Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5


Per WP:BLP, we cannot call this "murder" in Wikivoice until there is a conviction. At the moment, there are no formal charges or indictments, so there is not even "suspected" or "alleged" murder. We need autopsy results and a medical examiner's or coroner's ruling to call this a "homicide". Just be patient. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the page beating around the Bush? Why doesn't it simply call it what it was - murder. When cops are killed the articles are named "murder" but when cops are the murderers it's not. This is quite a double standard of Wikipedia. Jorge1777 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

On articles where the term "murder" is used in the title, a court of law has convicted the perpetrator of murder. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
That's not actually the case. Jorge1777 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll need to be more specific if you want to further discuss renaming this article to "Murder of George Floyd" at this time. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jorge1777: - unless the majority view of reliable sources is that it's murder, it won't be referred to as murder. I assure you that this is not the case at this point in time. starship.paint (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to add on, murder is a legal term. Nothing is "murder" until has been so decided by a court. "Killing", however, is not a legal term, and accurately reflects what happened here, until and unless a court says otherwise. Ergo Sum 14:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Floyd's family broke their silence on his death publicly demanding the cops to be charged with murder. -- (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We wouldn't put murder in the title of a case like this - regardless of who the people involved were. The case & its participants are being investigated. Jim Michael (talk) 19:16, 27 May 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 30 May 2020

It’s probably for the best and makes more sense if you change the title to “The Murder of George Floyd”. 2A02:C7F:5E5A:D200:10E:F29C:6E3C:6E13 (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done Please see WP:BLPCRIME. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

What evidence is there to have this unsupported and defamatory description under his photo: "George Floyd, former pornographic actor and delinquent". No reputation or behavior on Mr Floyd's behalf would justify the way he was treated by the police. (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC) (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It was vandalism and was removed within 10 minutes. Sorry you had to see it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Gallery photos too big

How do we make the pictures in the gallery smaller? Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Which pictures specifically? They seem fine to me; no juggernaut file sizes? Perennial Student (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone fixed them. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

The proper term to describe what happened is "pinned by the neck until dead."

To describe his death as occurring "later on" is a misnomer. And you should also include his last words on the page out of respect. 2600:8805:C880:111:85C2:58A:1AAF:55A1 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I can't find the term "later on" in the article, and I'm not sure what you want to be changed when you say "pinned by the neck until dead". Seagull123 Φ 14:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Length of video

Currently the article says knelt on Floyd's neck for over seven minutes. These two sources say the video was nine minutes - knelt on his neck for nine minutes and - the nine-minute video shows a white officer pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck. The video was posted on Facebook, but I can't access it as I don't have an account, here's the link to it on Facebook. Can someone with a FB account check it? Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked the video. The cop is kneeling on him at the start of the video, and maintains the kneel until nearly 8 minutes into the video, at which point the unmoving Floyd is placed on a stretcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18a:c680:7a60:48a0:ed7:72fb:93fd (talkcontribs)

@Isaidnoway: - the video continues even after Floyd is stretchered and taken away. That accounts for the difference in time. starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, I appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Crowd size reports as hundreds

Sources differ unfortunately.[[1]]Mancalledsting (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Another recent source claiming "hundreds"[2].Mancalledsting (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Another source claiming "hundreds"[3]Mancalledsting (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

Demonstrators gathered at the site of Floyd's death on May 26. The crowd, estimated to be thousands of people,[1] then marched to the 3rd Precinct of the Minneapolis Police.[2] Around 8:00 p.m., police in riot gear fired sandbag rounds and chemical agents into the crowd.[3]

Please noted that sources are also claiming hundreds as well

Demonstrators gathered at the site of Floyd's death on May 26. The crowd, estimated to be "hundreds" and "thousands" of people,[4][5][6][7] then marched to the 3rd Precinct of the Minneapolis Police.[6] Around 8:00 p.m., police in riot gear fired sandbag rounds and chemical agents into the crowd.[8] Mancalledsting (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Demonstrators gather around Minneapolis to protest death of George Floyd". KSTP. May 26, 2020. Retrieved May 26, 2020.
  2. ^ "Hundreds Of Protesters March In Minneapolis After George Floyd's Deadly Encounter With Police". WCCO. May 26, 2020. Retrieved May 26, 2020.
  3. ^ "Shortly before 8 p.m. outside the 3rd Precinct headquarters, Minneapolis police in riot gear were firing chemical agents and sandbags at the protesters, who were throwing water bottles at them in what appeared to be a standoff". Twitter. Star Tribune. Retrieved May 26, 2020.
  4. ^ "Demonstrators gather around Minneapolis to protest death of George Floyd". KSTP. May 26, 2020. Retrieved May 26, 2020.
  5. ^
  6. ^ a b "Hundreds Of Protesters March In Minneapolis After George Floyd's Deadly Encounter With Police". WCCO. May 26, 2020. Retrieved May 26, 2020.
  7. ^
  8. ^ "Shortly before 8 p.m. outside the 3rd Precinct headquarters, Minneapolis police in riot gear were firing chemical agents and sandbags at the protesters, who were throwing water bottles at them in what appeared to be a standoff". Twitter. Star Tribune. Retrieved May 26, 2020.
 Partly done: Most of the sources given say "hundreds"; and anyway better wording is to use only one of the two so I have gone ahead and changed it to only read "hundreds". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

More sources report no attempt of police intervention

See these [4] [5] They make me doubt further that the "riots" are not a publicity stunt.Mancalledsting (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion can't move forward without other editors knowing specifically what change to the article you're proposing. Neither of the sources you link to propose anything like the events in Minneapolis being a "publicity stunt," so that's not a tenable addition. Evan (talk|contribs) 13:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Other Videos

The video of him being removed from the vehicle (possibly resisting) can be found at: (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayor Frey is now pursuing criminal charges

He announced this over 30 minutes ago. Please include this.Mancalledsting (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Here is also a local online source [6] Mancalledsting (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As of yet, no arrests have been made! -- (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Because they need a grand jury indictment first. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
"Pursuing criminal charges" is incorrect. The mayor doesn't pursue (or have the authority to pursue) criminal charges. What the mayor did (per the cited source) was call on the County Attorney to pursue criminal charges; but the mayor can't order the county attorney to do it. The county attorney doesn't work for the mayor; they are independent parts of different local governments. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 16:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

About the man who was shot and killed during ensuing protests on May 27

Should that be mentioned in the infobox as an additional indirect death? Pizzaguy875 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The point of races in the lead

Folks, this article talk page is not a discussion forum. Please restrict comments to improving the article in a manner that is editorially pertinent to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially summarizing what reliable sources say — whatever that may be. The emphasis should be on due weight (i.e. consensus in the mainstream) and not any other considerations, political or otherwise. El_C 20:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparently when at least one officer is non-white, it is still necessary to include the races of people in the lead, and I am being told to seek consensus for removing them. @Isaidnoway: please explain the other side to me; why is it necessary? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney—are you referring to this edit? If so, why are you removing the reliably-sourced information that George Floyd was an African-American person? What is your reasoning behind that? Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that including the race of the victim is fine but it is not neccessary to include the race of the police officer since it will only create more anger and divide people. It can also be clearly seen in the photo that the cop is white. It also isn't scientifically / grammatically correct to say "white" or "black" when introducing someone. Frozenranger (talk) 28 May 2020 (UTC)
We can't assume everyone will see the photo. There are plenty of people who access Wikipedia with vision impairments who rely on screen readers or similar. While the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images provides a method to convey the essential information of the image, we shouldn't rely on images as the sole method to convey important information that should be in the article, unless we absolutely cannot avoid it. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images. Edit: I should clarify I was not intending to expressing an opinion whether the ethnicity or race of any of the participants is important (although my gut feeling is mentioning that George Floyd was an African American is important). I only wanted to point out is "people can see it in the image" is a poor argument for whether we should mention the information. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The point of the article is not to "shine light on police violence". We follow sources. If sources say "black", we say "black". If sources say "white", we say "white". Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Frozenranger: That is not what we do as an encyclopedia. We shine no lights nor consider any consequences. We only aggregate reliable, neutral information. Ergo Sum 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: @Bus stop: Including race definitely divides people, your claiming that your part of the encyclopedia which I am also just as much a part of, thus that sentence is not helpful to me or anyone who is a member. If we are including race as the leading point then we must also accept that we are insighting anger and rage into people that otherwise isn't neccessary. When you introduce someone to your friends and family do you say "This is my black/white friend john"? Most likely not. That information is irrevelant and not neutral. Neutral information doesn't contain race or sexuality Frozenranger (talk) 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) There shouldn't be any races that should be mentioned at this stage because it should be all races or none. Currently, only the "suspect/victim" and one officer are being labeled and not the other three officers giving WP:UNDUE weight and making this appear to be a white cop on black victim racial hate crime. The available information indicates there are other races of officer including the asian officer and what appears to be a black or hispanic officer in the videos. (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@ I agree with your statement, race shouldn't be included at all. Frozenranger (talk) 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There is an overwhelming consensus in the reliable sources used in this article that identify the race of both Floyd and Chauvin. I can start a RfC if editor's feel it is necessary to establish a firm consensus one way or the other to include their races in the lead. Obviously I support the inclusion per RS, V and NPOV. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree that at this point, mention of the races in the lede may be undue. The crux of the matter was the killing. Reliable sources tend to mention the races as a segue to inferences. I think it's proper that they be mentioned in the main body but not necessarily in the lede. Ergo Sum 16:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: Yes as an editor please consider removing the race of the cop because it adds no value in terms of objective reasoning. Maybe we can include if further down or in a different section but not as the leading sentence. Thank you Frozenranger (talk)
Frozenranger—you say "it adds no value". Nothing adds any value because you don't know the interests of the readers. We should be reflecting reliable sources. If reliable sources say an individual is black, we dutifully convey that information to the reader. If reliable sources say an individual is white, we dutifully convey that information to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: Thank you Frozenranger (talk)
Given the seeming rapidly developing consensus of the above that this is not neutral and undue, I have as an uninvolved editor boldly gone ahead and removed the mention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The point of mentioning races in the lead is to cover the most important aspect of this event. How is it not neutral to mention their races? How is it undue? Whether or not the impetus for the officer doing what he did was racial, the reaction to it is. We can't deny how important the racial component is to this story, and it has to be demonstrated prominently. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree that race should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but as pointed out by Ergo Sum, "The crux of the matter was the killing. Reliable sources tend to mention the races as a segue to inferences." Thus, it being mentioned immediately as such in the lead is a bit too much detail on what is possibly not the actual factor behind the incident. As the IP points out, mentioning it in the lead makes "this appear to be a white cop on black victim racial hate crime", which is not what any of the sources say. The Guardian, for example, only mentions the officers' names and makes no mention of race except for saying the victim was "a black man" or, alternative example from the same source, "the black man killed by police in Minneapolis". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This Guardian article begins with The FBI and authorities in Minnesota have launched investigations into the death of an African American man after an incident, captured on video, in which a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck as he lay on the ground. This Guardian article has the sub-headline Protesters clash with police, who deploy teargas and stun grenades, following death of black man at hands of white officer. The Guardian prominently features race in their stories. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That the man who died was black and the police officer with his knee on the man's neck was white is mentioned in the headlines and/or leads of the RSes, and thus should be in the lead (in the first sentence really) of our article. The crux of the matter isn't the (alleged) killing, but the (alleged) killing of an unarmed black man by a white officer. There is not a single RS that discusses this event that doesn't prominently discuss race. The races of the other officers should also be in the lead (but not the first sentence), as they're significantly covered by RSes. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) If the races of the other three officers are known/published with WP:RS, then I have no argument with including them all. They should be all included in a single WP:NPOV verified sentence, and there is no reason to link the races. (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The crux of the matter is the death of a civilian due to police incompetence. Regardless of the source, wikipedia can always disseminate information in the most neutral and objective way possible, since it is an encyclopedia and not a private news company. Race does not matter since "all lives matter". If you want to create a politically polarizing article then include race, sexuality... etc, however as explained by @Ergo Sum:, the point of an encyclopedia is not to shine light or drive a narrative on politically sensitive topics. Wikipedia is a place for objective presentation of events, not the subjective bits that make up the event. Again, people should not be defined by race. Thank you Frozenranger (talk)
Frozenranger, see WP:RGW. We are not here to right great wrongs. People should not be defined by race. I agree! However, we can't ignore how race factors into events like interactions with police, and ignoring it is whitewashing an integral part of the story. The story isn't the death of a civilian due to police incompetence, the story is an African American civilian dying due to the overuse of force by the police, and the officer with his knee on Floyd's neck is white. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu "the story is an African American civilian dying due to the overuse of force by the police" I agree, however the part about the cop being white is irrevelant in the lead. It can be included in the other subcategories of the article. White cops using too much force isn't the problem, its the overuse of force by all cops. Frozenranger (talk)
Frozenranger, so the race of the victim is relevant, but the race of the alleged killer is not? You don't find that strange at all? Drmies (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Britannica states that all races (but especially minorities) are targeted by policy brutality;[7] and that African-Americans have typically been the worse affected. Whether this kind of information should go directly in the lead is still open to question as in this case the other officers were not just "white" so it complicates the matter. Readers might be better served by having a more thorough discussion on race and police brutality later in the article, or simply with a link to the article on this topic, rather than blanket labeling the races of the involved officers in the lead without any further context on this obviously complex US political issue. Maybe a sentence of the kind "The incident has been described as an instance of police brutality targeted at African-Americans."[citation needed] (which requires a reliable source be found for this). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Frozenranger, User:RandomCanadian, User:Ergo Sum, I trust that none of you will consider removing "who is white" again. It is a ridiculous proposition to take out this one fact that every single reliable source agrees is relevant. This plain and relevant and well-sourced fact has been here since the beginning, of course. That some of you can come here and claim that somehow this is not important enough to be in the lead is mind-boggling. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
If you'll allow me to correct the awkward wording. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, "white Minneapolis police officer" seems more awkward to me than the alternative. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Drmies: I haven't removed anything. Nor am I arguing any of the merits here. I really don't have much more to say beyond what I did above. Ergo Sum 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Some editors here need to be smacked with a few trout. Frozenranger, to suggest that mentioning race "only create more anger and divide people" and "[r]ace does not matter since "all lives matter" is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV. WP:RS overwhelmingly highlight the races of the involved people. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • All lives matter is as neutral as it gets EvergreenFir. Why should people be defined by race? Why should we lower our standards to subpar reporting? The crux of the article is police incompetence, not war on blacks. Also your attacking me with a trout? please grow up. Frozenranger
    We just report the sources. If the sources mention race, we do. If there is a controversy about race, we mention it. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Frozenranger, from All Lives Matter: All Lives Matter (#AllLivesMatter) is a slogan that has come to be associated with criticism[1] of the Black Lives Matter movement.[2] How is that "as neutral as it gets?" It's not. Neither is "war on blacks". Mind talk page guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Muboshgu: I'm just replying to a comment thanks. I have no intention to associate all lives matter with a slogan. Let me rephase then: Everyone's life is of equal importance on earth. Is this irrational? Do you not see how we are leading the reader on to a narrative? Frozenranger
        You are likely heading toward a topic ban. Please refer to WP:NOTFORUM. I repeat, we just report the sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Race and RS

I feel like I've had to do this a dozen times before on other articles, but here we go again (emphases added):

  • "The video, captured by Darnella Frazier, begins with the man, who is black, groaning and repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" to the officer who has his knee on the man's neck. The officer is white." - CBS
  • "Floyd, 46, died after a white Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeled on his neck for at least seven minutes while handcuffing him." - The Daily Beast
  • "An FBI investigation is underway and four officers have been fired following a fatal encounter Monday between Minneapolis police and an unarmed 46-year-old black man named George Floyd. ... Overnight, video of the attempted arrest circulated on social media. Posted by Darnella Frazier on Facebook, the nine-minute video shows a white officer pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck behind a squad car. While lying facedown on the road, Floyd repeatedly groans and says he can’t breathe. “He’s not even resisting arrest right now, bro,” one bystander tells the white officer and his partner, in the video." - CBS Local
  • "The bystander video that circulated widely on social media Monday night shows a white Minneapolis police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck during an arrest, as the man repeatedly says “I can’t breathe” and “please I can’t breathe.” - NYTimes (archived version to avoid paywall)
  • "Four Minneapolis police officers have been fired following the death of an unarmed black man in police custody Monday night." KMSP Fox 9
  • ""We are once again traumatized by the tragic scene of a black man pleading for his life at the hands of a white police officer," Smith said in an emailed statement. " - KSTP local news
  • "Video of the incident shows that a white police officer had a black man pinned to the ground next to the back tire of his patrol car with his knee on the man's neck." - NBC News
  • "...after a viral video showed a white police officer putting his knee on the neck of a black man, who later died." - Washington Post
  • "Police officers near the Minneapolis 3rd Police Precinct on Tuesday during protests against George Floyd's death. Floyd, a black man, died after a white officer, Derek Chauvin, knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes. " - Insider
  • "In widely circulated cellphone video of the subsequent arrest, Floyd, who was black , can be seen on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back while Officer Derek Chauvin presses him to the pavement with his knee on Floyd's neck. The video shows Chauvin, who is white , holding Floyd down for minutes as Floyd complains he can't breathe. The video ends with paramedics lifting a limp Floyd onto a stretcher and placing him in an ambulance." - Boston Globe
  • "The mayor of Memphis said Thursday that he shares the frustration of protesters angry with the death of a handcuffed black man during a confrontation with a white police officer in Minnesota." - Star Tribune

These are from the first 15 or so sources in the reference list (plus one linked from one of those sources). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah we just had to deal with this on the Ahmaud Arbery page a week or two ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ... Mr. Floyd, a black man, who died after a white police officer pinned him to the ground with a knee to the neck. WSJ
  • ... the killing of an unarmed black man by a white police officer. BBC
  • ... George Floyd, a black man who was seen pinned down in a video by a white police officer and later died. ABC News
  • ... the white police officer seen on video kneeling against the neck of a handcuffed black man who complained that he could not breathe and died in police custody. AP News
  • ... the death of an unarmed black man seen in a video lying face down in the street, gasping for air and groaning, 'I can’t breathe,' while a white officer knelt on his neck for several minutes. Reuters
  • ... George Floyd, a black man who died after a white officer pinned his knee against the suspect's neck as he struggled to breathe ... Fox News
It's all of the RSes. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 20:01, 28 May 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.
   This argument makes no sense. Most of these references are from news papers whose goal is very different from that of an Encycolpedia. News sources should be used indeed, but the text should be made neutral before becoming part of an Encycolpedia.

Law enforcement section

I've filled out a Law enforcement subsection in the Reactions section. Apparently quite a number are speaking out on this topic, keep an eye out for more. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: thank you for starting the section! I started working on prose a bit. It seems to have become a rather long list of Police Chief names condemning the action. Any thoughts on how to make the prose more wieldy? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks good as of now, trimming the actual names was a good idea, as well as providing the support offered by the local police union. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, looks great. Thank you for your help! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Unicorn Riot Coverage

During the protests the media site Unicorn Riot did live coverage of the protests and interviewed people apart of it. I'm not exactly sure how to add this to the article but here is the link to their Youtube Channel where the livestreams are up. Unicorn Riot Youtube Channel Eons of Mollusk (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

Include a link to a wikipedia page regarding Derek M. Chauvin, which includes his history on the force. Prior controversies regarding his conduct are relevant. (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article, and probably won't as a WP:BLP1E. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s relevant and it should be included in his life since it’s one of the reason why he was in Minnesota in the first place. And we might as well remove that he was a father and that he lost his job as well. Also as you already stated it’s not clear if police knew about it or not. Political and social issue have nothing to do it. Byulwwe (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

This sentence may be incorrect: The policemen taunt Floyd to "get up and get in the car,"[29] to which Floyd replies: "I will ... I can't move."[30] In the video, it sounds like a bystander actually says this to Floyd. Whichslued1 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You are correct I noticed that too. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "it sounds like a bystander actually says this" is your your own interpretation of this. Given that it's unclear and that it's a controversial topic, if we quote this WP:PRIMARY source, it would be better if we could cite a WP:SECONDARY source which describes this. Or at least, this is my take on things, if some of you are fine with stating in Wikivoice that this is actually what was said... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
There are two police officers around the side of the car pinning George Floyd's legs. It was my understanding that it was these officers who told George to get into the car, not any bystanders. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That's not accurate. It's a black man who tells him to get in the car. There are a lot of omissions and inaccuracies in our transcription. That's a notable one. It's the bystanders who told him to just get in the car. What we have linked as the full video is not the full video. You can see it starting at 5:00 in Video on YouTube. We need a better transcription. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible im no expert but just putting it out there for consideraton just in case. Not sure why but fist time on wiki and to make my account I got two words to prove im human as you do the whole gdyee3H my words were cahnlungs and wailssum so I did. Because I believe I'm onto something and just for George and for the 0.5 percent chance they don't check. I don't even know if they do MRI as part of autopsy but I believe in this case they should. Wikijude75 (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead incorrect on death of Garner

Eric Garner had carotid compression of the neck, not "suffocation." The article incorrectly states that suffocation was the cause of death. This is important because carotid compression is likely relevant here while suffocation is not based on knee position and ability to speak. Cutting off blood supply to the head with a carotid choke hold used against Garner killed him, not suffocation. Lead should be correct to the cited cause of death2600:8800:1580:20D3:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Per your observation and the cited source, the corresponding statement in the lead has been changed from "while being suffocated" to "after being placed in a choke hold." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The official cause of death for Eric Garner was "compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police" as detailed at Death_of_Eric_Garner#Medical_examiner's_report_and_autopsy. It does not mention "carotid compression". I'm fine with AzureCitizen's changes though. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
User:EvergreenFir As I said, it was a carotid choke hold. We have an article on it specifically w/ section on how Law Enforcement uses it Chokehold#Use in law enforcement (lateral vascular neck restraint). Choking off blood supply is different than suffocation (choking off air supply) though both can lead to death. The coroner report does state the airway was ininjured. Persons that have their air supply choked off can't speak. 2600:8800:1580:20D3:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Split protests section into its own article

It looks like the protests are getting eventful, especially with the abandonment and burning of the police station. That has not previously happened. I suggest a new article be created, on the lines of the Ferguson unrest and 2015 Baltimore protests articles. --Blemby (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree, it seems like the protests have become notable enough to warrant their own article, similar to the examples you listed. JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no SIZE issue at this point, the riots are too tightly associated with the events of the death and investigation. You can make a new section that highlights the situation more but splitting it was inappropriate at this point. --Masem (t) 06:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been done. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Video quality and transcription

What has been linked as the "full video" (Video on YouTube) is not the full video and it looks like a cell phone video of a monitor rather than even a true copy of the original which makes it a blatant copyright violation. The title is false, we cannot link that as the title implying it is the full video. The only good copy I have found so far is at 5:00 in this Video on YouTube. This wouldn't be my choice of videos to link given the extraneous content before and after (I apologize for even having to link this source) but it is the best copy I have seen.

If you watch the actual full video you will see a number of problems with our current transcription of what happens. If a movie is considered a RS as a primary source for its own plot, isn't the actual video a reliable source? It is apparently an African-American-sounding man who seems like a bystander who says George should get in the police car. It is clear from the video here at 6:05 Video on YouTube. You can see him someone walk up shortly before that and start talking.


  1. We have been linking to an obvious copyright violation.
  2. We have been misleading readers that the poor copy we linked is the "full video".
  3. We have been misleading readers that is the police who tell him to get in the car when it appears to be and sounds like the African-American bystander who walks up.

I appreciate any effort to work with me on this. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @DIYeditor: I agree that that copy of the video should be removed. I don't agree that it's an African-American-sounding man who seems like a bystander who says George should get in the police car. I don't know what accent is present. We follow the reliable sources. What sources explicitly say it's a bystander?
  1. Agence France Presse: the officers taunted him to "get up and get in the car."
  2. CBS News: An officer keeps insisting he get in the car
  3. WVLT-TV An officer can be seen insisting Floyd get in the car
  • starship.paint (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Starship.paint: You can see the a man walk up in the video before he starts speaking. He starts talking while he is on camera. Also you can tell that the voice is different from the Asian cop. The video itself is a RS just as a movie is a RS for its own plot. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    @DIYeditor: - I agree that the voice is different from the Asian cop. I'm not sure that it sounds like the bystander who walked up. I found another source, Buzzfeed News, [8] that states "A person can be heard talking to Floyd, telling him to get up and get in the car, although it is unclear if it is an officer speaking." I will edit that in that Buzzfeed is unsure, but AFP, CBS, and WVLT attribute it to the police. starship.paint (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for finding that! —DIYeditor (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    I hope this does not sound like I am stereotyping people but as someone who has known and spoken to plenty of African-Americans, I have little doubt that the person speaking is African-American or someone who is very good at affecting that accent and dialect. Also from what he says, he is clearly not a cop. I would be irate if I thought the police were holding Floyd down and telling him to get up, more irate than I already am, and I think it would be a disservice to our readers to make them more angry than need be. I have asked on WP:RS/N what to do in a case like this. Balancing it with the source you've found is a great start! Thanks again! —DIYeditor (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone tells Floyd to "get up and get in the car," (which Agence France Presse, CBS News and WVLT-TV identify as one of the officers, while Buzzfeed News states that it is "unclear" whether it was an officer speaking),

This is what I wrote, DIYeditor. I really couldn't find any more reliable sources discussing this (many were reprints of AFP). Otherwise, there were questionable ones like the New York Post, and unreliable ones like the Daily Mail and Metro, all of which say it was an officer, but of course, we shouldn't use those. starship.paint (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great! I really feel like we have helped our readers with this. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: This is a high-quality addition to the article; thank you! @DIYeditor: Thank you for organizing this effort! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No mentions of a protest that happened in New York City

At around 4:00 ET, there were protests in Union Square in New York City led by over 100 people. Over 40 people were arrested. There is no mention of this anywhere in the article. This should be added under "Memorials, protests, and riots" subtitle.

