Talk:George Floyd

ME's report

Third para of death says the medical examiner noted fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as significantly contributory to his death, though not the cause; I'm not seeing in either of the sources (the ME's report and the press release) what says the drugs were signifcantly contributory. I see in the press release Other significant conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease; fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use, but that doesn't seem the same. Am I missing something? —valereee (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it, as it's minor for a summary of his death. Then there's the WP:OR concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, the guy has fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system, and you remove it from the article? Amazing! WWGB (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

So what did the ME's report say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Other significant conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease; fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use", yet this was considered unnecessary for the article. WWGB (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No, what does it say about links to his killing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it doesn't seem to link those conditions to his death, or at least I couldn't find it in either document. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I know you cant, I am asking those asking this is significant why it is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the coroner said they were significant .[1] WWGB (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

To his death? You have been told it does not say that, you have been asked to say where it says it and you have failed to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, the ME said they were significant conditions. The ME did not say they significantly contributed to the death. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

So what, why would anyone want to withhold significant information from the article? I thought we were meant to respect WP:BALANCE? WWGB (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You think its significant, others disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah, not just me, the coroner thinks it is significant too. WWGB (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

He thought it was a significant condition, not significant in his death, else it would have said so.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is the correct interpretation. The ME's job is not just to establish the cause and manner of death, but also to bring to light any facts that might reasonably be expected to assist in a full investigation. For example, if alcohol is found in the blood of someone killed by a bullet to the heart, that will be reported, even though it played no medical role in the death, because it may be a clue to decedent's movements, or his state of mind if there had been a confrontation, or whathaveyou. So significant simply means "worth noting". EEng 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet "Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" so yes it does say what the cause of death was.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, what I'm seeing is editors saying include the information (and in fact it is currently included) but don't say it significantly contributed to the death. I don't see anyone arguing to withhold it altogether. —valereee (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Actually, that's not correct. With this edit, Bagumba removed any reference that Floyd had multiple narcotics in his body at the time of death. When I tried to restore it, I was promptly reverted by Slatersteven. So, yes, there are editors trying to withhold it altogether. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually my reasoning was you did not have consensus for your edit, and that you needed to make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, but that's not how we do it. You don't just add stuff to the article and then when someone reverts you, add it back. You add it, someone reverts it, and we come here to hash it out, which is what we're doing. You've got 130K edits, you know how this works. —valereee (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

So get consensus and resolve the WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If we mirror the Star-Tribune on how the significant conditions "may have made his death more likely", does that alleviate your OR concern, Bagumba? Anyone else's? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I'm not sure...does that fall under allowing non-medical reporters to interpret medical stuff? I can't remember where the policy on that is...—valereee (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that "significant condition" read as basic English seems different than the intended medical examiner terminology. I still maintain it does not need to be in his bio per WP:DETAIL which is already in the more detailed killing article. However, if it is to remain, it needs a brief explanation in layman's terms to avoid misinterpretation (yet more DETAIL).—Bagumba (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Quotes

