Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 5 August 2020

This is an archive of past discussions about Derek Chauvin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Biography NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Minnesota NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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

Contested deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

This edit request to Derek Chauvin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

 Done. El_C 23:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

This edit request to Derek Chauvin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

 Done. El_C 23:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2020

This edit request to Derek Chauvin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Categorization

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

Contested deletion

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

Target

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

propose paragraph deletion

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

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

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

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

Privacy issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I think that is relevant to his article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NOPAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for discussion

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

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

Derek Chauvin and qualified immunity

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

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

References

1. Nathaniel Sobel (2020-06-06). "What Is Qualified Immunity, and What Does It Have to Do With Police Reform?". Lawfare. Retrieved 2020-06-10. The protests ignited by the killing of George Floyd have put a spotlight on the legal doctrine of qualified immunity. While qualified immunity is not at issue in the prosecution of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and the three other former officers who face criminal charges stemming from Floyd's death, it is one of many structural factors that make it difficult to hold police officers accountable for wrongdoing.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
2. Brad Poloumbo (2020-06-08). "There's Never Been a Better Time to Abolish Qualified Immunity". The Dispatch. Retrieved 2020-06-10. 'It's hard to say for sure whether Derek Chauvin would be protected by qualified immunity if George Floyd's family brought a civil suit,' the Cato Institute's Jay Schweikert said. 'But either way, this incident absolutely reinforces the need to abolish qualified immunity.'{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
3. Noah Feldman Bloomberg (2020-06-10). "Qualified immunity suggests police are above the law". The Eagle. Retrieved 2020-06-10. And so a Section 1983 lawsuit against Derek Chauvin, the officer who is charged with murdering George Floyd, would have to show that clearly established federal law prohibited the placing of an officer's knee on an arrestee's neck.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
4. Mayde Gomez (2020-06-09). "Why police officers are granted qualified immunity". ABC Sacramento. Sacramento, California. Retrieved 2020-06-10. Chin says even in cases where there is video proof, like in the George Floyd case, the family is still going to have a hard time holding accused former officer Derek Chauvin accountable in civil court.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
5. Ian Millhiser (2020-05-30). "How the Supreme Court enabled police to use deadly chokeholds: When the Supreme Court turns its back on injustice, there are consequences". Vox magazine. Retrieved 2020-06-10. It's a sadly familiar scene, and quite like one that played out in 1976 after Los Angeles police officers pulled over Adolph Lyons for a broken taillight.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
6. Clark Neily (2020-05-31). "To Make Police Accountable, End Qualified Immunity". The Bulwark. Retrieved 2020-06-10. It is well known that prosecutors rarely bring criminal charges against police officers, and indeed it seems unlikely Chauvin would have been charged had his assault on George Floyd not been captured on a viral video. That means the only avenue of accountability for most victims of police misconduct is a civil rights lawsuit that they themselves can initiate without the largesse of some prosecutor or citizen review board. But the Supreme Court has largely gutted that remedy with a judicially confected gloss that transforms the legislatively chosen policy of strict liability into one of near-zero accountability.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
7. Nicole Darrah (2020-06-09). "FIGHT FOR 'JUSTICE' Sen Kamala Harris warns 'it will not be easy' to get a conviction for George Floyd 'killer cop' Derek Chauvin". The Sun (UK). New York City. Retrieved 2020-06-10. 'He died while this police officer who had been invested with a badge and a gun by the people used the power he was given by the people to have his knee on a human being's neck.'{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
8. "Police reforms long overdue". Rockford Register Star. 2020-06-10. Retrieved 2020-06-10. Make field training officer positions prestigious, well-paid assignments that only the highest performers qualify for. It's worth noting that Chauvin was assigned to an FTO position despite having 18 previous complaints filed against him. The day of Floyd's death, he had two rookies shadowing him. If you want better cops, find better teachers.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
9. Eric Levitz (2010-06-03). "Cops Get Away With Murder Because They're Popular". New York magazine. Retrieved 2020-06-10. Over the past 72 hours, videos of audacious police abuse have proliferated so rapidly, subgenres like "cops willfully attacking clearly identified members of the press" are already stocked with a wide range of titles. We've seen police pepper-spray protestors for the crime of exercising their First Amendment rights, shoot paint canisters at people seated on their front porch, and throw senior citizens to the ground. In ways large and small, officers have comported themselves as though they are not bound by the laws they're meant to enforce.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
10. Madison J. Gray (2020-06-11). "Officer Charged In Death Of George Floyd Attempted Plea Deal Before Arrest". BET. Retrieved 2020-06-11. Last week, legislation was also introduced to end qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that critics say gives protection to government officials and agents who violate individuals' constitutional and civil rights.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mug shot use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inaccurate Page : Derek Chauvin

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

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

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

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

incarceration history

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading/False Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length of restraint incorrect

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

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

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

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

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

details around 911 call

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

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

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

that being said i believe the article should be changed to something along the lines of: "On May 25, 2020, Chauvin was one of four officers involved in arresting George Floyd on suspicion of using a counterfeit $20 bill at a market .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/Reasonable_suspicion

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

This edit request to Derek Chauvin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request: Date of Birth

This edit request to Derek Chauvin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request: Date of Birth

This edit request to Derek Chauvin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

picture

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

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

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

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

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

Tax Evasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Are filters like this url based?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is BLPNAME really applicable?

Kire1975, Bagumba and JzG, BLPNAME says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEng 03:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• NA-Class biography pages
• NA-Class Minnesota pages
• NA-importance Minnesota pages