Shamaflama (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Shamaflama

 Done. Added in the "Memorials, protests, and riots" section in the "Elsewhere in the United States" subsection. Thank you for providing a source and specific details! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Stop citing “CBS News” and mainstream media outlets. We can all agree that mainstream news channels will caption things to fit THEIR narrative. Instead, cite these as “video published by CBS News“ or “cell phone video from...” 2600:8803:F100:425:E5A3:4D3B:EFED:5453 (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please review WP:RS & WP:NPOV EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It's worth noting that regardless of your opinion of them, no mainstream news outlet is the original source for any of the videos. They were captured by witnesses at the scene of George's death, and are only carried by different news outlets. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

The name of the article should be changed to “The Murder Of George Floyd” (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done. No one has been convicted of murder. WWGB (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Change “Death of George Floyd” to “Murder of George Floyd” Elijah318 (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done - this has been rejected immediately above & on the the archive. Jim Michael (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Claim not supported by sources cited, and another reason to resist rush to judgment

This is not a website where we sit and speculate what might be. Follow the reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BeŻet has added the 'context' that "The arrest was conducted after Floyd allegedly 'physically resisted' when ordered to exit his vehicle, a claim that has been contradicted by available video recordings.[2][5]" I have watched both videos and they do not show what happened when he exited his vehicle nor do they have anyone contradicting the claim. Not to say the claim is true or untrue, just that these videos don't support or contradict it. I don't have the wikiskills to handle this myself.

Also, while I think the arrest killed Floyd, here's another reason to withold judgement until an investigation has been done or at least await the results of an autopsy. Despite the apparently clear evidence of our own eyes that he was killed by the knee on his neck, it MAY rather be the weight on his chest that did it. I base this on looking at his airway, and it's important because of the implications for how the police make arrests in future. (Also: I have no idea why my comment is coming out with a blue box around it. I can't find a way to fix it) alacarte 11:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor alacarte (talkcontribs)

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.

CNN TV Crew arrest

Minnesota State Patrol arrested in Minneapolis 5:11 UTC-6 29.5.2020 CNN crew (Omar Jimenez as first arrested) showing journalist credentials during live relation, making de facto censorship and breaking first ammendment of the Constitution of the USA. 6:30 released.2A02:A314:813F:1000:9841:9846:8C23:F295 (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is mentioned under Twin Cities riots Ed6767 (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Surname:Floyd or Lloyd?

Reports on this seem divided on whether the victim's surname is Floyd or Lloyd. Can anyone definitively settle this matter? M.J.E. (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

They aren't divided. "Lloyd" is a typo in some articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there some possibility that "Floyd" could be the typo?

I'm not pushing for a controversial view, and have no opinion on the matter - just wondering how one resolves it. I've seen "Lloyd" in more than one publication on line - and heard both "Lloyd" and "Floyd" on A.B.C. radio news in Australia - a source I would usually trust to get names right. So, at present, I don't feel I can tell which name is correct.

Do you settle it by a majority vote of all the different sources that report on this? Or is there some source that gives the correct name beyond any possibility of dispute? M.J.E. (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

According to his facebook page it's spelt 'FLOYD'--Olatunde Brain (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Please consider changing the image to one of George Floyd alive. If you have trouble finding one please e-mail me to request one at (Redacted). 2601:1C2:1601:4DC0:74ED:97C1:95E7:11E5 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. - QuadColour (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Include the Chief of Police of Detroit in the other cities listed under Law Enforcement (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 19:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Filmed by?

Is whoever filmed it really notable? I don't think the cameraperson really pertains to the event itself. Ed6767 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That's true, I don't really think it belongs there. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 22:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Will rm from infobox for now, Thanoscar21 love your name btw lol Ed6767 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, nice picture of Kings Cross, Ed6767! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 22:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanoscar21, thank you :) Ed6767 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Change the title of the article to “Killing of George Floyd” (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a section above at Talk:Death of George Floyd#Requested move 27 May 2020 where you can make a "support" comment in that regard. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

"Looking at his racist ideologies, people got angered" Donald Trump personally asked for the enquiry to be investegated by the FBI and he was referring to the people looting target stores, this is not a protest and setting fires to buildings which could of killed many people. This is a very biast piece of writing. Prometheus onex (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Prometheus onex (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a Reliable Source for improving the article in some fashion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done Speaks for itself. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Floyd's work in Minneapolis

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.

There isn't much written about the jobs he held:

The native Texan followed some friends there about five years ago and landed a job working security at a Salvation Army store downtown.

Soon thereafter, he had picked up two others gigs: one driving trucks and another as a bouncer at Conga Latin Bistro where he was affectionately known as "Big Floyd."

Reference: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbenton (talkcontribs) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what relevance this has.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 30 May 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.

Separate article for protests/riots

It's pretty quickly becoming a major thing. Kingofthedead (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No objection here. Are there equivalent separate articles for other similar situations in the past? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: yeah, see Ferguson unrest or 2017 Anaheim protests or 2016 Portland, Oregon riots. Kingofthedead (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been done. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Murder of George Floyd" listed at Redirects for discussion


A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Murder of George Floyd. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 29#Murder of George Floyd until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 15:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The murder in know (29.05.2020) custody. Derek Chauvin is in custody charged with on third-degree murder. -- (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Please change the picture of initial photo of floyd. The picture can be used later on in the article but as a sign of respect towards him as a person at least change the picture to a photo of him. (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: As this article is about the death of Floyd, the still from the video is much more relevant than a regular photo of Floyd. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Blocked Floyd down by pushing his knee down on his neck for 9 minutes and not Kneeling on his neck (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source?Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done - Please follow the instructions when posting an edit request: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 11:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove mention of color from article

Removing color from article would remove racist context. Now, reading the article and all other links like 'black man killed by white policeman' it is clear where you are heading, creating this racist hate that sponsors vandalism in New York city, for instance. Media can hurt. You could do a better job here.

So far what I understand, the likely scenario: criminal was caught, he was resisting to policeman and the policeman incidentically killed him. That's pretty much it. Here is no color involved. The details are inexact and to be sorted, but the article have to stay neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing color would render the article misleading and irrelevant and be a violation of WP:NPOV. The rioting was not caused by the media but by the failure to curb police brutality, although it is certainly true that the anger of the rioters is being directed against the wrong targets.
The videos clearly show that the suspect was not resisting arrest. Nor was the killing incidental; the officer was in violation of the departmental procedures, and has since been charged with murder. Part of the background of the story is a long pattern of similar incidents. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Death should be Murder (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done - please participate in the above move request. Ed6767 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Image of George Floyd up for deletion

We do not allow non-free images of the recently deceased as standard practice in the same fashion as BLP under NFC, on the expectation that free images may be available from friends and family *after* giving them a fair period of mourning, and with the rationale that seeing the individual does not aid in understanding the crime and situation. Link to the XFD is at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29#File:George Floyd.png. --Masem (t) 06:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Some officers "had already been involved in several incidents"

Notes that:

Two Minneapolis police officers captured in video footage restraining George Floyd were previously involved in other violent incidents while on duty, according to a database that documents instances of police brutality.

While making cautious statements about the implications of this regarding the appropriateness of police internal review and race relations with law enforcement in the state. Since I'm not interested in another unwarranted trip to WP:Dramaboard if one of you wishes to investigate this and add something about it in the lead or the body of the article feel free to do so. Cheers (but a bit less cheerful than usual), RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My main objection to adding this info is exactly as you said: "implications". We cannot make implications on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
User:EvergreenFir, I think you mentioned the term "eventualism" somewhere? We're getting there, and Yahoo just published a story about Klobuchar declining to prosecute the main cop, what's his name, for a previous violent incident. All of that content will no doubt be worked into the article in the next few days--how's the BLPN thread going? RandomCanadian, there's been talk about this before on this talk page; please check that, and the thread on BLPN. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: Strange that you speak about Klobuchar, this article also mentions the same thing. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Not strange at all--I saw the Yahoo post on Facebook, and there are no coincidences. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: seems to be drawing close! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Even a WCCO report casts doubt acknowledges how police did not intervene to prevent the fires and looting

Lack of police intervention makes the reports of fires and looting very questionable [9] If you ask me, it's like the looting was politically allowed. I am not seeing no need for a National Guard, which at this moment would clearly a publicity stunt if activated.Mancalledsting (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to this Wikipedia article? Evan (talk|contribs) 13:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

One change that could be made to the "Rioting, looting, and violence" section is that "devolved into" could be changed to "gave way to", or something similar. The current wording sounds like the looting and rioting are the same group as the protesters, but the source does not make it clear if the group of arsonists were originally associated with the protest. Clearly the protests and looting are associated *events*, but not necessarily the same people. (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant at all. --Sleepcircle (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Affected Neighborhoods...

I have a few sentences, with relevant links built in, that I am going to insert. BUT I'm not sure of the best location. So, if anyone thinks of a better location, feel free to move this:

== Affected Neighborhoods of Minneapolis == Minneapolis has a eleven identified communities, each of which has a number of neighborhoods within it. The 3rd Precinct Police Station is located on the eastern side of the Longfellow neighborhood (which is inside the Longfellow Community). The destruction has since expanded elsewhere, locally to the West, in Phillips Community (north side of Lake Street) and Powderhorn Community (south side of Lake Street), as well as to St. Paul's Midway area and possibly elsewhere.

The confrontation/Death of George Floyd took place in the Powderhorn Park neighborhood (which is inside the community of the similar name). The area covered by the 3rd Precinct (MAP) includes both the Powderhorn and Longfellow Neighborhoods.

LP-mn (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Trimming the Aftermath section

It seems like the Aftermath section should be trimmed to summarize information but not duplicate details that can be found in the newer article: Twin Cities riots. TJMSmith (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

ABC News just reported that Floyd and Chauvin both worked as security guards at the same Latin nightclub

This is a relevant fact that should be included in the article:

According to ABC Minneapolis news, George Floyd and Derek Chauvin both worked at security guards and had overlapping security shifts at the south Minneapolis Latin nightclub, El Nuevo Rodeo.[1]

This is the club: "El Nuevo Rodeo is the premier Latin Club Minneapolis, Salsa, Merengue, Bachata, & More. #1 Concert venue/dance club in Minneapolis" (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I am about to add this but why have so few sources picked it up? Also it should not be "according to ABC Minneapolis news" it should be "according to club owner". —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
So what if they did. It is not evident that they knew each other. It is just happenstance. WWGB (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It's something related to this case. Why would we try to interpret what it means? RS reported it. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Them being co-workers at a tiny business is not relevant? How many people do you think work at that club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It was just reported earlier today, still less than 12 hours; maybe tomorrow it'll be somewhere else--and maybe adding it to this very Wikipedia will cause it to be reported elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And AP[2] also reported it. That seems reliable. Hope so, it is sure to be incendiary information if true. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Lastra, Ana and Rasmussen, Eric (May 28, 2020). "George Floyd, fired officer overlapped security shifts at south Minneapolis club". 5 Eyewitness News. Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved May 29, 2020.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^

Statement from Barack Obama

This statement is generating significant press and should probably be mentioned in this article. [10][11]. TJMSmith (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Twin Cities riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence

MOS:BOLDLEAD: "The death of George Floyd occurred on..." rather than "George Floyd died on...", because this article is explicitly about his death, it is not a biography. ——Serial # 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of these photos may be PD

Two of these images appear to not be watermarked, and may be by a voa employee which would be PD Victor Grigas (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Shooting of Justine Damond ‎

Shooting of Justine Damond was removed under the See also header as "loosely related". In that case it was a white woman shot by a black cop. The cop was sentenced to 12.5 years, in the other shootings in Minneapolis and environs the cops were not charged or not convicted. Someone Not Awful (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I am not seeing then link.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If the 2015 incident with Jamar Clark is included in See Also section there is no reason to exclude the 2017 shooting incident with Damond. Both were fatal shootings done by police in the Minneapolis area. No reason to keep this out because of race of the victim in the incident. Yodabyte (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
"...If it's not already obvious, then yes. This article is about yet another case of an African-American fatality caused by police brutality, the see also section should list other cases that are related, such as having occurred in the same area. Please take to talk and explain why the Damond incident should be listed before reinserting it again". Furthermore, basically all sources and reports do center around the race of the victim, and this is treated as a race-related incident both domestically and globally, thus the previous listings are more appropriate. QuestFour (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That is probably correct but there is no rule that says because a victim is of a different race they are to be excluded from the see also section if that same incident occurred under similar circumstances in the same city (i.e. Minneapolis police unjustifiably killing a civilian).Yodabyte (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The incident did not occur under similar circumstances, however, and there doesn't always have to be a "rule", as per MOS:SEEALSO, common sense is at times sufficient. All sources and reports treat Floyd's death as a race-related incident, and the article, including the see also section, should reflect that. QuestFour (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
You are incorrect, the incident occurred under very similar circumstances in the same city (i.e. Minneapolis police unjustifiably killing a civilian). Stop edit-warring this, you are violating 3RR. What Kablammo said below is correct and relevant. We don't know the motive yet of the officer. He could just be a brutal sociopathic cop without a racial motive to kill Floyd. Based on comnon sense and Wikipedia rules, as well as the reasons discussed above and below, there is no reason to exclude the Damond shooting.Yodabyte (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Race is not the only issue. Other issues include the training of police officers and the culture of the department (militaristic? command and control? the answer to these is "yes"). It is interesting that the officer has now been charged with the same offenses of which the officer involved in the Damond incident was convicted. This is not just or only race related; it reflects a longstanding problem with the department itself. And who are we to judge the actual motivations of the officer at the time? How do we know they were race-related? Believe me, some MPD officers are equally capable of mistreating and abusing suspects of any race. Kablammo (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

$20 bill

It was confirmed later on the $20 bill was legitimate Cluckpoof (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Cluckpoof (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sounds good. What's the Sauce? Kire1975 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Cluckpoof, have a source? Ed6767 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing one...I think that's just speculation. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 23:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Still the true root of all evil, counterfeit or otherwise, IMHO. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, I agree but let's not turn this thread into a forum for discussing this atrocity. Ed6767 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Aye, just seeing if that was still common knowledge in this "new normal", thanks for setting me straight. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Race of police officer

Again, as mentioned in my closing of the thread here, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources write (with due weight in mind). If, for example, there is widespread criticism of the mention of the race of the officer by some reliable sources of other reliable sources, that is also something which Wikipedia may mention. Such a scenario may, indeed, affect whether Wikipedia itself mentions the race of the officer. But that scenario needs to exist first. Original research toward that end is not permitted. El_C 00:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the fact that the police officer was white so prominent in the lead? It's literately a black and white story to mention that so clearly. It's BIAS. Why is the race of Tou Thao not mentioned? Why is in the article Death of Eric Garner not mentioned that Daniel Pantaleo is Hispanic?

I also have an objection to mentioning the name of the perpetrators, that's not relevant. --Wester (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The white guy in control seems to have killed the black guy in custody, it writes itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the narrative, but would it made a difference if the arresting officer was black? If a white officer arrest a black man and something goes wrong it's racism and manslaughter, if a black officer arrest a black man and something goes wrong than it's just a fault. That's double standard and anti-white racism. There is no place for that on Wikipedia. Wikipedia just be neutral and not participate in those oversimplified black and white stories.--Wester (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wester: This is not the place for you to opine on "anti-white racism". Either adhere to WP:NPOV or edit elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I react to the fact that on this page the race of the officer is mentioned in the lead and in the article Death of Eric Garner (where the officer was Hispanic) not. That's double standard. That is a significant discussion. There is no place on Wikipedia for reverse discrimination. I completely support a neutral point of view, but that does not mean the race should be mentioned so cleary in the first sentence. It's exactly not neutral to mention it so clearly in the lead, that BIAS. --Wester (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
We got with what reliable sources say and emphasize. We aren't going to change this article because you don't like how it relates to another article. That's not Wikipedia policy, and it never has been. If you don't like it, I would suggest take this elsewhere. Stavd3 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This story has these facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Wester, you're joking, right? The guy was just charged with murder. Also, race is clearly important here per 90% of the RS on this (see Talk:Death_of_George_Floyd#Race_and_RS). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the media narrative poor black man versus evil white police officer. But should Wikipedia participate in that bias narrative?--Wester (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not a "bias narrative", the dude was pretty clearly intentionally killed. But regardless, we go with what reliable sources indicate, and they indicate that race played a significant role in this case. It seems like you're here to Right Great Wrongs, and not to help build the encyclopedia, in which case I would strongly urge you to take this up on a non-Wikipedia site.
Manslaughter, technically, but yeah. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Both! 3rd degree murder and manslaughter. But I suspect they're aiming for a plea to the latter. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Those are synonyms, no? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Try to keep on topic guys Ed6767 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Varies by jurisdiction and attendant circumstances. But no, not exactly the same. 3rd degree murder here is "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life" and (2nd degree) manslaughter is "caused the death of a person by culpable negligence, creating an unreasonable risk and taking a chance of causing death or great bodily harm" according to the charging document. Minor differences in mens rea requirements, attendant circumstances, and the associated sentencing. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah, an alleged sicko as well, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Since it's clearly really important to mention the race of perpetrators I also updated to article Death_of_Eric_Garner to bring cohesion in wikipedia. That now states ' Daniel Pantaleo, a Latino New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer', exactly the same formula used here. But I suspect that edit will be reversed quickly. Like I said: double standards.--Wester (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Wester, (a) don't discuss other articles on this article's talk page, (2) assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Nobody has given an proper argument against my double standard argument. Why should Wikipedia participate in an oversimplified black versus white narrative? If an African American commits a crime than overemphasis on race would also be called racism. The emphasis on the race of the officer implies racism while that's not proven. Wikipedia should be neutral.--Wester (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Wester, Wikipedia reflects what is in reliable sources. And, that's a white cop kneeling on a black man's neck until he died. Wikipedia is neutral by including their races, and would be engaging in POV by ignoring it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources are needed for facts. The phrase 'white Minneapolis officer' is a formulation. Like I said: the inclusion automatically implied race was a factor in the death, while that's not proven. Wikipedia should be careful with that kind of formulation, because it creates narratives. It's not because the media loves this kind of things that Wikipedia should participate in that.--Wester (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Wester, give it a rest. This talk page is about what to put in the article. It is not a forum for your personal views. Both Reliable Sources and consensus agree that mentioning the race of the officer and the victim is important to the story. It is particularly important because it has become a pattern in Minneapolis. (For more information, check the three articles listed under "see also" in the article.) If you keep this up I will hat the discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I literally just searched for the victim's name. Here is the top search result:[12] It says, "Government officials and Minnesota locals alike expressed outrage after a video surfaced showing a white police officer kneeling on the neck of a black man and ignoring his pleas for help until first responders put him, unresponsive, on a stretcher." Wester, it is time for you to move on. - MrX 🖋 23:41, 29 May 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.

Cause of death

At c4 and 5 vertebra and the spinal cord in this area house the nerves and control of the diaphragm. I believe the pain he felt in he stomach and the fact he could not breathe was because the nerves in this area were being pinched . I know from experience and after my spinal cord was cut off and I couldn't walk the paramedics said was lucky c4 and 5 keep you alive . I'm commenting because I hope they do an MRI as part of the autopsy healthy men don't just die but with the neck restricted and pressure on spinal cord at c4 and 5 they do . RIP George Floyd . Wikijude75 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That is quite interesting, but please do not use this page to speculate on Floyd's cause of death. We need to wait for autopsy and coroner and medical examiner's reports. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The cause of death is important because the page needs to be changed from death to murder. If we leave as death its the same as saying its not murder and that is taking sides, the side of Derek Chauvin. Ty78ejui (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Murder" is only acceptable if the accused party is found guilty by a court of law. Until then the incident is a "death" or "killing", and if/when there is an official autopsy the cause of death from that can be added. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

See "Medical examiner and cause of death" below. Kablammo (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

See Also Section Needs More Links.

I believe it would be relevant to put down Black Lives Matter, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, and police riots in the United States in the See Also section.

It's relevant because BLM often comes up whenever law enforcement kills black people (BLM has been seen on protest signs, graffiti, and news media reporting on this event so I can't see why it's not relevant). The list of killings by law enforcement is also relevant due to the event (a police officer killing a black man). The police riots are also relevant due to the event sparking riots are against the Minneapolis police for Floyd's death (as of writing this, the twin city protests have been going on for ~4 days). (If there's anything else directly relevant to the topic, please add it).

I think it would also be wise to put more advanced protection on it due to vandalism (or at least extend the current one to some point in the future (presumably June 30th, longer if necessary) since due to how events are unfolding, the protests aren't going to slow down and people will come on and edit the page in a way which violates the neutral point of view policy, presumably white supremacists trying to slander Floyd's reputation). This is a suggestion. If it's not necessary, then there's no need for further protection. If it is, then there is and should be put in place if there is.

I can't edit the article directly due to my account being new so if someone can put in, that would be helpful. Any directly relevant information that gives extra context to anyone who's reading about this event would be useful.

Lord-of-Midnight-18 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Lord-of-Midnight-18

@Lord-of-Midnight-18: A lot of those links are included in the BLM template below the External links section. TJMSmith (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead: "Officers Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng also helped restrain Floyd"

Our lead states: Officers Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng also helped restrain Floyd, while officer Tou Thao stood nearby and looked on. However, this is not backed up by the source cited [13] In this newly circulated video, three officers have Floyd pinned on the ground, while another stands over him ... the officer who pressed his knee to Floyd's neck has been identified as Derek Chauvin ... the other officers involved have been identified as Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng, and Tou Thao. The source does not specify which are the other two who pin Floyd. I searched for other sources, but they too do not identify the officers, just saying [14] three officers are seen sitting on Mr. Floyd.

As such, I feel that this sentence in the lead fails verification [15], but User:Isaidnoway disagrees. Note that the "newly circulated video" may have occurred earlier than the original viral video, we don't know if the officers switched positions. We must have care in handling WP:BLP, there is potential harm if we accuse Lane/Kueng of restraining Floyd if they did not (even though they likely did). Therefore we need a source explicitly backing the sentence, I don't think it should be left up to editors to judge the video, but the sources. What do you think? starship.paint (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thao is identified as the officer who stood in this previously posted source. He was looking the other direction arguing with witnesses about how they shouldn't do drugs so I have removed "and looked on" from the lede. Kire1975 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kire1975: - I agree that Thao is identified in the viral video. The thing is, he's not identified in the "newly circulated video" (because it hasn't been confirmed that the two videos overlap in terms of time), and I don't think we should be using our own judgment to identify him. starship.paint (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no such phrase - "newly circulated video" - in the lede. Kire1975 (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kire1975: - no, it's not in the lead, it's what the CBS source stated. There's more than one video of the incident. starship.paint (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Problem solved, the offending sentence has been removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway and Kire1975: - a suitable source has emerged Thao was standing watch, and therefore the other three did hold Floyd down, as none of the three officers moved from their positions. starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - what was unsuitable about this source again? Kire1975 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kire1975: - that source is suitable for the article but not for the claim that Kueng and Lane held Floyd down. That source only refers to the 10-minute video, not the other-angle video showing three officers holding Floyd down. starship.paint (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


Should we go into more depth about the protests revolving around the Death of George Floyd? I understand that a section has been put into place regarding this topic, but I feel that it needs more depth, as at this point, all the information about the main portion of the event, the actual death, has already been completely covered. The only current events are currently the protests, so should we go into greater detail about this? Note: It has been brought to my attention that there is a Twin Cities Protests page, I will link to this page at an appropriate place in the article. JazzClam (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC) It has been brought to my attention that it is already in the article. JazzClam (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Floyd might have received the counterfeit note from someone else, without knowing that it was counterfeit, and Friedrich Fiegenwald Coy subsequently suspects that the whole deadly charade was arranged to demonise cash and African Americans per se. 2A00:23C5:411F:EB00:D9E8:A600:E184:776E (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. Could you please link a reliable source? The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done - Please follow the instructions when posting an edit request: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 14:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Please replace:

| image_name = George Floyd neck knelt on by police officer.png
| image_size = 160px
| caption = A frame from a video of the event taken by an onlooker


| image_name = George Floyd fired police officers.png
| image_size = 160px
| caption = The four officers fired in connection with George Floyd's death

Using for Media:George Floyd fired police officers.png

Information related to the image:

Thank you for your consideration in this request (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia can't use copyrighted images without permission from the copyright holder. See WP:COPYRIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the object?

In this newly released video, the one police officer who is not pinning Floyd down spends some time looking for something in the back of the police vehicle on the right side of which Floyd is lying, then Thomas Lane (the officer pinning Floyd's legs) reaches out, and the officer at the rear of the vehicle hands him the object he has retrieved from the back of the police vehicle. Have any news sources reported about what this object was? If so, this information should be added to the article. (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:or and wp:rs, we do not speculate we report what others say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
????? The OP asked if anyone has found reliable secondary sources discussing the issue. They did not suggest we speculate. Asking for help finding secondary sources is part of the purpose of talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I had a look and couldn't find any RS discussion of this. For example, this analysis by NBC [16], linked by another editor above, does include that video in their analysis slightly but bypasses the earlier part where that happened. It's difficult to search for though. If it's significant, I'm sure it will emerge over time. BTW, since I like to nitpick myself I probably should preemptively mention that yes, not all "news sources" are reliable secondary sources. Still I think the OP's comment was clear enough that they weren't asking us to speculate ourselves and were instead asking us to look for sources even if they potentially didn't completely understand what an RS is. Also even if there are RS about this, it doesn't guarantee it belongs per WP:UNDUE etc. However I don't think there's anything that wrong with the OP saying they feel it belongs if it's in RS, they can express an opinion and if others feel it doesn't belong despite being in an RS, they can explain why and we can come to consensus. Provided the OP is willing to accept the views of others on the merits of including the info, if it is covered in RS, there's no real reason to criticise them for feeling it belongs if it's covered in an RS. Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

please exchange 'depraved-mind' to 'depraved-heart' Espiee (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
eraser Undone It was correct. Minnesota's 3rd degree murder statute uses the term "depraved mind", though the more common term appears to be depraved heart. But since this is Minnesota specific, we should use its language. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
EvergreenFir, The source used "depraved heart" first, though it also mentioned "depraved mind", [17], the statute itself was not cited, but I'm content to keep it the "depraved mind". Though I do somewhat question if we need to mention that at all? Seems a bit WP:SYNTH to me, unless one of the RS covering the issue have taken the time to point out it is a depraved mind murder. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: I've found some articles that go into the details ([18], [19] for example). This phrase seems to have some history in Minnesota and charging police ([20]). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Minnesota's statute specifically says "depraved mind".([21]) Perennial Student (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of treatment of George Floyd and majority white armed anti-lockdown protesters by police

Many news sources are comparing the very different treatment by police of the George Floyd protests and the majority white anti lockdown protestors

I'm not sure sure how to include this in the article.