538: The Hennepin County autopsy may have mentioned factors beyond police conduct, but it was really just saying Floyd’s heart stopped while police were restraining him and pressing on his neck, said Melinek, Carter and Dr. Michael Freeman, professor of forensic medicine and epidemiology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. It’s not a claim that he died of a heart attack, drugs, or pre-existing conditions, they told me. “The cause of death is police restraint,” Melinek said, just like in the autopsy Floyd’s family commissioned. The reason it might seem like the exams disagree, they said, is because people expect a single cause of death in an autopsy report. But most people don’t die from just one thing. Instead, both death certificates and autopsy evaluations are set up to tell as detailed a story as possible — death happened, as a result of something, complicated by another thing, and maybe with other factors that were present. You’re supposed to compile the full chain of events and all the possible compounding factors. But documenting potential contributing factors isn’t the same as saying that’s what caused the death. Scientific American blog post co-authored by a dozen doctors: On May 29, the country was told that the autopsy of George Floyd “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxiation,” and that “potential intoxicants” and preexisting cardiovascular disease “likely contributed to his death.” This requires clarification. Importantly, these commonly quoted phrases did not come from a physician, but were taken from a charging document that utilized politicized interpretations of medical information. As doctors, we wish to highlight for the public that this framing of the circumstances surrounding Floyd’s death was at best, a misinterpretation, and at worst, a deliberate obfuscation. A timeline of events illustrates how a series of omissions and commissions regarding Mr. Floyd’s initial autopsy results deceptively fractured the truth. On May 28, a statement released by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s office reported ongoing investigations and acknowledgement from the forensic pathologist that an “autopsy … must be interpreted in the context of the pertinent investigative information.” As per standardized medical examination, Floyd’s underlying health conditions and toxicology screen were documented. These are ordinary findings that do not suggest causation of death, yet headlines and the May 29 charging document falsely overstated the role of Floyd’s coronary artery disease and hypertension, which increase the risk of stroke and heart attack over years, not minutes. Asphyxia—suffocation—does not always demonstrate physical signs, as other physician groups have noted. Without this important medical context, however, the public was left to reconcile manipulated medical language with the evidence they had personally witnessed. Ultimately, the initial report overstated and misrepresented the role of chronic medical conditions, inappropriately alluded to intoxicants, and failed to acknowledge the stark reality that but for the defendant’s knee on George Floyd’s neck, he would not be dead today. By Monday, June 1, in the context of widespread political pressure, the public received two reports: the preliminary autopsy report commissioned by Floyd’s family by private doctors, and—shortly thereafter—a summary of the preliminary autopsy from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office. Both reports stated that the cause of Floyd’s death was homicide: death at the hands of another. By inaccurately portraying the medical findings from the autopsy of George Floyd, the legal system and media emboldened white supremacy, all under the cloak of authoritative scientific rhetoric. They took standard components of a preliminary autopsy report to cast doubt, to sow uncertainty; to gaslight America into thinking we didn’t see what we know we saw. In doing so, they perpetuated stereotypes about disease, risky behavior and intoxication in Black bodies to discredit a victim of murder. Star-Tribune: Nationwide, people expressed outrage when prosecutors released the preliminary findings of George Floyd’s autopsy, highlighting cardiovascular disease and “potential intoxicants” in his system, as if those factors might explain his death as police officers pinned him to the ground. * * * The earliest findings from the autopsy were released when Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman’s office filed third-degree murder charges against Chauvin four days after Floyd’s death. Prosecutors cited three preliminary autopsy findings: That there were no physical signs Floyd died of asphyxia, that he had cardiovascular disease, and that his health conditions, plus “any potential intoxicants” and the police restraints, likely caused his death. Floyd’s family and their lawyer cried foul. They hired two pathologists who conducted a second autopsy that concluded Floyd died of asphyxia. A collective statement written on behalf of nearly 20,000 black physicians from around the country called the preliminary findings “misleading,” saying they inappropriately raised doubts about Floyd’s character and undermined Chauvin’s role in his death. The early findings had little medical relevance to the cause of death, said Dr. Derica Sams, a physician in Chapel Hill, N.C., who helped organize and write the statement. It was meaningless to point out that there were no traumatic signs of asphyxia, Sams explained, because asphyxiation can often occur without leaving behind obvious signs of trauma. She said it was irresponsible at best for prosecutors to note that Floyd may have had drugs in his system before the toxicology reports were complete. That merely served to present Floyd in a bad light and indicate that other medical problems may have killed him, she said. The full report Facing a public outcry, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison took over the prosecution two days before the full autopsy was released. Once it became public, Ellison added more severe second-degree murder charges against Chauvin and charged the other three officers at the scene of the arrest as accomplices. Baker’s autopsy report found that Floyd died when his heart stopped as officers subdued and restrained him by compressing his neck. The report lists heart disease, fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as “other significant conditions,” indicating that they may have made Floyd’s death more likely. Listing underlying diseases and drug intoxication in an autopsy report is “usual practice” for a medical examiner, Dr. Sally Aiken, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, said in a statement. “Death is a complex process and often occurs with multiple interacting contributing causes,” she wrote. These kinds of restraint-associated cases are especially complex, said Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in the San Francisco Bay Area with no connection to the Floyd case. Forensic pathologists may disagree over what to include under “other significant conditions,” Melinek said. “But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a homicide.”

"Follow the sources." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I'm wondering if this is starting to need its own subsection of the death section. I think we need to deal with the fact this was apparently politicized. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Politics has nothing to do with it. Other significant conditions contributing (or maybe contributing) to death, but not resulting in the cause given in Part I is standard in every death certificate's Part II. It's detailed clearly in the Physician's Handbook on Medical Certification of Death, Google for PDF. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

:::RS seem to be reporting that some are arguing in this case the ME's report was politicized. Striking, strongest voice wasn't Scientific American but a SciAm blog post. —valereee (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Strike notwithstanding, important to distinguish between media reports (always spinning everything) and the underlying medical report (almost always apolitical). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, yeah, but currently the source we're relying on for "significant condition" is a press release. —valereee (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

