zlacker

>>edward+(OP)
Unsurprisingly, this doesn't seem to be a left vs. right issue but a far left vs. centre issue.

None of the edit suggestions or controversies were racist or biased. It is clear that ardent supporters of the BLM movement simply want to shape the historical record in the way they want to. And Wikipedia will probably side with them.

How is mentioning Floyd's past criminal record on his biographical page (not even on the "Killing of..." page) a detraction from his death? Are we just going to edit Wikipedia to remove anything that detracts from people we idolise? Wikipedia should present the facts (all of them) and that is it. If the facts detract, then maybe there's a reason for that. That doesn't change the fact that they are facts.

>>Thoren+md3
If you look at the linked talk page almost all votes are yes, include. It is currently included. You appear to be railing not against what is, but against an unrealized possibility which was in fact stopped by the very hive-mind you falsely assume would push, or at least accept it.

Call me slanted all you want, but this, the current state of comments here, that's what an agenda looks like.