderstand our inclusion policies which state "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Do you think he hasn't received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources? Hobit (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No Bus stop, I am not IARing at all. I am looking at the policy for subjects notable for a single event, and it says we generally cover the event rather than the person, but if media coverage of both is large enough, two articles may be needed. My interpretation of that rule is that there's enough coverage to justify a bio. Your interpretation of that rule is that there isn't yet enough coverage to justify the bio. IMO we're disagreeing on interpretation. I agree it doesn't matter to the interpretation of that rule how many children he had, etc. etc. What matters, and I've now said this to you at least three times in this thread, is the amount of significant coverage in reliable sources we find. And of course you shouldn't be swayed by emotional appeals. If you think that's where I'm coming from, you've got another think coming. —valereee (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge This topic is now too important for us to not have articles on the main people involved. GNG is trivially met. It is one event, but this, and his role in it, are so big that he meets the requirements of having a separate article. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge He was unknown prior to his killing. Sgnpkd (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - He wasn't notable when he was alive. He is now after he got killed. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 14:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Once he’s notable, a stand alone article is called for. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hansen Sebastian you seem to be saying he is notable now, but !voting to support the merge? —valereee (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • That is probably a typo. I think Hansen Sebastian intended to type "He is not after he got killed". Perhaps they can weigh in and clarify. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I am convinced by Levivich, X4n6, and Blameless. I can understand why some editors believe 1E applies (I was tempted to believe the same at first glance), but the arguments from the editors I mentioned have convinced me that it does not (and by extension that a biographical article about George Floyd passes notability guidelines). I am also persuaded by the arguments that this article is already large enough that splitting it up is beneficial for the readers. I believe that the oppose votes are done in good-faith and that editors who support the merger cite that it was his murder that led to him becoming as widely known as he is today, which I do not disagree with, but the argument that swayed me against a support or neutral vote is that there is precedent for believing 1) that the notability of the protests that occurred in the aftermath of Floyd's killing should be considered a second notable event and 2) that the sufficient amount of reliable secondary sources providing biographical information about him makes an article warranted. Examples of this rationale include that Rosa Parks, Emmet Till, and others all have standalone biographical articles, despite the fact that you could argue that it was one event - and in the case of Till that event was their murder - that resulted in them being notable enough to have their own biographical articles. They have articles because the notability resulting from their individual events (be it Parks not giving up her seat or Till being murdered) extends far beyond said events, and as a result, there is no shortage of biographical information available to write articles about them. The same is true for George Floyd. 1E may apply for many if not most articles covering instances of police brutality, but it does not apply when the killing is so significant that the victim becomes a martyr and a symbol of something much greater than themselves.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If you read the articles you would realise that Till's is about his death and cover up/lies not his life and why are you bringing Rosa Parks in to this? Clearly not even worthy of a comparison. Parks was awarded the presidential medal and was a political campaigner and did several other notable things outside of refusing to move on a bus. Again, people please read the articles and do some research before commenting. Games of the world (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - As for now, George Floyd is relevant for the incident of him being killed, his life or biography is not relevant to the incident. This information should just be added to the page about the event, and, if for some reason his figure as martyr or biography becomes interesting, this page should be added then. Greenlucid (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose While the letter of WP:1E would say merge, the RS on his life and interest in it justifies an article on George himself. WP:IAR case here. - Scarpy (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd undoubtedly meets GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Close per WP:SNOW. I can't see this argument ending with consensus. I'm personally neutral about the issue, though the WP:1E policy tends to support merging, while at the same time allowing the leniency of seperate articles, should the event or media attention surrounding the individual become significant. For that reason, the existance of this article isn't a major issue from a policy standpoint, and getting consensus for a merge would probably be impossible at this point. For these reasos, I'd say snow it for now. Perhaps this discussion can be reopened sometime in the future, after the situation has calmed down and its final consequences become apparent. Goodposts (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the merge per nom. Was George Floyd notable before the incident? ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Commment. A counterpoint: Was Emmett Till notable before his death? Maybe not, but his death was so notable it made him notable as a person as well. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, the same point can be made for Gavrilo Princip, Lee Harvey Oswald, Matthew Shepherd, and many other people who are notable for one event. It's a common misconception that "notable for one event" (WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E) means "not notable". The only questions are whether it was a significant event and whether the subject had a substantial role in it, which in my mind, are indisputably true here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • User:Levivich - those don't have multiple articles either - the two are not seperable, and all in a single article is a better way to cover it. Since the amount of content is bigger there than here, 36 screens versus 9, it seems more in line with WEIGHT and also just easier to merge that way. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Markbassett, that's a good point. I still would be more inclined to merge this article with George Floyd than the other way around. If it were one article, at George Floyd, I would probably support splitting that article to have a separate article on the killing per WP:PAGESIZE and WP:PAGEDECIDE. So I still think I come out in favor of two articles instead of one, but you've made me rethink that because I also cannot think of an example where we have two articles: one on a person, and one on their death. Given the choice, if we had one article, I'd rather it be called "[Person's name]" instead of "Killing of [person]". (But that would be a change that would apply to many articles.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
    • There is no separate article for the "Death of Emmett Till", though. If we're going to follow that example then this should be a discussion about moving "Death of George Floyd" to "George Floyd" rather than a discussion about a merge/split. Surachit (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I would say that the Emmett Till article needs to be moved. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per what X4n6 said. Floyd is the subject of international attention and both his life and legacy have been covered extensively. The main article about his death is way too big already and merging would not serve a good purpose. cookie monster (2020) 755 20:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:1E he is only notable for his killing and the events that transpired from said event. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 05:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose An article on George Floyd is warranted, judging by the incredible amount of coverage and reaction not only his death has recieved, but he himself. Also, per WP:1E, which Levivich pointed out: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". Respectfully, this honestly shouldn't even be a discussion. AshMusique (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Floyd was not notable before he died. As for the mentions of protests and such, those are not because of Floyd, they are because of Floyd's death. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose George Floyd has become very notable for reasons other than his murder. His life is of interest to people a lot more than typical victims of police brutality. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:DRAFTIFY or otherwise keep the standalone biography. There's enough sources already dedicated to his life, not just about his death, and it's reasonable to expect only more will be written. FWIW,WP:OTHERSTUFF example of Trayvon Martin.—Bagumba (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge: BLP1E is not designed to cover intense periods of international coverage that last weeks or longer. There are literally thousands of reliable sources across many languages that can be used to build up an extremely high-quality article in adherence to the purpose of Wikipedia. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 14:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strog support Completely unnotable individual. His death is notoable and I support having an article about his death. He wasn't so there is no good reason to have an article about him. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Information is increasing about the importance "Big Floyd" (George Floyd) in the early Houston Hip-Hop music scene. See NPR, RollingStone, The Mercury News, and Radio. That means he is at least notable for two events. So, WP:1E does not apply in this case. Cheers.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - not notable before his death and (obviously) can't become notable as a person after. The notability is for the death. --Khajidha (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