By the ME's office, for the press. Though secondary coverage is preferable. The Star-Tribune piece above looks useful, as it indicates what "other significant conditions" indicates. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, or it indicates what Greg Stanley, an "environmental reporter" for the Star Tribune thought it indicated, and what his editors didn't question, perhaps. —valereee (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Maybe he and his editor are aware of this because it's been featured on every death certificate printed in the United States since their grandparents were children. Not just the US, either, and even their parents' grandparents. I don't know if you're the first editor to doubt the meaning this hard, but you're the first I recall, in news or on Wikipedia. I don't mean that as an insult or a compliment, just an observation. Have you read Page 14 of the handbook yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, sure, it says All other important diseases or conditions that were present at the time of death and that may have contributed to the death, but did not lead to the underlying cause of death listed in Part I or were not reported in the chain of events in Part I, should be recorded on these lines. What I'm saying is that we can certainly report them as "significant conditions", as that's what the report says, but that I'm questioning whether we can report them as "conditions significantly contributing" to the death on the basis of what an environmental reporter for the Star-Tribune reports unless some medical expert words it that way per my reading of MEDPOP, which I'm no expert at interpreting. I just think we need advice from someone expert at interpreting MEDPOP here. The Scientific American post from the physicians isn't something we can quote, but for our own understanding of it, they seem to be saying that just because the ME called those out doesn't indicate they had a role. The 538 source says that, too. —valereee (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We shouldnt have details here in a summary of his death that are not high-level enough to be in the lead of Killing of George Floyd. Per the guideline WP:DETAIL: ... the reader is first shown the lead section for a topic, and within its article any section may have a {{Main|subpage name}} hatnote or similar link to a full article about the subtopic summarized in that section.—Bagumba (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with that. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Me too. Seems this level of detail is more appropriate for the article about his death (in the autopsy section or maybe a subsection of it) than the main biography. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's appropriate for Scott Weiland, Carrie Fisher and Tom Petty's Death sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

They died of drug overdoses. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Fisher didn't, but that's beside my point. They're all biographies of famous Americans who died surrounded by doubt and hooplah. Weiland and Floyd shared the same morgue. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want a black precedent, for some reason, see Ike Turner. If you want a (street) drug-free white dude with "contributed to death" spelled in full, try Robert Reed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, but none of those people's deaths have their own articles...is something going over my head again? —valereee (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how having a separate article factors into omitting these significant conditions. Does it mean we can remove less significant findings, too? Michael Jackson was black and white, bio and event, and his bio's Death section mentions his "other" drugs. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, no, but the point was that if the main article doesn't mention these things, they probably aren't appropriate here. —valereee (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

But Floyd's main event article does mention these things. Has for a while, as of now. If still there tomorrow, probably are appropriate here, or...? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, but it just says The medical examiner's final findings, issued June 1, classified Floyd's death as a homicide caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained" by officers who had subjected Floyd to "neck compression". Other significant conditions were arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use. It doesn't do any interpretation. —valereee (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Basing one body on another article's lead makes no sense to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a classic case of summary style.—Bagumba (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

One lead summarizes another body, it says? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait... so lead was found in his body? EEng 19:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is muddy enough already without you pumping it full of wit! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Somewhat hard to follow all arguments here, but as another editor, I see "fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use" as significant to include and have been reported in numerous sources. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Aua, most of us are arguing not that this not be mentioned at all but the wording of how we're mentioning. It's more or less a matter of "other significant conditions found on autopsy" vs. "other conditions significantly contributing to the death." —valereee (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

”reportedly” is my go-to word. “other conditions which reportedly significantly contributed to the death” is a good middle ground imo. Little bit of a mouthful though. Anon0098 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It only works if you're citing a reporter, though. "Doctoredly", this is, and that's even worse a mouthful. If nobody wants to just believe this reasonable paraphrase in a sky-is-blue way, stick your "reportedly" on a real media invention. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No, as no RS (or primary source) has said that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

arbitrary nav section

I'm thinking re: the Star source interpreting what "significant condition" means w/re the death: WP:MEDPOP appears to say we can't use that? —valereee (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I can understand MEDPOP for a pure medical topic like a disease or treatment, and not wanting to give bad medican advice. If we remain as strict about medical sources, even in the context of a common person, we also need to consider not including medical concepts that a regular person will not understand or misinterpret, if a reliable explanation is not available.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm just talking about who is qualified to be a reliable source for this one very narrow specific question of whether the ME calling out 'significant conditions' can be interpreted to mean 'they contributed significantly to the death.' We have an environmental reporter for the Star saying they did. Normally a RS, but in this case I think it's possible MEDPOP would say not for that question. Is there anyone reading here who is an expert in interpreting MEDPOP concerns? —valereee (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I think you mean then that we need a reliable medical source to determine whether "significant conditions" is important enough to include in this article?—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I think we can include it. We just can't interpret it to mean anything more than exactly what the report says, even though the Star-Trib did so and they're normally a RS. I think a non-medical reporter's interpretation of a medical report might be no more reliable than any smart and well-intentioned layperson's interpretation. I suspect there will be coverage of this eventually -- certainly it'll come up at trial, and we'll be able to quote medical expert testimony when it's quoted in RS -- but for now I don't think we should be saying anything more than the report says, and probably we should simply quote the report. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Since it reads like basic English, it should not be includes since there is reasonable doubt that it's not a "significant condition", in regular English, that lead to his death. In a sense, this is WP:WEIGHT: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. The major cause of death was being pinned down and kneed. It can be revisited when the eventual coverage happens.—Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I have no objection to not including it, at least for now, but I'm open to arguments on the other side. The report says it's a significant condition, but we can't know whether it's significant to the death so it may be irrelevant to this section, just as his height and weight are irrelevant to the death and aren't included in this section, even though they were reported in the autopsy report. I'd rather see us err on not including possibly-irrelevant things when we're not sure what the ME's report meant. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee:, The Physician's Handbook on Medical Certification of Death says on pg. 14 that the term 'other significant conditions' refers to "All other important diseases or conditions that were present at the time of death and that may have contributed to the death, but did not lead to the underlying cause of death...". If you read on you'll find examples of how the term is used in case studies. Hope this helps.Big 16:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Olomofe (talk • contribs)

