M2sh22pp1l (talk | contribs) |
OneClickArchiver archived More respectful image? to Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3 |
||
Line 290: | Line 290: | ||
:::::::Per [[MOS:UPRIGHT]], I reduced that scale of the intersection shot to 1.8, the max suggested. I also un-centered it.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 06:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::Per [[MOS:UPRIGHT]], I reduced that scale of the intersection shot to 1.8, the max suggested. I also un-centered it.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 06:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{clear}} |
{{clear}} |
||
== More respectful image? == |
|||
I feel like the prominent display of this image [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd#/media/File:George_Floyd_neck_knelt_on_by_police_officer.png] of George Floyd's death is unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful to the deceased man and his family. We have other images of Floyd, can we use a photo of him when he was alive rather than one of him being murdered in the street? If my loved one had died in such a horrific and public manner I wouldn't want an image of his final moments on display like this. It's a horrific image. I know some people are going to say we don't censor Wikipedia, and I agree, but showing some basic respect for the dead man and his family is not censorship, it's simply being decent. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 01:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#RFC: lead photo]] closed two weeks ago. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Levivich|Levivich]] <sup>[''[[Special:Contributions/Levivich|dubious]] – [[User talk:Levivich|discuss]]'']</sup></span> 02:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. I'm surprised it was such a strong consensus. The way this image is used seems callous and disrespectful to me, but that's just my opinion. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 03:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Its placement should be lower in the article. It depicts the face of a man dying. A reader landing on an article shouldn't be greeted with the face of a man dying. It has informational value but that informational value is not diminished one iota by placing it at a lower slot within the article. The only thing "accomplished" by placing it in the uppermost position in the article is maximizing the impact and shock value on a reader when they arrive at the article and I don't see that as a "value" at all. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 03:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::The article is entitled "Killing of George Floyd" and the picture depicts the killing of George Floyd. I mean, what would one expect by clicking on an article named "killing of..."? If I click on [[Lynching of Jesse Washington]], I know I'm probably about to see the picture of a dead, mutilated man. [[User:Alcaios|Alcaios]] ([[User talk:Alcaios|talk]]) 03:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That is absolutely horrifying. Lost for words. I can't stomach reading about that, such incomprehensible horror. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}[[WP:CENSORED]] should be consulted. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 03:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The distinction between 1916 and 2020 should be noted, {{u|Alcaios}}. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 03:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Making a considered and sensitive choice is not censorship, but regardless the vote was very firm, so I'll leave my query there. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 04:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:just want to also add a point since the consensus was reached before the [[George Floyd]] split I believe, and people have brought this up afterwards. A picture of Floyd is presented on his actual page ([[George Floyd]]) while a picture of his death is presented on the page about his killing. I think it’s appropriate, and as Levivich said, the consensus was strong to keep it [[User:Anon0098|Anon0098]] ([[User talk:Anon0098|talk]]) 07:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I support the placement of the topmost image in [[Lynching of Jesse Washington]] but I oppose the ''current'' placement of the topmost image in [[Killing of George Floyd]]. This question has nothing to do with [[WP:CENSORED|censorship]]. Do we invoke the concept of censorship when we consider moving [[Textbook|text]] from one part of the article to another? {{u|Bacondrum}} is correct when they say {{tq|"Making a considered and sensitive choice is not censorship"}}. Bacondrum initiated this section by voicing an objection to {{tq|"the prominent display of this image"}} and I too am arguing for less {{tq|"prominent"}} placement of the image. I merely object to it being the topmost image. We are discussing image ''placement'' here. I agree with Bacondrum when they say that the current placement is {{tq|"unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful to the deceased man and his family"}}. I would add that it is {{tq|"unnecessarily insensitive and disrespectful"}} of [[black people]] in general. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 17:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I find the idea of hiding the picture of his death further down the article to be the true disrespect. This article is about that death and how it is affecting American society. To say "looking at this is upsetting, we should hide it" is to completely miss the point. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 14:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree..black lives matter [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:2340:9470:E8D6:43FD:29B9:196D|2600:1702:2340:9470:E8D6:43FD:29B9:196D]] ([[User talk:2600:1702:2340:9470:E8D6:43FD:29B9:196D|talk]]) 17:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I don't think an attitude of care is reflected in a casual attitude to displaying images of Floyd's violent death. Quite the opposite, it reflects a callous disregard for his and his family's tragedy. But if other editors can't see that then I'll say no more. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== image to faq? == |
== image to faq? == |
Revision as of 01:01, 6 July 2020
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merge proposal: 8'46"
I propose to merge the article 8′46″ into Killing of George Floyd. This reference to the length of time that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd’s neck is worthy of a paragraph at the target article - maybe under a "Tributes" section since "in popular culture" seems a rather jarring reference to a controversial death. But IMO it is not worthy of a standalone article. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Subjects stemming from a parent subject can become independently notable if large amounts of subject-independent coverage arrive on that child subject, as is the case with Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church. However that is not the case here, at the very least for the time being. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Vote withdrawn after taking another look at the article and at the nominator's own words further down below. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Speedy Merge That page was not necessary. What if i create a 5 second chokehold wikiapedia. Will that be enough to create a page? Regice2020 (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Sock strike Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)- If that chokehold was covereed in WP:RS, and thousands of people took to the streets, perhaps yes. So yours is not really a strong argument. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nor is the argument that a position which takes almost ten minutes to kill, if it happens at all, can be compared to a legit chokehold. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Regards SoWhy 06:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose MelanieN's opinion shouldn't be the only reason for deletion. Kire1975 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. Certainly deserves a section in the main Floyd article. KidAd (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Per nom, by itself with seldom references from WP:RS, it doesn't hold enough content to warrant it's own article — IVORK Talk 07:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - The duration has become notable in itself because of the reporting and programming that has been produced with 8'46" as the focus. As the article states, a highly notable range of channels carried programming of this exact length, attesting to the significance and exposure of the public to this - Nickelodeon, BET, CBS Sports Network, CMT, Comedy Central, Logo TV, MTV, Paramount Network, the Smithsonian Channel, TV Land, and VH1. Speaking to the nom's comment: there is no Wikipedia policy around excluding content due to something being "jarring." In fact, one could contend that "jarring" indicates a level of notability that justifies the focus of the article. I've also added a number of "die-in" protests that are using the 8'46" as the focus. Note that 8′46″ is also currently in the navbox Template:George Floyd, added by others, so a "speedy" decision isn't the right route as others have deemed it worthy of more widespread exposure.