John Cummings (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Some mention of this in the aftermath section would be appropriate, perhaps a subsection "Comparisons to anti-lockdown protests" or something like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with DIYeditorShrinkydinks (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I also agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, please feel free to add it, I can try but I don't understand the context well. John Cummings (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The media has highlighted the differences in aggression between the police response to black protesters in these protests versus the more measured response to the 2020 United States anti-lockdown protests featuring gun-wielding white protesters.[22][23] This sentiment also spread on social media.[24]

@John Cummings, Muboshgu, Shrinkydinks, and DIYeditor: I made an attempt. starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint this looks good but I would change it to "apparent differences in aggression" so that we are not stating it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. The fact we are reporting is that the media discussed it not that there was a difference. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: - you can make the change if you haven’t already. Thanks! starship.paint (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Floyd’s “Girlfriend”

I have seen several instances of people saying that Courtney Ross is actually a paid actor, and that his real fiancé is Shawnda King. I do not have all current facts but I thought I should bring this up JordanianMaroon (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

JordanianMaroon, I'm not sure how this would be relevant to his death though? Until we see sources, this is nothing but speculatory. Ed6767 (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It's Shawanda Hill, but there don't seem to be good sources as to what is going on with that. The "paid actor" stuff, though, sounds like an Alex Jones-type invention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't find a *single* source, reputable or not, that supports this theory. This definitely should not be included. --FeldBum (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I saw one instance of a person saying it, so that maroon above at least counts for "not reputable", what with its lack of current facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
If you Google it, there are plenty of hits, but none of them from reliable sources. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It's possible to have more than one girlfriend at a time, but I'm really not sure what relevance his romantic life is to this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Ditto, more pointless background whose relevance is minuscule at best.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Just one more effort to demonize the victim. (Apparently, alleged counterfeiting as well as possibly multiple girlfriends are capital crimes in Minnesota.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Why are we giving this question any time? When someone starts saying a grieving family member, friend or girlfriend is a "paid actor" the implications are obvious ala Alex Jones and Sandy Hook etc. We can be fairly sure that whoever started this nonsense claim, is up to no good, and frankly the OP should stay away from people who would spread such nonsense, and that's being generoud. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Reviewed:

Created by AshMusique (talk), Starship.paint (talk), and Shrinkydinks (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 05:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg As this article was already featured at ITN, it is ineligible for DYK (per criteria 1d). SounderBruce 05:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Change "Derek Chauvin, a white Minneapolis police officer, kept his knee on Floyd's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds; 2 minutes and 53 seconds of which occurred after Floyd became unresponsive" to "Derek Chauvin, a white Minneapolis police officer, killed George Floyd by keeping his knee on Floyd's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds; 2 minutes and 53 seconds of which occurred after Floyd became unresponsive" Luxeprogressive (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Luxeprogressive (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Already done. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, it appears that after I responded, you edited your request to request the opposite, i.e., you are asking that the article's lead be changed to say Chauvin "killed George Floyd." That is not possible at this time. However, there is a section above at Talk:Death of George Floyd#Requested move 27 May 2020 where you can make a "support" comment if you wish. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the issue? Floyd said they were killing him as it was happening. It's on the video. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

"The death of George Floyd, an African-American man, occurred in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020"

Replace "death" with "murder" now that the police officer has been charged with murder, it is a murder. Aliyado (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We won't be changing it without renaming the article. There is already a move discussion above IMO with a clear consensus against murder until a conviction is secured although you're welcome to join it until it's closed. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Its not murder until the courts say it was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Then the title should be changed to 'Killing of George Floyd' which is indisputable. Medical professionals, police chiefs, politicians, and the viewing public all agree to the fact Floyd was alive, then was killed from the use of an improper restraint technique, at minimum. 'Death' is a very passive word and does not aptly describe the evidence illustrated by the video. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Please add all arrest records and his jail time in Texas 4/2009-2014 2001:48F8:704E:CB3:E801:5A70:2B9E:B0AD (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Volunteer Marek 05:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Under discussion at the RfC above. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

His DOB is 10/14/73 2603:9001:6109:B00:C149:6CD3:4025:70E0 (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Another semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

delete involved peoples' skin color from the article, as this aspect, skin color, is irrelevant in the unfolding of the events Wolf15d (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It could not possibly be more relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The skin colour is hugely significant to the coverage and ongoing protests, so it is relevant. Although, it is unproven that this was related to race, and we all should be clear about this. Perennial Student (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, could easily be more relevant. Like if a white cop was charged with regular murder and/or a federal hate crime after shooting a black guy five times in the back. The actual charges suggest race is way more pertinent to the aftermath than to the basic unfolding of this article's main events. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on May 31, 2020

In the section "People involved," subsection "Police officers," please add "(age 34)" after Tou Thao. This would match Thao's mention here to Lane's and Kueng's, the other two officers whose ages are given but whose birthdates are not. Please cite this to this article from the Star Tribune. (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for supplying the source. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Criminal past of George Floyd

I see that the articles talks about Derek Chauvin having already 18 complaints on his records, but nothing is written about Floyd's past crimes ? Source : — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Daily Fail is not a reliable source, there's already discussions about this above. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, it is not the Daily Mail that is saying it but official court records.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

See WP:PRIMARY -- And the discussions about this above. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The way activists like Ian.thomson are rewriting history is my removing dissenting opinions "as trolling" and then "showing" that there is no dissenting opinions. Good job pushing the collapse of wp:NPOV. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. 2601:602:9200:1310:93D:DA95:41FB:307A (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Accusing everyone of being Orwellian is trolling. Neutrality doesn't mean creating artificial balance. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

He supposedly robbed. (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Talk 00:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Change the opening statement of the article from “George Floyd died on” to “George Floyd was murdered” 2001:569:BD31:4700:CC50:84DC:2BD2:22BD (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done. That’s a matter for the courts.WWGB (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Add comments by HH Dalai Lama in Reactions/Political/Int'l

In Reactions/Political/International add, The Dalai Lama, in India while teaching students, condemned the killing of George Floyd by saying, "...and then there are some who even take it as a pride to be able to kill somebody."[1] Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY Done. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 22:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia link to Dalai Lama

Please add the Wikipedia link at Dalai Lama name in Reactions/Political/International. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

checkY All good. Thank you for the suggestion. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

"On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, an African-American man, died in Powderhorn, a neighborhood south of downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota. While Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on a city street during an arrest, Derek Chauvin, a white Minneapolis police officer, kept his knee on the right side of Floyd's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds; according to the criminal complaint against Chauvin, 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that time occurred after Floyd became unresponsive." He didn't just die he was murdered!!!!!!!!! (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

When the courts say it so can we, and not until then.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't just apply to people you like or whose side you're on. It's a serious thing which is afforded to everyone. It applies especially when you find a person distasteful and obnoxious. Perennial Student (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Many celebrities condemned the incident

I'm sorry, but so what? This seems un-encyclopedic. (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree, especially as most of the celebrities listed have no political influence and have little pertinence to the subject. BanjoZebra (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The list (if there is to be a list per se) should be limited to celebrities that are specifically mentioned in WP:RSs and should not be based on any primary sources. I can't tell which are cited to what, someone should go through it. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like a reasonable idea supported by WP policies. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
We already know what closet SJWs celebrities are, and it just adds undue weight to the article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Please don't use perjoratives. MiasmaEternalTALK 04:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
What?—Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Is that anything similar to the closet hypocritical right-wing celebrities? You know, the ones who talk about how hard it is to work in Hollywood, yet their hypocritical rears *somehow* find a way to get work anyway? If anything, I would think it'd OK to have a section for celebrity responses to the situation. 2600:1700:C960:2270:FC45:5BB4:42BF:572C (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that many celebrities' comments are not too relevant to the article, but if there are celebrities from the Minneapolis area (born or living there), their comments might hold more weight in context. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree. Actors/Musicians' opinions about anything outside their field are not notable and not encyclopedic 2600:8801:B04:2000:505E:2340:7AD3:1818 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Disagree with the idea this information is unencylcopedic. Celebrities are usually slow to take political positions because they stand to alienate parts of their audiences. Celebrities' comments lend significant credence to the idea that this was a significant cultural moment across the United States. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This is from the section that was removed from the article:
Many celebrities condemned the incident, including Ice Cube, Chance the Rapper, Debra Messing, Chelsea Handler, Jeffrey Wright, W. Kamau Bell, Meek Mill, Common, Snoop Dogg, Ariana Grande, Ice-T, Justin Bieber, Madonna, T.I., LeBron James, Talib Kweli, Kim Kardashian, Ava DuVernay, Demi Lovato, Naomi Campbell, John Boyega, Cardi B, Sean Combs, Candace Cameron Bure, Cynthia Erivo, Viola Davis, André Leon Talley, Mandy Moore, 2 Chainz, Zoë Kravitz, Polo G, DJ Khaled, Stephen Curry, Janet Jackson, and Jamie Foxx.[1][2][3][4][5]
It looks like Boyega has been readded. gobonobo + c 14:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Shrinkydinks, I'm sorry, but what remote evidence do you have for any of Celebrities are usually slow to take political positions because they stand to alienate parts of their audiences. Celebrities' comments lend significant credence to the idea that this was a significant cultural moment across the United States.? In my experience that is the exact opposite of the truth, all of it. —valereee (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The TL;DR list of 35 names doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. A reasonable compromise might be limiting the list to one name per source and the list present here should be of diversified names (ie not all black rappers for example). Personally, I'd pick one name from each source and link the source to the name. If people really want to see all the other names, they can always follow the link to the source. (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the list of celebrities is relevant to the article but I would like to see at least one citation immediately after each celebrity's name so that the reader can easily access their comment(s). I think celebrity names without citations immediately after them should be removed. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should have 1 line that says roughly "many celebrities have condemned the polices actions [citations here]"--Hiveir (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  • We should have no line mentioning it all. Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. When we have a celebrity (or anyone else, for that matter) being relaibly-sourced as applauding or just "not minding" Floyd's death, then that would be newsworthy. That's not going to happen, so it's merely unencyclopedic trivia. ——Serial # 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    +1 —valereee (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see why what some celeb thinks is ever relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Results of 2nd Autopsy

It has been almost 3 days since the second autopsy was conducted, has there been any release of information yet from citable sources? RyanLB (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What second autopsy was conducted 3 days ago? AFAIK Hennepin County Medical Examiner conducted one autopsy. Although our article claims "preliminary autopsy" as do some other sources, I believe this is misleading. There are no plans for another autopsy. Rather they are still waiting more test results before reviewing the information issuing their final conclusions. The family are planning an independent autopsy. They announced who will conduct it etc on 30 May (US time) about 27 hours ago, but there's no indication any autopsy has been performed. Indeed reports from when it was announced suggested it would be conducted over the news few days. AFAIK, Michael Baden doesn't live in Minneapolis (not sure about Alleca Wilson), and it's mostly been the weekend and to be blunt, the situation is a bit chaotic right now plus the family need to get access to the body so it seems unlikely it's been conducted. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@RyanLB: Just noticed that [32] says Baden will travel to Minneapolis on Saturday. But even if this happened and he reached it on Saturday, there's a fair chance he hasn't performed it. And if he has I'm fairly sure it hasn't been announced that it's happened. The Fox News source also says Baden will discuss his findings early next week and while by some definitions Sunday is early next week, I think it's unlikely they'll be revealed then so it's likely we still have at least a day and maybe more before any results from the family's autopsy. Definitely I cannot find any indication any second autopsy was conducted 3 days ago. Since it's clearly not the family's one, who conducted such an autopsy? Is it on behalf of one of the officers? Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

He was convicted of a home invasion with a deadly weapon. That’s not a burglary in an empty home. That’s a break in while the occupants are eating dinner and then robbed at gun point. (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
And relevance? This is not a biography. Kablammo (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree, He had served his time. This has no bearing on this case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The article isn't a bio, but the section on GF is. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
So? What does this information tell us about THIS incident?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the relevance? How does a criminal history in the past, a thousand miles away, and which by all accounts he had left behind, inform us in any way about his death? Kablammo (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The sections on the participants isn't limited to what's relevant to the incident. It's relevant to his death in that he moved to MN soon after being released. Jim Michael (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry not seeing the relevance of that, if he had moved to NY or England he might not be dead. That does not explain anything.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
They're major parts of his life. Also, the police would have been able to quickly find out about his convictions. Some mainstream media sources say that he & Chauvin knew each other before the incident. Jim Michael (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not a major part of his life, he was convicted 10 years ago. Also does the US have the concept of spent convictions? Or is a man a criminal all his life (and even if they do not, so? why dies this explain why this happened even criminals have certain rights).Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
You think that a 5-y prison sentence isn't a major part of a person's life?! Even if it were his only conviction (which it wasn't), I wouldn't have thought something as serious as that could ever be spent. Jim Michael (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is NOT a biography. This is about the death of George Floyd, that content is not relevant to his death.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The brief bios of the participants routinely include major aspects of their lives. Jim Michael (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No, not in the overall context of someones life. Less so them him being a talented athlete who particularly excelled in football and basketball at school (for example) or the fact he had not been jailed since. But there is no more to be said. No reason has been given as to what this adds to our understanding of the case beyond "it was a major part of his life" and "If he had not moved he would not have died".Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this is totally relevant. Without this fact, how does the next sentence have any useful meaning? "Floyd moved to Minnesota around 2014." It is important. In fact, it's not even the whole story; this person was arrested on 8 separate occasions between 1997 and 2005. There's no separate bio page for George Floyd, so this is the most appropriate place right now.Lcaa9 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
How, do people in...nope as that may be seen as snarky...please explain your reasoning? It might in fact be rather more significant they had not been arrested for over 5 years since moving.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The sports info is less relevant, because he never did it professionally. Jim Michael (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
So? Plenty of things are important to people and they are not paid for it (such as being sports fans, which for some is an obsession). Also was he a "professional" criminal, the source does not say that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
A 5 y prison sentence is a major part of the life of anyone who's served a sentence of that length, regardless of circumstances. Playing sport as a hobby, for fitness etc. isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Not in context its not, but we are going round in circles. He was not a professional criminal so this was just one aspect of his life he seems to have moved on from. This is my last word here, no valid reason (other then "I like it") has been given here as to why we should have this information and so I still oppose its inclusion, And as I am not alone in should be removed until, there is consensus for inclusion (as per wp:brd. That is my last word on this until I see a valid reason for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Tim Allen has certainly moved on from his (shorter) prison sentence & it has nothing to do with his career other than interrupting it - but we wouldn't exclude it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Jim, you are edit warring. Please stop. Lcaa, his arrest record had nothing to do with this incident which is the subject of this article. Did the officer know of it, causing him to be fearful? No evidence. Any other possible connection between that history and his death? No, and you can't name one. Kablammo (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
His arrest record had everything to do with this incident. 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. Lcaa9 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I entered the conviction & prison info once - that's nowhere near edit-warring. Jim Michael (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
You are correct Jim. I apologize for the error. Kablammo (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done - Please follow the instructions when posting an edit request: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 14:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is one sentence in the article about his Texas conviction and IMO it should stay there. It's part of his biography. (Even though it's something that the Minnesota police officers could not have been aware of; there have been no reports that he had any run-ins with the law in the 5 years he lived there. He moved to MN intending to "start a new life" and to all appearances he had succeeded. I'm not suggesting this comment be added to the article, it is OR/opinion.) I have added a better source; the existing source was behind a paywall. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest removing the content in question for WP:BLP concerns (since all content regarding a recently deceased person is covered there), and we have this convo in a month or two... –MJLTalk 19:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. BLP doesn't say we mustn't say anything negative about a person. If something is well sourced, as this is, BLP is totally in agreement with including it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Again can we have just one thread on this, please merge all these.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

See the RfC below, where I guess we get to repeat ourselves. Should we link from there to all the previous discussions? Should we ping all discussants in previous discussions? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Gallery photos

I think the gallery section should be taken down entirely. The photos are all of the protests subsequent to the death/murder, for which there is a separate article. Obviously there will be mention of the protests in this article, but I'm really not sure how a photo of damaged buildings in Columbus belongs on this article. (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems valid, why do we need a gallery if images better suited to another article?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Might all be better at George Floyd protests ·addshore· talk to me! 21:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and mobed this to George_Floyd_protests#Gallery ·addshore· talk to me! 21:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources for "this claim is contradicted by all video evidence"??

"A spokesman for the police department said the officers ordered him to exit the vehicle, at which point he "physically resisted". This claim is contradicted by all video evidence thus far released of the encounter.[9][10]" Neither of the sources provided say anything about whether he resisted exiting the vehicle?

This video - with footage - says that Floyd DID resist exiting his car: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas6785 (talkcontribs)

YouTube is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
That particular video is a reliable secondary source, having been posted by NBC news and narrated by NBC reporter Emmanuelle Saliba. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It certainly does seem that he is resisting (albeit a seemingly mild form of resistance) being pulled out of the vehicle. The NBC news commentator states that "the officer struggles to get Floyd out of the car". So saying that he didn't resist at all is factually inaccurate, as he is putting up at least some resistance when being removed from the vehicle. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Is is resisting arrest? The source does not say that is says "struggles to get him out of the car", which is not the same thing. Is "not getting out" "physically resisting"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If a police officer orders you out of a vehicle and you refuse and he has to pull you out himself, then yeah that's physically resisting. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is mostly academic at this point, because the article here no longer claims that the resisting of arrest is "contradicted by all video evidence thus far released". The NBC video linked above really doesn't need to be incorporated in the article either, now that media like the New York Times and CNN have commented on the prosecutors statements in the criminal complaint. In case there is any confusion here, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension turned over the video and audio recordings from two of the arresting officer's body cameras to the prosecutor, who then described them in the statement of probable cause as follows: "Officer Lane ordered Mr. Floyd out of the car, put his hands on Mr. Floyd, and pulled him out of the car. Officer Lane handcuffed Mr. Floyd. Mr. Floyd actively resisted being handcuffed. ...The officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of squad... Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers by intentionally falling down, saying he was not going in the car, and refusing to stand still." Actively resisting being handcuffed is resisting arrest, as well as the refusal to get in the squad car when directed by law enforcement to do so. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A video shows the police car after Floyd was inside. Off specific topic, but look: It's rocking, police are repeatedly reaching in, then it appears Floyd is pulled out, away from cameras. Another video showing the 4 officers is also available in the link. Point? None of the available videos show Floyd resisting arrest.Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC) And, obviously, the statement of probable cause is highly suspect, given the sources. If the bodycam audio & video have not been personally examined, if what is being described is not verifiable, then the prosecutor's statement is inherently unreliable. UR_Ninja states their copy of bodycam footage omits the scenes from inside the police vehicle, as an example.Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The prosecutor's statement of probable cause was filed in court against the police officer, in support of murder charges, and used MBCA-supplied examination of the audio & video from the bodycams to verify that the deceased resisted arrest. The bodycams recorded everything from the time the officers arrived on scene to the time Floyd was taken away in an ambulance. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding banner from Berlin to gallery

File:George_Floyd_memorial_banner_Berlin-Kreuzberg.jpg was just uploaded to Commons. Any opinions on adding it to the gallery section? I personally feel the gallery section doesn't represent the reception of the event by the wider world yet, and perhaps this would help. ·addshore· talk to me! 20:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Having said that, and read Talk:Death_of_George_Floyd#Gallery_photos perhaps all of these images belong on George_Floyd_protests ·addshore· talk to me! 21:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved the gallery to George_Floyd_protests ·addshore· talk to me! 21:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

map of protests

Over in George Floyd protests there's a dynamically updated map of major protests in George Floyd protests#Protests_elsewhere - I think that would be good to include in this article as well, as a quick summary view (this article is getting way more views, and the list of cities with protests is growing by the hour) but I don't want to insert a major piece of map code without some consensus. Thoughts? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I support that. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I oppose. Let's keep this article focused on the event and not the protests. There is no need for duplication. Kablammo (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I support that, it's more info and it could go in the reactions section. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 00:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Link to the article with a small amount of text. Why would you duplicate and dilute this article? O3000 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
In this instance I think a fork is needed, as its clear the "protests" have moved way beyond just this crime and are now an event in and of themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
There's already been a split to George Floyd protests and List of George Floyd protests, so that's already settled. There's a new map at Template:George Floyd protests map that could be included in this article -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sequence of events in complaint document

I'm tempted to add the sequence of events from the complaint (charge) document. This seems to me the authoritative secondary source; the county attorney has integrated all the witness statements and bodycam footage. But before I start an edit war, are people OK with that? -- Netwalker3 (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be a primary source, so no I do not agree with your reasoning.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No, that's a secondary source. The videos are primary sources, and they are what the article is full of, right now. But I can see that I would have an uphill battle, so I'll pass on the idea. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
To quote wp:primary "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Thus a charge sheet is a primary document as it is written by people involved with the case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Netwalker3, I agree with improving the timeline/sequence of events in the article. However, we don't need to use the complaint as a source; there are plenty of secondary sources that provide a timeline (and which, themselves, incorporate the complaint, the videos, and other sources); pretty much every major media outlet has one. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 03:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup of "See Also" section

Adding on to this - to avoid the continued addition of loosely related examples of police brutality (of which there are many), should we give a short description after each link as to how each incident relates to the death of Floyd? For example, we can say the shootings of Castile and Damond were in the Minneapolis area, and the death of Eric Garner played out in a very comparable way.

This would be similar to the Bayonne mosque shooting article. Mrsmiis (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Violence" is misleading

Yes, in some contexts, it can describe a big boom, crash or smash from an unfeeling object. But protest is inherently related to people, so the word naturally suggests the sort of unrest that brings blood, physical pain and death. "Destruction" or the like are way clearer, and less counterproductive to the spirit of raging against violence. So be mindful. Or don't, if you'd rather not. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Implying that people who disagree with your proposed edit are refusing to be mindful is not a helpful assertion. Stavd3 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Not what I said, not what I meant. Mean you're all free to mind this advice (had already made the edits) or disregard it. Trying to get across how I'm not demanding this reasonable style, just suggesting it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
And no, we are not required to follow the source's wording, just its (encyclopedic) information. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe I've seen sources saying there have been multiple related shootings and physical attacks on people; while there has been destruction there has also been violence. (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Fine to call things like that "violent", but as of now, the article calls spraypainting walls and stoning cars "violent". The lead used to say smashing windows, setting fires and looting/expropriating stores is violence. Now calls such mischief a "riot", much more accurate. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"Violence" seems fine to me, it does not have to be against people, or even living things.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Aye, that's true. Which makes headlines like "violence spreads across America" or "peaceful protest turns violent" particularly great at not exactly lying, while still getting clicks and maintaining the idea that "hurting the economy" is just as bad as shooting people and setting them on fire. Not saying that's why you think it's OK in this context. But CNN is damn sure pissed about its center being "violated", and so are its "media partners". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What's important about using the word "violence" in this case is to not subtly and automatically foist it on the protestors. As hundreds of images and testamonies from verified independent media and twitter sources evidence, peaceful protests in Minneapolis and around the country were met with excessive force and violence from police. Thus, evidence proves the police are repeatedly the instigators of the violence, beginning with Chauvin's and his accomplices' violence. The protesters are responding after the violence targets them, after joining peaceful manifestations, after beginning to protect themselves. This reality needs to be an inherent aspect of all categorizations of "violence". Additionally, the property destruction is a form of rage against a violent system of lethal institutional racism. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Medical examiner and cause of death

From the criminal complaint:

The full report of the ME is pending but the ME has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.
Complaint — State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin, Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District, File No. 27-CR-20-12646, p. 3. May 29, 2020.

Cause of death will be a major point of contention in the trial. Kablammo (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And it seems so contrary to what everybody saw happening that it will probably - unfortunately - touch off another round of protests, just when it seem like arresting the guy might have calmed things down. I hope the family asks for an independent review. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There's a lot that is not said in that statement. There's many other possibilities (hypoxia, cervical nerve damage, etc.) but we'll need to hear the official ruling. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. No toxicology report, no BCA report, no mention of microscopic analysis of tissues. It looks like the complaint was put together with what was available in order to bring charges as soon as possible. But right now, we do not have even a preliminary determination that this was a homicide, and a statement that a number of factors "likely" contributed to his death will be argued at trial to not constitute proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard needed for conviction.
Wikipedia should not be calling it a "killing"; there is no official determination yet that this is a homicide. Kablammo (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

OPPOSE Wikipedia doesn't need a trial to report what the video clearly illustrates : Floyd was alive, clearly stated he was being killed, then was killed by Chauvin, Koeng, and Lane, as Thao assisted. It's illogical and inaccurate to devalue then to negate Floyd's own testimony. To do so while claiming to wait for an 'official' determination is senseless in this case. I might add the position of waiting, while negating Floyd's own dying statements including those which detail his organ shutdowns as he's being slowly killed, is also somewhat politicly naive. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reports of George Floyd's criminal record

In this article, we have biographies of the individuals involved, however, it currently misses out from the relevent section George Floyd's extensive criminal record from the before he moved from Houston, Texas to Minneapolis. I feel this is pertinent to add. If we can mention complete cruft such as the fact that he liked basketball and hip-hop, surely this needs to be in here.