Thanks, Big Olomofe! I'm not sure we can use that, it probably qualifies as WP:SYNTHESIS, but for our own purposes of research it helps us know what to look for when some reliable source puts the two together. :) —valereee (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(reset) I tend to agree with others who believe we should not withhold significant information and thus we should certainly include that. It has been reported in secondary sources. Less important, but somewhat relevant to the discussion, Mr Floyd was yelling "I can't breathe" long before he was on the ground being restrained, indicating he was at least impacted by whatever was in his system causing him distress. Pure OR, so make of it what you will, but the secondary sources mentioned it and I find it weird we'd try to censor it on wikipedia. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Aua, I'm not arguing to withhold anything, and in fact the "significant conditions" language is currently in the article. I'm arguing that WP:MEDPOP may apply w/re saying those conditions significantly contributed to the death, which was how it was stated before and what I objected to. Re: the saying 'I can't breathe' before he was on the ground, I'm finding that in the charging documents for Chauvin, but are other sources reporting it other than to quote the charging document/prosecutor statements from May 30? If so, it could certainly be included at Killing of. It's possibly more detail than is necessary in the bio, but I'm open to argument. Please WP:AGF and stop accusing people of trying to censor Wikipedia. Gaining consensus before including something does not equal censorship. —valereee (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How can you acknowledge that the official physicians' definition helps us know what to look for in reliable sources on the 23rd, but still three days later object to a wording that reflects the general idea near-universally agreed and understood between reporters and coroners? MEDRS does not apply, same as it doesn't for relaying the cause of death, time of death, place of death or anything else normally and adequately relayed through plain news. The only "good" that might come of obscuring the true nature of these conditions' significance is potentially confusing readers into thinking they're important in another, completely unrealistic context. Like it should matter to police, lawyers, mourners, protesters, rioters, writers or politicians (et cetera), rather than contribute to death itself. Balderdash, I respectfully exclaim! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk The three sources quoted above seem to show that it's not universally understood. In fact two of them are directly saying that the media were getting it wrong. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult. What I really don't want is for us to write that because the ME said there were other significant conditions that this means they contributed significantly to the death, and some medical communications expert goes "What?! That's not what that means!" and writes an opinion piece for the NYT saying that once again WP got the science wrong. —valereee (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And as I opined earlier, we should not use "significant condition" verbatim, as the technical meaning differs from the basic English which laypeople would interpret it as.—Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

length of time

Vaselineeeeeeee there is new information which is saying 8'46" is not correct, it was 7'46".—valereee (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's what we've got: https://apnews.com/0b4714f6a42b362b0e2c0cd701c6392b —valereee (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: And that claim is not sourced in the article. The other articles still use 8'46 and that is by far what is used in the media. We should wait to see how this 'new info' unfolds before going against the majority of sources. At the very least, source it in the article saying how it may have been thought to be 8'46 at first but now they say it is 7.46. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, if we're not sure, maybe we shouldn't mention the length of time with any specificity. It isn't really a crucial distinction. We could possibly say 'differing reports put it at 8'46" or 7'46"' maybe? —valereee (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I added a note tag, hopefully this suffices to avoid confusion. Feel free to change the wording. I do not edit much in this area, but I'd encourage you/others who do to stay consistent between the Floyd pages as the rest still use 'nearly nine minutes'. Perhaps this note could be added there too. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, I think the note is good. Please don't ask us to stay consistent among the Floyd pages, they keep sprouting like dandelions. —valereee (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Consensus in the parent article should apply to all sub articles, so we only have to agree on these things once. Which one is the parent article? :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I think the parent article has to be Killing of? Do we need to suggest RfCs be held there? It seems like it might keep us from having multiple identical discussions. (Surely this is something that's been decided?) —valereee (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, maybe we should make a {{George Floyd FAQ}} template to put on talk pages of all articles in Category:Killing of George Floyd, that covers the basics applicable to all articles, like white/black, killed by, and 7:46, to name a few. And that FAQ can say discuss issues applicable to the entire category at the parent article (which I agree is Killing of, at least for now). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