- Since the merge proposal is not being done on the associated talk page, a courtesy ping for all the other unique editors of the article - @CommanderWaterford, DividedFrame, Jadewest.catvalentine, Jim Michael, Koavf, Letcreate123, Paintspot, Pegship, and TJMSmith: -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Doesn't seem to be enough independent content (at least as of yet): merging this into a section that discusses language related to the protests (alongside slogans like "I can't breathe") seems reasonable as of now. May I also say how happy I am that this title uses proper primes instead of <'> and <">? (But also how sad and exhausted I am that we need to keep on fighting for African-Americans' basic right to life?) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Could probably just as a section explaining the meaning of 8'46" Tbrechner (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is very much a part of this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Doesn't require it's own page and people looking it up should pereferably find it under this article. Aaryan33056 (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Would fit better as its own section of the article, rather than being an article itself. Fernsong (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's become a common duration for commemorations and protests about Floyd's death. It's clearly worthy of an article on its own merits, expanding on that point. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It's clearly becoming it's own thing and will continue to evolve. Let it be. I see the work of well meaning new editors and it's all scrubbed with one gruff opinion. If you weren't born with an indentured servant great grandmother or have been through the new user experience more than once you wouldn't know both sides like I do. Technophant (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Do not make assumptions or dismiss users opinions based upon who they are (or who you think they are) it is a violation of wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support and Merge Not independent enough yet; include the content here, then split it off later if it grows to the point where it warrants its own article. AzureCitizen (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. It's part of the event. Wikipedia is not knowyourmeme. T8612 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The amount of time isn't notable, nor is it independently notable from the killing it is tied to. There are numerous ways to make reference to the killing of George Floyd (time his neck was compressed, his initials, a nickname), but we don't give each of them an article, do we? After Kobe Bryant died, numerous people made reference to him using his uniform numbers 8 and 24 as references. But we didn't give each of them their own articles because they aren't notable separate from the subject they are tied to. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- SUPPORT it should be merged over, it just one part of this, not enough content to be off on his own. Dream Focus 14:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Better covered here. Popcornfud (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Support, I don't see why this should have its own article. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)see below for new vote The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have changed my mind and I now oppose my own merge request. When I proposed it, the article looked roughly like this - a few examples of popular culture observances which could easily have been added to the article. But since then User:Fuzheado has expanded it to include more and different types of information, to the point where I think it is now a viable article. @Regice2020, SoWhy, KidAd, IVORK, CommanderWaterford, Koafv, Slatersteven, Aaryan33056, Fernsong, Mandruss, AzureCitizen, T8612, Y2Kcrazyjoker4, Dream Focus, Popcornfud, Thanoscar21, and The Spirit of Oohoowahoo: You all supported a merge. Do you still feel it should be merged, or do you think it now qualifies as a standalone article? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Still support - It's still not very expansive. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 14:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support (again). Can still be covered in the main article without losing critical detail. Popcornfud (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Still support. I rest my case. T8612 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Commemorations section should be in the protest article. The section "In journalism" isn't really notable enough to be mentioned at all. The section "Safety" should be in the main article. And not enough "In popular culture" to justify its own article, anything notable should be mentioned in one of the two existing articles. Dream Focus 16:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- They can be in both in different ways. In fact, I didn't exhaustively list all the 8'46" events because that's not a good use of the article. I thoroughly used them as references for WP:N and WP:V purposes, but a thorough list is beyond the scope of the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Still support. Look, news coverage of the Shooting of Michael Brown very often, maybe even usually, mentioned that Brown was shot six times. That didn't warrant an article Shot six times. If and when this rises to the prominence of #MeToo, we might be able to justify an article 8′46″ movement. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks MelanieN for recognizing the article's evolution and merit. I was confident it was worthy of its own article before, and while adding more details I was even more convinced of its far-reaching impact. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Still support - While recognizing that the article has definetly expanded from what it originally was when I first gave my support on it, there just doesn't seem to be enough on the article to justify it being its own separate page, rather than being a part of the Killing of George Floyd article. As such, I still support a merge. Fernsong (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Still support - Thank you for the mention. The article has changed since this request was put forward but it is still comparatively lacking in the capacity to be a standalone article. While it definitely educates the reader, it doesn't have enough to have it's own article. The points were categorized, and while that is a good effort, that's all there is. Hence, I choose to continue to support the merge. Aaryan33056 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. It should be merged because the existence of 8′46″ trivializes the subject. The subject is this very serious subject currently titled Killing of George Floyd. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Have you read the article? It does the exact opposite of what you claim by detailing how the 8'46" is being highlighted to bring attention to injustice. I hope any closer of this proposal recognizes this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are speaking in platitudes when you say the 8'46" article is
"being highlighted to bring attention to injustice"
. Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, you need to read closer as I did not say anything of the sort. The duration itself is being used to "bring attention to injustice" and not the Wikipedia article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- 8'46" is a "catchphrase". A catchphrase is "a phrase or expression recognized by its repeated utterance. Such phrases often originate in popular culture and in the arts". I think the use of a catchphrase to stand in for a serious subject does a disservice to the serious subject. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- That it is merely a "catchphrase" is your opinion. If you read the article you will see that it is covered in multiple dimensions - in the context of forensics (as part of the charging document), popular culture, the media, and in protests. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- A phrase being a rallying cry does not make it substantial enough for an article. "A rallying cry or rallying call is something such as a word or phrase, an event, or a belief which encourages people to unite and to act in support of a particular group or idea." Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- FYI, as of today, a widely syndicated Associated Press piece refers to it this way: "8:46: A Number Becomes a Potent Symbol of Police Brutality." [1] Not just a slogan or catchphrase, but a symbol. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the source that you provided reads "All protest movements have slogans. George Floyd's has a number: 8:46". Especially in this instance we should not be creating articles willy-nilly as doing so trivializes the subject of the main article—which I would characterize as death in police custody as a result of abuse. Bus stop (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are speaking in platitudes when you say the 8'46" article is
- Oppose Article has been expanded related to the impact of the term and now has all the requirements to stay as an standalone article. Killing of George Floyd and George Floyd protests are already long articles so I don't think merging them is a good idea, given that article has sources and relevant information. --B1mbo (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Strongly. This is ridiculous. 8:46 is no more notable for being the time of the World Trade Center attacks than it is the time I was born (really!). Trillfendi (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a good (or cogent) argument. 1) No one has made a case for the time of the WTC attacks because the circumstances and significance are completely different and 2) there are not two-dozen reliable sources documenting the time you were born as notable. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I evidently juxtaposed two thing involving an 8 46 time period: one is an event that defines how we view modern history... the other is only significant to an astrology chart. It can take me 8 minutes and 46 seconds to bake Nestlé cookies. What other specific time has a Wikipedia article? This is the issue we run into when we just go making articles out of thin air. Recentism and exclusion. Trillfendi (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support 8′46″ does not seem notable enough to have it's own article. (Check WP:Notability) Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support at least for the present. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC).
