This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Black Lives Matter This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

faq page Frequently asked questions Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer? A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact. Q2: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article! A2: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a reliable source; secondary sources are generally preferred over primary. Q3: This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)! A3: See our neutral point of view policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help. Q4: Why is this article calling it a murder instead of a death/killing? A4: As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at WP:MURDERS. Q5: Wasn't Floyd killed near a store called Cub Foods, not Cup Foods? A5: The store is Cup Foods, and is not affiliated with the Cub Foods store chain. Q6: Why does the article use such a shocking photo? Isn't it in poor taste? A6: The lead image was determined by the community in a formal Request for Comment process. The RfC reached an "overwhelming consensus" that "...the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an appropriate representation of the topic." Q7: Why was my request or comment removed? A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to describe Floyd's murder using other terms (e.g. "death", "overdose") or to change the name of the article accordingly will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and essays, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and WP:Reliable sources. Anyone removing such requests should include a link to this FAQ in their edit summary. Q8: Why do we not call the protests riots? A8: Because multiple reliable sources call them protests, not riots.

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Black Lives Matter's June 2020 edit-a-thon.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Eric Levenson (March 29, 2021). "Former officer knelt on George Floyd for 9 minutes and 29 seconds -- not the infamous 8:46". CNN. The number even has its own Wikipedia page. Alissa Wilkinson (April 7, 2021). "The power of televising Derek Chauvin's trial". Vox. That precise span of time, established by a widely circulated video a bystander shot with their phone, has become such a symbol — of the horrors of police brutality in general and of Floyd's death in particular — that it has its own Wikipedia page filled with examples of politicians, corporations, activists, and entire cities using the number to commemorate Floyd and raise the alarm.

I believe this article should be merged into George Floyd protests not Killing of George Floyd because the time is primarily used in protest. Waters.Justin ( talk) 20:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I agree. I don't think this merits a separate article. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Note that there is a much longer discussion about the merge on the George Floyd article here - please participate there -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 18:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I disagree..how is it not relevant ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 ( talk) 22:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

FYI: There was no consensus to merge at Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_3#Merge_proposal:_8'46".— Bagumba ( talk) 04:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

It might be worth revisiting the discussion at some point. Reports on the length of time have shed new information since the initial discussion. Also, much of this article constituted original research and used primary sources, giving it the appearance of breadth and depth in earlier versions. It seems that the most significant content here can fit into several other spaces in other articles to give better context to the time duration, such as the George Floyd protests, protests by location, and Reactions to the killing of George Floyd. Too much of this article is establishing the significance / lack of significance of the 8:46 time, which is covered expensively in the Killing of George Floyd. VikingB ( talk) 13:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

VikingB, as far as I can tell, 8:46 continues to be the symbolic time used in remembrances. However, it would be good if some sources are identified that deal with the 8:46 in-depth, as opposed to passing mentions. Perhaps that will happen in time.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

OK, Bagumba. Performed some clean up to the article to remove original research and questionable sourcing to give it a better foundation to develop and grow. Hopefully content that is added will focus on the symbolic nature of the time and not just become another vanity list of commemorations or a collection of internet search results. VikingB ( talk) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

This article (as of June 12 2020) contains 49 separate references. Of those 49, only 17 (less than half) specifically refer to the 8 minutes 46 seconds, which is the article's subject. Per Wikipedia guidelines, those other references do nothing to support the article, and should be removed. Truthanado ( talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Can you WP:BOLDly remove them in an edit or many edits? Or at least list them out? VikingB ( talk) 12:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I noticed that the lead section contains an 8 minute, 46 second video. However, the video's contents have little to no relevance on the facts of the article. Since Wikipedia is not a place for publishing personal essays and the video's purpose seems to be solely to demonstrate how long Floyd was pinned for without any external sourcing, I do not believe this should be included. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 ( talk) 19:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