No need for a template. {{FAQ}} allows you to point to the FAQ of another article. In fact there are a lot of nifty parameters that will allow us to make a quite elaborate and beautiful family of FAQ pages for no one to notice. EEng 20:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

lol —valereee (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

OK I'm going to go give that a spin. I haven't gotten to play with AWB in a while anyway. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@EEng and Valereee: The FAQ page is now at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/FAQ, and if either of you want to mess with the formatting of Template:George Floyd FAQ, you can change it there and it'll look the same on all the pages. I've added it to some but not all GF-related pages. I'm going to have to change what I've done so far slightly to move it below {{talk page header}} (instead of above), per WP:TPL guidelines. (boo) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, nice! It'll be interesting to see if there are any reactions —valereee (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, why the move down the headers? —valereee (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, because WP:TPL and others were rearranging the headers behind me, so I figured I'd just submit and follow TPL. Personally, I think the order of things at TPL is wrong, but I guess it's global consensus? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, wow, that seems so bureaucratic and deaf to the needs of a current event article. Ai. Ah, well. Probably not worth fighting about. Isn't that sad? I'm saying the same things I'd say in a meeting at Coca-cola. —valereee (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 —valereee (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich pointed me here after I inquired why FAQs were popping up in places where such questions hadn't been asked. I don't feel great about applying an FAQ to a large number of pages without any discussion on those pages. I get not wanting to have the same discussions over and over, but those discussions largely aren't actually happening on many of these pages, and IMO the FAQ makes it more likely that people will want to discuss them (WP:BEANS and whatnot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I had already tweaked the lead of Eight minutes 46 seconds. I think 8:46 is still the symbolic time, at least for now, having had continuous coverage for almost 3 weeks. Though the correct 7:46 should be mentioned too.—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of FAQs as being to stop or reduce discussions, but rather to share the outcome of past discussions (e.g. Q1) and to improve future discussions (e.g. Q2). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

They don't mention past discussions except by implication, and are on pages where there have been no discussions. *I* get the point, but it's confusing (and again, potentially WP:BEANSy) to have them on dozens of pages where there's no record of any such questions (nevermind frequently asked). If they're to continue on those pages, it should at least be clear about where those discussions happened. Otherwise it looks like an FAQ to preempt questions rather than report on discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just collapse and put down beneath other banners at those pages, so that if/when stuff does come up there's some ready bit of history? —valereee (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding pointers to the appropriate archived discussion makes sense. EEng 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless they're uncollapsed and right at the top, you might as well scrap them. EEng 14:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

But on pages where they aren't yet necessary/useful, it would be okay to leave them collapsed and not at the top until they become needed, wouldn't it? That would make it obvious to experienced editors that there is such a thing available if they feel like it's gotten to be something they need to give valuable real estate to. —valereee (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately that moron Levivich didn't take my advice to not use a template, so whether the FAQ is precollapsed is a global yes/no question for all articles. Whether it's at the top of the page, or buried among other banners, can be varied page by page. EEng 20:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a feature of my ironfisted lockstep template rule. But I suppose we can make it so the template passes on arguments, to give the peasants some small feeling of autonomy. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The term I had in mind was hamhanded. I recommend pasting in {FAQ|page=Talk:Killing of George Floyd/FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}} directly and deleting the template. That would also give an opportunity to review whether the FAQ is really needed on all 87,435 pages you added it to, so I'd suggest you set yourself a ping to come back to this in 2 months. EEng 22:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ping me!

-EEng

I think you misspelled nimble-fingered. Pasting that code is a terrible idea because it's missing an open curly bracket. Also for other reasons. But in any event, it's easy enough to let the wrapper pass arguments (what I suggest), remove the wrapper (what you suggest), or remove the template altogether (I think what Rhodo suggests), or any combination thereof. I'm happy to implement whatever the consensus is. When it's figured out, somebody ping me and tell me what that is. :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you misspelled thimble-brained. Also sentence fragment. EEng 03:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Goines

Is there consensus to include something about Floyd's 2004 arrest by Gerald Goines being reviewed? It's been covered in articles by AP, WSJ, New York Times: Mr. Floyd, who died after a white officer held him under his knee in Minneapolis, igniting a protest movement against police brutality, grew up in Houston and was arrested by Mr. Goines in 2004 over a $10 drug transaction. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to jail. The 2004 arrest is now being re-examined by Kim Ogg, the district attorney in Houston’s Harris County, as part of the review of the former officer’s now-questionable cases. The arrest was not the first time Mr. Floyd had had run-ins with law enforcement in Houston. But it sent him to state jail for 10 months. He later moved to Minneapolis to try to turn his life around. “His interactions with at least two policemen were quite negative — one likely led to a wrongful conviction, the other to his death in custody,” Ms. Ogg said. “It’s more than a coincidence. It’s just a terrible example of how unfortunately some policemen deal with minority men. I don’t think the color of the cop is really the problem. I think the problem is police culture.”, Houston Chronicle, The Hill, NBC. Seems to me that it's a significant part of his bio, worth inclusion. Especially since we mention that he went to jail eight times, we should tell the reader that one of them was likely a wrongful conviction according to prosecutors. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

When this was in the article before it was sourced only to [2], which was about police shootings in Houston and the Houston police chief. The passage re Floyd said:

The string of shooting deaths comes a little more than a year after a Houston narcotics squad killed two people during a botched drug raid, drawing national scrutiny. An investigation found that the officer at the center of the case, Gerald Goines, had falisfied evidence to justify the deadly raid, prompting murder chargers against him and leading prosecutors to review hundreds of his prior cases. Among those who were notified that their convictions may have been tainted: George Floyd. A little more than a year before his killing sparked nationwide protests, Floyd received a letter on March 8, 2019, alerting him that Goines may have been involved in Floyd’s arrest on drug possession charges 15 years earlier, before he left Houston for Minneapolis.