- Support - 8'46" pertains to George Floyd's killing and isn't (yet) related to any other topic outside of that (if so, very few low notable topics). It should be merged with Killing of George Floyd. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- 8:48 is not related to anything that I know of. 8'46" is, however, and the article makes it rather clear how it has wide resonance in vigils, protests, popular culture and in the media. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Corrected the error, thanks for pointing that out. The uses of the term and resonance among corporations and groups all seem to stem from reactions to George Floyd killing and protests, making it easy to keep all of that under separate articles (i.e. Reactions to the killing of George Floyd, Reactions to George Floyd protests). 8'46" itself should redirect to Killing of George Floyd - EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Support, with the option to also keep this article. This is only a noteworthy time interval in the context of Floyd's killing (and in the 9/11 attacks, but that one is sufficiently disambiguated). It should be merged for now, but we can un-merge it if we decide if this has long-term notability later. epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- "only a noteworthy time interval in the context of Floyd's killing" - Yes, and? There's no policy I'm aware of in Wikipedia that prescribes this as a problem in terms of article-ness. It is a time period made famous by Floyd's killing, but now has resonance in multiple domains. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think the more important thing to think about is the long-term notability, i.e. would 8:46 still be repeated in 1 year? 10 years? Or would this be a phenomenon that fades out next month? WP:10YT should probably apply. I can't breathe, a similar article, is an example of something that has since become a widely-spread catchphrase, and is obviously noteworthy. Let's see if the same applies here, too. I think it may apply, given the widespread usage on social media, but we can't really predict the future. epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- WP:10YT makes an excellent case to oppose this merger for now, and revisit the decision later. It says we should "wait and see". Yardenac (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support - This is really not that well-known and deserving of a dedicated article. Xxavyer (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have changed my mind, this article definitely provides unique content. Is it necessary to exist? No. Will a lot of people see it? Probably not. But I don't think the specific stuff it has is worth merging, so the only other option is deleting. And I don't think something not being absolutely necessary or not likely to be seen is grounds for deleting, if it will nonetheless be of educational value to those who end up reading it. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, you can't have two votes here. Since you have changed your mind, you should strike your "support" vote above. If you don't know how, here's how: <s>'''Support'''</s> -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know (I am relatively new here, just joined in 2020) The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, you can't have two votes here. Since you have changed your mind, you should strike your "support" vote above. If you don't know how, here's how: <s>'''Support'''</s> -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article has been significantly updated, and I think a lot of the content on it is not worth merging with the main George Floyd article, or the article on subsequent protests. It should stand alone as an article related, but separate from those two. Reminder that not everything regarding those events needs to fit into one of the main pages - it's okay to have supporting articles on related topics. I think the topic that is notable enough to warrant its own page. The current page primarily discusses specific use of that time (8 min 46 seconds) in protests and popular culture, not Floyd's murder itself. Coffeespoons (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose and perhaps revisit the question in 6~12 months. I feel merge decisions like these are best made with hindsight after the article has been allowed to develop freely - especially for current events. If there was a real case for existing, that will have made itself clear with more content and sources. If there wasn't, then the decision to merge can be made with more confidence. But for now, give it room to grow. Already several supporters of merging have changed their minds, citing the ongoing progress the article has made. Yardenac (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose proposition but I support merging into George Floyd protests not Killing of George Floyd because the time is primarily used in protest.Waters.Justin (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge Doesn't have much coverage outside the US and is essentially encompassed by the death page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as the article is expanded and contains details that wouldn't be useful in the main Killing of George Floyd article. I concur with Yardenac above that this can be revisited in a 6 months or a year. Plus, the main article is large; we do not want it to get unwieldy. TJMSmith (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, on top of which the Killing of George Floyd article is probably too long already and ought to be split into more sub-pages. Brad (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support as the subject is too specific for its own article. It easily be covered in this main article. Slight support to merge into George Floyd protests. GoodCrossing (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Merge Per nom, KidAd (talk · contribs), and IVORK (talk · contribs), it's certainly worthy of a subsection on the Killing of George Floyd article but doesn't have enough WP:RS to warrant it's own WP:SPINOUT page. --— Preceding comment posted at the request of 172.101.5.82 (talk · contribs) actually added by Mdaniels5757 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per reasons listed by other uses above. (Let's revisit this one in a few months.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge Even with expanded content there is significant duplication that is already covered in the main article or protests article or can be combined with the Responses section, especially if that gets spun-out as a subarticle instead. Reywas92Talk 03:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- oppose for many reason, including that this article is already far too long, and is already stuffed with too many related but distinct topics. Geo Swan (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose the 8.46 article is now big enough to be a stand-alone page. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. truflip99 (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - The Associated Press ran this story which is being picked up in syndication by many news outlets around the world, "8:46: A Number Becomes a Potent Symbol of Police Brutality" [3] [4] - Fuzheado | Talk 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- "All protest movements have slogans. George Floyd's has a number: 8:46" You are arguing for a standalone article for a "slogan". Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Untrue. 1) One should look up the difference between a slogan and a symbol, as they are quite different. 2) The above !votes show this is not going to be merged. Best for all to focus on productively writing an encyclopedia. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are not engaging in dialogue. No surprise there, as your "argument" is for a separate freestanding article on a "slogan", according to the source that you provided. (Couldn't the Killing of George Floyd article explain the existence of the slogan 8′46″? Probably in about 2 sentences?) You are not explaining what you see as the
"difference between a slogan and a symbol"
. Instead you are saying"One should look up the difference between a slogan and a symbol"
. Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)- I can't tell whether you are trolling or not. I have been thoroughly engaged in dialogue on this page. The difference is so simple I didn't think it needed explanation: shouting "8 minutes 46 seconds!" is a slogan. Lying down for a "die-in" for that amount of time, turning on the lights in Dodger Stadium for that amount of time, putting a black screen on TV with a pulsing "I CAN'T BREATHE" for that amount of time or Google telling employees to be silent for that amount of time are all symbolic. Let's not continue pointless debate - AGF and keep on editing. Cheers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are not engaging in dialogue. No surprise there, as your "argument" is for a separate freestanding article on a "slogan", according to the source that you provided. (Couldn't the Killing of George Floyd article explain the existence of the slogan 8′46″? Probably in about 2 sentences?) You are not explaining what you see as the
- Untrue. 1) One should look up the difference between a slogan and a symbol, as they are quite different. 2) The above !votes show this is not going to be merged. Best for all to focus on productively writing an encyclopedia. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- "All protest movements have slogans. George Floyd's has a number: 8:46" You are arguing for a standalone article for a "slogan". Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge No need for a stand alone article on this topic. The subject is too specific for its own article and much to obscure. Lightburst (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merge ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge & Redir. At this moment, 8'46" might be getting some coverage, but it has not turned significan/long lasting enough to warrant separate article as of yet. Merge and redirect. --nafSadh did say 19:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Five days after my original evaluation, things have changed a lot and 8'46" has become significant enough to warrant a standalone article of its own. --nafSadh did say 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Merge and this should be renamed and trimmed. Like George_Floyd insided or something. Jack007 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The content in the 8:46 article warrants inclusion, but per Wikipedia:Article size and WP:SPINOUT most of this content should not be in the main article concerning the killing of George Floyd. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merge to this article - if it's merged anywhere, it should be merged to George Floyd protests (but that should be addressed in a separate merge proposal at Talk:George Floyd protests). In relation to the Killing of George Floyd, 8'46" is a coincidental detail--the time period Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck--other than being too long of a duration, it has no more meaning than that the time of day was 8:30 p.m. or that it was a Monday, etc. In relation to the George Floyd protests, 8'46" is a significant symbol. Thus, if it's not on its own page, it should be on the protest page, but not here. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Killing of George Floyd is already too long. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Even though the main article is too long, an article about the duration of an event, however terrible it is, does not have enough encyclopedic relevance in itself. If 8'46" was not a timelength, but a movement, I would probably oppose for now. Ron Oliver (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article has been expanded considerably since nominated and now meets notability guidelines. This symbol has made its way into playlists and commemorations as part of Blackout Tuesday and is being used as a symbolic time for moments of silence and die-ins across the world. I also trust the judgment of the nominator, who has reversed their position. gobonobo + c 09:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merging or deletion — When there are activist movements, there is often a rush to create lots of articles based on initial hype and media coverage, and then there's a process of tidying them up later—think about the Occupy protests and the many tiny Occupy offshoots that ended up going to AfD and being merged. That is indeed a risk. But if this were at AfD, the test of standalone inclusion in terms of WP:GNG etc. are fairly clearly satisfied—it is well-sourced. There is a risk it is too soon, but this is equally balanced out by... well, if it is, and the use of 8'46" as a means of memorial, protest, activism (etc.) fades away in a few weeks or months, there's nothing stopping us from having a deletion discussion about it then, since there is no deadline, and as others have noted, this article is getting quite long already. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merging or deletion - The subject of this article passes WP:GNG. A standalone article is justified per WP:SIZESPLIT. Krakkos (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
* Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin (2nd nomination). If Trayvon Martin has his own article, so should George Floyd. Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment sorry wrong one. Mysticair667537 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think this passes GNG since there are multiple independent sources that are directly about this subject. If this was just trivially mentioned in some sources of course I would support a merge, but thats not the case when there are multiple credible sources directly about the subject.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - while there should be a good paragraph about 8'46" in the George Floyd article, I also think this is now an independent phenomenon, and will likely to continue to be one of the major symbols of the protest movement. Having a standalone article will also keep unrelated detail out of a core article that is already quite long - eg the fact that the Senate observed 8'46" is notable for a standalone article, but maybe not for the core Death of George Floyd article. (Also, everyone should note that all of the articles on this subject are very fast moving, and the 8'46" article has changed quite a bit since the original nom, as has the real-world context and usage). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - the subject has seen significant attention in protests and in media as of late, as represented by the size of the article at present, and has become noted in protests worldwide. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 20:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support into George Floyd Protests and this article 8'46" is inherently related to both these articles but as a standalone topic it's not notable EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge Both articles are directly related, and 8'46" is derivative and subsidiary of this article. Just give 8'46" its own subsection on this page instead of having a whole page dedicated to it. RopeTricks (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. This has become separate "slogan" that's related to wider BLM movement, not just the police slaying. It's similar to the I can't breathe article. 109.76.87.125 (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's becoming more apparent that the main article is better off splitting into multiple articles for various topics. This is no exception, as I see it, as there's already quite a lot of WP:RS in this article already. Quahog (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, for the [8'46"] article as is (and growing); if somehow it can be kept under ~20kB I support the merge, but that is very unlikely to happen. This [killing of] article is already large enough. Feelthhis (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: sources in the article and arguments above make a convincing case for notability. Much better to leave this as-is for now and revisit at a later date when lasting significance can be better evaluated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. We can revisit this whole series of articles when we have more perspective, when the scholarly works are written. It's too hard to judge while we're in the middle of this. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge into George Floyd Protests because there is no need for a stand alone article on this topic. Sokuya (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per reasons above. Notable, well sourced, decently sized and expanding. QuestFour (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support: This is too obscure, and should be merged for easier access. As a standalone article its not notable enough to deserve a whole page. Hextor26 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support - the length of time is not independently notable to the event. The article contains the origin of 8:46 (should already in this article) and some other events (protests, memorials etc.) which reference the time. A separate article is unnecessary.