His notability is not for the death, but because of George Floyd protests called his name. Given that the person obviously passes WP:GNG, we should have a biography page about him. This is so simple. The killing is the last episod of his biography, which requires a separate page to discuss the perpetrators and other things that have littele to do with him. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As others have said, Floyd has gotten an extreme amount of international coverage and has become a worldwide symbol of the BLM movement. That should warrant an article. 64.43.128.112 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Deletion of RS and dragging of Floyd's body.

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

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

References

The RS is certainly very specific about the word 'drag', as in the police dragged Floyd's "limp" body. It's impossible to misunderstand. The comment of the 'disregard for human life' I added to the talk as another reason to justify the inclusion in an article on a killing, and that phrase was not included in the edit. If RS oxygen works for our purposes, it's the best quotation "...until an ambulance arrives and police drag his limp body onto a stretcher..." It's very clear. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Since the Oxygen RS [[ref name="Stephen Jackson"/> is acceptable, it's information should be included. I can re-edit Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

...the section but would prefer not to find it deleted again. Ok? Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—are we implying that the police treated the person's unconscious body disrespectfully? You are saying that it is "impossible to misunderstand" but I don't think it is at all clear that the word "drag" implies less care than is called for. The man is a heavy man. It would be hard to move him without a degree of dragging. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, I'm afraid that's not how the BRD process I linked to above works. You make your arguments, I make mine, other people chime in, and eventually we reach WP:CONSENSUS, which is another bit of reading for you. In the meantime, anything you add, I add, or anyone else adds is fair game for changing, removing, whatever until we reach that consensus. It seems like you are wanting to use the word "drag" to make a point, here, (we also avoid making points, especially in controversial articles) but please go ahead and re-edit to say what you think it should say based on your reading of the RS. . The rest of us can then tweak or delete and we'll continue discussing here. —valereee (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

valereee Conjugations of the word "drag", ie "dragged", is in the RS. It is not OR, nor making any other point other than to include encyclopedic info on the killing of Floyd. To infer other reasons is not supported by RS. As an aside, "drag" also is used in the video, ie "Did they just drag him?". A second statement in video says, "You could have at least lifted him". Both speaker's voices are quoted earlier in article, but I haven't found RS with these specific quotations. Bus stop To drag and to lift are two distinct actions; lifting infers care, while dragging infers a lack of care. To excuse the dragging of Floyd due to his weight ignores these distinctions. Additionally (although video's not RS) 2 med personnel lifted Floyd after (what appears to be 2-3) policemen dragged his body. Very different and distinct decisions and actions, roughly same number of males lifting. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop valereee Or I should say...same number of males moving the weight. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, please indent your talk page posts by starting them with one more colon than the post you're replying to. This helps other editors follow the conversation. —valereee (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—please post your sources here. I searched for them in article History when this Talk page discussion began over 24 hours ago. I found them, but I did not look at them very carefully. My fault. What I will be concerned to see is what emphasis I can discern for "lack of care". The presence of the word alone—"drag"—may not be enough for me to to feel that the implication is "lack of care". Therefore I'm asking you to please post your sources here. I'm asking you to please provide a link so I can easily view your sources. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

bus stop The quotations at issue are in the opening talk post. Conjugations of "to drag" are used by all 3 provided RS. Regardless of what a person feels about the word "drag", these specific RS should not be held to a different standard: Chavin didn't "push" Floyd across the backseat, he "pulled". To debate the use of the word "pull" in that instance would be equally unfounded and somewhat bizarre. Here, RS did not use the word "lift" nor "load" to describe the action, nor did they describe the police as carefully and lovingly moving Floyd's body. They chose conjugations of the word "drag". Specifically. I suggest becoming familiar with the primary source - the video - which makes this discussion seem rather surreal. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—I'm simply interested in seeing the sources for myself. Maybe I will interpret them differently. Please provide links that I can click on so that I can access your sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think I found one of them. It says "Once the ambulance arrives, they drag Floyd’s body onto a stretcher." Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—if you study my above post, you can see how I linked to The Blast (magazine) article. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

bus stop I again urge a close look at the primary source. There's no other interpretation, audio quotes included, no need to split words when images answer doubt. Afterwards I'll repost the links, but aren't they archived? Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—yes, they are archived. I'm too lazy to find your post from 48 hours ago in the History of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-added sequence on Floyd's body dragged

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

I have removed two of the three refs for being unreliable. Hitsongz? Nigeria? Others can decide if the remaining ref, and hence the inclusion, are worthy. WWGB (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You say "bus stop the links you wished to re-interpret (don't know why) are in refs". Yes, Pasdecomplot, that is what we do—we "re-interpret". All people do this all the time. Citations are provided in articles so readers can "re-interpret" information in articles. Did you think there was truth? If you want truth you are more likely to find it in math and science. But in the realm of human affairs there is little truth. Just interpretations and reinterpretations. A film I like is Rashomon. A story is told and retold by various people. We have The bandit's story, The wife's story, The samurai's story, and The woodcutter's story. Thank you for pinging me. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

bus stop It's difficult to re-interpret the OS/video capturing of the dragging; it's easier to re-interpret RS/words describing the OS/video of the dragging when the dragging sequence is not watched. That's the point. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, when I watch the video we currently use for the source at the end of that source (the one narrated by the NYT reporter), he isn't seen being dragged to a stretcher. Do you have some other video you can refer us to wherein Floyd is being dragged by the officers to a stretcher? If not, it appears this single RS is out of sorts with the majority RS reporting on the subject. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, you can see it at around 7:50 in this video on YouTube. If I were writing WP:OR, I would write that officers "threw Floyd onto a stretcher", based on what I see in that video. However, I've read a ton of articles about this over the past week, and not a single one comes to mind in which the RSes either characterize this as "dragging", or even address the placement of Floyd onto the stretcher, at all. There may be RSes that discuss this, I just haven't seen or don't recall them. Of course, we'll need RSes before we can put this into the article; our own OR won't cut it. This is one of the many instances where "the video clearly shows..." but it just doesn't matter, because of WP:NOR. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How would you recommend phrasing this in the "Medical response and death" subsection then? It currently reads "Around 8:29, Floyd, still motionless, was dragged by Chauvin and other police to a stretcher..." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on the sources currently cited in that section, I would revert the language to a prior version we had that read something more like, "Around 8:29, Floyd, still motionless, was loaded into the ambulance...". I do not think the single Oxygen source (which I think is all we have right now on "drag") should merit writing "drag" in the article, especially in wikivoice. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made this edit. "Dragged" is contrived language. We are not trying to imply disrespect to the lifeless form of a body. Normal language would include "moving" the body—the body was "moved". It is a contrivance to try to imply "disrespect" by insisting on the word "dragged". The harm was already done during the time George Floyd was handcuffed behind his back, prone on the ground, with a knee pressing against the back of his neck. The abuse did not continue. No reliable source is saying there was any lack of care or concern in the moving of the lifeless body from the pavement to the ambulance stretcher. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement, and "moved" complies with NPOV and BLP. But I still think that whole bit should just be cut; if we're not saying anything in particular about how the officers moved Floyd onto the stretcher, there is no point in including that detail at all. Under the theory that we also wouldn't bother to say that the officers closed the ambulance door after Floyd was inside, etc. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Every step in this central moment warrants documenting, so I tend not to support removing what I understand you are characterizing as as being perfunctory, as would be closing the ambulance door. But that the lifeless body was "moved by Chauvin and other police to a stretcher" constitutes substantive information, so I tend to not want to tamper with it. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I wasn't looking for a primary source video to use as a source in our article, I was asking if you'd seen a video in which police had dragged Floyd on the ground to a stretcher, in which case sharing that with us would give us good reason to search for better secondary reliable sources to add the dragging claim to the article. The word "drag" can easily conjure up for some readers an image of police grabbing him by his ankles and dragging his entire body 5, 10, or 15 feet across the asphalt to a stretcher sitting idly at the back of an ambulance's doors. Do you see why that's a problem, and why we want to have multiple quality reliable sources to justify using the word "drag"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot—the last thing I would do is engage in "newbie hazing". I argued against the inclusion of "dragging" because it is not prominently supported in sources. It is an inflammatory implication. It requires good support in sources. It would seem ludicrous to me to imply that after the body was seen to be lifeless there was further disrespect heaped on the body. It has happened. There is a history of lynchings in which that and worse has transpired. But we don't casually imply heinous activity of that sort without good quality sourcing. Thousands of opinions abound. But we have to limit ourselves to opinions or observations that are found in the best quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, I'm usually the newbie being hazed, but this isn't newbie hazing. It's core content policy. "Clearly depicted in OS, mentioned twice in OS audio"... the video is a WP:PRIMARY source. For us to watch the video, and write in Wikivoice what we see ("dragged"), is original research, prohibited by our policy. In order for us to say "dragged", we need reliable sources saying "dragged". Not one source like Oxygen, but more than one source. We also need WP:CONSENSUS to resolve disputes, and "dragged" is definitely disputed. I saw you recently re-added "drag" and it's been removed again. Please don't re-insert it until and unless there is consensus to do so. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you are discussing with multiple experienced and well-intentioned editors who are trying to help you learn WP's policies. New editors do sometimes feel frustrated, but it's not because they're being hazed but because there's a steep learning curve here on Wikipedia. Adding to the frustration for you is that you're trying to climb that steep learning curve on a very controversial and contentious brand new article. This is really the worst kind of article for a new editor to start editing. No one here is misrepresenting policy, and in fact many people have been quite kind to you given that this article is so contentious and time-consuming. You have been repeatedly pointed at policy and repeatedly advised to read it; have you done that? Also, what Levivich said above: here's a really important policy re: reverting again: WP:3RR. Violating that one can get you blocked. —valereee (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Pasdecomplot, no. His brother is not a reliable source for what the cops did or didn't do. He is only a reliable source for his own opinion. Please see your talk. —valereee (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

We would be saying that the brother said that. I don't think what the brother says is as worthy of inclusion in the article as what a multitude of good quality sources say. Do we have good quality sources implying that there was a lack of care? Thank you for pinging me, Pasdecomplot.