This presents the Goines angle as an interesting coincidence. These kinds of notifications are de rigueur when such corruption is uncovered, and whether it will lead anywhere for 15-years-ago convictions remains to be seen. If sources said something like, "Floyd received the notice and was angry" or whatever, we'd obviously include it; on the one source I just quoted, I think we wouldn't. Given the number of sources Levivich has enumerated -- I haven't looked at them -- we probably should say something because apparently people will have heard of it. But I'd keep it severely minimal. EEng 19:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. We're far, far from anything more than possibility that there's a wrongful conviction in here. EEng 11:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support a minimal mention. I've added a 1-sentence mention twice and twice been reverted, so don't look at me. :D —valereee (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think I was the revert-er, and it was because at the time, the single source cited presented it as a curiosity. With all these new sources I'm guessing something useful can be said about the Goines connection. I'm borrowing someone's Mac right now so it's all I can do not to smash the heap of pastel-themed boutique junk to smithereens. EEng 20:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  HEY! I'm a mac user and there is no pastel-themed boutique junk anywhere near me! —valereee (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Neither are fish aware of water. EEng 20:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  You are a terrible person —valereee (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  The result of years of dedication to my craft. EEng 21:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we mention Goines is a black american like we mentioned the race of Floyd and Chauvin? Or does Goines get a pass? Reaper7 (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Reaper7, what do you mean by "a pass" in this context? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean a 'pass' in the English language sense. IE a pass on mentioning it. Reaper7 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the English phrase "getting a pass" means "not being punished for something". Like an athlete gets a pass on a foul. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are describing the American English use. I was using the Queen's English. I take it from you determined battle over semantics that you are not for mentioning Goines is black? If you could clarify at some point today it would be super. Reaper7 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure about that, you linked to "pass on" which is a different idiom than the one you used, "get a pass". And I think what you meant was, does Goines "get a pass" on being identified as a black man, which implies that being identified as a black man is a bad thing, which in turn may be interpreted as not exactly PC. Anyway, whether we should identify Goines's race depends on whether the RSes identify it and how prominently. I haven't looked. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

When making a snarky point it helps to get the Queen's English right. EEng 15:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed ^^. I still don't understand how even in an american sense of the word, one can drag up anything as absurd as being a 'black man is bad thing.' Anyways, I think it is time to open it up. Reaper7 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Should the races of Goines and the other restraining police officers be mentioned?

We have included the races of Chauvin and Floyd - a White police officer and an African American respectfully. Should we include the races of the 2 other restraining officers listed here by the BBC. Goines will now play a bigger role in the article. Should we mention his race or pass on mentioning anyone else's race? Thoughts. Reaper7 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support including his race: an accurate understanding of the situation, including Mr Floyd's life, will be enhanced by that mention. While intersectionality is difficult to deny, this helps to illustrate the complex police-community relationship in which Mr Floyd grew and ultimately died, rather than just white-black issue. Cheers,Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support If there are decent sources detailing their race. Reaper7 (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• No unless there are sources calling it significant or relevant in some way. The reason we mention Chauvin and Floyd's race is because sources are using it every time they mention the incident. Literally I'm not sure I've heard anyone say their names without giving their races. We mention it because sources mention it constantly. Where in that BBC article are the other officers being identified by race? I'm missing it. Don't think I've heard much about that, maybe a couple of passing mentions? No one seems to be saying it's relevant in some way. Does all the coverage of Goines mention his race as significant in the crime he committed? (The apparent source at the article mentioning him doesn't actually give his race, so I've removed it from the article. If the sources don't mention it, we can assume it's irrelevant.) So far looks like a definite no on Goines, who btw isn't currently mentioned in this article. —valereee (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

More than 'passing mentions.' NBC article dedicated to how significant it was that an asian american officer was involved in the Floyd incident and its implications. Another decicated artcle to the same asian american police officer and its implications. People, journalists and others are discussing the races of the police officers involved - even dedicating enture articles to the issue - and these are outlets like NBC and Yahoo.. Reaper7 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Reaper7, thanks for the additional sources. Yes, Thao maybe seems worth mentioning, at least minimally, but main coverage should probably be at Killing of. We'd have to think about how this even fits into a bio. The death section isn't supposed to be comprehensive. —valereee (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Still thinking on this. In order to add that, we have to greatly expand that section. If we mention Thao's race, do we need to mention the other two. If we do that, do we need to provide context on who was doing what, and why Thao's race is important...I'm not sure this is due weight just to shoehorn in Thao's race in Floyd's bio. I think this probably needs to be at Killing of. —valereee (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind we've got a Killing of article which is quite detailed. This article is about Floyd himself, with only a modest sketch of his death. EEng 14:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's my feeling, too, after a bit of dithering. :) —valereee (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