According to this news article, Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison in 2009 for his part in an armed home invasion with a weapon. According to the Harris County, Texas District records, Mr. Floyd entered a home of a woman with a gang, pointed a gun to her stomach and searched the home for drugs and money to steal, before making off with jewelry and her mobile phone. Mr. Floyd had already been a defendant in eight other criminal incidents before this stretching back to 1997 and has had five stints in prison. CrimeChecker (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :*Your point?... Mr. Floyd had a criminal record but that past behavior that he paid the price for in the legal system shouldn't have been a death sentence. Was he committing a capital crime when he was handcuffed? No? Ok then. (Also, the Daily Mail is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC.) Shearonink (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The section of the article this pertains to is his biography section. What did where he was born, where he went to school, the fact he liked basketball and hip-hop have to do with this death? We include all of that. If the article is going to contain a biography of this individual, then his extensive criminal record which includes a five year setence for armed home invasion is probably worth mentioning. This isn't just mentioned in the Daily Mail, but numerous other articles, linked further up on this talk such as the Guardian. CrimeChecker (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
A: We have an request for comment above, please comment there. I will not bother with B yet.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
CrimeChecker, Daily Mail is not a reliable source and thats irrelevant to the death of George Floyd.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone then please explain how the fact he liked basketball and hip-hop is relevant to his death? Jevansen (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not, but two wrongs do not make a right.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Grandfather too much?

The article is already too long. I think talking about the family tradition and the grandfather of one of the arresting officers is excessive. -- (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

minus Removed, irrelevant. WWGB (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Pleas add the statements below in the section -> Reactions -> Political

(Redacted) Bakabana~enwiki (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How many statements from foreign leaders are necessary? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Chauvin the first white officer to be charged with death of black man in Minnesota

Per [Vox] Chauvin is the the first white officer to be charged with the death of a black civilian in Minnesota. I believe this information would be relevant to the article and would like to see if added (there may be other interesting and relevant bits to add from that article as well)--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:B0AF:3DB2:BE89:D986 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY I just added it. Thanks! The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, don't forget to mark the requests as answered! Ed6767 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of this! Much appreciated. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Technically, that's per the Star-Tribune, Vox just yoinked it. But yeah, hardly matters anymore. Online journalism is all about yoinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It's alright though, I cited both. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tou Thao's role needs to be clarified

Currently, the article states that "Officers Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng, and Thomas K. Lane participated in Floyd's arrest, with Kueng holding Floyd's back, Lane holding his legs, and Thao looking on as he stood nearby."

However, this is not completely accurate, in light of the fact that, in one of the eyewitness videos, while the other three are holding Floyd down, Thao takes time to open the rear of the police SUV, look for and retrieve an object from the SUV, then hand it to Lane, who reaches out his hand and takes the object.

If it has not been reported what this object is, mention of Thao's action should be added to the article, since it is clear that he was not simply looking on. (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do RS mention this?Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't find any as of a few days ago. IMO the current wording is fine. IIRC Thao also talked to bystanders a bit and put his hand up and other stuff at various times. It's clear that what's described in the lead is a simplified description of what went on and there's nothing at the moment to indicate Thao did anything significant, the criticism of him seems to focus on his inaction. Even if we did want to add more details from reliable sources, these would probably go in the body rather than the lead anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

BWC official documentation

I would like to request that the current results of the body watch cameras be included in this article. For as far as a majority of the news and such goes most sources have neglected these findings.

Here is a link which leads to the pdf file for such. I am most troubled by how there is no mention that George did resist and he had been saying that he couldn't breath before he was on the ground. There was no point where police officers actually got him into the car. Shnappers (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done - Please follow the instructions when using the edit request template: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". If you want to propose new content, you can simply start a new section or post in a section where the material is already being discussed. - MrX 🖋 11:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Shnappers: You will need to find the news sources which did not "neglected these findings" to have any hope of inclusion. We cannot rely directly on the criminal complaint per WP:BLPPRIMARY etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Einne would it count as secondary source material since the primary source would be the body cameras and the secondary reliable source would be Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension interpretation of that footage? Shnappers (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No; court documents, charging documents etc are primary sources. See the linked policy subsection. Please find reliable secondary sources like reports from high quality media outlets. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
See e.g. [33] Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We can use reputable primary sources for what they say. We need secondary sources for what they mean. Here we can cite to and quote from the statutes and court filings, but we need secondary sources to draw conclusions from them. See WP:PRIMARY. Kablammo (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am fairly confident that this would be considered a secondary source.

I appreciate the example of a secondary source but it's fair to argue this has all the makings of being a secondary source.

From the fact it uses "him" "the defendent" "the officers" and "Mr floyd" the author is not directly related to the incident.

Throughout the complaint it cites the timestamps of other primary sources and builds upon bystander videos.

At no point do I have to evaluate, interpret or analyze anything. It is already done for me.

It is not my original research but rather a reliable source.

There is nothing that directly states everything related to a court case can not be used as a secondary source.

It is the assertion, it is not supporting an assertion. Shnappers (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shnappers: it doesn't really matter what you're "fairly confident" about. What matters is how our policies and guidelines are intepreted. And yes, criminal complaints are primary sources. Feel free to ask about this on WP:BLPN or WP:RSN if you wish, but it's been dealt with many times before and you're not the first one to make the claim it's a secondary sources because it's an analysis by some other party and to be rejected. Also User:Kablammo you're mistaken. We cannot use court filings in that way when BLPs are involved which they clearly are since even if we put aside George Floyd and WP:BDP, all four officers are still living. Again please read WP:BLPPRIMARY as this goes beyond our normal restrictions on primary sources. Unless the details are covered in secondary sources they're out. You can provide the court documents as a backup, but the details themselves need to be covered in reliable secondary sources before we can mention them. If no secondary sources care about such details, then nor do we. Frankly this is a particularly silly case to make a fuss about it. With all the attention this case has received, it's simply not plausible that there will be some important detail in the court documents that every single secondary sources has missed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nil, I disagree. We can use the primary source to state what it says. But we cannot, for example, draw conclusions from it, by, for example, asserting that Floyd was not strangled, with a cite to the source. Already we are seeing instances of the latter. And here, where the primary source is well-covered by secondary sources — which often rephrase it, or make statements which go beyond it — we can reduce errors by direct quotes from the source. Kablammo (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC) And people are already interpreting the complaint, here and elsewhere, to state that he was not asphyxiated, and that is not what the complaint says. Kablammo (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne I've already given you my argument and used the specific wording of the rules as to why this is a secondary source. You are not citing any reason why it is not other than your word at this point and saying that it will be rejected. The only thing that could prevent this being used as a primary source is that it can not be used to support assertions but these are not supporting assertions at all. I am not making any assertions, no one is. Read the rules yourself. Shnappers (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • the only thing that could prevent this from being used as a secondary source* sorry Shnappers (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Hi. Multiple errors as follows:

1. In 'Events' section : change order of bystander video account and police account. Police account has already been proven as inaccurate, and should not have top billing in this section.

2. In 'Events' section, preliminary autopsy: delete "found no indication" and edit sentence to "preliminary autopsy alleges", which is more accurate.

3. In 'Events' section : delete inaccurate idea that Chavin didn't move until paramedics placed Floyd on stretcher. Add "Chavin removed his knee to drag Floyd's body towards the paramedics. The officers then dumped Floyd's body onto the stretcher, and the paramedics adjusted Floyd's body to lay flat." Just watch the 9+ minute video again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

4. In 'Events' section : delete word "sobbing" since Floyd was not sobbing.

5. In 'Events' section : add, "When a witness tried to approach Chavin after Floyd became unresponsive, Chavin removed his hand from his pocket and appeared to mace the person, as the person also states on the video recording." This is in the 9+ minute video. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not analyse, we report.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
On hold until you can cite sources for these edits Pasdecomplot. They appear to be original research which is against Wikipedia policy. - MrX 🖋 18:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the suggestions are correctly interpreted:

  1. 1. is not analysis but content rearrangement.
  2. 2. is more accurate reporting since public medical examiners in similar cases have been found to be biased towards police versions of events. Thus "alleges" is better and not biased in favor of the police/prosecutor/city attorney version of the cause of death.
  3. 3. corrects an inaccuracy, as illustrated in video.
  4. 4. is another correction to an innacuracy. Floyd was not crying or sobbing. Pleading is more accurate.
  5. 5. is information from the video. If we're quoting from the video's audio track, then a reference to the macing is not analysis. If you prefer, after "unresponsive,..." edit suggestion to add "the witness accused Chauvin of macing him."

It's very important to be accurate. Do these explainations help? Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, as there is no source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is the video for 3,4,5. The picture of Floyd and Chauvin is from the video, and quotations are provided from the video. Thus it's already an approved source. Item 1 is a format suggestion, doesn't require a source. Item 2 we're discussing in another talk thread. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31—May—2020

Insert two sentences in paragraph after bodycam comments and before quotations from Floyd as he was being killed : "A surveillance camera shows Floyd was in the police vehicle as an officer repeatedly reached in and the vehicle rocked. Floyd was then pulled out of the police vehicle on the side away from the cameras, where he was held face down by the three police officers with Chavin's knee on his neck." (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to the source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
On hold until source provided. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Provided the source in the same but simplified edit suggestion made after signing in. It's called "Add video..." Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this help? It appears Floyd did not resist arrest - "Video doesn’t appear to show George Floyd resisting arrest as cops claimed" [34] along with 5 and 1/2 minutes of video showing that he did not resist arrest and according to the article:

Surveillance video does not appear to show George Floyd, who died after being pinned down by Minneapolis cops, resisting arrest — which police had claimed — in the moments before the deadly encounter. Floyd, who was black, can be seen on footage from a nearby restaurant Monday complying with cops as he’s led from a vehicle, CBS News reported. With his hands cuffed behind his back, he appears to be ordered to sit on the ground, which he does, video shows. The footage contradicts police accounts that Floyd “physically resisted officers” after he exited his vehicle.

Here is another source: [35] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That does not seem to support "A surveillance camera shows Floyd was in the police vehicle as an officer repeatedly reached in and the vehicle rocked. Floyd was then pulled out of the police vehicle on the side away from the cameras,".Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I agree, which is why I added this to this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I Can't Breathe and I Can't Breathe (disambiguation)

Hi. The former links to the Death of Eric Garner with a hatnote pointing here. There's also the I Can't Breathe (disambiguation) page. Should "I Can't Breathe" now become the disambig page? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I would think yes, now that the disambiguation page specifically leads with explanatory comments about Garner and Floyd. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been bold and moved it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


It seems to me that all the images and videos do not show those two police vehicles surrounded (until after they drive into the crowd). Can we have a source that confirms they were surrounded?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is this rated low importance?

This is page is rated low importance. Shouldn't it be rated higher? There's a curfew where I live, and multiple people have died in the protests. This is arguably the most important article as of now (June 1), and it has about 4.6 million total page views. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If this were a one time incident, I might agree with the rating. When there is a long string of murders by police of citizens with a particular skin color, then it becomes a critical issue that should be, and has not been, seriously addressed. No, I am not one of the targets, but I am outraged. This is an important article. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
How does one push the rating up? Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
If you are referring to the ratings at the top of this talk page, those are ratings from varying Wikipedia:WikiProject's, – groups of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area. I wouldn't worry about those ratings. The total page views for this article that you mentioned indicate that the article is important to our readers. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Remember this page is under DS sanctions, we have all breached them I suspect but wp:onus means it is on those who want to include something to "win" the argument. If people continue to ignore wp:brd I will ask for intervention, stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

District services? Department of Sanitation? Development syndicate? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I am going to very very polite over this, discretionary sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for being polite. The constant use of cryptic unexplained abbreviations is a plague to modern English. I've been contributing here for years and still have no idea how to find out what those sanctions are, so I suspect most editors would be in the same position. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
There's a link to them in the banner below the talk header. Jim Michael (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
In all fairness an inexperienced user can be forgiven for not knowing what a specific abbreviation may refer to.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Not an experienced one? 😭 --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a very good point. This article, like many current events articles, is likely to attract large numbers of inexperienced users. A cryptic header followed by a cryptic reminder doesn't provide enough information to be useful to anyone who doesn't already know what discretionary sanctions are, what qualifies as violating them, and what consequences there are for violating them. —valereee (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
...which is why WP:ACDS have awareness requirements. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 03:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
And ExperiencedArticleFixer has now been given the necessary alert. So while it's understandable that ExperiencedArticleFixer may not have been aware of them at the start of this thread, they should be now. The awareness requirement also doesn't really discriminate on "experience". Someone with experience is slightly more likely to meet them, but if you don't come under any of the strict requirements you don't meet them no matter what else you've done here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This why Wikipedia is so F-----`s written by a bunch of lawyers..they write the rules that only they can decipher which means..ta da..they always get their way..god forbid any of this stuff get`s written in English 2600:1702:2340:9470:4408:1A12:9A12:309E (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
In the same way you did not write fucked up? NO sometimes if called shorthand.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


The current lead says that he was pined down while talking for 7 minutes and while he was unconscious for another 4 minutes. I don't think the total was as much as 11 minutes. Also, the sources never say that he was face down for all 7 minutes. You can see his face to his right, not down, in our current photo. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I edited it to say that it's 3+4 minutes, not 7+4. See the sources. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the sentence and it is accurate - Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for at least seven minutes while Floyd was handcuffed, lying face down on the road. Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for at least seven minutes, he was handcuffed for that seven minutes and he was lying face down on the road for seven minutes. There is nothing inaccurate about that sentence whatsoever. And the current photo shows his face down as well. You said You can see his face to his right, yes you can, and his face is down on the pavement. You need to explain why you keep changing that sentence to your preferred version, when reliable sources support the sentence as it was written. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That was not the sentence when I wrote that it was inaccurate, and the sentence was inaccurate when I wrote so. You are simply quoting the sentence after more hours of editing. Wikipedia is continually edited, specially on hot issues, and one cannot simply take a version and use it to answer comments on a different version. The current version seems ok. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about the facedown issue, but I'd argue ExperiencedArticleFixer was correct that this version [36] was misleading. I don't think there's ever been any real dispute that Floyd stopped responding during those seven minutes. Yet that version could easily be read as saying he was talking during the whole seven minutes. Despite EAF's experience, I'm not sure if their edit of the article was the best fix, but they were right to highlight the problem and there was probably nothing wrong with trying to fix it in some way given WP:BOLD etc even if they didn't succeed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Striking the above since it's moot now that we have the criminal complaint which gives us the exact time Chauvin was kneeling on his neck, and the time he was unresponsive. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Which further demonstrates why there was a problem. Even based on body cam footage of the entire incident and not just when someone started recording, he was responsive only for just under 6 minutes while his neck was being knelt on. He clearly was not talking for 7 minutes while someone was kneeling on his neck. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Blake Live And Ryan Reynolds Are Doing Their Part To Help Protest Of George Floyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

"Derek Chauvin" should probably be written in bold in the lead (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:BOLDLEAD only the name / aliases of the main subject are bolded. — IVORK Talk 02:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
OK thx (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

I request that you change the term "died" to "was murdered" because that is what happened. He didnt die, he didnt get to go peacefully. Instead, he had his life forcefully taken away from him, he had that right taken away and that's not fair. (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

See above discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Dont have an insensitive image on the page. Have a picture of him instead, reflecting in a positive light. (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the correct venue to discuss the pictures in question, you may be looking for File talk:George Floyd.png. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not sensationalist, and this picture more than suffices its purpose which is to provide basic insight on the victim. --letcreate123 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a "Request for comments regarding lead photo" section above, easy to miss. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Please fix the photo reference in the section "Memorials and protests". (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Which reference? – Thjarkur (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Change "man, died in the Powderhorn" to "man was murdered by Derek Chauvin in the Powderhorn" (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not until a court does so. starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests into Killing of George Floyd (withdrawn)

More appropriate for the 'Reactions' tab of the actual article, reduces confusion, not a news article.   Kadzi  (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Typo/Broken link under Reactions -> Political -> Federal in the first paragraph. The Insurrection Act of 1807 ( is written as "Insurrection Act of 1847". Please change to link to the correct page and display the correct year. (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done —valereee (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


Racism is not once mentioned!? -- (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not condoning what was shown in the video, I think it's awful. But why are you quick to bring up race? You don't know the cop. How do you know he identifies as white? He may look white but what if he's mixed race? What if the victim was white and the cop was black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1A:8AF:4D00:9D18:C437:4F69:2E8C (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone important must say it's racism. A reputable media organization, or a relevant politician. starship.paint (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The "Reactions" section talks a lot about statements made by politicians/celebrities, many of which say or imply that racism was a contributing factor. Stavd3 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipdia has become beyond egregious. -- (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
That word means "standing out", "conspicuous", "obvious", "hard to miss". What is it you are actually trying to say?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Here a "relevant politician", Jacob Frey, a lawyer and Mayor of Minneapolis: Minneapolis Mayor Frey To County Attorney: Charge Arresting Officer -- (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
What's the exact quote where he talked about racism? starship.paint (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't believe racism should be mentioned in the article until the ongoing investigation is complete and it is determined to be a contributing factor. (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you "believe". Belief has repeatedly served to justify acts of organised repression, ranging from discrimination to attempted annihilation. It is therefore of considerable importance to understand why racism persists as a belief system. The mayor of Minneapolis made the connection to Racism unmistakably clear by saying: "that regardless of the investigation’s outcome, it was clear the death of the man in custody, later identified as George Floyd, was unjustified, and that race was a factor. “Being black in America should not be a death sentence,” the mayor said. “For five minutes we watched as a white police officer pressed his knee into the neck of a black man. For five minutes. When you hear someone calling for help, you are supposed to help.” Source: in the United States!
This is complete race-baiting nonsense. Get the facts first before deciding what to believe. That means use your brain and not be controlled by your emotions. People who act on their emotions have a lot to be regretful about. In this emotionally heated time is exactly when you have to practice self control and eschew knee jerk reactions. (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

-- (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)-- (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There is yet no prove it was motivated by racism. Byulwwe (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Campaign Zero, a social justice organization that maps police violence across the US, found that Minneapolis police kill black residents at a rate more than 13 times higher that of white people, one of the nation’s largest racial disparities. -- (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The article you allude to seems to be speculating that this was racist. Good, that journalistic speculation might be included in the article. That is not, however, "proof" that this death was motivated by racism. If the incident is found to be criminal (charges are not convictions), even then that is not proof. Incompetence could be the cause before any individual racism in the officer or collective racism in the police dept. Perennial Student (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no proof that it was an incident based on racism or discrimination. Whatever the cause, at this time it is merely speculation and bias. Only if and when a trial is held and e.g. racism is part of the conclusion, then this should naturally be described - in an objective fashion! That journalists/medias/politicians etc. express their biased views is neither a judicial or de facto conclusion. (Extreme) liberal gun laws could be to blame as well. I suggest that for now these views and opinions of the above mentioned be described/elaborated in the 'Reactions' section - with sources. --Lechatmarbre (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Exactly it could just be stupidity and not malevolence, never underestimate stupidity. Lots of bad things happen because of stupidity. Even the Gods strive in vain against stupidity. (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll check again, but records indicate Chauvin had a history of excessive force with Indigenous people and with African Americans. That signifies he has issues with non-white people, which makes him a racist and unfit for police work. Being that Floyd was African American, it's not speculation that racism was a factor in Chauvin killing Floyd. Look closely at the video again, and understand police departments across the US have been infiltrated by white supremacists. Even the FBI reported on the phenomena - and heavily redacted their entire report. Why is the country revolting if not for these reasons?Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That 100% is still speculation. Perennial Student (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It may not be obvious to people in the situation (i.e. people living in the society), but from an overseas perspective the killing/murder clearly appears to be racially motivated. It seems that arrests by the police are disproportionately aggravated when it comes to black people - it seems to us over the other side of the ocean that "being black" is almost a crime in the USA. I think the racist element in what this police officer did should clearly be mentioned and included. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhyddfrydol2: You do not speak for others - overseas or anywhere else. I disagree with you - being a European. You are not the preciding judge, and none of us know if this was an act of racism (even though it is easy to think so). Don't jump the gun before evidence is clear. At least not when editing Wikipedia. Lechatmarbre (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Do RS link the two?Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhyddfrydol2 "being black" is almost a crime in the USA. This statement is not true and misleading. Don't you know that President Trump is the least racist person in the universe🤣.// Eatcha (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether the homicide involved racism is an interesting question, and, since Wiki is an encyclopedia, it should be an empirical one. Chauvin has lots of complaints against him. Was any excessive use of force directed toward minorities out of proportion to their involvement with police? Or was he an equal opportunity abuser? Any assumption about this without careful analysis reflects the racism of those doing the assuming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CB81:3770:8D05:E340:71D3:7B60 (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: it was reported that, while officers were trying to get him into the police vehicle, George Floyd told officers he was claustrophobic. (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Where was it reported?Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: In the charging document. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Well that's a primary source so it's pointless for us. But it's covered in secondary sources now e.g. [37] [38] [39] Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add it to the article, then. (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I added the criminal complaint to the article a couple of days ago. Death_of_George_Floyd#External_links. And under WP:PRIMARY it can be used as a source. We need to rid ourselves of the assumption that primary sources cannot be used-- that is not the policy. Rather, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. WP:PRIMARY

The complaint is from an official source, and we can cite directly to that source for what it says. There is no need to look for a news report on what it says-- we can do that directly, so long as we don't put a gloss on it, interpret it, or draw conclusions. We can say what it says, but not what that means. Kablammo (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the word "claustrophobic" in this Wikipedia article. In fact, this Wikipedia article doesn't even explain that Floyd was eventually placed into the police vehicle (through the rear left door), or explain how Floyd ended up lying in the street to the right of the police vehicle. These are important parts of the story that preceded the choking of Floyd by Chauvin. (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

AGREE The movement of Floyd is important to the article. The talk pages indicate he was put into the police vehicle from the driver's side (bodycams as source?) There's a video (ur_ninja link) when Floyd was in the vehicle but not visible; Vehicle sways, officer reaches in and out, then actions begin around the passenger side. Then another brief video (link provided in ur_ninja link) shows Floyd outside of the vehicle on the pavement of the passenger side, held down by Chauvin, Kueng, and Lane. But we need other sources, if I understand the public domain issue correctly. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

info from da report

i copied this from the protest article talk

hi i dont want to get in a fight or dig up the source but i was reading the hennepin da report for the charges against chauvin today and there were two things i noticed that wp doesnt yet reflect


chauvin and thao were not the first responding squad but instead the backup


one of the two original responding officers made three separate requests to roll floyd over during the kneeling incident, but was negated by chauvin each time — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:primary.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
oops this was in the da report for chauvins charges, like i said its not about finding a link its about how accurate you want the page to be and when — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
We accurately reflect RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thank you for adding all these additional details, it really helps the accuracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Change "White" to "Caucasian" in the description of this following sentence located in People involved. "Police officers Derek Michael Chauvin (born March 19, 1976), a 44-year-old white man" DR333AD (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It makes more sense and is technically accurate RyanLB (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please explain. The way I see it "Caucasian" is not only less accurate but also a very rare term. I do not see why we should be using it. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I fail see see why it makes "more sense" and wp:commonname means we do not usually call a cat a Felis catus (even though its technically correct).Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No. I have already changed it once from "Caucasian" back to white. For a simple reason: that's what the sources say. At Wikipedia we follow the Reliable Sources, not our own preferences or opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No. That's a racist term! A passé, obsolete racial classification. -- (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Floyd described as criminal on Spanish wiki

Hello, I am not an American and know little about Floyd. Just wanted to point out that somebody at the Spanish wikipedia described Floyd as a criminal (”delincuente habitual”), which doesn’t quite match the description of him here… I left a comment on their talk page. Could somebody with a more precise knowledge of the situation – and good knowledge of Spanish – maybe correct the Spanish article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I speak Spanish natively, and I just skimmed over the section about Floyd and can find no mention of him being a criminal. I assume the edit that added that in was vandalism and/or POV and was duly reverted. Either way, situations like these are to be brought up in the talk page directly instead of doing it cross-wiki. Thanks for the notice though. --letcreate123 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I will do that in the future. Thank you for taking your time to look into this. (Yes, it must have been vandalism.)

Change of location.

Toronto is in Ontario, Canada. It's not an State from U.S.A. LaIslaNegra2021 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@LaIslaNegra2021: Thanks for the heads up. Could you tell us where it is? Thanoscar21talk, contribs 23:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the only mention of Toronto doesn't imply that it's in the US. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC) LaIslaNegra2021 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC) It mentions Cities around the U.S.A , riots , ...Toronto 136. Toronto isn't in the U.S.A. LaIslaNegra2021 (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ontario is fairly large compared to most US states. It runs at least from South of Detroit (Windsor), East of Detroit (London, Paris), Northwest of Michigan and North to Hudson Bay. Toronto is on Lake Ontario, Northeast of Detroit. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

We should say “assassinated” for his death. Just like Kennedy’s -thank you (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's not clear if you're equating a guy you never heard was alive with the Kennedy who would be president or the Kennedy who was president. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Reviewed:

Created by AshMusique (talk), Starship.paint (talk), and Shrinkydinks (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 05:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg As this article was already featured at ITN, it is ineligible for DYK (per criteria 1d). SounderBruce 05:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why delete George Floyd details?