It is directly related for obvious reasons 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 ( talk) 22:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Let me clarify: To me, the clip comes dangerously close to breaking the core content policies of neutral POV and no original research. As far as I can tell, it is not from an outside source but rather was created specifically for display on Wikipedia, which, if true, is a huge violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, as it is clearly intended to present an opinion and not simply lay out basic facts. It is never Wikipedia's place to independently present an opinion on a political topic (or any topic, for that matter), even if that cause is just. I also mentioned the relevancy of the video, which I feel is noteworthy because much of the clip focuses on Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon B. Johnson, neither of whom are mentioned anywhere else in the article. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I removed it. Reader does not need to see an 8:46-lrngth video to grasp how long 8:46 is. It's an otherwise non-notable video.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

It seems that it had already been removed once before.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Wouldn't this source error be better identified with a (sic) than a footnote? I can see the Notes section potentially becoming busy as information accumulates, and I personally would rather reserve that area for more critical bits of information. Just a thought… 2601:3CA:204:F860:2544:7BF8:53D7:923F ( talk) 18:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

MOS:SIC: "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected". E Eng 01:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

it's "almost 8 minutes" and other page says it was 7minutes 46 seconds. So, isn't the name wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.175.31.134 ( talk) 14:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The article is about the symbol of 8:46, which is still being referenced even though the "real" time might be different.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Some contributors are treating the 7:46 duration the prosecution claims, as definitive - not requiring attribution. I think that is a mistake. Other reliable sources methodically reviewed the witness recordings, the local surveillance video, police audio, witness statements, and they regarded the 8:46 duration as reliable.

And, as Bagumba wrote, the 8:46 duration became symbolic. Here is one more instance... Geo Swan ( talk) 03:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• "Lakers beat Jazz 116-108 to clinch top seed in West". ESPN. 2020-08-04. ESPN cameras showed James arrived at the arena before the game wearing a T-shirt with the message 8:46, the amount of time prosecutors initially said a Minneapolis police officer had a knee on George Floyd's neck before Floyd's death on May 25.

The § "Calculation of timespan" feels like mere pedantry to me, and I am not sure it should be above information about the protests and commemorations, which are what most people want to know about this topic. I propose reordering. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Perhaps remove the quotation and trim the crime scene details? That's probably needed regardless if it's moved.— Bagumba ( talk) 18:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bagumba: Sure, let me know what you think. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Psiĥedelisto, I trimmed the section further. Being that 8:46 is not really "the time", I think it's OK to start the now-shortened version as background, and have moved it.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

FYI

The lead currently reads that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd for "almost eight minutes".

You are invited to join a related discussion about the kneeling duration at Talk:George_Floyd#"Nearly"_eight_minutes.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/29/us/george-floyd-timing-929-846/index.html

929 is correct, not the popular 846.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:e0c4:f866:7740:1d0b ( talk) 19:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

This article is about the symbolism of 8:46, not about the actual amount of time, but the discrepancy was explained on the page already.— Bagumba ( talk) 01:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

This is an interesting case of needing to balance accuracy (which points to 9:29) with WP:COMMONNAME (which points to 8:46), with recentism concerns throwing in an additional wrench. Without researching exactly how much the two numbers have been used, I don't have a strong opinion, but I'd like to see further discussion on the IP's suggestion. For now, I'll add bolding to 9:29 (allowable as it's a redirect to here), which may help a bit. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 01:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Bolding is a good idea. I am unlikely to support a requested move unless there's a shift in COMMONNAME. 8:46 is an accurate name for the contemporaneous observances and protests. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 05:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply

This article has been mentioned on Vox news. "...established by a widely circulated video a bystander shot with their phone, has become such a symbol — of the horrors of police brutality in general and of Floyd’s death in particular — that it has its own Wikipedia page filled with examples of politicians, corporations, activists, and entire cities using the number to commemorate Floyd and raise the alarm." [1] How good to see this! Gandydancer ( talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply