BarrelProof (talk | contribs) →Jogging versus running: expanding |
Tambourine60 (talk | contribs) →BLP: clearly relevant Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
::::::I won't add this information, as you've made it clear that you want a consensus reached before adding anymore information on his arrest record, and I will respect that, but I thought I should also point out that its come to light that, ''"Greg McMichael once worked in her office. In that role, he investigated a 2018 shoplifting charge against Arbery. At the time Arbery was on probation for a gun-related incident that took place when he was still in high school. His probation was revoked after McMichael’s investigation."'''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Boone |first1=Christian |last2=Jr |first2=Bert Roughton |title=Glynn County commissioners say DA blocked arrests after fatal shooting |url=https://www.ajc.com/news/local/watch-gbi-updates-following-arrests-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/1aJbZe2uL9HrndjyWYjB2L/ |website=ajc |accessdate=8 May 2020 |language=English}}</ref>, that seems like pretty relevant information to include in the article. Strangely, the fact that McMichaels had been the cause of Arbery's parole revocation, is not mentioned in either the police report (nor is William Bryan's filming of the incident, strange how it seems he didn't mention the film he just took to police that day, which I'm sure if he is also charged, which is under consideration, he will argue shows a "justifiable homicide" and therefore should exonerate him) or in Barnhill's letter. My point here not argue either sides case, but simply to show that information is a) relevant B) important for everyone involved. --[[User:Kwwhit5531|Kwwhit5531]] ([[User talk:Kwwhit5531|talk]]) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
::::::I won't add this information, as you've made it clear that you want a consensus reached before adding anymore information on his arrest record, and I will respect that, but I thought I should also point out that its come to light that, ''"Greg McMichael once worked in her office. In that role, he investigated a 2018 shoplifting charge against Arbery. At the time Arbery was on probation for a gun-related incident that took place when he was still in high school. His probation was revoked after McMichael’s investigation."'''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Boone |first1=Christian |last2=Jr |first2=Bert Roughton |title=Glynn County commissioners say DA blocked arrests after fatal shooting |url=https://www.ajc.com/news/local/watch-gbi-updates-following-arrests-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/1aJbZe2uL9HrndjyWYjB2L/ |website=ajc |accessdate=8 May 2020 |language=English}}</ref>, that seems like pretty relevant information to include in the article. Strangely, the fact that McMichaels had been the cause of Arbery's parole revocation, is not mentioned in either the police report (nor is William Bryan's filming of the incident, strange how it seems he didn't mention the film he just took to police that day, which I'm sure if he is also charged, which is under consideration, he will argue shows a "justifiable homicide" and therefore should exonerate him) or in Barnhill's letter. My point here not argue either sides case, but simply to show that information is a) relevant B) important for everyone involved. --[[User:Kwwhit5531|Kwwhit5531]] ([[User talk:Kwwhit5531|talk]]) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
:::::::Come on, people are twisting themselves into knots to exclude this. McMichael had helped convict Arbery of felony for stealing a TV from Walmart—and that it was a parole violation following Arbery's conviction for carrying a loaded gun into a high school he didn't attend, resulting in the injury of two officers. Many mainstream sources have included this information and it's hard to see how it's irrelevant that an ex-cop chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary, also knew the guy's priors and in fact had HELPED CONVICT HIM in the past. This is precisely why it's being mentioned in mainstream sources. If the fact that an ex-cop had helped put Arbery away before he chased him and his son shot him isn't [[WP:DUE]] and germane, what the hell is? [[User:Tambourine60|Tambourine60]] ([[User talk:Tambourine60|talk]]) 07:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Inaccurate description of video == |
== Inaccurate description of video == |
Revision as of 07:56, 9 May 2020
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Celebrity Opinions
"Numerous religious leaders, athletes, and other celebrities condemned the incident." -- This is irrelevant. It contributes absolutely nothing to the quality of the article.