This article used to include statements, with citation links, of where George Floyd went to high school and graduated, what work and accomplishments he had, like multi-sport athlete, and being a rapper in the group Screwed Up Click. Why were those deleted? <RickRiffel2020 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)>

I believe the reasoning is that they are not directly connected to his death, which is currently the title of the article. This debate also centered around the question of whether to include his criminal record, which may be a part of his life but is not related to the case. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Why include the cop's life details which are not related to the case? <RickRiffel2020 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)>
Under the belief that the cop's previous misdeeds could explain the death; whereas the victim's previous misdeeds could not. Under that logic, Floyd's family life and professional background are irrelevant and hence the distinction made is illogical. I don't make the rules, though. Perennial Student (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Me neither, though I've been around, and "Murderers/murder defendants are automatically more noteworthy than their victims" is a very old unwritten rule. A dozen or so of us have been trying to topple it for years, resistance is somehow futile. I wish I could explain why this "policy" stretches to articles named after the victim, but as you say, illogical. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: It is not an unwritten rule. It's biology and evolution, thus basic instincts. We focus (unconsciously) on those issues that cause an unbalance, which is evolutionary smart if you wish to survive. For mammals there is no reason to waste energy on things that work (balance). That is also why "bad" news always garner a lot more attention than "good" news. Thus criminals will always attract more attention than the victims. Lechatmarbre (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A lot of things are written on talk pages, including that, but I meant unwritten as a policy or guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian writes "His life later took a different turn and in 2007 Floyd was charged 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."[42] I would have thought this would be in this article. But incomprehensibly in this edit the information is removed that "In 2009, Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison in Houston for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon." Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This isn't relevant to him being killed. Unlike another recent case, no one is stating his criminal record meant he was likely to attack someone before being killed. You have video footage showing he was helpless, on the ground and cuffed, with no possible way to be seen as threatening in any manner. Dream Focus 02:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If I were a white cop dealing with a large and apparently lit two-time gun offender, I'd give him less wiggle room than I give some other black guy. Not saying I'd kneel on his head indefinitely like a deaf or cruel idiot. But it's definitely a factor that might change anybody's approach somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there video footage of their initial encounter? Did anything happen to give him cause for concern? Has the police report been released that shows anything at all? I doubt he knew the criminal record of the person beforehand. Dream Focus 03:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't ask me, I'm a hypothethical cop, never ever been to Minneapolis. Entirely possible they met him as a big stranger and followed their guts. They certainly couldn't(?) have learned his heart was weak from dispatch, so intentional killing seems farfetched. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Dream Focus—one doesn't keep one's hands in one's pockets when one feels one is being threatened. Laura Coates explains that here. (Starting at 6:35.) The question is—why the omission of the time George Floyd has spent in prison? Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Because the article isn't about him, but the incident of his death. Anything not related to the incident doesn't belong here. Mentioning the police officer who killed him had 18 complaints against him, is relevant. Mentioning Floyd's criminal record isn't relevant. Also there is no reason to mention his insignificant garbage hip hop band, or his children. Dream Focus 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
What about that he was an athlete? Would mention of that be off-limits too, Dream Focus? This article, by Al Jazeera, mentions, in addition to the standard "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", that "At an imposing two metres (6.6 feet), that earned him the nickname 'gentle giant', Floyd became a star athlete in basketball and football at a young age." Can we mention that he was "a star athlete in basketball and football"? Or is that off-limits? Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I do not think any of that is relevant either. None of it gives us any background as to why this happened. We are WP:NOTMEMORIAL to his memory.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering yesterday if George Floyd shouldn't get his own biography page to include these types of details. Kire1975 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As I see it either both the misdeeds of the cop and victim should be displayed or both should not. Either could have had a part to play in this. From the victims bias in the past and the cops bias in the past could have affected how they both reacted leading up to this. Shnappers (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't distinguish between deeds and "misdeeds". I think that which is prominently presented by good quality sources should probably find its way into our articles; I am asking why we should omit that George Floyd got in trouble with the law for what The Guardian describes as an "armed robbery in a home invasion in Houston". Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is about the crime, not the cop or the victim. As to pages about them, wp:n is clear, we do not create pages on people notable for one event.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not unusual to have an embedded mini-bio for a person involved in an event who doesn't warrant a separate BLP. Floyd's background, including his 5 years in prison in Texas are notable as reliable source refer to these details to that explain he moved to Minneapolis after release from jail to turn his life around, which he apparently did. (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And again, can we please have just one thread on this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Which thread is the one thread? (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
That is my point we are discussing his biog in at least 2 threads, his crime in 3 (I think). We need only one (or maybe 2 and separate out the question of his criminal history).Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct statement on public autopsy

Please strike the words "found no indication" and replace with the word "allege", then rework sentence as follows:

Corrected : 'Preliminary results from the official autopsy allege that Floyd did not die of strangulation or traumatic asphyxia, but ..." This correction is more accurate, since medical professionals viewing the video strongly disagree that the findings of the public medical examiner could be accurate. Also, this correction has been suggested before, but in a list of 5 suggested corrections and might be overlooked. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, it is not an allegation, it is a medical statement.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, we will not characterize an autopsy report from the medical professional who physically examined the body as an "allegation" on the grounds that other people who watched the videos are sure that he must have been strangulated. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then we should quote the statement directly, with quotation marks, then it would qualify as text from a medical statement. It does not qualify as that presently. A detail but we need to be very careful to not be biased in favor of institutions which are biased. In cases of wrongful deaths by police or in jails & prisons, municipal medical examiners are found to skew their reports in favor of their municipal co-workers, unfortunately. So, medical statements can be politicized in certain cases. The Floyd case is definitely vulnerable to political manipulation. Thus, the statement "found no evidence", etc is definitely problematic in this case especially since Floyd had all of the same health conditions before meeting Chauvin that day, while still alive. These are the points. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then we should quote the statement directly, with quotation marks, then it would qualify as text from a medical statement. It does not qualify as that presently. A detail but we need to be very careful to not be biased in favor of institutions which are biased. In cases of wrongful deaths by police or in jails & prisons, municipal medical examiners are found to skew their reports in favor of their municipal co-workers, unfortunately. So, medical statements can be politicized in certain cases. The Floyd case is definitely vulnerable to political manipulation. Thus, the statement "found no evidence", etc is definitely problematic in this case especially since Floyd had all of the same health conditions before meeting Chauvin that day, while still alive. These are the points. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then we should quote the statement directly, with quotation marks, then it would qualify as text from a medical statement. It does not qualify as that presently. A detail but we need to be very careful to not be biased in favor of institutions which are biased. In cases of wrongful deaths by police or in jails & prisons, municipal medical examiners are found to skew their reports in favor of their municipal co-workers, unfortunately. So, medical statements can be politicized in certain cases. The Floyd case is definitely vulnerable to political manipulation. Thus, the statement "found no evidence", etc is definitely problematic in this case especially since Floyd had all of the same health conditions before meeting Chauvin that day, while still alive. These are the points. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hum, three replies posted... Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

For azurecitizen: I detect a definite bias in your response. Have you watched the video? Closely? The "other people...who are sure", as you say, are also medical professionals that know the difference between restraining positions and lethal restraining positions. Dr Rob Davidson, a twenty-year ER doctor has a very informative testimony. If you're interested in better understanding the issue and not falling for bias due to naivete, look at the link which I'll post. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Although it might seem contradictory, the reliability of the public autopsy report is at issue in these cases. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So do any RS question its accuracy?Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've twice posted a source for the points I've made, but they aren't showing. Do you know why? Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you post link to were you added these, as I can find no external links in any of your posts to this thread.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying this https : // twitterdotcom / dr rob davidson / status / 12666894168972288 ?s=20 Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Comes up with "Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!", so I have no idea what you are tying to link to. But at this stage I would point you to wp:primary.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a tweet from an ER doctor who writes "As an ER doctor for 2 decades I know that #GeorgeFloyd was killed... He did not die because of heart disease or intoxicants, he died because Derek Chauvin killed pinned [sic] him... ...We have to look deep inside to acknowledge the role we all play in perpetuating racism that allows such killings to continue."

For Pasdecomplot: I'm sure you saw the welcome message that was posted on your Talk page by another editor (per your response there). Check out the lower left hand portion of the chart, where it says "Policies and Guidelines," and start reading through the policies Neutral Point of View, Reliable Sources, Verifiability, Citing Sources, and No Original Research. If you're "interested in better understanding" as you said above, you'll find a lot of good information there. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So in fact it does not (even assuming it was an RS, and I am not sure a tweet from an A&E doctor counts) it contradicts the Autopsy as the autopsy does acknowledge that that Chauvin's actions were a contributory factor.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Issue has been resolved since info on the independent autopsy is now included in article. So, for future reference when establishing reliability, the point I was making - that the official autopsy report is unreliable and language should reflect its unreliability, or its allegations - has been proven as solid by the independent autopsy report. Good for editors to remember for future articles. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Pasdecomplot (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The only point proven here is that you do not understand Wikipedia's policies; we will never use the word "alleged" to characterize an official autopsy. Instead, when we get a second autopsy report, we include its results too. Tuck that away for future reference, because that's what we'll be doing at those future articles too. Be sure to read WP:ALLEGED as well, you'll learn that we use that word when wrongdoing is asserted but not determined by a criminal trial (not the situation here with the autopsy report). You'd also do well to avoid insinuating that experienced editors are biased or naive for following policy, but you'll learn more about that the longer you edit here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove mentions of white/black from the article.

This discussion has already been concluded (here and here) and consensus has been established. El_C 12:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the current article layout, where it is explicitly stated each time that white policeman killed black innocent guy, with all the links of the same below, the article becomes a horn of racism movement. This easily provokes hatred, unjustified vandalism and more crimes on streets.

I would recommend to remove it from the article as irrelevant. And tidy up supporting links, adding all other cases where black policeman killed innocent white person, Chinese killed Latino etc. Violence in police is what needs to be targeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Kire1975 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The BLM protests mentioned in the article would make little to no sense if we did not mention anyone's race. Perennial Student (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD of interest

There is a discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) that might be of interest to editors here. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

☒N Deleted. WWGB (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing comparison with other exceptionally cruel torturing/execution methods.

German Nazis used slow strangulation by piano wire as the most cruel death, yet many of their traitors killed this way died significantly faster than George Floyd. Middle Eastern countries which use short-drop/no-drop hanging are criticised for their cruelty, even when most executed people keep their consciousness for just 1-3 minutes. But the page on George Floyd's death mentions just murder, killing and homicide, there's not a single word on sadistict torture as of now. I think this should be fixed (preferrably in bold).

→ Would you like it to be done in CAPITALS as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sticking to WP:NPOV, this event cannot be ruled as torture due there being no apparent intent to harm/kill — IVORK Talk 02:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Add in the Red Summer under See Also (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: Please explain why this is relevant. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Reviewed:

Created by AshMusique (talk), Starship.paint (talk), and Shrinkydinks (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 05:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg As this article was already featured at ITN, it is ineligible for DYK (per criteria 1d). SounderBruce 05:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For bot: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship.paint (talkcontribs) 07:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • This has to be the most ill-advised DYK nom ever. EEng 02:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Add video of Floyd in police car (link here)

Here's a link to a video where Floyd is in police vehicle, before being pulled out onto the pavement.

Add sentence to opening description (between language about bodycams and language about Floyd's pleas) : "Another surveillance video reveals Floyd was in the police vehicle when officers repeatedly reache in and the vehicle shakes, after which Floyd is pulled out of the vehicle away from the cameras, and held down by the three officers with Chavin's knee on Floyd's neck."[1] Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs WP:RS to verify and we'd need a free copy of it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't we copy it from UR_Ninja? Indie media for non-commercial use only, and Wikipedia meets their standards. They gained lots of respect as a solid source during Standing Rock, and have been working rather fearlessly for 5 years. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, misspelled reach and Chauvin earlier. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you know Floyd was pulled out of the police vehicle on the right side of the vehicle (the opposite side from the side he was placed in the vehicle)? (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen two versions of the video, the other without a verified source. There's movement from the passenger side on the pavement, away from the sidewalk and only shoulders and heads of Chauvin and Lane are visible, while the other two are still on the sidewalk. Floyd ended up on the pavement. It's a logical conclusion. But the issue is posting the video. What's being done? Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait for RS to draw the same conclusions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, the video isn't in the public domain. Only the video's copyright holder can place it into the public domain. Even if UR_Ninja is claiming copyright, we have to both 1. believe them that they actually hold that copyright and 2. see that they're offering it as free-use, which they don't seem to be -- they seem to be offering it only for noncommercial use. We've got a single frame of another video posted on the article, and that's about as far as we can go. Unless there's some single frame of this video that is a better representation of the subject of this article, which you can suggest, we can't post this video to the article. —valereee (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll follow up with UR_Ninja, or Unicorn Riot, about the public domain issue of the minor video, which does not include a better image for the article. So, if the author of the major video, from which the screen shot was made, offers their work as public domain then that too could be ...linked as a reference? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

June 1 press release from Hennepin County Medical Examiner on cause of death

I have added a link to this new document to External links. Kablammo (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added this to the article text.[45] It is also being reported in the media but I am out of time now. Kablammo (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know if we'd get a full autopsy report now? I would think that the family could request and this might be revealed by the family attorneys in due course? Not too familiar with how US local governments do it. Perennial Student (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump Threatens to Unleash “Vicious Dogs” on Them

  • → Trump’s reference to “vicious dogs” potentially being sicced on protesters revisits images from the civil rights movement when marchers faced snarling police dogs and high-pressure fire hoses. Muriel Bowser, mayor of the nation’s capital, responded to the president by saying that “while he hides behind his fence afraid/alone, I stand w/ people peacefully exercising their First Amendment Right after the murder of #GeorgeFloyd & hundreds of years of institutional racism.” She also appealed for people in the District of Columbia and across the country “to exercise great restraint even while this President continues to try to divide us.”
Yes, “The rhetoric that's coming out of the White House is making it worse,” (Gov. Pritzker) “shameful, really truly shameful.” (Gov. Cuomo ) → Trump saying “I am your law and order president” (law and order = code word for racism since Nixon) and threatening to deploy military nationwide, tear-gassing peaceful protesters outside White House so he can walk to St. John's Church - where he has rarely ventured since taking office - and brandish a Bible like Luis Camacho 2019 in Bolivia. -- (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this standard police procedure?

Can some information be gained as to whether it is normal for police to arrest a person who uses a counterfeit bill to buy something or deposit it in a bank? Firstly, the bill in question was relatively modest, $20.00. Secondly, is it the standard practice of police to take the word and identification of a store clerk that said bill is indeed counterfeit? Thirdly, I know from personal experience that just because someone uses a counterfeit bill that doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she was aware of it let alone actually printed it. I once took a cash deposit to our company’s bank and was informed by the teller that a $100 bill a customer gave to us was counterfeit. (In truth, I have no idea if that was true or not. It looked fine to me.) The bank didn’t call the police on me, thankfully. This whole thing seems peculiar to me and ought to scare all of us as anyone could be given a counterfeit bill and innocently attempt to use it elsewhere. So is this standard police practice regardless of the race of the alleged culprit? Or was something else going on regarding Mr. Floyd? Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but somehow when I added a new section a link provided by the editor just before me got under my post and away from his or hers. I attempted to correct this, but when I clicked on edit the link doesn't appear at all so I couldn't cut and paste it back where it belongs.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you about this. I had a similar experience once, where a deposit I was making included a $10 bill that the bank said was counterfeit. All that happened was that the bank kept the bill, and the organization whose money I was depositing was out the $10. This was clearly not a situation that called for an arrest, and my hunch is that you or I would not have been arrested in similar circumstances. But this is all just your and my opinion, WP:Original research, and can't go into the article unless Reliable Sources start saying it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@MelanieN, my favorite admininstrator, we meet again! I agree, but it just pains me to think that the death of Mr. Floyd and the destruction that has followed in its wake was caused by such a piddling thing as this. I was hoping that someone would know if this was standard operating procedure. In California, the police generally don’t arrest people for shoplifting unless the amount taken is over a certain amount far greater than twenty dollars. It would seem logical to me that at most a citation be issued so that the police could ascertain if there had been more instances of this by a singular individual and then, if so, investigate the person for actual counterfeiting or buying counterfeit money from someone else at, of course, a steep discount to the face value. As I said, this could happen to anyone as you and I can attest to. By the way, I assume it was you who fixed the errant link issue. This has happened to me before for reasons I have no idea of. Thanks for that as well as your input. I hope you and yours have been well during this current health crisis. Best wishes, as always.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
When RS discus this so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The Daily Mail has a story, but I don't think that counts as an RS. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Darnella Frazier video

While multiple sources say she livestreamed the video on Facebook, it seems like she uploaded it a couple hours later. Should we correct this?The lorax (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The Devil is in the details. Are sources retracting their original stories? How many sources still say live streaming and how many say several hours later? Are there other data bearing on this? If there is a conflict among sources, you could cite sources for each version. If there is a clear consensus that the original reports were incorrect, then the claim should be corrected. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The video was not live-streamed confirmed that from her Facebook pageOlatunde Brain (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth

What was the Date of birth of George Floyd? GrimRob (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

From screenshots of previous convictions found on several news sites, 14 October 1973. Perennial Student (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I mention "several news sites" and allude to previous convictions only because I don't wish to cite The Daily Mail, unless I really have to. Perennial Student (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
We have anew thread on this below.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Death of George Floyd" category

Per the closing of the Move discussion, I have posted a Category Move discussion for Category:Death of George Floyd. Others who contributed to the Move discussion (on both sides) may wish to contribute to the category discussion. The discussion is here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2020

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

The result of the move request was: moved. I'm choosing to expedite this move rather than wait the full 7 days due to sizable interest and participation. I note that many of those opposing the move did so before the Hennepin County Medical Examiner had concluded that the death was a homicide. As such and in light of this key argument, I am deeming there being sufficient consensus for moving the title. It is important to note that this assessment on my part was based on the strength of the arguments, not the aggregate tally. It is also important to mention that this expedited close was not a WP:SNOW close. While this was a lively debate, I don't think prolonging it is likely to change the outcome or would be a benefit for the project. I thank the overwhelming majority of participants for their well-thought-out arguments as well as for their civil disposition. El_C 11:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been suggested that I expand on my evaluation of the arguments advanced in this discussion. With respect to WP:COMMONNAME, the mention by reliable sources has been mixed, so that argument was not really weighed one way or the other in my evaluation. With respect to WP:BLPCRIME, as one participant who has changed their preference from oppose to support has noted: killing is not necessarily a crime. The fact is that many participants who opposed asked to wait for the ME report, which, as mentioned, has since deemed the death to be a homicide. The arguments advanced in the discussion whose strength was given most weight in this close neither concluded that this homicide was a murder nor that it was a justifiable homicide. It was rather overwhelmingly agreed that that is a matter for the courts to decide. Those arguments only posited that, for now, the the title should reflect the official finding by the ME. El_C 13:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC) ~~~~

Death of George FloydKilling of George Floyd – While murder isn't appropriate for an ongoing investigation, "killing" seems an appropriate description of events, and is backed up by a reliable source.[1][2] On the other hand, other sources call it a "death".[3] As such, I'm neutral myself, but think that a discussion is appropriate.


  1. ^ Goyette, Jared (2020-05-27). "Hundreds demand justice in Minneapolis after police killing of George Floyd". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
  2. ^ Sabur, Rozina (2020-05-26). "George Floyd: Protests erupt in Minneapolis after death of black man pinned down by white police officer". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
  3. ^ "Death of US black man in custody sparks clashes". BBC News. 2020-05-27. Retrieved 2020-05-27.

Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging participants in "murder" section - @Jorge1777, Starship.paint, AzureCitizen, and Ergo Sum:. Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion collapsed to aid readability of page


First convenience section

  • Oppose - wait for the autopsy results so that we know whether or not he was killed. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for autopsy per above. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Due to the preliminary autopsy finding that strangulation and asphyxiation were not the cause of death, I think we must let a jury decide whether this was a killing or not. Less would be a plain BLP violation against the accused at this time. I am open to changing this if more information comes available. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Struck due to both reports terming this a homicide. 05:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Because of the incredibly bad treatment of Floyd I am genuinely sorry to have to make this WP:BLP (particularly WP:BLPCRIME "presumed innocent") and WP:RS, WP:NPOV (WP:DUE) policy argument, but I need to make another point.
    As of 22:29, 30 May 2020 (you may need to click on "tools" on Google to see the tally):
    • Google news search results in title over past 24 hours for "killing of george floyd": 175 (and many of these refer to protests, speaking to the intent of the protests)
    • Google news search results in title over past 24 hours for "death of george floyd": 1410
    We go by reliable sources most of all, and here it is clear the reliable sources are cautiously calling this a death. Many of the arguments below are based on emotion and WP:OR of the video. Again I am truly sorry to have to take the position. I do not want to take it. I am forced to take this position by policy. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I understand why we go by reliable sources. But if common sense tells us that it is a killing, it is a killing no matter what reliable sources are calling it. We wouldn't say the sky is purple just because reliable sources say so. I hope this isn't inappropriate, but I would cautiously say WP:IAR supports my point. This is an encyclopedia, but it also does not simply repeat what sources say with no further examination. I believe if common sense leads us to contradict what sources are saying, that is okay. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    DIYeditor, I don't mean to badger, but CNN is reporting that the independent autopsy requested by Mr Floyd's family has found that the death was a homicide.[1]
    Bellezzasolo Discuss 20:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    DIYeditor, since your main objection to the move is now void, with the newly published independent autopsy report, I hope you sincerely consider changing your vote. Bubka42 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Bubka42 and Bellezzasolo, my tally of the overwhelming use of "death" in Google news articles still stands as of now, please refer to the links I gave above. I will consider again whether we should simply call a spade a spade in this case and go with "killing" but I have trouble seeing how we can ignore the cautious phrasing of the overwhelming majority of news articles on this topic (assuming my test for that is valid). —DIYeditor (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Explain striking !vote: I will go ahead and stick to what I originally said which was wait for autopsy. I have reservations about deviating from the phrasing used in most reliable sources, but Darouet has conflicting information, and most of all I don't want to be "that guy" who opposed calling a killing a killing. Killing someone isn't in and of itself a crime so we are not accusing anyone of having committed a crime. Two autopsies say homicide. So I am leaving this as a "comment" with no !vote. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Consistency, Articles about similar events are called death not murder or killing. Unless convicted or murder no need to change,Life200BC (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    This is demonstrably untrue. Category:Deaths by person in the United States contains 212 articles with titles referring to "murder", another two referring to "killing" and a further 31 referring to "shooting" and 11 to "assassination" (which obviously aren't alleged in this case), while only 81 (including this one) refer to "death", of which many of the deaths are not killings of any sort. It is fair to question whether the burden of proof that this death was a killing has yet been met to WP:BLP standards but as soon as the cause of death is established to such standards it is absolutely consistent to refer to it as a killing in the title, if not specifying the type of killing. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Per DIYeditor, definitively describing this as a "killing" would be premature until the medical examiner/coroner's report says so. Ergo Sum 21:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Death is the most neutral language, and should be used until more information is available. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Death of" is the most appropriate term, at least for the time being. If the officer is charged or convicted at a future date, we can reassess. Though it certainly seems likely that he died as a result of the officer's actions, we don't technically know what he died from until we get the full autopsy report. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support — "Killing of..." is commonly used by the media [46][47][48]. This isn't a proposal to rename the article to "Murder of..." and there's no controversy about why he died in a general sense, even before a pathology report is released. For this reason the name change doesn't depend on whether an officer has been charged with murder or what the specific physiological cause of death was: you can die in many ways when someone is kneeling on your neck. -Darouet (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
After some time has passed, I find that the case for moving is stronger than before:
WP:RS — The NexisUni database reports over 10,000 newspaper articles in the last week describing George Floyd as having been killed (accounting for duplicates). High quality sources like the BBC and the The New York Times describe the death as a killing, e.g. BBC: Protesters have clashed with police in cities across the US over the killing of an unarmed African-American man at the hands of officers in Minneapolis[49]; NYT: 8 Minutes and 46 Seconds: How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody [50]. While thousands of sources describe Floyd as having been killed, I can find only two dubious sources arguing he may not have been [51][52].
WP:NPOVTITLE — As mentioned by many editors here, the term "death of..." is a WP:WEASEL phrase that obscures Floyd's killing, and by implying the possibility of natural death is non-neutral. As pointed out below, in the English language "killing" does not imply intent to kill and is not equivalent to murder: "...any means or cause which puts an end to life..." The move would therefore result in a more neutral title.
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA In addition to being supported by reliable sources, the title "Killing of George Floyd" meets every one of our naming criteria, including WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:NATURALNESS and WP:CONCISE. "Killing of George Floyd" is linguistically and factually more WP:PRECISE than "Death of George Floyd," and while more death articles are titled "Death of..", many death articles are titled "Killing of..." (e.g. Killing of Latasha Harlins, Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud, Killing of Nicole van den Hurk, Killing of Peter Fechter, Killing of Heidi Hazell, etc), and thus this article if moved would be WP:CONSISTENT with practice here.
WP:CONSENSUS — Recognizing these principles, right now wikipedia editors support a move by a margin of nearly 2:1 (140 in support of a move, compared to 75 opposing, by my tally).
On the basis of descriptions by reliable sources, neutrality, article naming criteria, and consensus, I still think this page should be moved. -Darouet (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maintain neutral language. KidAd (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Death of Eric Garner, a case that is extremely similar, plus WP:BLP and neutrality concerns. Love of Corey (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose “Killing of...” is sensationalist. “Death” will suffice per Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Maintain factual language. "Killing of" is the common language when the individual's death is the direct result of another individual's actions, whereas "Death of" is more common for natural or accidental causes. The individual in question was killed, I don't think there is any doubt about that. "Murder of" would be prejudicial and inappropriate until such time that criminal proceedings begin/conclude.*BrandonsLe* (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – While I agree with the argument in the case of a fatal shooting, this is too much/too soon for a case such as this. We should at least wait for a finding of homicide by the medical examiner. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Support – Whether or not the police officer is guilty of crime, it is clear now that he caused the death, therefore killed George Floyd. "Killing of George Floyd" is not an appropriate title for this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Coffeeandcrumbs: I think you may have typo'd — your !support and "is not an appropriate title" appear to contradict eachother 😊 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Killing" is defined as an act in which someone is deliberately killed. At this time, there is no evidence that Chauvin deliberately intended to kill Floyd. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    This is simply NOT true. Killing can literally be either accidental or deliberate. Murder is the specific term that precisely refers to deliberate killing. This is why the term "homicide" is so often used in early reports - because it specifies that a death was caused by another person but makes no statement on whether that death was accidental or premeditated. I support changing the article to "the killing of George Floyd," because his death WAS a homicide, full stop. Whether the killing was murder or not is what is up for debate, not whether he WAS killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c67:6e7f:f4e3:d428:6173:4ba6:ee03 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    While I agree with your !vote, that is not a good definition of killing. If you hit someone with a car and they die, you killed them, even without intent. A simple and better definition: 1: the act of one that kills. From Oxford Dictionary of English: an act of causing death, especially deliberately. So maybe in British English it is more considered to mean a deliberate act? ODE only says "especially deliberately" though, not exclusively. OED says only: 1. a. The action of the vb. kill, in various senses. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and snow close until after both autospy and any conviction. Despite the video being as close to direct support that the cops actions led to the complications to his death there may be other factors at play that the cops only made it worst but were not the cause. Even if it was determined if the cops were the direct cause of death, then it is a matter of the circumstances of the arrest that may have given reason to do what they did (very unlikely but we are wikipedia and need to stay neutral here and cannot presume guilt). So until these events happen, this must stay at "Death of..." --Masem (t) 02:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now until an autopsy. I'd think it'd be biased to declare it a killing unless the autopsy clears Floyd of any possible underlying conditions, regardless of opinions on the video. Fernsong (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - true, the death could be classified as culpable homicide or homicide, depending on the autopsy and the policemen’s motives, but "killing" should not be added unless there is proof that the policemen intended to kill him. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 06:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Death seems more encyclopedic and neutral; killing implies culpability. Ovinus Real (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. There is absolutely no question that he was killed and that there is culpability. Millions of people have witnessed his killing, recorded in detail on video.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Death implies that it was not caused by another person, while killing is when one person harms another. Tbrechner (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    "Death" implies nothing but that the person is deceased. There is no evidence I can find that "death" is only used for cases without outside causation. Do you have such evidence? In fact, there is a reason why terms like "natural death" and "suicide" exist to differentiate from just "death". Regards SoWhy 10:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per WWGB. Even if that definition isn't very good, the fact remains that "killing" carries the connotation of deliberateness. However, as this is an American topic, the American definition of "killing" should be used. As such, if the (significant) majority of RS use the term "killing of George Floyd" I support changing the name in the future. userdude 08:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
See my post below: contrary to your assertion, in the English language, murder implies deliberateness, but killing does not. -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Killing most certainly implies deliberateness and intent. Until an autopsy verifies the true cause of Floyd's death, we cannot maintain a neutral POV and at the same time insinuate cause, when we do not know the cause. Elvis2500 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500
"Killing" does not imply intent to kill. According to the Oxford English Dictionary: To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Darouet, killing implies that a crime has taken place and that someone is guilty of committing the crime, whether it is manslaughter or murder, and associating that with a living person without a conviction is against WP:BLPCRIME. Nihlus 21:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
No it doesn't. There are plenty of ways to kill someone without committing a crime: self-defense, war, justifiable homicide. Kaldari (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The issue is not criminality, but intent. If a police officer shoots someone wrongfully, they were using deadly force, which demonstrates an intent to cause death. To the best of my knowledge, the force used against Floyd was not considered deadly force (at least, insofar as it is defined by rules of polce conduct) so it is not our place to prescribe intent to kill. userdude 12:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
See WWGB's comment above. The fact that some dictionaries define "kill" as implying deliberateness means that "kill" has the connotation of deliberateness. userdude 12:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Death sounds more neutral. Infernape612 (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We are not a jury to decide whether it was a culpable offense (or not) to the point of a homicide. "Death" is by far more neutral for an encyclopedic article.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: The guy was on the floor with a police officer's knee on his neck, telling them "I can't breathe" and "Don't kill me" until he passed out and died. Regardless of their intention, the police officers caused the death of this man - looks like a killing to me. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    "Looks like to me" is not an accepted scientific method of determining causation, especially not for Wikipedia which relies on reliable sources. Regards SoWhy 10:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    @SoWhy: Dude quit being such a condescending smart-ass. You deliberately ignored his analysis and only used his conclusion as though that was the only thing he said without backing up why he concludes that. He clearly stated REASONS before concluding "Looks like a killing to me". Do you not know how conslunsions work? First you state reasons then you conclude by saying what your analysis shows. (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    There is nothing condescending about it. Analyzing a primary source and reaching your own conclusion - valid or otherwise! - is what we call original research. This core policy explicitly states that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Regards SoWhy 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    @SoWhy: Regardless of the wording I used, it should be blindingly obvious to everyone who saw the video: the man did not just die, he died as a result of the actions of the police officers, ie. they killed him. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    Many reliable sources conclude the very same, describing Floyd's death as a "killing." -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Darouet: But the vast majority does not, which is also reflected in the article, which at this time contains 3 sources that use the word "killing" but 45(!) sources (if I did count right) that use the word "death". Regards SoWhy 06:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support In my opinion saying it was a Death violates WP:WEIGHT. Killing is deffonatly more appropriate and WP:COMMONNAME. RealFakeKimT 09:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per precedent (Death of Eric Garner) and reasons given above. If and when someone is convicted for causing this death - and reliable sources start using another word(!) - we can reconsider. At this point, none of the sources in the article use "killing" (at least in the title) and most sources I can find go with "Death" (e.g. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]). Regards SoWhy 10:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    Reaffirming my opposition. Unless the victim was shot (in which case "Shooting of" is used), basically all comparable articles (see for example the list in {{Black Lives Matter}}) use "Death of" until the perpetrator has been convicted (or found guilty but not criminally responsible).
    Only when there is a conviction the title is or is changed to "Murder of" or "Killing of" (e.g. Killing of Latasha Harlins, Killing of Ilan Halimi, Killing of Tim McLean, Killing of Nicole van den Hurk, [58]).
    This is imho in line with WP:BLPCRIME which explicitly says For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. Neither an autopsy report nor a 3rd degree murder charge satisfy these requirements. When it comes to BLPs, we should err on the side of caution, even if they are credibly accused of killing another person.
    And last but not least, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We should go by the terminology reliable secondary sources use. If one searches GNews for sources that do not mention "killing", one gets ~192 million hits. Searching for sources that do mention "killing", one gets ~104 million hits, i.e. only half as many (also considering that some are only using "killing" in quotes). If the usage is apparently 2 to 1 against "Killing" in news sources, we should go with the majority. Even after the autopsy was released, the apparent majority of such sources still refer to it as the "death" of George Floyd (e.g. BBC, CNN, The Indian Express, Sky News, NYT, Chicago Tribune, WaPo).
    Regards SoWhy 10:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SoWhy above Ed6767 (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Now changing to Strong Support - clear killing now as more details come out, as well as the 3rd degree murder charge Ed6767 (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Floyd was brutally murdered in front of a crowd of horrified bystanders as he begged for mercy, resulting in the firing of those four officers, international outrage and violent protests and demonstrations all over Minneapolis. This wasn't some accidental sudden "death", it was a literal killing. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    We don't have the autopsy results & no-one's been charged. It would be inappropriate to say at this stage that he was killed, let alone murdered. We don't want to prejudice any criminal proceedings. Jim Michael (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While Floyd was definitely killed, Wikipedia precedent is that the title is 'Death of' rather than 'Killing of' or any similar title. While this was a killing, this is a vote purely on precedent. AlternateHistoryGuy (talk)