Pasdecomplot, you're aware there's a query from me at your talk, but you're choosing to continue to edit here instead of answering there? —valereee (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Killed by Derek Chauvin

Is it wrong to state that George Floyd was killed by the police or Derek Chauvin specifically?

Given that the death has been declared a homicide and a thorough discussion has resulted in moving the article from Death of George Floyd to Killing of George Floyd, I wonder if there is a good reason to bend over backwards trying to avoid stating who killed whom. This especially concerns dozens of articles where a concise wording might be best, e.g. George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom. It has been made clear that homicide is not a crime unless it is ruled to be a murder so the tiptoeing seems unwarranted. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say who did it, even if was not criminal he still did it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should focus on Chauvin alone to the exclusion of the other three, especially since it's clear two of the three actively participated in the killing by sitting on Floyd etc. It's for that reason I've left the lead saying that Floyd died "after" Chauvin did X, rather than that Floyd was killed by Chauvin (period). EEng 12:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that position. WWGB (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In Dr. Baden's opinion, the back-kneeling and neck-kneeling both asphyxiated Floyd, and I didn't see any four-legged officer on YouTube. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Baden's opinion seems to contradict the opinion of the medical examiner's office, as well as the opinion of the prosecutors who choose to charge only Chauvin with murder. I hesitate to take the opinion of a TV physician hired by the victim's family over the opinions of the medical examiner's and prosecutor's offices. userdude 20:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And others don't trust Baker, but as long as our body includes both, our lead should reflect that content. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What is it that you are suggesting changing, Surtsicna? The first sentence of the lede reads "On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, after white police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street." Can you tell me what specific change to the article you are suggesting? I don't understand what question you are asking. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The change being suggested would be to replace the word "died" with "was killed," and replace the word "after" with "by," so that we specifically state that Chauvin killed Floyd in the first sentence of the lead, e.g., change it from "Floyd died after Chauvin..." to read "Floyd was killed by Chauvin...." etc. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that the wording of this article be changed. I asked whether it was problematic to state in other articles, where more concise wording is expected, that Floyd was killed by Chauvin or by the police. InedibleHulk and EEng#s have explained why Chauvin should not be named alone. I assume it would not be problematic to state that he was killed by the police. Surtsicna (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I am so sorry that I didn't grasp your question until just now, and I hate to think you might have figured I was blowing you off. In case it's not apparent by now, I think no one can possibly have a problem with killed by police (or by the police, or by police officers – whatever fits best stylistically)). EEng 22:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither Baden nor Baker sees a problem with linking this homicide to "police", readers can figure out who's who extremely easily in so many other ways in every Floyd article already. Might change "after" to "while" here, though. Both doctors agree he died when he appeared to die. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

While is a great idea, and I went to implement it when I found a problem: the sentence ends up died while white police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes, which sounds a bit odd. Or maybe no. OK, I've tried it on for size; let's see how it feels.

Later: No, doesn't work because there's a worse problem: you end up with died while D.C. knelt ... while Floyd lay face down... EEng 16:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I bumped Floyd's final position up a notch, getting rid of one "while" and reintroducing "prone", look OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's an inspired stylistic fix. (I'm not thrilled with prone but face down doesn't work in your new formulation so I'll let that point go.) However, I fear Levivich (below) has pointed out a fatal flaw in our whole "while" project. EEng 16:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

One problem with that change is he didn't die in the street. He went into cardiac arrest in the ambulance. One can't go into cardiac arrest if one is already dead. Ergo, he was alive when they put him into the ambulance. The ambulance left at 8:30 and he was pronounced dead at the hospital at 9:25. I don't know when the ambulance arrived at the hospital, but it sure didn't take an hour. Ergo, he was alive in the hospital. Almost certainly, the entire time from 8:30 until 9:25, medical personnel of various sorts were attempting to save his life. (It's not like they just left him in the hallway for an hour, then came back and pronounced him dead.) It's very, very, very, likely that he died at the hospital shortly before 9:25. This is like that age-old question, if a man is shot Monday and dies on Friday, on which day was he "killed"? Was he "killed" five days before he died, or was he "killed" five days after he was shot? In this case, Floyd was "killed" in the street, but "died" in the hospital. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I fear that "went into cardiac arrest in the ambulance" is fatal to the use of while. I think it has to be died after. Do all agree on that? EEng 16:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is going to sound stupidly pedantic but bear with me. It doesn't really matter when or where Floyd died. This isn't an article about the death--that is, it's not about the particular combination of actions by police officers and underlying medical conditions that resulted in death; we don't include any information about medical attempts to save his life; it's not actually the death that's notable or significant, it's the killing. This article, at its core, is about a knee on a neck. It's not about a man's medical conditions. All the important stuff happened at the corner of E. 38th and Chicago, not at the Hennepin County Medical Center.

By that logic, I think we should keep the focus onto the street and what happened on that street on the evening of Memorial Day 2020. So, I'd prefer a construction of "was killed...when" or something like that, as opposed to "died...when" or "died...after".