- In this case, how does this entire event possess any notability and differs from so many common murder and homicide cases? Just because a video was released? Or due to "religious leaders, athletes, and other celebrities" claiming it was racially motivated? 93.159.149.134 (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Although they were immediately identified, it took two and a half months, pressure from politicians, celebrities and civil rights activists until the police arrested the two suspects. The arrests of the father and son only came after Arbery’s family released the video on Tuesday showing the last moments of the 25-year-old’s life. This was a modern-day lynching. → Hetzjagd in Brunswick --87.170.200.52 (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's important to remember that the term lynching is primarily a historical term used to describe vigilante murders from the period between 1865 to the 1960s (the exact period is of course highly controversial and arbitrary regardless). The purpose of lynchings were to enforce the unwritten social code of segregation "Jim Crow", which it is important to remember is distinct from the written legal code of segregation (think "separate but equal"), due to the 14th amendment, which theoretically gave citizenship and equal rights to black americans (hence the term "separate but equal"). "Jim Crow" was the system that enforced unwritten social laws that if written down into the Southern legal codes would have obviously violated the 14th amendment. Groups that commited lynchings, most famously the Klu Klux Klan, did so to preserve this political and social system, as "Jim Crow", by ensuring denial of black americans the vote, kept the Republican party out of the South, allowing complete Democratic domination of the region, and making the support of the Klu Klux Klan essential for any southern Democrat who wished to be nominated by their party for public office. Lynchings, "Jim Crow" and "the Dixiecrats" would continue to dominate the South until the 1960s when the Democratic "solid south" would collapse due to the wider Democratic party's embrace of civil rights legislation, ending the near 100 year domination of the South by the Democratic Party. Why did I just give you that history lesson? Well because like I said lynching is a historical term with some very era-specific baggage. Using it to describe events today would be something of a anachronism, after all you wouldn't call liberal Frenchman today a Jacobin or describe a migrant worker in California as a serf. In fact your choice to call it a "modern-day lynching" seems to me to make that fact quite evident. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree the attention they put on the case is notable, although I'm not certain how much detail there should be about the reactions. Currently I have just listed the different individuals who had made comments and a general summarization about the tone and comments made. I'm leaning towards removing the AOC sentence or just shortening it down, since I'm sure she's not the only politician to call it a "lynching" or call for answers. Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Defence's case
In this Vice article (https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/n7j8gm/a-black-jogger-was-chased-and-shot-by-2-white-men-in-georgia-2-months-ago-and-nobodys-been-arrested-yet), it reports
""Given the fact Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun, under Georgia Law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself," Barnhill wrote in a letter to local police, according to the Times.
That attorney said there’s video footage of the shooting, and video footage of Arbery “burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation.”"
And, what about this from the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/us/ahmed-arbery-shooting-georgia.html): "In a separate document, Mr. Barnhill stated that video exists of Mr. Arbery “burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation.” In the letter to the police, he cites a separate video of the shooting filmed by a third pursuer.
Mr. Barnhill said this video, which has not been made public, shows Mr. Arbery attacking Travis McMichael after he and his father pulled up to him in their truck.
The video shows Mr. Arbery trying to grab the shotgun from Travis McMichael’s hands, Mr. Barnhill wrote. And that, he argued, amounts to self-defense under Georgia law. Travis McMichael, Mr. Barnhill concluded, “was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.”
He noted that it was possible that Mr. Arbery had caused the gun to go off by pulling on it, and pointed to Mr. Arbery’s “mental health records” and prior convictions, which, he said, “help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man.”"
what happened to this evidence, was it discredited or a lie? or did it become politically unwise to mention this? I'm honestly so confused because it makes all the difference in explaining why they would attempt a citizen's arrest. Doesn't excuse loss of life, of course--but it makes the whole story make some kind of tragic sense. At the moment the wiki and press narrative is that pure evil is the explanation, and that is not as parsimonious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 11:25, May 6, 2020 (UTC)
- @Aussiewikilady: - article revamped and the things you mentioned are added at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Prosecutor writings. starship.paint (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
white supremacists???