SSSB (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) - Support - This is a phrase that is only associated with this event and probably won't be used for any other event. Love of Corey (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think this article being as well-sourced and decently sized (without overcompensating in my opinion) proves that it has a right to stand on its own. It would take up too much room in the main article, which is already quite large, although not unreasonably so at the moment. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I believe this article now has enough material to stand on its own. The RS coverage has been extensive and this subject is worth covering in a separate article than either the killing or the protests article; both, moreover, are already very long, so I do not believe it is helpful to merge 8'46" into either. Davey2116 (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support This protest wasn't known enough to have it's own page. Epicneter (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose 8′46″ is a noteable period of time, and per WP:Split it's helpful for the reader to have a seperate article on this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. This page is already very big. We need to make all possible sub-subject separate pages. If anyone thinks 8′46″ does not deserve a separate page, they should start an AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- Support. 8′46″ page is an obvious content/POV fork. This is not a separate sub-subject of two general subjects, which are this page and "protests" page. If merging does not succeed, it should be deleted (AfD). My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose the other article is too long as is and has a few splits already proposed adding more to it is counter productive.Blindlynx (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The killing of George Floyd's article has already been splitted because it's too long already. We can't merge all the aspects of this tragedy into one giant article. BTW, IMO, if this article has to be merged with an other one, it would be better to merge it with an article about the protests. --Deansfa (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The time interval is now independently notable for its use as a political symbol, in the same way as other iconic slogans. -- The Anome (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose; it's achieved a criticality on its own now, and besides, the merge target is too big as is. Feoffer (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support This 8'46" is non-notable. It is but a statistic in the incident and, really, a slogan. It is also an immateriality in the overall scope of the alleged offense. Further, also strong support merger of "George Floyd" into this article. Floyd is not notable otherwise, except for his criminal record- Veryproicelandic (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support merge This is a mostly pointless and non-notable article that can very easily be merged. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge He was unknown and not notable prior to his death. 122.11.146.209 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a good-faith comment, as he has obviously become notable after his death. And this discussion isn't over whether George Floyd is notable, but rather over whether 8'46" should exist as an independent page. Coffeespoons (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Strong merge support per nom. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - the support crowd better explain where this articles information should be placed. As of now all other articles are huge already. This does not justify merging etc. So I oppose a merge.BabbaQ (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support It would do as a section in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P,TO 19104 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Basically Support, although some of that material should go to George Floyd protests instead.--Khajidha (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This seems notable enough to merit its own article. If it’s merged, I think that the “Calculation of timespan” section should be merged into the “Killing of George Floyd” article & everything else should be merged into the “George Floyd protests” article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. 8’46” is a reasonable standalone article meeting GNG. It needs further development to show the cultural impact of the time but that’s regular editing. This article is already too long and needs content spun out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support or afd the [8′46″]] article as completely unnotable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RichardWeiss: Do you have any sources to support your claim that the article is "completely unnotable (sic)"? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: Such a claim, for a negative, is not required, indeed never required, on Wikipedia. It has to be for thse who claim he is notable to source such a claim. Please be aware of this! And given that BLP covers the month after the death of any individual it is particularly important that to establish a claim to sufficient notability for an article requires sourcing. So please can you proovide sources that his life before he was died was notable? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RichardWeiss: It is, actually, in this instance, as you are claiming something counter to the myriad sources provided on the article page. The onus is on you to prove the topic is not notable. Of course you can't (because it is notable), but you are certainly welcome to try. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: Nope, those sources prove his death was notable, and we have this article for his death. There are no sources before May 25th because he wasn't notable in life. I await your sources, your claim that the article is full of sources which I have to magically find that allegedly claim what you say is not an adequate response, as per the way we do things on Wikipedia, esp when BLP is involved, as you should know well given your 15 odd years of editing here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RichardWeiss: Your ignorance of what the sources say does not change your burden. It also appears you aren't clear on what even needs to be notable for the article to qualify for notability. You might want to re-check what you're discussing. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: I'm not so ignorant of what the sources say to think there are any sources which say oro demonstrate that he was notable before May 25th or that there are any soources about him from before May 25 beyond perhaps basic reporting of his crimes, which would not be notable by Wikipedia standards unless some other notoability is established (e.g., we'd report minor crimes by an otherwise notable person, and could do so here as his post-death notability has been amply established). Trying to claim that he was notable before May 25 is about the most fringe view I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Instead of providing sources for your claim you go on the attack in a rude manner. I am very familiar with WP:Notability and use it regulalry in my work here. Please stop assuming bad faith and either provide a source showing his notability before May 25th or don't. Going on the attack won't resolve anything. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RichardWeiss: I think you've made it clear enough from your misunderstanding of this debate that any competent closer of this discussion can safely ignore your !vote. When you're ready to discuss the topic of this !vote, please ping me. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: I'm not so ignorant of what the sources say to think there are any sources which say oro demonstrate that he was notable before May 25th or that there are any soources about him from before May 25 beyond perhaps basic reporting of his crimes, which would not be notable by Wikipedia standards unless some other notoability is established (e.g., we'd report minor crimes by an otherwise notable person, and could do so here as his post-death notability has been amply established). Trying to claim that he was notable before May 25 is about the most fringe view I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Instead of providing sources for your claim you go on the attack in a rude manner. I am very familiar with WP:Notability and use it regulalry in my work here. Please stop assuming bad faith and either provide a source showing his notability before May 25th or don't. Going on the attack won't resolve anything. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RichardWeiss: Your ignorance of what the sources say does not change your burden. It also appears you aren't clear on what even needs to be notable for the article to qualify for notability. You might want to re-check what you're discussing. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: Nope, those sources prove his death was notable, and we have this article for his death. There are no sources before May 25th because he wasn't notable in life. I await your sources, your claim that the article is full of sources which I have to magically find that allegedly claim what you say is not an adequate response, as per the way we do things on Wikipedia, esp when BLP is involved, as you should know well given your 15 odd years of editing here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. There is no reason within Wikipedia guidleines for there to be a separate article. As described in that artcile's talk page, there are only a limited number of direct references to the time. Move the information to this article. Additionally, from a strictly technical view, the inclusion of single- and double-quotes in a title can cause issues on some browsers. Although there is a discussion to rename the article in Talk:8′46″, it makes more sense to eliminate the potential issues and move to this article. 18:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Whenever a big event happens there's attemtps to capture every single event and over detail everything. this is not WP:News and having way too much of a WP:RECENTISM bias is big. Imagine if we had Wikipedia in 1921 and how over detailed we'd make pages? Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Abstain - I believe there needs to be more evidence presented for this concerning the notability of the article and its context to warrant its own page.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 21:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support There is no reason why it needed its own page in the first place. Anon0098 (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merge the article has no content other than a list of vigils that were held for this duration of time, if we dedicated a paragraph to it in the existing article it would be enough to cover all the main points. Gammapearls (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It merits its own article. deisenbe (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support for speedy merger. Prosecutors in the case said the actual time was 7 minutes 46 seconds in an amended filing, which is being widely reported in the news media. Eight minutes 46 seconds is having less relevance by itself.VikingB (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support a speedy merger, particularly in light of the fact that the time is now said to be 7 minutes, 46 seconds. I think it makes more sense from a reader's standpoint to have all information relevant to the Killing of George Floyd on one page. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: It is now a number much larger than George Floyd. pbp 17:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merge now that it's 7'46" this seems like we could wait to see if that actually becomes notable. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Given that there is significant coverage of the time itself, and the article Killing of George Floyd is being considered for splitting, we shouldn't merge another article into it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support "8 minutes and 46 seconds" is a ridiculous article subject and is not notable (are we going to start making articles on every petty slogan that passes through twitter?). The majority of sources which mention it are not mentioning it as a separate phenomenon, but are using it as catchy bit of wording to decorate the titles of articles about George Floyd's killing. If it is merged, much of its content should be removed as pedantic. Zortwort (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merge "8 minutes and 46 seconds" is not notable. --Herobrine303 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Do Not Merge comrade..it`s a separate entity 2600:1702:2340:9470:75CF:F0D7:D27B:FDC9 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support At least at current time, if it independently becomes a notable reference in the future in relation to other events, then it would be appropriate to have a separate article. —PaleoNeonate – 09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose there is sufficient news content for its own article... and "8 minutes and 46 seconds" has become a poignant symbol of excessive force (see 8:46: A number becomes a potent symbol of police brutality, APNews. Many people may not remember George Floyd's name, but remember the images instantly when hearing 8'46".–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support There is a page for Killing of George Floyd this should be merged to it and further the actual time was 7 minutes 46 seconds in an amended filing,. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support It talks about the same information, so there shouldn't be two separate articles. Unless there is going to be a future movement or organization named 8:46, then merge is needed to erase confusion. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge not notable for a standalone article. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merge: a notable subject as a subtopic of the protests, for which there is more information available than can reasonably be contained at other George Floyd protest articles. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 16:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - OP's opinion of worthiness is not a legitimate reason for such a thing. Kire1975 (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It`s becoming it`s own event and needs it`s own article as the George Floyd Protests early on became a separate article and for the same reasons 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The intial reported time continues to be referenced in protests and receives WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It should remain a standalone article. For example, on July 4 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
They took a knee on the highway for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, the amount of time initially reported that a Minneapolis police officer in May knelt on the neck of George Floyd.
[5].—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Should the lede have 8 minutes and 46 seconds or almost 9 minutes?
Which is better for an encyclopedic article? The exact time or something else? Should it read knelt on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds or should it be knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes? Either way links to an article about that time, which makes it seem even more ridiculous when you don't have that exact time listed. Dream Focus 16:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- We tell the reader that Floyd was 46 years old – not 46 years, 3 months, 17 days old – because the latter, overprecise formulation gives the reader no additional understanding of anything while it wastes our most precious resource as writers, to wit our readers' limited reservoir of attention and capacity for assimilating detail (or reading past useless detail). Almost nine minutes and Eight minutes 46 seconds have precisely the same relationship. (We're talking here about the lead, where every word counts. In the article body we give full detail, or course.)I'm not sure I feel particularly strongly about the above, but I do about this: it's absolutely inappropriate to link the time specification (in whatever form we settle on) to 8'46". That's a classic WP:EASTEREGG. That link is given later in the article, with appropriate explicit introduction, in the discussion of protests and reactions. EEng 16:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I prefer "almost nine minutes", and it shouldn't link to 8'46". That link should be removed. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is preferable to use the rounded number in the lede. While I oppose the existence of the 8′46″ article, if that article is to exist, we should link to it in the lede. I do not perceive an WP:EASTEREGG type problem concerning that link. It is not an WP:EASTEREGG because 8 minutes and 46 seconds equals 9 minutes, unless my math is off. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Given the notability of the exact time (as used in various protests, in various speeches, and in almost all coverage of the incident this article covers), we should use the exact time in the lede. This is very much unlike an age which changes constantly until the person dies, and at death, is often not notable beyond the years passed since birth. This is also not an WP:EASTEREGG as we're giving the exact value to the link, the link merely provides additional information on the significance of that specific amount of time.
As regards "every word counting", it actually consumes more space to be less specific...depending on how it's presented, anyways... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) - I can see a case either way, but have a preference for Dream's version. Some readers, including me, appreaceated the 8'46" link. With Dream's transparently worded version, there's not even a borderline violation of WP:EASTEREGG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Exact time - The problem with just linking 9 minutes to 8'46" is that precision of information is lost on a printed copy of the page (as per WP:EASTEREGG). Now, specifying exact amounts of time isn't usually necessary when dealing with encyclopedic content because it's trivial at best and wouldn't provide any additional insight to the reader. However, in this case, the distinction is necessary because of how iconic and symbolic 8'46" has become to the protests and the amount of coverage from reliable sources it's received. Additionally, saying 9 minutes and then clarifying it as 8'46" just sounds redundant to me. Specifying the exact time is the best option here. --letcreate123 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Imprecise time - The distinction between 8 minutes and 46 seconds and 9 minutes makes a mockery of the concept of precision. It doesn't matter. It makes no difference. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Exact time, per letcreate123. That time - 8'46'' - is now iconic. Let's not be coy, and let's not create eastereggs. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it is "iconic". We are not in the business of beating the drums of protest. Wikipedia doesn't engage in boosterism for any cause. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- The link is an easteregg regardless of whether the text the reader sees is almost nine minutes or eight minutes forty-six seconds. Per MOS:EASTEREGG, we're supposed to
make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link
. Only readers who already know will have any idea that this link will take him or her to an article about a meme or protest slogan. In the Memorials and protests section we've gotThe length of time that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck, eight minutes forty-six seconds, was often seen on protest signs and messages "I can't breathe".