About "face down" "face-down" "facedown", I don't think it matters if he was face down or face up. It's not like if he were face up with a knee on his neck, everything would have turned out fine. All the sources do say "face down", and we should include that in the body, but I'm not sure it's even necessary to say "face-down" or "prone" in the lead. He was lying in the street; it doesn't matter how exactly he was positioned. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, this is your problem now, but maybe "laying" beats "lying", too. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, well that depends. Are you going to lay in bed or are you lying? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm always laying in bed when editing, no lie, but "went unconscious" that time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a WP:RS for Kueng kneeling on Floyd's back? If so, that belongs in the lead and the text should say "killed by police". I did a quick search and found references to holding and restraining Floyd's back, but that's only enough for aiding and abetting. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made this edit. Handcuffed behind the back exacerbates breathing difficulties resulting from knee pressure on back of neck. This is something known to police. There are limitations recommended concerning the amount of time a suspect can be restrained with handcuffs behind their back, although this involves other factors as well. In this instance the one factor possibly exacerbated the other.

"Seth Stoughton, an associate professor of law at the University of South Carolina, told the news network that keeping suspects in the prone position, meaning face-down with their hands cuffed behind their backs, for an extended period of time is dangerous in and of itself, because it's known to cause positional asphyxia...Someone in that position can draw enough breath to gasp or speak in spurts, but they can't breathe fully, so they gradually lose oxygen and fall unconscious." Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

For my part, I don't agree with including that detail in the lead. Known to police, sure, but not known to the average reader. These are what I think are the key details that should be in the first sentence:

1. May 25, 2020

2. Minneapolis, MN

3. George Floyd

3a. 46-year-old black man

4. was killed

5. Derek Chauvin

5a. white police officer

6. knelt on Floyd's neck

7. for a long time (8:46 or "almost nine minutes")

IMO, "knelt on Floyd's neck" implies lying down. Clearly Floyd wasn't standing or sitting when someone knelt on his neck. I don't think it really matters if he was handcuffed behind his back, or in front, or if he was handcuffed at all. Just like it doesn't matter if they were metal handcuffs or plastic zipties. Same IMO with face down/face up/nose down/cheek down. None of that has been cited by RS as being particularly important to his killing (as opposed to the knee in the neck). Those 7 facts above, and those two descriptions of Floyd and Chauvin, are what I think like every single RS includes in their lead sentence or in their short-blurb descriptions of what happened. And I think the best word to connect #4 and #5 is "when". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"it doesn't matter how exactly he was positioned" I disagree. We don't have to explain this with exactitude. But we do have to use appropriately specific language. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"I don't think it really matters if he was handcuffed behind his back, or in front, or if he was handcuffed at all." A key factor is "compliance". It is almost axiomatic that a person handcuffed behind their back is "compliant".

“It would have to be a last resort,” Adams said. “Everything we do with use-of-force has one object in mind: compliance. The video I saw showed a man lying on the ground in handcuffs and it would be hard to argue he wasn’t complying. Once you gain compliance, you need to deescalate.” Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Adams is the chief of police of Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, population 18,000, 1,000 miles away from Minneapolis. In any case, I don't think analysis of whether the knee on the neck was proper police procedure belongs in the first sentence of the lead. Maybe I'm wrong but to me (and I kind of think to the rest of the world) it seems very obvious that kneeling on someone's neck for 9 minutes is not proper police procedure. I guess I'm not opposed to explicitly saying it was not correct police procedure in the lead somewhere. I think the criticism-of-neck-restraint content could be woven into the lead somewhere, just not in the first sentence. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"keeping suspects in the prone position, meaning face-down with their hands cuffed behind their backs, for an extended period of time is dangerous in and of itself, because it's known to cause positional asphyxia...Someone in that position can draw enough breath to gasp or speak in spurts, but they can't breathe fully, so they gradually lose oxygen and fall unconscious" This just something we need to know—aside from the knee on the neck—that was bad enough—there is the prone position, with hands behind one's back. "hands cuffed behind their backs, for an extended period of time is dangerous in and of itself, because it's known to cause positional asphyxia" Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's relevant information for the article, but not so important as to include in the first sentence. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If we change the lead to say that Floyd was killed by Chauvin before the trial, aren't we stating in Wikipedia's voice that Chauvin is responsible for Floyd's killing, even though a government authority (be it the county ME or the county's district court) has not yet made a finding of fact that Chauvin is responsible for the killing of Floyd? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that he was killed, as reflected in all sources. Hence this page was correctly renamed. Killed by whom? Obviously, by the officer Chauvin an his colleagues, as majority of the sources also tell. WP:SPADE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Do the majority of the mainstream secondary reliable sources say "Floyd was killed by Chauvin", MVBW? Or do they essentially say that Floyd was killed, Chauvin put his knee on his neck for 9 minutes, two autopsy reports found the manner of death to be homicide, and Chauvin has been charged with murder (like this Wikipedia article does)? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Only some sources say this directly and literally (for example, here), others do not say it literally, but clearly imply it. This is because the alleged perpetrator was caught and even photographed red handed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, that's an excellent summary of what we actually know, and what our article correctly says. I would not change it at all. Even somebody like DC has a legal right to be presumed innocent. If we start saying he was "killed by Derek Chauvin", in Wikipedia's voice, in an article read by literally millions of people, how can he get a fair trial? Would we have tainted the jury? Would he get a mistrial because of it? Let's stick with Neutrality and Verifiability, and not get ahead of what we know. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Were the article to have said "murdered by", that would be a WP:NPOV issue unless and until a court so ruled. However, "killed by" is a matter of fact, substantiated by WP:RS. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should say "killed by DC" until a court of law says so. For one thing, remember that two other officers besides DC were part of the assault. And I really liked the "while" formulation and think we should go back to that. I don't know who came up with the assertion that we can't say "while" because he didn't actually die, i.e. undergo cardiac arrest, until he was in the ambulance, but I don't think is an argument we should base our decision on. He was described as "pulseless" when the ambulance arrived, and had been immobile for at least three minute at that point. The paramedics undoubted tried CPR for a few minutes, and they may have zapped him with a defibrillator, and they undoubtedly did this for a while, before pronouncing him to be in cardiac arrest. But his "cardiac arrest" had already happened. You can argue that he isn't "really" dead until he is pronounced dead, which would have to be done by medical personnel, but that's a quibble given the evidence that he died while DC and the others were kneeling on him. In a murder case the "time of death" is the time when evidence suggests that the person died; it's not the time when they were pronounced dead, possibly hours later. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Star Tribune reported: By the time George Floyd was en route to the hospital Monday evening, he was unresponsive and without a pulse. But for nearly an hour, first responders and ER staff refused to give up on the 46-year-old St. Louis Park man in their care. “He still had an outside chance,” said Hennepin Healthcare EMS Chief Marty Scheerer. “Even if it’s a super long shot, you’ve got to try your best.” But 90 minutes after his initial encounter with Minneapolis police, Floyd was pronounced dead at HCMC. But Fox News reports: George Floyd died "many minutes" before he was transferred to a stretcher and taken to a Minneapolis hospital, forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden told Sean Hannity Monday. I think perhaps the most accurate formulation would say something like, Floyd was dead for all intents and purposes by the time the ambulance arrived at 8:27, but medical personnel continued to try to revive him, until he was finally pronounced dead at 9:25. (Agree we shouldn't say "by DC" and I also liked the previous opening more than the current one.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I actually agree with MelanieN and others that the current description in the lead is good, and we should not say he "was killed by DC". I am only saying that any reasonable person who reads newspapers and this WP page will come to such conclusion. However, speaking generally, when and where a person was pronounced dead (on site or in the hospital) does not really matter. This is still a murder. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a RS for Keung kneeling on Chauvin's back? If so, "killed by Minneapolis police" is more accurate than "killed by Derek Chauvin". Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Any remaining open issue here before we archive? EEng 02:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Collapse trolling