On the plus, mentioning Thao's race briefly does not take up much room in the article - neither his role. Of the restraining officers, one was Asian American, one Black American. However although it does not take up much room and is in line with the brevity issues, it offers the reader a true insight - an insight that articles from msm have been dedicated to. So what it really comes down to is the benefit to the reader of not mentioning it as it hardly changes the length or tone of the article. Reaper7 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Keung, Lane and Thao aren't even named in this article. Their names and races are included at Killing of George Floyd, where those details belong. It's WP:UNDUE to include that level of detail in Floyd's biography article. Note that Chauvin is the only one charged with murder; the other three are charged with aiding, so that's a big difference in terms of what level of detail is DUE. As for Goines, I'm not seeing support in sources for mentioning his race in Floyd's biography (as opposed to in an article about Goines). The relevant detail there is that one of Floyd's past charges may be overturned. I don't see sources saying the race of the corrupt officer is relevant to that officer's allegedly false charges against Floyd. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Add coronavirus diagnosis and blood toxicology to lead

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.

---

In 2014, he moved to the Minneapolis area, finding work as a truck driver and a bouncer. In 2020, he lost his security job during the COVID-19 pandemic. He died while being arrested for allegedly using counterfeit money to buy cigarettes; Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, knelt on his neck for nearly eight minutes. Although autopsy reports stated that at the time of his death, George Floyd tested positive for fentanyl, methamphetamine, cannabis, and morphine, the medical examiner issued a finding that his death was not due to intoxication or drug overdose. Floyd also tested positive for coronavirus at the time of his death.

References

Above proposal by User:Octoberwoodland

• Support adding blood toxicology and positive coronavirus testing to article lead. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  When you make a proposal, identify yourself in the proposal itself. EEng 02:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Um... haven't we been through this? EEng 02:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No. This is the first time we have discussed he was positive for coronavirus. His toxicology report already is referenced in the body of the article. I was proposing adding it to the lead to clarify that he did not die of a drug overdose. It's probably appropriate to add that he was suffering from coronavirus. I don't know if that contributed to his death, but the sources I located (this time reliable ones) all mention it. I think it's relevant that he had COVID-19 at the time of his death Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time we have discussed he was positive for coronavirus – No, the article currently states That April, he contracted COVID-19, and recovered after a few weeks. I hadn't picked up that your proposal was about the lead, and now that I do, I believe that what you propose is overdetail. Readers don't need to be told, in the lead, what didn't kill Floyd. EEng 11:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Against MOS:LEADBIO to give undue weight to autopsy report minutiae which are not the primary cause of his death.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as this adds nothing to understanding this case.Slatersteven (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose until some medical expert says any of it was somehow an important element of his biography. Including them in the lead lends undue weight unless they somehow contributed to his death, which right now no medical expert is saying. —valereee (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I tested positive for coronavirus 19 on March 10 of this year. I had it for almost two weeks. The first week I had a very mild fever for about 3 days. I also was extremely fatigued and felt very tired. The fever was very mild but the tiredness was far more intense than the normal flu. The second week I had it I developed a dry cough and I had trouble breathing for a day or so. I have type O blood which recent studies have shown that people with O blood type have some sort of resistance to the virus as antigen A and antigen B which O blood has appear to damage the proteins on the virus envelope. I went and got tested at the VA and I tested positive for both the antigen and the virus, and the VA doctors told me I was now immune to COVID-19 (So I go outside without a mask since I don't have the virus anymore and I cannot catch it again). Knowing all of this, if Floyd had COVID-19 at the time of his death and he died of asphyxiation, it may very well have contributed to his death by reducing his ability to breath. This means that the officer that killed him may have used this neck compression with his knee to subdue suspects not realizing that Floyd's ability to breath may have been compromised. In other words, I don't think the officer was trying to kill him, but may not have realized his actions would be fatal to Floyd. I don't know how an autopsy would determine if COVID-19 compromised Floyd's ability to breath but after having COVID-19 I can tell you for certain that it does interfere with the ability to breath. There is also ample evidence from several studies that black people experience more severe symptoms from COVID-19 than caucasians, and nobody knows why this is the case at present. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Many decades ago the VA's care was first-class, but if someone there gave you the idea that you can go outside without a mask since I don't have the virus anymore and I cannot catch it again they're more in the crapper than we've been led to believe. Whether Chauvin meant to kill Floyd we ill probably never really know; personally I don't think so. He just didn't give a fuck [3]. EEng 23:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, most cops are dicks. Most of them are schoolyard bullies who get a thrill out of pushing people around. Back on topic, I think its highly likely that if Floyd had COVID-19 (which he did at the time of his death) it would certainly have contributed to his death. As for VA health care, I have no complaints, I visit the VA once a month for blood draw for my meds (I have a TBI from an incident while I was in the Army and I have to take anti-seizure medications in order to have a drivers license). Oddly, while I am there they require all VA vistors at present to wear a mask inside the hospital. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is that odd? EEng 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the VA knows I had covid and recovered quickly from it, so I don't see where I need to wear a mask, but they make everyone wear one and they have the roads in and out of the VA blocked with checkpoints and issue a mask to anyone entering the hospital complex. I have also been around other family members and friends who have had it, and I have not gotten it again. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No one knows the extent to which recovery confers immunity, or whether this or that test result implies some level of immunity. I think you need to ask again about this idea you're immune. EEng 23:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, my doctor from the VA called me earlier today and said they wanted to test me again for covid 19 before my appointment next Tuesday, and I have to go in on Monday for my blood draw and another covid test. The blood draw is painless but the nose swab hurts like hell because they ram the swab up your nose and down into the back of your throat. They said that anyone who has previously tested positive for covid 19 will need to be retested every other month, so they seem to agree with what you say. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Always a good plan. EEng 00:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a WP:SNOW close on this. Pretty clear that the consensus here is to not include the content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, I'll close this as "withdrawn" but FYI it's permitted for a proposer to close their own proposal as withdrawn at any time so long as no one else has supported the proposal. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Criminal history