, as were the words
- and that's the right way to do it. (I wrote it so of course I would think that.) EEng 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Imprecise time is fine, and remove the link (which is included with relevant context lower down). This is meaningless precision that draws attention away from the fact that Chauvin knelt on his neck for the thick end of ten minutes, including three minutes after he was dead, and thus presumably not struggling much. Guy (help!) 22:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- My reading of 8′46″ has the duration at 7:46 - the 8:46 is an accounting error in the complaint against Chauvin, so almost 9 minutes is a fairly big rounding error on our part. Josh Parris 23:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about 7:46 because this video shows Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for 7 minutes and 53 seconds. Chauvin's knee is already on Floyd's neck when the video starts; we don't know how long it had been there. The criminal complaints are based on body camera footage, which hasn't been publicly released yet, and the complaints say 8:46. They're probably not wrong about that, since Chauvin's body camera footage would probably show rather clearly when Chauvin knelt. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Even more reason to merge that article. Time stamps themselves are not notable. Trillfendi (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- IMHO: almost nine minutes is too verbose; 8'46" can be a little hard to interpret at first read. On top of that, this duration is an estimate, so being too precise while not exactly accurate is a bit weird. 8 minutes and 46 seconds contains cons of both of the aforementioned options (to verbose, overly precise and eventually reduces flow of reading). So, only okay compromise I can see is keep it as is, i.e.: almost nine minutes.
- In terms of keeping wikilink: the notability of 8'46" is albeit a separate discussion. While the article lives, use the wikilink. --nafSadh did say 19:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- almost 9 minutes, no link, per EEng. --JBL (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I prefer the exact time (I was the one who originally changed it) for two main reasons. First of all, there is a large protest movement and plenty of protest activities that have sprung up around that specific time, not around almost nine minutes (see 8'46). Futhermore, this phrasing to me seems encyclopedic. Look, says Wikipedia, he was in a chokehold for almost nine minutes! Although others may disagree, it seems as if we are dramatizing the situation, which should not be the job of an encyclopedia; its job is to report facts, and report them neutrally. --Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Exact time of 8:46 (or 8 minutes and 46 seconds): 8:46 has become a significant number in its own right. pbp 18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - prosecutors now say it's 7:46, not 8:46. [6] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Per other comments, we need to address the fact that the timeline has been corrected, for it's now 7:46 and not 8:46. Love of Corey (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Doesn't really make too big of a difference. The question is one of "give exact time, or give rounded time", so the change in quantity doesn't make the question moot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Exact time The time has become something of a symbol of Floyd's death, so it should be recorded in the Wikipedia article.Wurbl (User talk:Wurbl) 16:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Big picture in the centre
Why is there a very large picture of the memorial at the top of the arrest and death section, practically the first section of the article, in the centre of the page? Apparently it's been around for a while, so I presume I'm missing out on some discussion and I know EEng would never allow such MOS and structural desecration to occur under his watch. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, desecration is my middle name (in full: E Desecration Eng). I don't know of any MOS guideline against such placement, but now that my attention's been drawn to it after all this time, that particular image might go better in the Memorials section IF we have another image that focuses more specifically on the location of the incident. EEng 01:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Good catch. It's not in a relevant section, it shouldn't be centered, and its size should be scaled down. It goes against WP:NPOV.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- As already noted it's probably more appropriate for the Memorials section, but what does NPOV have to do with it? EEng 06:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Re: NPOV, maybe I was just going out of my way to be devil's advocate. At any rate, so far agreement that it doesn't belong there.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I get the NPOV concern, too. It's a huge picture of tributes left by protesters, and it's smack in the middle of the arrest and death section. It's like one of the murals. I hadn't really thought of it before, but now that's been pointed out it definitely feels like NPOV. —valereee (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- On the other hand, looking at the current caption of the photo, if the intent is to show the crime scene, then the image should be cropped to show less of the pavement and the flowers and zoom in on the store with a better view of the specific spot he was killed.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think a wide shot helps. Perhaps not as wide as it is now but certainly including most of the intersection helps give a context for the area (and aids with visualising some later events, like the parks officer nearby who was found to not have sufficient sight of the event). Perhaps up to slightly left of the traffic light, if we're cropping. Though, I think a pre-event shot of the area may be better - one that isn't filled with flowers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- On the other hand, looking at the current caption of the photo, if the intent is to show the crime scene, then the image should be cropped to show less of the pavement and the flowers and zoom in on the store with a better view of the specific spot he was killed.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I get the NPOV concern, too. It's a huge picture of tributes left by protesters, and it's smack in the middle of the arrest and death section. It's like one of the murals. I hadn't really thought of it before, but now that's been pointed out it definitely feels like NPOV. —valereee (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Re: NPOV, maybe I was just going out of my way to be devil's advocate. At any rate, so far agreement that it doesn't belong there.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- As already noted it's probably more appropriate for the Memorials section, but what does NPOV have to do with it? EEng 06:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Since you guys are too busy wringing your hands I've WP:SOFIXITed it for you. I did this before ProcrastinatingReader's post just above here, so if we want to back off the cropping a little that can be done. EEng 14:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/1902_Les_Flagellants_et_les_flagell%C3%A9s_de_Paris.jpg/200px-1902_Les_Flagellants_et_les_flagell%C3%A9s_de_Paris.jpg)
- I think the crop works better —valereee (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- The crop is not good IMO. Before at least it showed the memorial in the intersection; now it shows a bunch of people in front of a store. TBH I wasn't crazy about the old picture either, which is a picture of a George Floyd memorial, but it's not a picture of the George Floyd memorial, which is this: [7]. IMO, we can use that to illustrate the section about George Floyd memorial as fair use. Alternatively, there may be a free one out there somewhere. I'm not sure if it's still possible to create a free one; I don't know the current status of the memorial.