The official autopsy does not imply that he was killed, he died because of cardiac arrest. Either from coronavirus (he was infected and multiple sources prove that cardiac arrests are on spike during the pandemic) or drug overdose. Kneeling on the back of the neck cannot cause asphyxiation or death, as trachea is located on the front of the neck. This article's name is massively misleading and ruins Wikipedia's credibility. Original name "Death of George Floyd" was more suitable. You will have to change it someday, as cops will be proven innocent. 185.90.166.4 (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC) If you actually think Kneeling on the back of the neck cannot cause asphyxiation or death you're nuts. Here's an idea: have someone try it on you. If we don't hear back in a day or two we'll know that you got your confusion straightened out, though I fear at the cost of some pain to your family and friends. EEng 16:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC) No, you cannot be asphyxiated by this neck restraint. Give me one source. You are just a conspiracy nut that is thinking too emotionally, sadly at the price of losing credibility of Wikipedia. But I will enjoy it when you will have to edit the name of the page after the cops will walk as free men. 185.90.166.4 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Let us know if you survive the experiment. EEng 17:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) We wouldn't change the name of the page if the cops walk as free men. If they walk as free men, it wouldn't mean they didn't kill him. And if the credibility of Wikipedia hinges on EEng's thinking, we're doomed anyway. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC) The problem is as many people consider Wikipedia a source of information, they will visit this page and take it as a sure thing that he was killed. Nothing proves he was killed. Not a single thing. Do you think cops have super power to cause cardiac arrest? Because asphyxiation did not happen, he died in hospital, which would not be anatomically possible if he asphyxiated. "Homicide" in autopsy means that the death was not exactly natural, what medical examiner stated has no legal means. Whoever is stubborn enough to keep this named a killing is ruining credibility of Wikipedia. And if you are willingly stating this as killing without any proof you are just thinking emotionally. The cardiac arrest is defined as this "Cardiac arrest is a sudden loss of blood flow resulting from the failure of the heart to pump effectively. Signs include loss of consciousness and abnormal or absent breathing. Some individuals may experience chest pain, shortness of breath, or nausea before cardiac arrest. If not treated within minutes, it typically leads to death." Shortness of breath and lost of consciousness were caused by ongoing cardiac arrest, unrelated to neck restraint. It was just really unfortunate he got it while being arrested. 185.90.166.4 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC) It's beginning to look like you're simply a troll, because no one's that stupid. Hatting. 17:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) As I recall no page moves.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC) This thread wasn't about the page title, rather some details of the text. EEng 17:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Should the lede have 8 minutes and 46 seconds or almost 9 minutes?