*Snow Support Hundreds of sources are calling it a killing, including in the title. I see no merit in the precedent argument. An accidental death caused by a choke on someone who wouldn't let themselves be cuffed has no relation to officers killing a cuffed person who on all available videos didn't resist, merely begged for his life & pleaded for his mommy. They mocked him while he was dying. Even the Donald has said justice is going to be served on those guys. Presenting a topic in a way that's considerably less accurate & compassionate than president Trump does is a little disconcerting. He didn't just die, he was killed, current title is almost "fake news". FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Upgrading to Snow support per the murder charge, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:Weight & WP BLP. (BLP per due respect to the victims family, & also as comparing this to an accidental death where the suspect wouldn't let himself be cuffed appears almost borderline defamation to the x cop involved.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Per new evidence my rationale is no longer entirely correct, so striking vote. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Articles like this go through a name change progression as events unfold in due course, i.e., an autopsy is released that establishes the official cause of death, potential arrests are made, and a possible trial and conviction for murder. Logical RM discussions based on reason can proceed from an informed standpoint as each milestone is reached, with potential titles like "Killing of..." and "Murder of..." etc. But until then, we should follow our usual process of waiting for the right preconditions for RS, BLP, and NPOV policy reasons. Arguments from emotion and compassion may be noble sentiments and "feel right" to some editors, but they are not based in logic. As unsatisfying as it is, patience is required for us to get the article title right at the right time. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support George Floyd was killed, this was caught unambiguously on video, and numerous outlets have described it as a "killing". "Murder of" would be an entirely separate story, because it would be inappropriate until the officer(s) are charged and convicted, but "Killing of" is clearly appropriate, in the same way that the title "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" is appropriate. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's too early for this. Once we get the autopsy and charges/convictions, I think it will be appropriate to move it, but not right now. WP:BLP definitely applies here as well. Nihlus 13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    Reaffirming my opposition in light of the charges. WP:BLPCRIME is a policy that must be considered. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. As hard as it may be for some people to realize, the officers are living individuals and are innocent until proven guilty. Wikipedia is not a court of law nor is it a platform for righting great wrongs. Nihlus 21:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support US English speakers need to be very careful to maintain neutrality, which means political neutrality in this case. If you don't know what that means, or have doubts, then step aside please. Also, it is a great time to look at the international coverage in cases like this. The UK Guardian uses killing It seems very simple: there was a killer and there was the killed, this death was not caused by unknown or other circumstances. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Conservative, minimal assertions are best concerning the title of the article. We should not be aiming for a maximally inflammatory title. The title of an article doesn't aim for maximum sensationalism. Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. The current title just makes Wikipedia sound mealymouthed to me. Rather than looking for precedent in the title "Death of Eric Garner" (perhaps overly cautious even in that case), our comparison ought to be with Death of Alan Kurdi. The death in question here was certainly caused: causing death is killing. - phi (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I think that 'killing' is perfectly neutral because that's precisely what it was. Murder is not appropriate yet, and might not be even if the perpetrator in question is found guilty, but killing implies a clear causal relationship in this case that Wikipedia should recognise. 'Death' is too transactional and considering the video footage and aftermath, wouldn't do justice as to WHY this incident has notoriety in the first place. LeoC12 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. I agree the current article title sounds mealymouthed. A killing is what occurred-- "killing" is a distinct term from "murder"-- and thus the article title should be changed to reflect this occurrence, just like the "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" affirms that particular event as a shooting. Furthermore, I fail to see how calling it a killing influences thought versus accurately describing what happened. I will feel even more strongly about this when the autopsy inevitably confirms the cause of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:9f44:c600:e15d:727c:9243:b05f (talkcontribs) 2604:6000:9f44:c600:e15d:727c:9243:b05f (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support- ideally we'd just move it to Murder of George Floyd immediately, but the section above suggests that that wouldn't be possible without a change to BLP, so "killing" is the next-best alternative. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as it is clear this person was killed, and backed by reliable sources, death just implies that it wasn't done by a person (i.e it happened due to an illness, etc., not the case). I hold the opinion that we'll eventually move this to Murder of George Floyd, but of course it's too early to do this until an investigation is done. GoodCrossing (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as the video had clearly shown everything needed, fulfilling the chronology of his death per the previous requests of multiple users here. However, I must say that "killing" is too much of a sensationalized term for me. In replacement for a more neutral-sounding title, I'd opt for a "Murder of____" heading instead of the current suggestion Azurevanilla ash (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. Key words highlighted for emphasis. Until the report comes out, despite with the media is hyping it up to be, it could be anything from murder to alcohol poisoning, drug abuse/overdose, or a stroke/heart attack. (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    According to police, Floyd was in a nearby car and "appeared to be under the influence". A spokesman for the police department said the officers ordered him to exit the vehicle, at which point he "physically resisted".
    According to the Minneapolis police, officers "were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress. Officers called for an ambulance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    That's what the police claimed before video evidence came out... which media universally acknowledge directly contradicted police statements. -Darouet (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - We need to wait for the majority of RSes to refer to it as a "killing" before we can. If the medical examiner rules this as a homicide, the RSes will likely start using "killing" instead of "death", at which point we should change the title, but until then, we should continue to follow the sources and use "death". It seems we go through this every time there is a new article about a suspected murder, and I wish experienced editors would take on board that we waste our resources when we make premature move requests or have lengthy arguments like this, especially in the first few days. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 16:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm going to be a real outlier here: it's now a murder case called State v. Derek Chauvin [59]. "The death of George Floyd" is the murder alleged in State v. Derek Chauvin. Because this is an encyclopedia, I think articles about notable murder cases should be named after the murder case, and not "murder of [victim's name]" or "killing of [victim's name]". So, I'd support a move to State v. Derek Chauvin. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 04:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the lack of information. Nuke (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose until we have confirmation. Spengouli (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support killing or murder, as the event in question is his murder, the act of killing him, not his death. ɱ (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    , do you have access to an autopsy report that the rest of us don't? While it is very likely that the pressure on his neck killed him, there is no way to be certain until that report comes out. Nihlus 20:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    WP:BLUESKY, the video is sufficient proof-saying he couldn't breathe before dying. It's public knowledge, not disputed by any credible sources. ɱ (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Correlation does not imply causation. Regards SoWhy 05:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Your failure to accept indisputable evidence, a video recording of his murder, shocks me. When Trump finally is recorded shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, I'll remember not to list him as a murderer until he's convicted. ɱ (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    It's not a failure to accept evidence to point out that two events happening at the same time does not mean that one caused the other. And yes, per WP:BLPCRIME you would indeed be incorrect to list Trump as a murderer in this hypothetical scenario. I understand the general sentiment behind this request and I truly sympathize but we cannot forget that even those police officers involved are relatively unknown living people for whom our policies require a presumption of innocence "unless a conviction has been secured" (per WP:BLPCRIME). I have not seen any argument so far as to why this core policy should be ignored in this case. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Saying Floyd was killed isn't accusing anyone of a crime. There are loads of legal scenarios in which someone can kill someone without committing a crime. Calling this article the "murder of" would be accusing someone of a Crime, and then I'd agree we have to wait until a conviction happens. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Normally I would be neutral on this but there's clear cut evidence on video. That means that I'm supporting it. Jdcomix (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the video is enough evidence and was published, the fact is of public knowledge The article is about the killing, not the death as mentioned before HM7Me (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    See WP:OR - basing an article title on your own personal interpretation of a video is not acceptable. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    As I pointed out in my comment above, many reliable sources are describing Floyd's death as a killing, so such a label does not rely upon OR. -Darouet (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now the death looks like a murder. But I will wait until we have all of the facts about the death. There may be some mitigating factor as of yet unknown. WP:NORUSH probably applies to this. We can always change it later. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    This proposal is to change the name to "Killing," not "Murder," which is something entirely different. -Darouet (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Darouet: That is a distinction without a difference Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Lightburst: No it's not. A killing means that someone was killed by the actions of someone else. A murder is when they are legally responsible for that killing. Some killings are not murder, most obviously self-defense --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Gimmethegepgun: Meh. Obviously there is not support for the change at this point. Maybe later. Until then this is a pedestrian argument and it is just quibbling over semantics. "Death" is appropriate until we have more information. Lightburst (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support - While it is somewhat premature to call it an act of murder, the general consensus right now is that it is a murder. Unless a source comes out and proves the contrary, I think it is safe to assume that the currently provided evidence is correct. KevTYD (wake up) 20:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The discussion is not about whether he was murdered, as the motives of the officers are unknown so far. However, I believe it is clear from the evidence provided that Floyd's death was purposeful on the part of the officers, and that evidence suggesting he died of other causes is shaky at best. --Lugnutlarry (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Per Darouet's reasoning in discussion below, arguments opposed have little basis. Further, agree with RealFakeKim above: Saying we need to wait for law enforcement charges saying it was a Death violates WP:WEIGHT and "killing" is more common and therefore better for Wikipedia per WP:COMMONNAME. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Killing implies the article is about a very small subcategory of death--the action of killing. If the article is about the killing, how can we justify putting the protests, lawsuits, etc. in this article? Death, on the other hand, is an all-encompassing title for this topic. Protests are related to the death. (Nobody can protest against the killing which has already been done). Lawsuits are related to the death. Similar articles also start with Death. For example, the Death of Osama Bin Laden, not the killing of. Sherwilliam (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    Really? Please see Killing of Harambe, Killing of Cecil the lion, Killing of Latasha Harlins, Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, and Killing of Nicole van den Hurk. All of those articles cover protests, lawsuits, and the overall impact. Some even devote a majority of the text to it. There is a precedent. ~ HAL333 23:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - If we want to get technical / semantic, Floyd's death "ocurred" as a direct result of the actions of Officer Derek Chauvin. "Death" implies lack of a living agent whereas "killing" explicitly identifies one. The evidence as currently presented show no doubt as to the fact that Chauvin killed Floyd. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Video footage and multiple sources all corroborate that it was a killing. As mentioned above, leaving it as death likely violates WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore, kill is defined as to 'cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)' - exactly what occurred here. Similar articles are also titled as 'Killing of' so it would be consistent. WBPchur💬✒️💛 22:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC).
  • Strong Support - Editors such as myself are not arguing on emotion, I am arguing on the merit of the sources that describe it as a killing, and as stated above WP:WEIGHT is in violation. VF01 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. 'Death' seems to be used in similar articles earlier. Seems sufficient for encyclopedic purposes. --Thi (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Just to be clear, to those of you who are arguing we should contravene reliable sources and call this a "death" until the ME report: are you genuinely concerned about the possibility that Floyd may have died of natural causes while his neck was under an officer's knee for seven minutes, and while he stated that he couldn't breathe and that they were killing him? When someone dies in a shooting, do we usually wait for the ME report to describe the incident as a killing, just to rule out the possibility that the victim may have died of a naturally-occurring heart attack in the split seconds before the bullet impacted? We should follow the reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, we should follow the reliable sources. However, they overwhelmingly use the word "death" instead of "killing". Regards SoWhy 08:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone voted "oppose". 2001:569:74D2:A800:8989:60D4:7D6E:9E52 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The death of Eric Garner and other extremely similar cases use "death of" due to the neutrality of the statement per WP:NPOV. Haydenaa (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support killing refers to the death of someone caused by someone else, not necessarily a murder. This is obviously the case here. Dark-World25 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support, changing to "Killing of" is not suggesting a murder, but a death caused by another person. This is both factually accurate and backed by sources which refer to this as a killing. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support per RealFakeKim. ~ HAL333 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong supportOccam's Razor means we must assume the strangulation was a reason for his death, not any other cause for which there is so far no evidence (or even indication). Also for what it's worth, 'Killing of' does not violate WP:NPOV. Devgirl (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, as this was objectively a killing. The video evidence is right there. "Death" implies a random event without any causal relationship. 00:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmurali02 (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose per haydenna. Conformity to Death of Eric Garner Death of JonBenét Ramsey Death of Breonna Taylor etc. Only exceptions are seemingly assassinations &/ animals. That and WP:NPOV due to it not being an inherent intentional killing. — IVORK Talk 01:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    I would like to point out that the latter article is currently in the process of undergoing a proposal for a page move to Shooting of Breonna Taylor instead, so it should probably not be cited as firm precedent pending the results of that move discussion. FlipandFlopped 02:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    "Killing" does not imply intent. According to the OED, the modern definition is extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Note Humans are animals too. ~ HAL333 02:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Our quest for neutrality should not blind us; we can see, on video, an act that led to Floyd's death. Labeling it a killing is no less encyclopedic than labeling Tupac Shakur's death a murder. If anything, calling it simply a "death" is misleading - "killing" makes it clear that their was another human involved, which objectively, there was - no matter the "cause" of death, he would be alive if he had never interacted with the police officer. Furthermore I would assert that death of Eric Garner should also be moved to killing, for same reasons. Thornsie (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would be a break from precedent, and implies a certain level of culpability (if not strictly semantically). — Goszei (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Death is the most neutral language.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support George Floyd was killed, which generated an abundance of reliable media coverage speaking to that fact. The publicity surrounding him is not merely about the fact that he 'died', it is specifically about the fact that he was killed, the manner he was killed, and whom he was killed by. It is the killing of George Floyd that infers notability, not the death of George Floyd. The article title should reflect that. FlipandFlopped 02:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, since the process by which Floyd died, not the death itself, is the main topic of the article, and it's pretty much crystal clear that Floyd was, in fact, murdered. --letcreate123 (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • My vote is only further enforced by the fact that it's been confirmed recently that Floyd's death was a homicide, thus, he was killed. Coverage on that matter is already available so it's very easy to verify. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the way that George Floyd died, not just the fact that he died, is the subject of this article. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now We should wait for autopsy or a judicial ruling before changing it, as *officially* there is no ruling yet and we really should wait for confirmation Jspace727 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As mentioned many times, "death" is the most neutral language right now. Articles will go through name changes down the line anyways, so we should definitely have this discussion again after an autopsy or pathology report. LittleWhole (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Whether or not you believe his death was fair or not, his life was taken by another human, therefore it was killing. There is no debate. He was killed, that's a fact, he's deceased because of another person. Accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The main topic is that he was killed. There is strong support for this view. Wiki5537821 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support George Floyd's murder is on video and is even right there in the first picture in the article. Although I'd prefer calling it a Murder, calling it a Killing seems far more unambiguous than calling it a Death (which implies he died from natural causes). Westindiaman (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    I may personally agree that the officer kneeling on his neck appeared to kill him. However, neither you nor I are pathologists, medical examiners, or coroners and we have not examined the deceased to determine cause of death. To my knowledge this has not been done yet. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose primarily on precedent for similar deaths. May need to be decided on a wider scope, but "Death of" is common to many similar deaths without compromising their accuracy or neutrality. StuartH (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support it doesn't seem disputed that his death was brought on by the police officer's actions, whether the officer intended to kill him or not. It is not likely he would have died otherwise. So "murder" would be too far, as it implies intent, but "killing" does seem appropriate and a neutral statement of fact. Paradoxsociety 04:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose breaks precedent and decreases article navigability Chetsford (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose As per above statements in that it would break precedent, be highly against NPOV, and would allow media sensationalism to dictate articles that are supposed to be objective. --Therexbanner (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The fact that this man was killed by another person is supported by reliable primary and secondary sources. Either title is fine to me though as both are accurate. Gamebuster (Talk)Contributions) 05:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Or even change to Murder of George Floyd. ——Herobrine303 (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Killing may not be as premeditaded as murder, but I wouldn't be surprised if the legal accusaion would be manslaughter. Alandeus (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose There is no reason to change the title of the article when it is serving its intended purpose. CatcherStorm talk 06:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose An extremely similar article is titled Death of Eric Garner, therefore precedent has already been set.--Chimino (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose need to wait for a conviction Yodabyte (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • SNOW Close and Oppose. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and cannot make decisions on a fact of a matter that has clearly not been determined yet. The word "killing" denotes intent. That has not yet been proven in a court of law, and therefore must not be concluded as such in the article title currently. While I sympathize with the plight of those championing a cause for justice for the article subject and working against police violence, per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is also not a platform for advocacy, activist movements or personal struggles. "Death" is a more neutral while factual term to describe the event for the time being. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 07:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Optakeover: my understanding of SNOW is that it's for when something definitely won't pass. By my count the votes are currently tied on oppose/support, so I don't see how SNOW can possibly apply. There's a good chance it will pass, or that it will be tied, there is no reason I can think of to say this will definitely end on oppose. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    @JustLucas: Who are you to say? What if consensus is for SNOW close? Think about the hypothetical situation. In any case, my reason is based on policy. And that is my point. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 11:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Optakeover, this isn't a WP:SNOW situation imo Ed6767 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    We rely upon dictionaries to agree upon the meaning of words. According to the OED, the modern definition of killing does not imply intent, and can include "any means" of causing someone to die, including accident. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    If you don't know what WP:SNOW means, please don't call for a snow close. Clearly not a snowball's chance in hell of this being a snow close. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support As per GorillaWarfare. The officer caused George's death, which is killing. Cthulhu Inc (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now There is simply no need at this moment to draw an inference as to his cause of death when it will likely be conclusive and readily sourced. Without question, he died and that is a completely accurate title. However, that he was killed creates an impression that an intentional act is what killed him. It looks like the kneeling on the neck is related to the cause of death but that can't be known until there is an autopsy and report issued.Tridacninae (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per WP:CRYSTAL. We have yet to get a coroner's ruling. We all saw something horrible and while it's extremely likely it will be ruled a homicide, there's always the possiblity of something else we cannot see. I'll be very suprised if that's the case but there is WP:NORUSH. The title is descriptive of the event. That something looks "obviously" like X still isn't X until it's official. Thinking about it that may be why the four ex-officers haven't been arrested yet. They don't know what the charge will be yet. Bad idea given the last couple of days in the city. They could have always upgraded the charges.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support based on sources, for instance Reuters titles "police killings of black Americans". Inventing our own standards for the usage of the word "killing", such as the presence or lack of a "coroner's ruling" as requested by the comment above, is forbidden by the policy Wikipedia:No original research. Every !vote above which doesn't rely on sources should be discounted. Nemo 09:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support given that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Multiple tertiary sources use "killing", including the Guardian's artcle "George Floyd Killing" and the German DW article "UN condemns US police killing of George Floyd". Sources that do not use this terminology tend to be closer to the event and more likely not to be trustworthy. Althunyon (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Wide variety of RS indicate that it was a killing, because the video indicates that it was a killing, because it was a killing. I'm not sure what more else one needs. We must follow the sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It is already the general understanding that this was a killing, there is not reason not to reflect that in the name of the article. --Ratherous (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Plenty of sources talk about killing, and it's pretty clear from all available evidence that the officer caused Floyd's death. BeŻet (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the name of the article of Death of Eric Garner a similar case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.Ayana (talkcontribs) 11:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV and convention (Death of Eric Garner) (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – "Killing" is a more adequate term since someone caused the death, "Death" could also mean an accident. Ca1ek (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: This is not a death, it is a clear murder, according to maximum news sources. So It should be moved to Killing of George Floyd The Chunky (speak)12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Killing is what happened he did not die of natural causes (well without help), and as for other stuff, A: that is not valid and B: That is just an argument to rename any other pages, not to not rename this one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support "Killing" is accurate and how it is described in reliable sources, it's not for us to decide. As for the BLP issues, nobody's saying to call it "Murder of George Floyd" which would be (for now anyway) a BLP issue. Even if the use of lethal force were found to be justified, it would still be an accurate statement to say he was killed. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's not newsworthy that a man died in Minneapolis. It's newsworthy that a man was killed. For comparison with a case where the victim survived, we refer to the Rodney King Beating not to "the wounds of Rodney King". Arided (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as RSs continue to use "death" over "killing" including: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70] so it is the WP:COMMONNAME. There are also other reasons stated above including adhering to the BLP and Neutrality policy as well as waiting for more infomation like an autopsy or conviction. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose to align with similar articles (such as Death of Eric Garner) per WP:CONSISTENT. Moreover, until there is an autopsy or formal charges, it would violate neutrality to presume this was a murder by using "killing", even if that ends up being the case. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – The death of George Floyd was caused by another man. That makes it a killing, and we should not deny that. Sembeljaars (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Patience will out. O3000 (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Gorilla Warfare, whose arguments are wholly convincing. Oppose unhelpful badgering by both sides. ——Serial # 17:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - and the facts at hand include an attempted coverup, which I take as cause to believe that Chauvin also considered it a killing. However, I like the suggestion from User:Levivich to call it State v. Derek Chauvin, with a few redirects. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – While I understand that staying neutral is important but neutrality in this case would be a reflection of supporting something that needs condemning at all levels. What needs not be forgotten is underlying connotations of words. Given the involved officer has been charged with third-degree murder according to this source[2] I firmly believe that the page should be renamed to killing rather than "death"NotJuggerNot (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Floyd was killed. We should reflect in the title more specifically what happened to him. We know he was killed. WhoAteMyButter (📬✏️) 03:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: The killer was charged with murder, the most recent autopsy agrees with the criminal justice system. There is no reason to deny reality. It's only a matter of time before the DOJ agrees this is murder. What more is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per the autopsy report. Khestwol (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Second convenience section

