The title of the article needs to be changed to "The Death of George Floyd." Here are the reasons: 1) As the article itself states in the second paragraph, Floyd was already having troubles breathing before Chauvin kneeled on him. 2) There were conflicting autopsy reports, and the original autopsy claimed the Chauvin's kneeling did not impact Floyd's death -- this was then retracted by the doctor -- but one dispute in such a critical matter is important. 3) Chauvin demonstrated no intent to kill Floyd - he was restraining Floyd (rightly or wrong -- properly or improperly) until the paramedics came. Murder requires intent. Just because the courts ruled it a murder does not make it a murder -- courts do not determine reality. In the Deep South, white women used to accuse black men of rape, at times when they did no such thing. The courts would agree with the women. That didn't make it true.

Given how controversial it is to state that Chauvin actually murdered George Floyd -- and given how controversial it is to claim that Chauvin even killed Floyd, since the first autopsy stated otherwise -- the neutral-point-of-view title should be "The Death of George Floyd." Personal feelings on this matter cannot override an encyclopedia's neutrality. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logosrecieved (talk • contribs) 17:26, May 25, 2024 (UTC)

The murderer was convicted and lost all appeals. Period.O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you just typed has nothing to do with what I wrote. Seriously. You just brought up an entirely different topic for no reason. I even addressed how that was a separate topic. Please stay on topic, thank you. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are the one who denied my request, I then request that you send this to a superior, since you failed to engage with what I brought up -- and instead brought up something unrelated that was off-topic. Thanks. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one bringing up white women accusing black men of rape in the Deep South, which is "an entirely different topic" from this page. Chauvin was convicted of murder and lost all appeals. The only neutral way to refer to Floyd's death is as a murder, as per the courts. Failing to do so omits vital information. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False. What I brought up was merely a proof that the courts do not determine reality. And I'm glad I did given the reply from User O3000 and yours. The idea that he was convicted by the courts has literally nothing to do with whether or not it was murder. I demand that this be taken to a higher-up person at Wikipedia for furhter consideration. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that my bringing up of that Deep South issue was meant to show that "What the courts say" isn't the ultimate truth? If you do, then I'm sure you can understand how your decision to then bring up what the courts say not only proves the relevance of what I wrote -- but you'll also understand that it is an entirely different topic from the issue of "neutrality" of the title. Stating that the Death of George Floyd was a murder is not a neutral view. Period. I demand that someone higher up than you look at this. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot be a place to advocate for a partisan agenda in either direction. Period. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And no -- you can state right in the opening paragraph that the courts ruled Floyd's death a murder -- and in that way, you will not be ommitting vital information. So, everything you are saying is false. I need to speak to someone higher up than you. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realized what you were going for with that apples-and-oranges comparison. And yet, the courts are the only authority on what is or is not a murder, not your personal feelings. And no, there are no "higher ups" for you to talk to. I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia and we'll all tell you the same thing. Have a nice day. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, my personal feelings are that Chauvin may have very well murdered Floyd. After all, he could have lifted his knee earlier, right? Maybe he intentionally killed him. That's not the issue here. The issue is that the courts never -- ever -- determined reality. And I know that you are an admiistrator. I already looked at your page. But your inability to comprehend my points in the slightest is why I need to speak to a more intelligent administrator than yourself. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the fact that you think the courts determine reality is utterly terrifying. And the fact that you view disputes about reality as "final" once courts weigh in is equally terrifying. You clearly have an agenda. I need to speak to somebody more objective and more intelligent. Period. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Karen, you do not get to speak to the manager just because you don't get what you want. Chauvin is guilty of murder, reliable sources describe him that way, and that's all there is to it. Be mindful not to make any more personal attacks or you will be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just made a personal attack on me. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good point, I did. Unlike you, I'll strike it before I move on with my day. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just attacked me again. I don't even know how to strike things. To assume that I do and adopt a condescending attitude toward me -- again -- for the umpteenth time -- makes your retraction of your personal attack seem disingenuous. If you tell me how to strike what I wrote, then I will. In addition, I do apologize for implying that you are not intelligent. Could you do me the courtesy of apologizing for your horrendous attitude -- where you ignored my points repeatedly? If you will, then we can consider this water under the bridge. Though I would still very much like to speak to another administrator, someday (so if anybody else sees this and can respond to what I wrote point-by-point, then that would be appreciated). Logosrecieved (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I now discovered the "s" command with "<>" around the "s" (I phrased it that way to not accidentally strike-through anything in this post). I believed I have now struck-through all the parts of my text that could be personally offensive to you. I really think, however, that even if you disagree with someone, you ought to go through each of their points as if you had no prior bias -- to test them perfectly. In addition, before you edited my edits on the actual page, you should note that I had already undone an edit -- I had changed the title-box to be "The Death of George Floyd," because I was trying to change the title. When I realize that that couldn't be done, I undid that edit and reverted it back to "Murder of George Floyd," to be in line with the article. You see, I'm trying to do things properly, here. I care about truth, accuracy, and consistancy. If your page is correct, you care about those same things. I urge you to go through what I wrote and respond to my claim -- or cite me the relevant part of Wikipedia's policies -- rather than just telling me I'm wrong. And typing what I just typed reminded me that I need to strike-through one more thing below -- the part where I claim you haven't demonstrated a care for truth here. It's dawning on me that you obviously do care about truth, otherwise, you probably wouldn't have engaged me so much in debate. So, I will strike that through, as well. I am merely asking you to care a little more about pure objectivity for the sake of an encyclopedia. That is all. Logosrecieved (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state on your page that you care about spreading truth. But you have not demonstrated that care here. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, I stated that Chuavin "demonstrated no intent to kill Floyd." I did not say that he didn't actually intend to kill him. Maybe he did, and maybe his knee was the cause. Therefore, he may be a murderer. But you know that the jury list was leaked to the public before the ruling in the court -- not an objective process. So, Wikipedia *has* to be more careful on issues like this. You seem unable to understand subtelty. I need to speak to someone who does. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand our policies. Chauvin is guilty of murder, and so that's how we say it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain your policies instead of condescending to me. Is it wikipedia policy to entitle articles of disputed cases in line with the official court ruling, no matter what? If so, then you could have said that and saved us both much time. And you could point out to me precisely where it states that policy in Wikipedia's rules. Logosrecieved (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My wording was confusing. I meant: Is it wikipedia policy to always title articles in line with official court rulings -- even when the proceedings were controversial (such as a situation leaked jury names and threatened jurors)? And if so, could you point me to that policy? Logosrecieved (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit: "(such as a situation with leaked juror names..." I left off the word "with" and should have used the word "jurors" both times. Logosrecieved (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder is a legal term. Murders are adjudicated by trials. It is a murder because the courts say it is. Our opinions are irrelevant. Everyone's opinions are irrelevant, until and unless an appeals court rules otherwise. Rather unlikely since appeals have been exhausted. Can someone fold this? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder is not only a legal term. It is a metaphysical term. A term descriptive of reality. Murders are committed that don't get declared murders in the courts. Please stop arguing with me for no reason. Please. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Logosrecieved (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]