Which is better for an encyclopedic article? The exact time or something else? Should it read knelt on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds or should it be knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes? Either way links to an article about that time, which makes it seem even more ridiculous when you don't have that exact time listed. Dream Focus 16:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• We tell the reader that Floyd was 46 years old – not 46 years, 3 months, 17 days old – because the latter, overprecise formulation gives the reader no additional understanding of anything while it wastes our most precious resource as writers, to wit our readers' limited reservoir of attention and capacity for assimilating detail (or reading past useless detail). Almost nine minutes and Eight minutes 46 seconds have precisely the same relationship. (We're talking here about the lead, where every word counts. In the article body we give full detail, or course.)
  I'm not sure I feel particularly strongly about the above, but I do about this: it's absolutely inappropriate to link the time specification (in whatever form we settle on) to 8'46". That's a classic WP:EASTEREGG. That link is given later in the article, with appropriate explicit introduction, in the discussion of protests and reactions. EEng 16:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I prefer "almost nine minutes", and it shouldn't link to 8'46". That link should be removed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think it is preferable to use the rounded number in the lede. While I oppose the existence of the 8′46″ article, if that article is to exist, we should link to it in the lede. I do not perceive an WP:EASTEREGG type problem concerning that link. It is not an WP:EASTEREGG because 8 minutes and 46 seconds equals 9 minutes, unless my math is off. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Given the notability of the exact time (as used in various protests, in various speeches, and in almost all coverage of the incident this article covers), we should use the exact time in the lede. This is very much unlike an age which changes constantly until the person dies, and at death, is often not notable beyond the years passed since birth. This is also not an WP:EASTEREGG as we're giving the exact value to the link, the link merely provides additional information on the significance of that specific amount of time. As regards "every word counting", it actually consumes more space to be less specific... depending on how it's presented, anyways... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I can see a case either way, but have a preference for Dream's version. Some readers, including me, appreaceated the 8'46" link. With Dream's transparently worded version, there's not even a borderline violation of WP:EASTEREGG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exact time - The problem with just linking 9 minutes to 8'46" is that precision of information is lost on a printed copy of the page (as per WP:EASTEREGG). Now, specifying exact amounts of time isn't usually necessary when dealing with encyclopedic content because it's trivial at best and wouldn't provide any additional insight to the reader. However, in this case, the distinction is necessary because of how iconic and symbolic 8'46" has become to the protests and the amount of coverage from reliable sources it's received. Additionally, saying 9 minutes and then clarifying it as 8'46" just sounds redundant to me. Specifying the exact time is the best option here. --letcreate123 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Imprecise time - The distinction between 8 minutes and 46 seconds and 9 minutes makes a mockery of the concept of precision. It doesn't matter. It makes no difference. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exact time, per letcreate123. That time - 8'46'' - is now iconic. Let's not be coy, and let's not create eastereggs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter that it is "iconic". We are not in the business of beating the drums of protest. Wikipedia doesn't engage in boosterism for any cause. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely right. EEng 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• The link is an easteregg regardless of whether the text the reader sees is almost nine minutes or eight minutes forty-six seconds. Per MOS:EASTEREGG, we're supposed to make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. Only readers who already know will have any idea that this link will take him or her to an article about a meme or protest slogan. In the Memorials and protests section we've got

  The length of time that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck, eight minutes forty-six seconds, was often seen on protest signs and messages (see 8′46″), as were the words "I can't breathe".

and that's the right way to do it. (I wrote it so of course I would think that.) EEng 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Imprecise time is fine, and remove the link (which is included with relevant context lower down). This is meaningless precision that draws attention away from the fact that Chauvin knelt on his neck for the thick end of ten minutes, including three minutes after he was dead, and thus presumably not struggling much. Guy (help!) 22:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• My reading of 8′46″ has the duration at 7:46 - the 8:46 is an accounting error in the complaint against Chauvin, so almost 9 minutes is a fairly big rounding error on our part. Josh Parris 23:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about 7:46 because this video shows Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for 7 minutes and 53 seconds. Chauvin's knee is already on Floyd's neck when the video starts; we don't know how long it had been there. The criminal complaints are based on body camera footage, which hasn't been publicly released yet, and the complaints say 8:46. They're probably not wrong about that, since Chauvin's body camera footage would probably show rather clearly when Chauvin knelt. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Even more reason to merge that article. Time stamps themselves are not notable. Trillfendi (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• IMHO: almost nine minutes is too verbose; 8'46" can be a little hard to interpret at first read. On top of that, this duration is an estimate, so being too precise while not exactly accurate is a bit weird. 8 minutes and 46 seconds contains cons of both of the aforementioned options (to verbose, overly precise and eventually reduces flow of reading). So, only okay compromise I can see is keep it as is, i.e.: almost nine minutes.

In terms of keeping wikilink: the notability of 8'46" is albeit a separate discussion. While the article lives, use the wikilink. --nafSadh ^{did say} 19:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• almost 9 minutes, no link, per EEng. --JBL (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• I prefer the exact time (I was the one who originally changed it) for two main reasons. First of all, there is a large protest movement and plenty of protest activities that have sprung up around that specific time, not around almost nine minutes (see 8'46). Futhermore, this phrasing to me seems encyclopedic. Look, says Wikipedia, he was in a chokehold for almost nine minutes! Although others may disagree, it seems as if we are dramatizing the situation, which should not be the job of an encyclopedia; its job is to report facts, and report them neutrally. --Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Chatul, see WP:PRIMARY. Primary official sources can be used, with care. Interpretation of them requires secondary sources. A publication of the Minneapolis Police Department is a WP:RS for what it says. Kablammo (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where I was interpreting it. BTW, if you can figure out why the end of the previous section and the beginning of this section are disappearing, I'd be grateful. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Just commenting on the substance, it is worrisome that the handbook section doesn't warn the reader that extended periods of constraint to the arteries starves the brain of oxygen even if you don't constrict the airway... Persistent Corvid (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but discussing that in the article would be both off topic and WP:OR. There are some parts of the manual that hint at the risk, and it would be legitimate to quote those. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• We can't be quoting such a manual, or paraphrasing it, or anything else except maybe to give an exact quote of passage explicitly referenced and analyzed by a reliable (very reliable!) source. There are very good reasons we don't ever say, on our own, "The Department's manual forbids etc etc"; for example, rule books often list general rules at one point which are modified by exceptions listed somewhere else -- just as a law which, on its face, seems to compel or forbid something may be limited or modified by other statute or case law. We can't take on the responsibility of checking for stuff like that. EEng 02:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Covering up information about the city charter is very inappropriate

The Minneapolis City Council pledges to dismantle and defund the Minneapolis Police Department are powerless if the city charter is not amended. It is inappropriate to cover up that the authority of Minneapolis mayor, who in fact opposes dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department, overrides city council pledges to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department via the charter and how the charter also requires a minimum amount of police. I will get a anti-vandalism administrator if blocking these edits continues.Mancalledsting (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It is even accepted in the Minneapolis Police Department article. Why no responses so far?Mancalledsting (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