- I also think the first image in the Memorials section, which shows the Cup Foods logo prominently, is inappropriately drawing attention to the store that just happened to be the location of this tragedy. I feel like we're shaming them. The caption says it depicts protesters, which it does, but I think there are much better images of GF protesters we could use. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- The request was that, for the image in the section describing the incident, to avoid the memorial aspect and just show the location. The problem is that, for reasons that surely must be obvious, it's impossible to get a photo of the area without everything plastered with signs and flowers and stuff. So I did the best I could by cropping.For the later Memorials section, perhaps the original uncropped image would work well. In fact, the cropped closeup in the incident section, and the uncropped full-view-with-flowers in the Memorials section, might be a nice touch.Unfortunately, the mural can only be used under fair use (because it's copyright and, ya know, maybe the artist wants to control dissemination of his work and doesn't want millions of people seeing it on the internet without paying him). EEng 17:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ehh, not exactly. If it were a picture of the mural, we could only use it as fair use. But if someone took a picture of the intersection, with the flowers, etc., and the mural was part of that, the photograph itself would probably be seen as transformative, and the photographer would probably be able to license it with a compatible license, like CC-BY-SA. In fact, someone has done just that, and I'm going to go test this theory now. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nevermind, there's already deletion discussions at Commons. [8] [9] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Told you. They're really going for the jugular by pointing out that not only does the mural artist have a copyright interest, but Floyd's heirs do as well, since the mural was based on Floyd's selfie, which they now own. EEng 18:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is only a problem because of the insistence in WMF policy that everything here be licensed for commercial use, and not just educational/non-profit, even though this is a god damn free encyclopedia, and nobody would every question whether it was fair use for a free encyclopedia to publish a picture of a memorial in an entry discussing memorials, but nooooo the WMF says we have to make sure it's OK for people to sell this article and its pictures, and it's just another example of these fucking ridiculous policies getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. It drives me to rant. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- We can probably upload it onto enwiki directly and claim fair use instead? Downscale if need be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is only a problem because of the insistence in WMF policy that everything here be licensed for commercial use, and not just educational/non-profit, even though this is a god damn free encyclopedia, and nobody would every question whether it was fair use for a free encyclopedia to publish a picture of a memorial in an entry discussing memorials, but nooooo the WMF says we have to make sure it's OK for people to sell this article and its pictures, and it's just another example of these fucking ridiculous policies getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. It drives me to rant. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Told you. They're really going for the jugular by pointing out that not only does the mural artist have a copyright interest, but Floyd's heirs do as well, since the mural was based on Floyd's selfie, which they now own. EEng 18:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest we use File:George Floyd Tributes Outside Cup Foods Minneapolis.jpg at the top of the Memorials section. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nevermind, there's already deletion discussions at Commons. [8] [9] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- W/r/t showing the location where the event occurred, neither the cropped nor uncropped version really does a good job of that, IMO, particularly because it's facing the wrong face of the building. The event occurred on the side of the building facing the gas station, not the side facing the restaurant (which is the vantage point from which the current photo is taken). There are probably better pictures out there that show the location where GF died, that we could use in the arrest section. Also we might add a map. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ehh, not exactly. If it were a picture of the mural, we could only use it as fair use. But if someone took a picture of the intersection, with the flowers, etc., and the mural was part of that, the photograph itself would probably be seen as transformative, and the photographer would probably be able to license it with a compatible license, like CC-BY-SA. In fact, someone has done just that, and I'm going to go test this theory now. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- The request was that, for the image in the section describing the incident, to avoid the memorial aspect and just show the location. The problem is that, for reasons that surely must be obvious, it's impossible to get a photo of the area without everything plastered with signs and flowers and stuff. So I did the best I could by cropping.For the later Memorials section, perhaps the original uncropped image would work well. In fact, the cropped closeup in the incident section, and the uncropped full-view-with-flowers in the Memorials section, might be a nice touch.Unfortunately, the mural can only be used under fair use (because it's copyright and, ya know, maybe the artist wants to control dissemination of his work and doesn't want millions of people seeing it on the internet without paying him). EEng 17:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Terrence_Floyd%2C_George_Floyd%27s_brother_visits_the_location_where_his_brother_was_killed%2C_now_a_memorial%2C_at_Chicago_Ave_and_E_38th_St_in_Minneapolis%2C_Minnesota_-_49960683978.jpg/220px-thumbnail.jpg)
- Then I suggest File:Terrence Floyd, George Floyd's brother visits the location where his brother was killed, now a memorial, at Chicago Ave and E 38th St in Minneapolis, Minnesota - 49960683978.jpg to illustrate the Arrests section, with a caption indicating it's a picture of George Floyd's brother standing at the location where George Floyd was killed. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Protesters_along_and_around_38th_Street_in_Minneapolis_on_Tuesday_after_the_death_of_George_Floyd_in_Minneapolis%2C_Minnesota%2C_08.jpg/220px-Protesters_along_and_around_38th_Street_in_Minneapolis_on_Tuesday_after_the_death_of_George_Floyd_in_Minneapolis%2C_Minnesota%2C_08.jpg)
- File:Protesters along and around 38th Street in Minneapolis on Tuesday after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 08.jpg is another one I think we could use to illustrate the protests section. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I added these pictures and rearranged the memorials section, putting the wide intersection shot at the bottom as a footer. Not sure if anyone else will like this arrangement or not (feel free to revert or otherwise improve). I also added the picture of Floyd's brother standing where Floyd died to the section talking about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Per MOS:UPRIGHT, I reduced that scale of the intersection shot to 1.8, the max suggested. I also un-centered it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I added these pictures and rearranged the memorials section, putting the wide intersection shot at the bottom as a footer. Not sure if anyone else will like this arrangement or not (feel free to revert or otherwise improve). I also added the picture of Floyd's brother standing where Floyd died to the section talking about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- File:Protesters along and around 38th Street in Minneapolis on Tuesday after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 08.jpg is another one I think we could use to illustrate the protests section. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
image to faq?
We've had multiple discussions of the main image. Should we add a 5th faq? —valereee (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- As an alternative, do we have an "index of RFCs" talk page header template? Sort of a local-perennials list. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, so that people will stop asking about it for a while. (I still vehemently disagree that depiction of a real person’s death should lead an article. I think there should be a policy against that, frankly.) Trillfendi (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- The informational content is not the problem. The placement is the problem. All of its informational content would be present in a lower position. The image should be kept in the article. But it should be in a lower position. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Trillfendi, I do understand the concern. I don't think any other articles -- and there are now dozens of articles -- are using that image, if that's of any help. :( —valereee (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, there's
But that's not really the same. I suppose we could ask for one. It's just another banner no one will read. But again major plus: more opportunities to act all high and mighty. —valereee (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)