  • Very strong support The videos have made it clear that George Floyd was killed by another person. It is not sensationalist to use "Killing" because this change would not be at the expense of accuracy, while sensationalism does come at the expense of accuracy. This article is about more than just George Floyd's death, the article also talks about the result of the fact that he was killed. Floyd simply dying is not the reason riots are happening right now, it is the fact that he was killed by another person and the title should reflect this fact. MeumInfernum (talk) 13:26, May 29, 2020 (EST)
  • Strong Oppose Until there is an autopsy and/or charges are laid the article's name should remain the same. --Partridgepentathalon (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Partridgepentathalon, charges have been filed in case you would like to update your !vote. - MrX 🖋 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Gorilla Warfare and MeumInfernum. ProletariatetsBefrielseOrkester (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now until somebody gets a verdict. But considering that technically nobody is even charged yet, it would be an unnecessary breaking of wp:NPOV which plenty of activists on this site now seem to be all to happy to ignore. 2601:602:9200:1310:B572:A327:336C:45D5 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The general consensus right now is that it is a murder. Unless a source comes out and proves the contrary, it should be labeled as such and only changed if the autopsy proves otherwise. Lbparker40 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support now that the perpetrator has been charged with murder. Plenty of reliable sources describe Floyd's death as "killing".[71][72][73][74]. It doesn't matter if other sources, or even more sources, have characterized the killing as "death". Those are not indicative of disparate points of view. As it turns out, death is the direct result of being killed. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per the precedent of other articles like Shooting of Michael Brown, Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, etc. The word "killing" does not imply murder. "Kill" only implies that Floyd did not die from some cause like disease or suicide; it implies that his life ended upon action by another human being. That Floyd died upon action by another person is irrefutable. BirdValiant (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support His death was caused by another individual harming him. Death makes it sound like he died of disease or natural causes. CodingCyclone (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, Wikipedia is not judge and jury and should remain a neutral arbiter of facts as they stand, precedence in other articles is that we use "Death" (eg Death of Eric Garner). If the officers involved are indicted and convicted at trial then will be the appropriate time to discuss renaming the article. Zerbey (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support He wouldn't be dead if it weren't for the knee on his neck. He was murdered. To say otherwise is disrespecting Mr Floyd and dissing the truth. Ms.23 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - The Wikipedia article on manslaughter states, "Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied." It is obvious from the video that the Derek Chauvin's actions directly lead to the death of George Floyd which is (at least) manslaughter and therefore "killing" is the correct designation. Kmorris1077 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now until somebody gets a verdict. And then it should probably be "Murder" like at Murder of Jordan Edwards.Oneiros (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support – It's obvious to anybody with eyes that this was a murder, and now that there's a formal charge put forward, there's no excuse left. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The manner in which he died has ample evidence. It was at the hands of another person and it's not a coincidence. I understand the need to have a cited source, but when it's plainly obvious a man had his knee on his neck, what more do you need? There's no ambiguity here. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support A killing is "an act of causing death." His death was caused. Passive voice in describing the events is not neutral but a deliberate stance. Liberte et paix (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support: The page should be moved to Killing of George Floyd as the Cop was charged with third degree murder. [3] --Vegitaboss (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Derek has now been charged with 3rd degree murder and manslaughter, making this officially a killing by the courts standards of an arrest warrant. I also think that most 'oppose for now' votes prior to the official charges no longer apply because of the official arrest charges, putting the consesnus largely in favor of a name change to "killing". Would like to hear from any past 'oppose for now' voters to see if they agree.Shadybabs (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support It should be immediately moved to Killing or Murder of George Floyd as the cop who kneeled on this man's neck is charged with third-degree murder [1] Neurofreak (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose – “Killing” feels like it’s getting into POV territory considering the controversy surrounding what happened. Also feels like an unnecessary deviation from similar incidents like the Death of Eric Garner, which also uses “Death of” despite being declared a homicide. - Koldcuts (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Just saw he’s been charged with murder. Oppose is now a weak oppose. - Koldcuts (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per RealFakeKim. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per semantic arguments given in the discussion section below by Darouet (talk · contribs). -- Pingumeister(talk) 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per RealFakeKim's arguments. Demoxica (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per all the arguments above. Since the officer involved (Derek Chauvin) has been charged with murder, the title should probably be changed to "Murder of George Floyd". Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now The details of the death are unclear. Killing suggests a motive beyond just wanting to detain someone (regardless of the validity of the reason to want to detain). "Death of" is more neutral. Depending on the final legal outcome a change may be appropriate in the future. Springee (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per BirdValiant. "Death" is not more neutral than "Killing", particularly in light of the charge with third-degree murder. Freeman emphasized he and his team would not have moved ahead with the case if they were not confident they had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was guilty. “As of right now, we have that,” Freeman said.[75] --DarTar (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for "Killing", and after the trial another move should be considered WRT "Murder". It is clear that a man's actions resulted in another man's death with just the video alone. The court of public opinion has no place on Wikipedia but this isn't a matter of opinion. "Murder" would be, but "Killing" does not as "Killing" can be state-sanctioned. -- sarysa (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for "Killing" with "Murder" considered in the future, per reasons expressed above by Sarysa (talk · contribs). Calcastor (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This is indeed a killing. Derek Chauvin was charged with "Third-Degree Murder" and "manslaughter". If Chauvin had not knelt on Floyd's neck for that long, Floyd might have survived. I would also like to say that, *I feel like "Killing" is more appropriate than "Murder". Pi=3.14(Nick) (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Charging means that investigators think a particular thing. It does not prove that their thinking is accurate. Else, charging would be the end of the matter and we'd have no need to consult those pesky courts. We should wait for the autopsy to determine whether an individual was responsible for the death. It shouldn't take so long; there is no need to rush it. Perennial Student (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Based on the consistency argument by Awilley (talk · contribs) I've changed my opinion to Oppose. John Link (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Mr Floyd was obviously killed by that bitch cop, so "Killing of George Floyd" should be the correct title of this article.Sadsadas (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I agree that Floyd's death was no question a killing, and I hope the cop rots, but like previous people have mentioned, the Eric Garner page is still titled "Death of". Wikipedia must be free of ANY bias, even if we as social beings all agree that this was a killing Thurgoodmarshallisbae (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support If 4 different video angles (possibly more) doesn’t justify this was in fact a killing of an unarmed black man, I don’t know what ever will. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The officer was directly responsible for Floyd's death and has been charged with murder, therefore he killed him. GarethPW (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support The video speaks for itself. And I actually want to add that we have this redirect Mohamed Noor (murderer), a black Minneapolis Police officer who accidentally killed a white lady. When the cop is black, we have no problem calling it a murder. --Deansfa (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
That redirect was created after Noor was actually convicted of murder. Kablammo (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Until the cause of death is officially established, we should not characterize it. Kablammo (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support "Death" sounds like a natural one. This is the murder we are talking about. Suitable title would be Murder of George Floyd. Mark my words, even if you wont change the name now, eventually it will end up with "Murder" word only. --Naveen N Kadalaveni (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for all the reasons above. It may not have been a murder but it was unquestionably a killing by any useful definition of the term "kill". Lexicon (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, if reliable sources are using "killed", so should we. "Killing" doesn't require that a crime has been committed, it simply means that a person's death was caused by another person, which is clearly the case here. Kaldari (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now: Unclear verdict per other oppose reasons. Until a clear verdict on Floyd's death is reached, we should not risk changing the title into something else which throws off other readers. If the title does change, a suitable article name would probably be "Murder of George Floyd," but since a verdict for Floyd is not reached yet we shouldn't tamper with the title yet. Thissecretperson (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support He was killed, no source denies that, so let's call it a killing. --denny vrandečić (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The police didn't need to knee on his neck for so long if he didn't want to kill him. Humans need to breathe, if you don't let someone do that, then you are killing him.--Andres arg (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Nemo + GorillaWarfare + Darouet. – SJ + 02:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It’s a killing. Death implies ambiguity about how he died. It hasn’t been adjudicated whether it’s a murder but it’s clearly both true and easily verifiable that it was a killing. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Nemo + GorillaWarfare + Darouet + MarylandGeoffrey. = paul2520 (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support because of the overwhelming evidence that was filmed and widely published by independent and mainstream media. That officer knelt of the victim's neck for nearly 9 minutes, even after the latter had repeatedly told him he could not breathe, even after passersby pleaded with him to let go of him or he'd kill him. Israell (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support killing as that is what happened. It is not like they died spontaneously and 4 police officers just happened to be holding him in their arms. The problem with such politically charged cases, like trumps weight is one can find physicians to say anything. Wound not user murder. Killing is sort of a middle ground. Death appear to be trying to obfuscate and sanitize what occurred. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It is absolutely true that Floyd died, and calling it a death in no way absolves the officer whose actions caused that death. "Killing" seems accurate but unnecessarily sensationalistic. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I have a question. Killing doesn't have to be intentional. But what definition of killing do you intend to use. Per one definition it is equivalent to murder, per another it's simply to make something die. It can be used in different situations. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: It isn't sensationalist—it's just accurate. Karmos (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - after watching the video, yeah he definitely killed him Urgal (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, since there are reliable sources available for "killing" (some mentioned above; e.g. see Nemo's comment). Ahmadtalk 07:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but only on a technical level, and somewhat weakly at that. Tentonne (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, given that third degree murder charges have been levied, and to accurately assess the situation. Teddybearearth (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The preliminary autopsy finding leaves open the possibility of accidental death ("The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death"). I think we need to wait for such a change until either a conviction, or a more detailed autopsy report. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support If 4 different video angles (possibly more to come) doesn’t justify that this was, in fact, a killing of an unarmed black man, I don’t know what ever will.TruthGuardians (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per TruthGuardians. Simply watching the video settles this discussion. CrispyCream27 (Talk) 09:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Going to oppose this one. I understand that it certaintly seems like an unlawful killing of a civilian, and I do agree that it was unfair, unjust, and a blatant abuse of power, however Wikipedia is not the place to be using loaded langauge like that, especially considering the very current state of this news. Maxmmyron (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support per RealFakeKim, TruthGuardians and GarethPW. Choosing the passive "death" is PoV; it is also loaded language. Floyd didn't just "die", he was killed. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - especially for now, but even when the autopsy comes out I'm not sure if we should change it. "Killing" is usually defined as intentionally or deliberately taking someones life, unless that police officer says he intentionally took Floyd's life, I think it would be a NPOV issue to say killing. Death will always be a neutral term, in my opinion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - as per naming conventions. As more information becomes available, the title of the article may need to be changed to reflect this new information. CremationLily (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It is backed up by multiple sources and the video itself. In the current landscape I do not think Death would be considered a neutral term at all, killing more accurately reflects the general opinion from what I have seen. The police officers intentions also should not effect the terminology, killing does not need to be intentional to still be classified as killing. His arrest has also shown that he is considered to have killed someone by the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubarr18 (talkcontribs) 11:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Nemo + GorillaWarfare + Darouet + MarylandGeoffrey. MacDoesWiki (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Since the officer has been charged, there is now more than enough justification to change the title. Kevin n97 (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It would be the Death of George Floyd if he was not murdered, since the current consensus is that he was murdered, it should be the killing. But I do agree that it should wait until the autopsy is complete, but once that occurs I strongly support. JazzClam (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support (no longer neutral) per GorillaWarfare and Doc James, but also in light of the (questionably independent) autopsy, which nevertheless suggests that the actions of the police officers were partially responsible for the death. i expound on this a bit in the commentary, but it's clear to me that this is a death as a result of the actions of other people, which is a killing (not necessarily a murder, that's a debate for after the trial). Furthermore, more RSes are referring to it as a killing. Some do still refer to it as a death - it isn't not a death. But WP:COMMONNAME applies. In relation to "sensationalism", keeping it as "death" can have an inference of the lack of an external agency, so it's not an WP:NPOV-safe approach. Bellezzasolo Discuss 13:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Since Wikipedia for the most part functions as an encyclopedia and therefore by default must describe any subject as objective, neutral and truthful as possible, Mr. Floyds' death must remain the title of the article until a trial and final investigation of cause of death have been concluded. Any other title is biased and nothing more than a judgmental people's court. We are not medical professionals or judges examining and convicting in this case. If Wikipedia does not entail neutral information, its purpose becomes irrelevant and invalid.--Lechatmarbre (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I further suggest we change the article title to "Murder of George Floyd" since the police officer that committed the murder has been charged with the same. (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support unless one can prove that the video was doctored or that Mr Floyd spontaneously got tired of breathing of his own volition. In fact "Murder of George Floyd" should be the name of this article by the time this debate is over. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Long Oppose In tragic situations like this when people are filled with anger and despair it is important that we let policy guide us. In this case the relevant policy is WP:Article titles. That policy lists 5 criteria up front: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. Other criteria are discussed later: WP:Commonname and Neutrality. I will try to evaluate the two titles based on these.
    The two names are equally recognizable, natural, pricise, and concise. (Note that "precision" is talking about unambiguously identifying the subject and distinguishing it from other subjects, not the preciseness of the words we use.) That leaves us with Consistency, Commonness, and Neutrality.
    Consistency: If we look at Category:Deaths_in_police_custody_in_the_United_States we have the following constructions:
    "Death of [Name]"
    "Murder of [Name]"
    There are no instances of "Killing of [Name]"
    A larger sample of articles is at Category:Filmed killings by law enforcement. That has similar examples of the above 3 constructions plus a lot of "Shooting of [Name]". But again zero examples of "Killing..." So Consistency favors "Death".
    Commonname: There's not a great way of measuring this, but Google Search counts (with and without quotes) both favor "Death". (With quotes the ratio was about 4:3)
    Neutrality: This is largely an issue of WP:WORDS. On Wikipedia we avoid judgemental and non-neutral words that may introduce bias. In WP:SAID, "Synnonyms for said" could be compared with "Synnonyms for death". "Murdered", "lynched", "martyred", "massacred", "slaughtered", "exterminated", "executed", "passed away" all imply different things and evoke different emotions. But "death" is neutral.
    BLP One more consideration is our policy on living persons. It is against our rules to conclude that a living person has committed a crime until that person has been convicted in court. "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." So it would be problmatic to state in Wikipedia's voice that it was a killing. (Obviously if the officer is convicted the article can be moved at that point, probably to "Murder of..." or "Strangulation of..."
I would also like to respond briefly to some common arguments here that are not based in policy.
"It is obviously a killing. Anybody can see that in the video. We should call it what it is." It is not our job to make that judgement. Our job is to follow the best reliable sources and, in this case, the verdict of a jury.
"We should wait and see what the autopsy report says." This is good thinking, and the result of the autopsy report should be in the article, but WP:BLPCRIME is clear that it is the conviction in a court of law in that matters.
"The officer has now been charged, so we can call it a killing." Again, it's the conviction, not the charge, that matters.
Final note: As this is a highly emotional topic that is drawing many new editors, the eventual close of this request should include a detailed analysis addressing the arguments and policy basis of the result. ~Awilley (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Awilley, your claim "There are no instances of 'Killing of [Name]' " is false. There are more than 30 articles with "Killing of (Name)".--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
C&C, I didn't claim that there were no articles with "Killing of..." I simply confined my search to categories containing articles similar to this. If you want to do a raw count of all articles everywhere then you should be comparing it to this: [76] ~Awilley (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think C&C's list is the relevant compmarison. The "Death of ..." articles includes the much larger category of people who were not killed, for example the deaths of famous people by disease, accident, or other noteorhty circumstances. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, that's correct. In order to do a meaningful comparison between C&C's list of 52 "Killing of..." articles and the list of 507 "Death of..." articles you would need to comb through and subtract all the irrelevant articles like Killing of animals and Death of Samantha (song) and the articles about people who died of natural causes. This is why it makes sense to use categories to look at a limited samples of people killed by police as I did above. ~Awilley (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Awilley, I agree is the most relevant precedent, but of the "[noun] of [name]"s there, the vast majority are "shooting". There is no good analog of "shooting" for Floyd, because there's not really any appropriate single word that describes the manner in which he was killed. "Killing" is the next closest thing: less specific as to the method, but still clear that Floyd's death was caused by the police action. No blame or crime is implied. Danstronger (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: As long as the article doesn't imply a deliberate killing. Killing can also refer to simply causing death even if you don't mean it. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Death is not a neutral term in that situation. As per Devgirl, Occam's razor and a ton of evidence point that it was a killing, and. Even though this is not standard practice on Wikipedia, this case is not standard. I feel that omission and labeling as "Death" instead of killing is deliberately choosing to be imprecise. And that implies that there is a reasonable chance that he was not killed. And as per the information available, that is not a reasonable assumption. So death is not "neutral", it is just broader. And casting this shadow of doubt on such an important event is not the goal of Wikipedia. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The standard title format for this situation is Death of (person). KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I 100% agree that the article should be moved to Killing of George Floyd. I’ve checked on Wikipedia, and from what I see, “Death of” is usually used people like Death of Osama Bin Laden, Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Death of Benito Mussolini, and it is also used for nonviolent deaths and some suicides while “killing of” is used for people like Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Killing of Peter Fechter, and surprisingly, lots of recent prominent animal deaths like Killing of Harambe or Killing of Cecil the Lion. Death of Freddie Gray is listed as “death of”, but I think I’ll try to change that. Yoleaux (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT They were clearly killed. You have video footage of what happened. There is no possible way he would've just died if he hadn't been in that situation. If the jury rules it was murder, this can be renamed against to Murder of George Floyd. It is not original research to look at a video and see what happened, its common sense. Dream Focus 21:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    Dream Focus, that's exactly what original research is. Nihlus 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The most reliable source is the video itself. The video clearly shows that Derek Chauvin was the primary factor in George Floyd's becoming unresponsive. I think this is common sense that the most neutral thing we can do is call it a killing. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Derek Chauvin was charged with third degree murder of George Floyd. At least from the state prosecution's side, killing or even murder is the correct word to describe what had happened. JesseC436 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per JesseC436. L ke (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose results of the autopsy do not show that this was caused by strangulation. Regardless of how you feel about the video, it's best to remain neutral until a trial finds him guilty/innocent, at which point we can change the title if necessary. Anon0098 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Provisionally Oppose The results of the autopsy seems to be inconclusive. I'd wait a few days before moving this page if more reliable sources appear in the meantime. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 02:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because it makes sense with other Wikipedia articles. --Xicanx (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, I do agree that "Death of George Floyd" implies a death due to natural causes. I feel that killing more accurately reflects the situation, especially given the obvious and unjustified police brutality present. Killing does not imply a deliberate intent, "Murder of George Floyd" would be a title that implies that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support "Death" is a passive word, implying "the life just ended". "Killed" is an active word, implying "something happened to stop that life at that point". Except in the most philosophical sense, it is abundantly clear that Floyd would not have died at that time if not for the actions of Chauvin.
    Even in the highly unlikely scenario that Derek's death happened to be due to some unlikely medical circumstance unrelated to the knee on his neck, it would still be the case that he was prevented from seeking aid by Chauvin, that others were preventing from providing aid by the officers on scene, and that none of the officers on scene took action to provide aid, or call for aid. As such, it is clear that, even if there needs to be some distinction that (from a legal standpoint) this may not yet be able to called a murder, it can definitely, and should definitely, be called a killing.
    Even putting all that aside, and focusing on what's been published in the media, there is support for the use of the phrase. The Guardian has an article George Floyd killing sparks protests across the US: at a glance guide. Fox40 has Protests of solidarity surround Stae Capitol in wake of Geoorge Floyd killing. Politico has Nationwide protests erupt over the killing of George Floyd. MSNBC has George Floyd killing highlights toxic police culture. If we need more examples, they are plentiful and not difficult to find. Aawood (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There are precedents for both ways of phrasing it and the passiveness of "Death of" doesn't convey the perspective that ignited the protests. Everything that's happening as a result of George Floyd's death wouldn't have happened if he simply died. His death was caused by another person. He was killed by a police officer. Whether the killing was intentional or not is irrelevant. Whether he had underlying health conditions or not is irrelevant. George Floyd would not be dead if the police officer didn't do what he did. TJScalzo (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    With the independent autopsy that has been made public, I reaffirm my support for this move. TJScalzo (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support, and per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Floyd, I think ultimately this page should be at George Floyd and expanded to a biography on the subject. In the alternative, a shorter bio at George Floyd with this page as the main section about his murderkilling. —Locke Coletc 10:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The whole event hinges on the fact that Gorge Floyd was killed due to use of excessive and unreasonable force by the police. 'Death' plays into the false narrative that he just happened to die while around police. 'Killing' clarifies that the death was caused by the police, which we know to be the case. Melmann 11:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. People do call it a killing so the redirect makes sense. However, because it is not confirmed yet he was killed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, so Wikipedia should keep the title as death to stay neutral. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I understand the neutral language policy etc. However, we cannot change the reality and nature of an event to support neutral language. This is not the matter here. Right now in this wikipedia if you search 'the killing of' you can see a lot of article titles come up with it. On the other hand, it is clear in the footage that the (former) officer knew what he was doing and he did it deliberately. Police education includes CPR and information about what can kill and what happens if you cut oxygen delivery to the brain for more than 5 minutes. Even if he released pressure on his neck before he died he would acquire significant brain injury. Gharouni Talk 15:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: It is safe enough to call the situation manslaughter, so killing would be a proper title. I may partly see why people may choose to leave it as "Death", I lean more towards "Killing", since there was police brutality and non-premeditated homicide in the situation. About full on murder, however, I'd rather not rename it like that. Maese Juan 25 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per sourcing and the Oxford English Dictionary of "kill" not not imply intent. I support later moving the page to "murder" if the cop(s) are found guilty. TJMSmith (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Media worldwide has already used the word 'kill' to describe the event. Chauvin has also been arrested for murder. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above, there's not much more to be argued Leotext (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly and obviously a killing. "Death of" is less precise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Further investigation shows that he was indeed choked to death. No need to kneel on the neck of a handcuffed person.Tinyastro (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: Chauvin is shown kneeling on Floyd's neck to the point of being unable to breath & has been charge with third-degree murder. This is not some random death, but a deliberate killing. WakandaForever188 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, maybe later after a cause of death is more clearly determined. Right now the preliminary autopsy report seems to say natural causes, but the officer has been charged with murder, so the official record is muddled. Many such articles are labeled "Shooting of" but in this case the cause of death has not been clearly established on the record. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it seems clear he died as a result of his treatment by police, there is no consistent use of "kill" among RS, and per Awiley, "death" is used more consistently in article titles. "Death" is even used as a header in BLPs of murder victims. Also, we should consider the unlikely possibility that he coincidentally died from drugs he may have been on. This is why we should resist the temptation to use OR analysis of the event. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Strong support per autopsy reports. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - There's no shortage of sources describing the death of George Floyd as a killing. I understand that Wikipedia tends to prefer using as neutral-sounding of language as possible whenever possible, but calling it a killing is not not neutral. This is less about neutrality and more about semantics and sources. I can understand why some in this thread have said that Wikipedia should wait until a conviction to refer to the homicide as a murder in the title (as we can't know what charges the suspects will or will not be found guilty of), but it's just a well-documented fact that George Floyd was killed and avoiding describing his death a homicide is an erroneous thing to do. As others have pointed out, stating that he was killed doesn't even suggest that it was purposeful (e.g. accidental vehicular homicide is still killing), it simply provides more specific information. I can sympathize with the viewpoint that using the word "death" could make the article come off as having a more neutral tone, and I share the goal of making the article as neutral and accurate as possible, I simply hold the viewpoint that killing is a more accurate term and that using it does not compromise the neutrality of the article's title. Best wishes  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Video evidence unambiguously shows that the death of George Floyd was indeed a killing in that the police officer directly caused his death. According to the definition of the word, even an accidental killing could accurately be described as a killing (though this was certainly not accidental). Apparently more credible sources use the word "death" rather than "killing," but I wonder how many use words that are closer in tone to "killing," such as "murder." Moreover, virtually all credible sources, including those that use "death," clearly state that the police officer caused Mr. Floyd's death, which is the definition of the word "kill." Even if autopsy results show that asphyxiation was not the cause of death, there are other ways one could die from having someone kneel on one's neck for over eight minutes, and it would still be a killing. Additionally, said autopsy results are questionable given that Mr. Floyd's family is requesting an independent autopsy. Given that George Floyd was literally begging not to be killed, those who oppose the title change are encouraged to explain the mental gymnastics that they must perform to argue that the police officer did not cause Mr. Floyd's death. Lastly, Derek Chauvin is currently being charged for murder. "Murder" is clearly above "killing" in terms of intensity of wording. However, if Mr. Chauvin is found guilty, then the title of this page would reasonably be changed to "Murder of George Floyd." It would be strange to jump from "Death of George Floyd" directly to "Murder of George Floyd" without the reasonable middle level of "Killing of George Floyd." If not now, when there is already clear video evidence, what would be the appropriate time to transition from "Death of George Floyd" to "Killing of George Floyd" before potentially intensifying the wording to "Murder of George Floyd"? EDIT (1 June 2020): The independent autopsy conducted at the request of George Floyd's family has concluded that his cause of death was “homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain.” Moreover, while the preliminary report from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office initially did not find asphyxia or strangulation as the cause of death, the county's full report has ruled George Floyd's death a homicide attributed to “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” Donutzebra (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, used "killing" in her condemnation of the events.[2] Whsun808 (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the key issue at hand here is NPOV vs. WP:Article Titles. WP:POVTITLE states When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title. Here, we have no common phrase on the level of the Boston massacre. Both phrases "killing" and "death" are used in media sources, ruling out the possibility of deciding based on usage. In WP:CRITERIA, it really comes down to the "Precision" point. It is more or less unanimously agreed that this is a killing at this point, even by the more conservative sources (see [77]). Thus this phrase is more precise and at the same time still neutral, as it is a more or less universally agreed upon fact across ideologies. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Move to Premeditated killing/murder of George Floyd. // Eatcha (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose So far, perhaps the most comprehensive examination of Wikipedia's editing norms on this subject is by Awilley above. It seems to me that most other opposition explanations also cite Wikipedia norms. On the other hand, an enormous number of supporting explanations cite "common sense," or the video of GF's death, or the definitions of "killing" from various dictionary sources. Only a few cite the preference of many RSes, and even this is split. This argument at least addresses the Wikipedia editorial standard. After reading a few hundred positions, I am unconvinced that this group has yet surpassed the evidentiary requirement for moving an article under such deep scrutiny. I will continue to call GF's death a murder in my own speech, but this encyclopedia's responsibility is not only to avoid activism, but to avoid the appearance of activism. It's not pleasant and it doesn't make me feel good, but it's the right thing to do to oppose. Rvanarsdale (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support SNOW Support And wait for clearer evidence before moving to Murder of George Floyd. If a man has his knee on another man's neck while the second man is screaming for help while gasping for breath, and then the second man dies of a heart failure, it's beyond dispute that he was killed. Intent is not important. Calling 'Death' a neutral term at this point is an absurdly shallow reading of the situation. Innocent until proven guilty can apply to murder, but not to killing, because killing is not necessarily a criminal charge. Bubka42 (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed to SNOW support after the independent autopsy reported homicide, which renders most of this discussion moot now. Suggest we close this as soon as possible. Bubka42 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Look at the Killing of Latasha Harlins. There are other articles which start with "killing of," although for some reason the word is avoided when it comes to killing by the police. Perhaps we should also be looking at renaming other articles in which people were killed by police officers. "Death" may seem more neutral in tone, but in actuality it is not neutral in that it de-emphasizes the role which Derek Chauvin played in killing George Floyd. Killing is more accurate. Arumdaum (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Arumdaum You need to explain why using death "de-emphasizes" Chauvin's role. I wouldn't cite Harlins article for precedent for this article. Harlins case has already run its course with convictions and official reports. At this time, we don't fully know Chauvin's role in Floyd's death; I think it's safe to say he had a significant role, but under WP:OR its not up to us its up to reliable sources. Yes a lot of reliable media sources are saying this is a killing, but some other media sources and some official reports like the autopsy don't say killing they emphasize his health conditions and possible intoxicants. Therefore, under WP:NPOV we need to balance out these two opinions out. Most importantly, what I'm trying to say is that, especially right now, Floyds death being considered a killing is disputed among credible, and it's not wikipedia job to pick a side. Now, maybe later on after everything is said in done we can have this discussion again. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support sanitized wording is not "neutrality", it is just whitewashing. We are not here to cater to people's feelings, we are here to present facts. He was killed. --Calthinus (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose We need to stick with Wikipedia's convention of using "Death of" to stick to one our strongest principles of NPOV. I know many people have strong emotions about this article, but using Wikipedia to make a point is not the answer. There is nothing encyclopedic about changing the title to "Killing." It's a political statement that Wikipedia should be avoiding as much as possible. Angryapathy (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support — "Killing of..." killing is defined as "an act of causing death". WHERE IS THE CONTROVERSY? George Floyd wouldn't have died if the police officer hadn't kneeled on his neck for 9 minutes. "Killing of..." we already know it - whatever health conditions he might have had, he wouldn't have died if the police officer hadn't kneeled on his neck for 8minutes 46 seconds where is the controversy?? —Holaholahulahop
  • Support See List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2020 where George Floyd is listed. See also Killing of Latasha Harlins and Killing of Peter Fechter. Tvc 15 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as non-neutral and potentially incendiary. We are required by policy to maintain a neutral point of view, and while there is any non-trivial question about whether it's a "killing/murder" or "accidental death" or what have you, we need to absolutely remain neutral, period. I understand there is a lot of emotion surrounding this, and for good cause, I think. However, we must stay encyclopedic. Once all investigations are complete, and the dust has settled, then would be an appropriate time to consider a move such as this, but for now it's too soon. Waggie (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. He died from these actions (see offical post-mortem), also support the title "Homicide of George Floyd" as declared by official post-mortem. Banak (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes will kill them. Per vast numbers of reliable sources, this was a killing. Not describing it as such is a dereliction of WP:N. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support It's clear to anyone that this was a killing. I'm !supporting now because the official autopsy report from the county medical examiner has confirmed that this was a homicide. Davey2116 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Floyd's death was not an accident, as quite a few editors have mentioned already. The murder even looks like a reference to the Kaepernick protests from a few years ago KohrVid (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Adding my voice to the chorus that the evidence has mounted with enough credibility that Floyd's death was a killing, whether intentional or not. Death implies too much passivity or happenstance and doesn't capture the nature of the tragic event. P.S. I would advocate for "Murder of.." but I know how ... conservative the Wiki community is (not politically but editing wise) so this is a reasonable compromise. Anyone who disagrees well... I'll let my Twitter speak on that. Jccali1214 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I would support it being changed to "killed" because it is absolutely certain that he was killed by a person. "Death" implies that Mr. Floyd died due to natural and/or accidental causes. We know, based on solid evidence, that this is simply not true. If the article title says he was killed, the title would more accurately summarize the event. Ravishsingh00724 (talk)
  • Support As per the sourced autopsy report and other previously mentioned sources. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong, speedy, and SNOW support per WP:BLUESKY and autopsy. There is consensus for this move and it should done immediately. With all due respect, WP:NODEADLINE is not applicable on this one. I'm strongly tempted to make the move myself. Feoffer (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, but the word 'killing' is without intent. The offical manner of death is homocide, that is, killing.[78] Therefore I think it is more important to phrase the article as it is reflected in the current official records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabsoluterince (talkcontribs) 06:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