How is that so editorially relevant that it comes before his personal life and growing up history? GuyBlu (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@GuyBlu: If you are referring to mention in the second paragraph of the article, the lead is intended to summarize a person's life.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The summary has more detail of his criminal life than any other detail there. I don’t see why it’s necessary to be included in the first place, but even then, a summary should be a summary GuyBlu (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba sorry I’m on the app and can’t figure out how to thread my reply GuyBlu (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

GuyBlu To indent, add one additional colon to the number in front of the post you're responding to. I've fixed yours. The lead includes a single sentence about his criminal history. Including less would mean...well... —valereee (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What valereee said. I can sympathise with the point you're making, GuyBlu, but the lead should accurately sum up the contents of the article. His past life, especially any criminal background, is going to be of relevance. And for the record, we do include his personal life in the lead before this, Floyd grew up in Houston, Texas. He played football and basketball throughout high school and college. He held several jobs, and he was also a hip hop artist and a mentor in his religious community. The information is in chronological order, in that paragraph. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It is editorially relevant because it is in chronological order. His criminal record is part of his "growing up history," and it would be whitewashing to not include it, or to break chronological order for that specific detail in order to paint a different history Anon0098 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

I have no idea how to place a template for this AND I have not been active recently. However, I think at least a few facts should be included: it seems to be that facts are omitted now. I propose to include a summary of the following.

-George Floyd's criminal record.

-The 911 call leading to the officer's arrival.

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

-The 2 autopsy reports (concerning meth and contribution of the meth to his death).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-death-autopsies-homicide-axphyxiation-details/

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/06/01/george-floyd-familys-lawyer-independent-autopsy-determines-floyd-died-of-asphyxiation/

-American and international policies for violent offenders and suspects that are considered armed & dangerous and heavily intoxicated.

It will show that the officer did have cause to behave this way, although obviously George Floyd should not have died. BOTH autopsies show that likely the fact that he was out of control on crystal meth played a role in his passing; suggesting he would likely have survided had he not been on chrystal meth.

Furthermore, the media bias should be discussed in combination with the "beeldenstorm". It shows great similarities with the Chinese Cultural revolution: apparently supported by the media.

Finally, I agree that the USA has a history with police brutality (so does every country, by the way). I also agree that historically speaking, against African Americans, it was quite horrible. However, I think the current numbers should be included. I think 4% of African Americans that died due to police violence were killed by Caucasian officers. That means 96% were killed by other groups. Mostly by officers from African American background, by the way. I think that should be included. It is LEAST likely for an African American to be killed by a Caucasian officer. It really puts things in a different light. Sources:

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/def...

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fry...

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/cc...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/5...

It should also be mentioned that racism that is still present is not institutionalized, due to the civil rights act of '64. Since then there are no laws specifically for 1 group of people. Therefore, racism is not institutionalized. The racism that is still there should still be addressed. Anyway, no argument for institutionalized racism.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/institutionalised

institutionalised

Adj.

1. institutionalised - officially placed in or committed to a specialized institution; "had hopes of rehabilitating the institutionalized juvenile delinquents" institutionalized

2. institutionalised - given the character of an institution or incorporated into a structured and usually well-established system; "institutionalized graft"; "institutionalized suicide as practiced in Japan" institutionalized institutional - organized as or forming an institution; "institutional religion"

85.150.152.71 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)