City charter restriction acknowledged as reason for year long discussion too.[[21] Won't anybody respond please? This is not vandalism talking.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• You need to give this time. Editors are not standing by waiting to participate. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• And you need to cool it with the "covering up" allegations and so on. You've been spoken to repeatedly by multiple editors about your habit of adding over detail and highly tangential material, particularly with regard to the procedural minutiae of ongoing reform efforts e.g. Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_5#Restraining_order_was_in_fact_temporary (and see also Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_5#Allegations_about_protestors_not_being_Minneapolis_residents_should_be_discussed and [22]). The Reactions section presents the broad strokes of various persons' and institutions' efforts to address the conditions dramatized by Floyd's death; such efforts are going on nationwide, and that someone says that the proposal in one jurisdiction may require this or that procedural move, or a charter amendment, or whatever, will be of no importance ten years from now. Even now you're trying to force in more material on this [23] [24]. Stop it. EEng 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunatly, this is a current event, which hurts the ten years argument.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  No it doesn't, and I think this is why you're having so much trouble getting into the groove here. We write for the reader ten years hence at all times. It's exactly why we don't rush to include every momentary twist and turn and suspenseful procedural uncertainty (in the mind of one source, anyway) that will be resolved the next day. Newspapers and blogs are available for that. EEng 19:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Relax. This page isn't as monitored as it was a week ago. Give people time to reach a consensus. As for me, I Oppose mentioning. It is only a single dissenting opinion, and is WP:UNDUE imo Anon0098 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not mentioning what the Minneapolis mayor authority is while mentioning what the Minneapolis city council pledged contradicts the fact. As the provision regards what the Minneapolis mayor's power is over the Minneapolis Police Department was erased,[25] I indeed was very suspicious. I am anticipating a comment from John from Idegon too.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious of what? O3000 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Group conspiracy to cover up what was documented on local news stations about the authority of the Minneapolis mayor and how the city council can't block him without an amendment to the city charter.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is being "covered up" and there is no "conspiracy". O3000 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what they always say. EEng 20:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mancalledsting, I know this feels urgent, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We will likely take months or even years to get this article right, and we're good with that. Our process incorporates each new piece of information by building consensus, each tiny step of which can, if controversial, take a week to a month or more. We don't actually purport to provide accurate updated information on current events. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's focus on the content, please; that's what talk pages are for. It looks to me as if the current content of the article covers the situation adequately. In the lead we have removed the claim that the city council voted to “disband” the police department, and replaced it with their modified “intent to replace”. In the article text, under “Political: Minneapolis and Minnesota”, I have just now modified it to make it clear (as it wasn’t before) that the “disband” call was not a vote; it was public comments by individual members of the council. So we now have this:

Speaking at a June 7 rally, nine members of the 13-member Minneapolis city council pledged to disband the city's police department,[170] though significant reductions in police staffing may require amending the city's charter[171][172] and Frey has expressed opposition to it.[173][174] On June 12 the council unanimously adopted a resolution to begin a year-long project to develop "strategies for building [a] new model for cultivating community safety".[175

Sources

It seems to me that this is all we need to say. It already mentions Frey's opposition, and it mentions the need to modify the city charter. That sentence could be tweaked, perhaps made a little more definite, and we could discuss that here. But there is no need to go into great detail about the charter or the relative powers of the council vs. the mayor. That's TMI. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If by TMI you mean Three Mile Island, I agree, in that if we have to discuss everything ad nauseam like this I'm going to have a meltdown. EEng 20:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The text says it is their "intent". Everyone knows that government moves slowly and there are always obstacles. Been waiting 97 years for the ERA to be enacted. O3000 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath —valereee (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me Anon0098 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Change “75 cities” to “250 cities” Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/13/us/george-floyd-protests-cities-photos.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage 2401:E180:8861:A229:A464:B199:9876:8CC4 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

75 > many. —valereee (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Murder of George Floyd

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

---

George Floyd was murdered by the police. Title should say the Murder of George Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.186.122 (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. However no new requests for changes to the title are permitted until the beginning of next month Zingarese talk · contribs 04:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? The truth is the truth. Autopsy says homicide that means MURDER. He was not killed by a milk truck stepping off a curb. He was on film by at least 4 different sources shown murdered by police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.186.122 (talk • contribs)

Homicide is just one person killing another. It is not synonymous with murder. Whether murder occurred will be determined by the courts. Please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Homicide is also determined by a court. Innocent until proven guilty. An autopsy is just one document, one person's opinion.

Besides, in this autopsy the coroner contradicted himself. The autopsy states Floyd suffered no life-threatening injuries, so how could it be homicide?

The autopsy gives cause of death as cardiopulmonary arrest. That is the outcome from a drug overdose, specifically from fentanyl. The Toxicological Findings in the autopsy show a fentanyl + norfentanyl level of at least 3 times the level anyone is on record as surviving in the ICU, probably 10 times the typical lethal dose.

So Floyd basically killed himself, or whoever sold him drugs laced with fentanyl killed him. There's your murderer if you can find him.

Is there any precedent where a knee on neck restraint has ever killed anybody? Please post if you know of one, I am looking for this detail. JPLeonard (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

That should not be the main photo under his name. How much disrespect is this man going to receive, even after death? TAKE THE MAIN PHOTO DOWN!!! 2605:A000:1607:4EB:A804:EA67:A2F7:4593 (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done Please see the discussion above, where a consensus was reached to keep the photo as is. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)