Support Oppose
150 80

[Latest update: Bubka42 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)]

100 For, 63 Against as of 11:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC). There will be errors because of the number of votes feel free to edit it. Note I only looked at bold text or text next to a built point and only in the survey section. RealFakeKimT 11:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any robot to tally automatically? --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
RealFakeKim, what's this for? Requested moves go for 7 days and it has been 3. Also this is not a vote. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • An easy way to see what the generally opinion is. RealFakeKimT 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, the addition of the word "strong" has no actual bearing on the strength of the underlying argument, which is assessed by the editor who closes the discussion and depends on how well-reasoned the arguments are in the context of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly its naming conventions. Mz7 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Having said that, polls play a valuable role in Wikipedia: they highight just how misleading polls can be in identifying consensus. ——Serial # 18:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number Does consensus mean you can defy a policy even if that policy isn't changed nor that policy mentions any exception? If yes, what's the point of having policies if people don't need to follow it and saying Wikipedia is not a democracy? Policies are different than guidelines which people can choose not to follow. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@DIYeditor:This is not a vote-only. There were no pure votes and all votes include a statement. It is a discussion with a "support" or "oppose" at the top, it is you that understand it as a vote. --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
DIYeditor: Do you see only votes on this picture? Talk-Death of George Floyd 20200601.png No, they all have a reason. --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The title is "Survey", not "Vote". --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Updated to show current positions. I removed Strongly Support and Strongly Oppose as they have no bearing on anything, so Support shows all supporting votes and Oppose shows all Opposing. I did this by doing a Ctrl F and subtracting all those that were stricken, or in explanation, or somewhere else on the page. AlternateHistoryGuy (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Updated count, it reflects all unambiguous votes so far. (Did not check for duplicate votes, relying on good faith.) Bubka42 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Our policy is WP:NPOV and the language of murder or killing is not neutral - is not based on facts in evidence, and does not square with our policy. IMO it does not really matter how many editors stomp their feet and demand that this title be changed to something that is not yet established and violates our policy on neutrality. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • What is the grounding of neutrality in your opinion? If the majority of reliable sources said that the sky was purple, would we put that on Wikipedia? No, because we are allowed to apply a bit of common sense. The most trustworthy evidence, direct videos of the event, show it to be a killing. To not abide by that bit of common sense would not be neutral. And by the way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia made by editors. To say that the opinions of editors do not matter as much as a policy guideline is the direct antithesis of what Wikipedia is about. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@The Spirit of Oohoowahoo: We follow policy on Wikipedia, as we did with Death of Eric Garner who essentially died in the same manner. Sometimes a closer has to assess opinions expressed by passionate editors and then weigh those opinions against our policy. I am not sure how to respond to your hyperbole regarding the sky is purple, but I got your point. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lightburst: Yes, I understand why policy is useful, and why looking at precedents is also useful in deciding what to do. I was using hyperbole to prove my point: policy and precedents are helpful but they should not dictate actions 100% of the time. (I think this is the idea behind WP:IAR.) This is a case where they may be contradicted by common sense, which says that this is at the very least a killing. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose we should be following the NPOV principles set down by Death of Eric Garner or Death of Kelly Thomas etc etc. Alssa1 (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think WP:NPOV should explain this one. Using the words “murder” and “killing” is not neutral. Then again, different political groups use different words to politicize an event like this. RedRiver660 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support The independent autopsy calls this a homocide, so I think this is safe [3] Syryquil1 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support following two autopsies that found he was killed. – Anne drew 23:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The police were trying to arrest Floyd, but ended up killing him instead despite bystanders telling one of the officers at the dig to "let him go". Hansen SebastianTalk 00:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: the official autopsy from the county came out, with cause of death listed as "homicide". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - since this article is primarily about the events that led to his death, which was caused by another person, and meets the definition of "killing", per reliable sources. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think this would go against the previous precedent of other similar articles. It also wouldn't be neutral or unbiased. Herbfur (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support As stated above, there is already precedent in articles such as Killing of Latasha Harlins, for example. The obvious killing is supported by the findings of the independent autopsy report released today. Buffaboy talk 03:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Note, though, that in Harlins' case, there was a conviction of the perpetrator for manslaughter. On the other hand, articles like Death of Kelly Thomas and Death of Eric Garner which Alssa1 points out above use "Death". The difference between these articles and Harlins' article? In those cases the perpetrators were not tried or convicted. Regards SoWhy 09:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Both the public and independent autopsies have concluded that Floyd's death was a homicide and that the direct cause of death was asphyxiation due to the officers kneeling on him. He was killed. The article absolutely must reflect that. Waterfire (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - He didn't just die randomly, he was killed. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 04:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


Almost every "oppose" vote argues that a pathology report is needed to ascertain whether Floyd was killed, or implies that "killing" has the same meaning as "murder."

  • According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb "kill" does not necessarily imply intent: To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc. By contrast, "murder" implies intent: To kill (a person) unlawfully, spec. with malice aforethought (in early use often with the additional notion of concealment of the offence); to kill (a person) wickedly, inhumanly, or barbarously. Whoever closes this requested move should ignore votes implying that killing and murder are the same, or arguing that a trial and murder conviction are required to rename the article to "killing of..." "To kill" and "to murder" are different verbs in the English language.
  • I cannot find a reliable source arguing that Floyd may have died from underlying medical conditions unrelated to the officer pressing his knee down on Floyd's neck, while Floyd begged that he was being killed, and while onlookers exclaimed that Floyd was being killed. Can someone find a source making this argument, or is this pure speculation?
  • Many sources refer both to Floyd's death and to his killing, e.g. the BBC, US News, the Chicago Tribune, the Cut, Yahoo News, CNN, NY Magazine, the Guardian, TIME, Al Jazeera, TMZ, The Globe and Mail, Rolling Stone, The Hill, and so forth. At this point "Killing of George Floyd" returns more google hits than "Death of George Floyd."

Arguments that murder and killing are the same, that a pathology report is needed, or that reliable sources don't use this phrase, are all false. -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We may need a bigger RfC to solve this often brought up dispute. While I !voted oppose above, I usually agree with changing these titles to "Killing of". The biggest argument RMs have faced is that there is precedent established by the many "Death of" and "Shooting of" article about police involved killings. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed a shift over the course of this Requested Move from "oppose" to "support". That implies that the facts of the event are still coming out, and this Requested Move was started too quickly. Should this be speedily closed as too soon? Benica11 (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Agree with the above. The facts of the case have evolved, which renders many of the initial "opposes" questionable and helps explain why there has been a shift to more support votes. FlipandFlopped 02:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Based on the understanding that this is an encyclopedia, dealing with common knowledge, not a work of forensic/scientific nature, I support. It is not an interpretation of a video, it has become common knowledge that it was a killing and its public interest (what legitimates it as encyclopedic interest) is the fact that it was an act of brutal violence, regardless technical scrutiny.

So, if not 'killing of...' then perhaps it would be more clear to express the idea of 'brutal death circumstances of ...' HM7Me (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment In other cases, the way the person died is often used in the title, hence "shooting of...". How about Suffocation of George Floyd as an alternative. Just an idea. ~ HAL333 02:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    HAL333 Is there are coroner's report that says he died of suffocation? If that were the case I think we would just go with "killing". Otherwise it's not demonstrated. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Anyone with a modicum of medical training or common sense will recognize that digging a knee into someone’s neck for a prolonged period of time will kill them. Hence Floyd’s cries that he was being killed, protests by onlookers that he was being killed, and RS statements and headlines that he was killed. As GorillaWarfare pointed out, we don’t speculate on whether someone died of a heart attack when they were shot to death. And I can’t find a single RS suggesting that Floyd died of some cause unrelated to the knee digging into his neck. There is none. This argument is spurious. -Darouet (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Anyone with a modicum of medical training or common sense will recognize that we do not know what he died of, and will not know until the medical examiner's report is issued. Just as some examples, we don't know if he passed out because is airway was constricted or if it was the arteries, or maybe it was the chest compression. Or maybe he was poisoned. We don't know. All we're doing for now is speculating based on videos--that is not a medical diagnosis. Anyway, it doesn't matter what we think we saw on the video. All that matters is what RSes call it, and I agree with C&C that as of now, RSes are split on the usage. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 04:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Darouet What you or I think is common sense is irrelevant. Frankly, I might get blocked if I said what I thought of the kneeling officer and what he did. Most of the RSs I've seen say "died" rather than "killed" but I haven't analyzed a breakdown by percentage. This is not a case where someone was shot, which I think would have no equivocation in the sources at all - it would be described as "killed" in every source! Instead from what I have seen most of the best sources are cautiously saying he died, responsibly waiting for a cause of death to be determined. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    When an article covers the "Shooting of John Doe", shooting isn't necessarily the direct cause of death. It might be massive internal bleeding, or a ruptured stomach. Whatever Floy died of directly, suffocation caused it. ~ HAL333 13:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    There are a variety of ways that he could have died as a result of a knee being on his neck for several minutes, which do not necessarily have anything to do with suffocation. The most likely of those alternatives is blocked bloodflow to the brain --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Darouet and HAL333 now that an autopsy has been released that indicates it was indeed heart disease and that there are no signs strangulation or suffocation caused it, do you see the problem with the OR assumptions you made? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    DIYeditor I do. As I said before, it was just an idea. ~ HAL333 15:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)It seems like the titling of these sorts of articles is currently all over the place, and thus potentially subject to biases. For example, try looking up "prefix:Killing_of", "prefix:Death_of", "prefix:Murder_of", etc. in the search bar. Loooke (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Hennepin County Medical Examiner on 5/28 [79]:

"The Medical Examiner recognizes the public expectation for timely, accurate, and transparent information release, within the confines of Minnesota law," read the statement released Thursday. "However, the autopsy alone cannot answer all questions germane to the cause and manner of death, and must be interpreted in the context of the pertinent investigative information and informed by the results of laboratory studies."

I understand emotions are running high. I understand what the video looks like. I completely understand how the video makes people feel and that it may seem insulting to say we don't know how Floyd died. The fact is, we don't have a reliable source for how he died and the various reliable sources covering this are not consistent in how they describe the events. As soon as a Medical Examiner's report is in calling this a homicide or something equivalent I will support moving this to "Killing of George Floyd". —DIYeditor (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Despite what someone said above about medical training, this discussion goes to show what we think we see and what is there are not the same thing. How can it be "suffocation" when the man was speaking? He felt like he couldn't breathe. He felt like his stomach and everything else hurt. Cleary he's in fear of his life. Kneeling on the man's neck from the back is not actually obstructing the airway through the mouth and nose--that's what suffocation is. What's going here is something else, like pinching nerves and/or an artery, blood flow, etc. We can't be anywhere near as specific as the cause of death. That's interpretation.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is completely irrelevant: how does a pinched nerve, blocked blood flow, suffocation, etc. influence the semantic question of whether he was killed? It doesn't. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • DIYeditor Did you see Michael Baden's independent autopsy? He concluded Floyd died of asphyxiation. ~ HAL333 19:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is this a debate, he was killed. When you stick your knee into someone who is on the ground handcuffed and unable to defend himself, it is a murder, however we can’t say that until the police officer is charged.

In conclusion, it is a killing, so please change the title. 2001:8003:20F0:E700:D4FD:EE78:7ACC:898C (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Coroner just ruled that it was not an asphyxiation-caused death. [80] Nuke (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is the full report. [81] Elvis2500 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500
And this is why we wait for reliable information instead of rushing into matters haphazardly. Nihlus 22:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That certainly needs to be added to the article. Perennial Student (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That article explicitly attributes blame to the police officer's actions, all it says is that he wasn't strangled or suffocated in the traditional sense. It doesn't say he would have died anyway, it says the police contributed to his death. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
So if he wouldn't have died but for the restraints, the officer is to "blame"? Being a but-for cause doesn't make you blameworthy. Else, the shop owner was to blame for calling the cops, for without that intervention, the incident would never have occurred. It needs to be shown that what the officer did was culpable.
For an act to be criminal, you have to show it was unreasonable and (depending on the offence) dangerous. A knee applied with enough force to effectively strangle a man is, obviously, unreasonable and dangerous. But the less force it was applied with, the less likely it was either of those two things. To be clear, I am not saying this is true. I am merely pointing out that it does in fact change things. Perennial Student (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Now that we have the new autopsy report with the homicide ruling, can we please close this discussion and do the move? Bubka42 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally kill unintentional killing No killing does not mean intentional or murder.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • After the release of an initial medical examiner's report, the BBC nevertheless announces in the very first sentence of their article on the topic this morning [82]:

Protesters have clashed with police in cities across the US over the killing of an unarmed African-American man at the hands of officers in Minneapolis.

Agreeing with Slatersteven, Doc James, NaveenNkadalaveni, MrX, HAL333, the BBC, and a now very substantial majority commenting and voting on this RfC. -Darouet (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
At its core, opposers are arguing that we don't have enough information imply causation at this time, which "killing" most certainly presupposes.I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that other RS articles have used "killing", but that does not necessarily mean it is the most accurate or neutral term. If/when the coroner confirms that the actions of the officer directly caused the death of the Floyd, I'm game for the move, but until then, I would argue that "death" is the most neutral term we can use at this time. Elvis2500 (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Elvis2500
  • Comment Now that the autopsy report is out, and we have a charge, some observations.

The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death. The defendant had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in total. Two minutes and 53 seconds of this was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive. Police are trained that this type of restraint with a subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous.

(emphasis added).

I will point out that when referring to the medical situation, the legal principle of Eggshell skull applies - it's not even a legal defence. But we're not currently debating the legal situation of culpability, but the act of "killing" - which isn't necessarily unlawful. The autopsy suggests against "traumatic asphyxia or strangulation" - but Positional asphyxia is not discussed. Bellezzasolo Discuss 13:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thin-skull rule means that you take your victim as you find them, as it relates to causation and the actus reus. Thin-skull is important as it can defeat the mens rea element. For example, I might slap my neighbour and he might die because I slapped him on his thin skull; but I do not have the intent to cause death or really serious harm (for the English definition of murder). In contrast, if I kill my neighbour by applying enough force to defeat an ordinarily formed skull, I am more likely to have murderous intent. Perennial Student (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's be clear. The ME has not ruled on a cause of death. The criminal complaint says that "The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation", and states that several factors "likely" contributed to his death. This is not a final determination of causation and we cannot go beyond these preliminary findings. Kablammo (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I already put my oppose in the survey, but I would like to elaborate on it some. We can't seem to agree fully on what the definition of "killing" is; however, we can at least agree that it means for one person to take the life of another. As of this moment, we don't know fully know if George Floyd was killed by that police officer; according to the autopsy section it doesn't appear clear what killed him. In order to remain fully neutral and stay in accordance with NPOV, we need to only base the title with the available facts. I've noticed a lot of the the supports say something like "the video is clear he was killed by that cop," it's not our place under WP:OR to decide if Floyd was killed by that officer. Yes some news sources have said that; however, I don't think those sources can be used in this context only official reports like the autopsy and later convictions. At the very least, this move needs to be closed with no consensus until we get all the facts straight. All we know is George Floyd is dead, and the title needs to reflect that fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I will try to limit this comment to novel arguments—note that I concur with the arguments given above; reliable sources refer to the event as the killing of George Floyd, and it is clear from the video that he was killed. "Death of George Floyd" is not a neutral title. Though it is true that the killing of a man would also be his death, Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, and using the term death when killing is the more common usage draws attention to itself. The title "Death of George Floyd" seems to take a side on the matter as much as "Killing of George Floyd"; though intended as a neutral description, it is distractingly obvious that the word killing has been avoided. Kilopylae (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Kilopylae why is death not a nuetral term? You mentioned that "killing" is what's commonly used by reliable sources, by reliable sources I'm assuming you mean news/media references generally seen as credible. However, under WP:NPOV we are supposed to balance these often bias media sources with more objective sources let say like the autopsy (in my opinion the autopsy/official reports should trump media sources). A death isn't always natural; therefore, killing or even murder would fall under the term death. Therefore, "death" would please people who think George Floyd was killed and the rather minute amount of people who think he may have died from some natural or other unspecified causes. You can't say that using the term "death" is just as much picking a side as using "killing" because it's not, "death" is a broad term that fits pretty much every criteria. Also, we need to take in account precedent (Death of Eric Garner). The dictionary and precedent favor "death" as a neutral term over "killing." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, autopsies are WP:PRIMARY. It's not clear that The Hennepin County Medical Examiner is an independent source. That very issue has been raised by Mr Floyd's family, who have requested an independent autopsy.
Ergo placing this questionable primary source above respected secondary sources I think would be a grave mistake. Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And, having just googled the above, I encountered: An independent autopsy into the death of George Floyd found that his death was a homicide and the unarmed black man died of "asphyxiation from sustained pressure."[4] Dedented because I think this is an important development. Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment the county medical examiner's office just ruled this a homicide. There is not a single source suggesting Floyd died of natural causes, not even fringe sources which should have no bearing anyway. Why is this even still a discussion at this point? Smartyllama (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Source[5] (I'm sure there are others...) Bellezzasolo Discuss 22:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Call for change of vote Most of the oppose votes above hinged on the fact that from neutrality considerations, we should wait for an autopsy report to indicate that the death was not from natural causes. Now that an independent autopsy has established it was a homicide[6], I request these members to change their votes to support. I also believe this now falls under WP:SNOW, as it is difficult to argue now in good faith that it's not neutral to call it a killing. Bubka42 (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Both the official autopsy report and pathologists hired by the Floyd family, including former New York chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, conclude that homicide was cause of death.[7] Those that argue that we should wait for a jury's verdict are in error, because a jury determines whether a victim of a homicide was in fact murdered in the strictly legal sense (as opposed to, say, an accidental killing). But all homicide victims are "killed." So all who argued that we should wait for the autopsy should change their votes.
Dylanexpert (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Violates WP:MOS. Nightvour (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Make the move immediately. We like to say There Is No Deadline, but that doesn't really apply here. We have to choose between two titles, and our editors clearly favor "killing" as more befitting for all manner of reasons, particularl in light of filed charges and medical results. Feoffer (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


Comment. The Medical Examiner has come to the same ruling of homicide as the private autopsy. IssaRevol (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Both autopsies conclude that the death occured because of the neck compression by the law enforcement officer. The only difference is that the medical examiner's office claims that the combination of the neck compression with the underlying health problems caused the death. Also the term "death" doesn't disambiguates whether the death occurred by natural causes or not in contrary with the more clear terms like "killing" and "murder".cnn Gnslps (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: I feel that if we start using the word murder, killed, etc. it can be considered incite full even down the road putting us where we are now in this world. I prefer we stick with Death of as we (as a community have previously done on a lot of these types of articles. If this were to be changed as things kinda boil down to cold water and the country gets a hold on this without affecting BLP and what orange guy in the White House decides to do over the next couple of days or weeks based on his statements on June 1, 2020 I feel we need to leave this at Death of for the time being. This is also still an ongoing investigation so there will be other things that come into play I’m sure. 2600:8801:C500:160:DCE6:1063:6089:E5D3 (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm legitimately interested to know what a move for this article would mean for the Death of Eric Garner article, then, since the two cases are extremely similar. Love of Corey (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just see the Blacl Lives Matter-template See below): except for the Murder of Botham Jean, every victim has a Death of X or a Shooting of X-article. This case is not special enough to break this consistancy. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support if after charges/convictions are made, but Derek literally killed George Floyd. The video footage clearly demonstrates that. One person said "video" is a piece of indispensable evidence, and can be seen by many. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Death of Eric Garner and Death of Jonny Gammage were both asphyxiated by police, both were labeled homicide by the coroner. These 3 cases are exactly the same. Everybody seems to be ignoring these examples when they are mentioned. Are we going to change those articles as well? Dkspartan1835 (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Change those articles as well. Homicide is synonymous with killing, let Wikipedia say things as it is. Phonehead (talk) 09:56, 2 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.