Why does article say the defendants were white supremacists??? None of the articles cited make this claim. This kind of biased writing is unacceptable. I am removing the phrase until new sources can be provided to back up this statement. Encyclopedia articles should be neutral. And not making personal attacks. Report the facts plz. If the facts are that these were white nationalists then you can report it. But don’t put it in there as a smear. Henrylesliegraham (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Move to "Lynching of Ahmaud Arbery"
This case is clearly an example of a modern lynching given the definition of lynching, "a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group." The fact that the individuals were waiting with loaded firearms clearly makes the action premeditated, and they were acting as vigilantes. A prosecutor, court or jury finding the lynching to not be illegal after the fact does not make it not a lynching. livingfract@lk 05:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your comment is clearly an example of modern lynching by court of public opinion. Maybe wait at least until defense makes its case? 93.159.149.134 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Livingfractal: - have you heard of WP:Original research? It is not up to you to say whether the shooting fits the definition of a lynching. It is up to the sources. If the majority viewpoint of reliable sources is that this is a lynching, we can move the article. It's up to you to prove that this is the case. starship.paint (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Moved back to the original title. Three assailants is NOT much of a group. Love of Corey (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
A lynching has a formal definition, and we can certainly talk about Point of View neutrality, but this has nothing to do with "original research". Vigilante justice by a group or mob which results in death of the accused without formal trial is, and always will be, "lynching". livingfract@lk 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
A group is defined as "three or more" livingfract@lk 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- You need a source with this, not your thoughts. Also no one was convicted or even charged here yet.--KasiaNL (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
https://newsone.com/3937291/da-blamed-ahmaud-arberys-killing-aggressive-nature-resign-leaders-say/ https://www.latestnewssouthafrica.com/2020/05/06/ahmaud-aubrey-shooting-video-surfaces-online-its-so-horrific/ https://ktt2.com/ahmaud-arbery-chased-down-and-murdered-59542 livingfract@lk 06:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- The first source, Newsone, reports it as a
"lynching"
, with the quotation marks, so that's not its actual view. It statesmany people characterizing it as a lynching
. Your second source, is desktop cancer. I'd advise everyone not to click on the latestnewssouthafrica source. Your third source, KTT2, is some sort of a forum, that in no way is a reliable source. starship.paint (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Y'all are clearly trying to insert a point of view by avoiding the technical term for this "extrajudicial killing" livingfract@lk 06:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Conviction of murder or a hate crime is not what defines something as a lynching. You and your family dragging some guy raping your daughter into the lawn to be executed is a lynching; it doesn't matter if no jury would convict you. livingfract@lk 06:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- And if I shoot him without dragging him anywhere? While he tries to grab my gun and is still on top of my daughter? Is acting in self-defense and defense of property "lynching"? 93.159.149.134 (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please understand I completely sympathize with you and have seen the video personally. Having said that please try to be NPOV, the reason Wikipedia values neutrality is because of very emotional issues like this, starting an edit war is not the way to handle these things, instead discussing any changes that might be controversial on a talk page and reaching a consensus before reverting someone else's revert is important. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Only the first link looks like an WP:RS, and in it, it says "people" describe it as a lynching without clarifying who exactly said it. We need RS to describe it as a lynching, and not as part of an op-ed either. Otherwise, such a title would just be inflammatory. Love of Corey (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Livingfractal's move warring is inappropriate. No consensus for move, original research, and BLP issue!--KasiaNL (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The most reliable news sources: news agencies (1) Reuters, and (2) Associated Press, call it a shooting
. No mention of lynching. starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- This makes title crystal clear for shooting NOW. Maybe historians see in future different, but can't jump gun to future!--KasiaNL (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- More sources already used in the article without lynching. (3) The New York Times, (4) The Guardian, (5) NBC News, (6) CBS News, (7) BBC News. starship.paint (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
https://nypost.com/2020/05/07/ahmaud-arberys-mom-cant-bear-to-watch-video-of-modern-lynching/ livingfract@lk 18:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/ahmaud-arbery-parents-call-for-arrests-killing-song-daily-jog livingfract@lk 18:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Like other: My vote is no to calling it lynching. Original research of a highly motivated poor critical thinker, and no consensus for a move. Critical thinking should be taught more in all schools. It is a tragedy, but not a lynching--there is a video of the victim doing a sharp 90 turn and running at the man and trying to grab his gun. Lynchings were not like that at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 13:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Personal attacks are inappropriate. livingfract@lk 18:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh this is why Livingfractal tagged the article with {{POV-title}}. No. Arbery's mother is the only person who has used the word "lynching" in this context, as far as I am aware. That's her POV. We will not integrate it at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden, the apparent Democratic presidential nominee, on Thursday addressed the brutal attack of black jogger in Georgia, who was chased and gunned down by two white men, saying the incident amounted to a lynching “before our very eyes” and demanding a “transparent investigation.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-slams-arbery-shooting-grave-injustice-demands-investigation-n1202291?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma livingfract@lk 19:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay then, that is someone else calling it a lynching. Of course, he's not a legal authority on this matter, rather someone trying to score political points in the lead up to an election, so that does diminish it somewhat. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - I support either shooting or death, until the investigation is complete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - The investigation has nothing to do with this being called a lynching. People who lynch individuals are found to have lawfully lynched them. It is even legal to lynch people for stealing cattle in some states. Calling it a lynching is simply acknowledging the facts as laid out by the shooters; they stopped and killed an individual they accused of crime without an trial. That is all it takes for something to be a lynching. All of you are trying to drag politics into this basic fact. livingfract@lk 14:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Although I would not mind the word lynching per se, since I think it was accurate here (or perhaps more of a setup), I believe Wikipedia needs to be as objective as possible, and focus on FACTS. Even more so before a court case could be held. So the facts should be documented and verified, but until a court ruling has been made, wikipedia should NOT unilaterally describe any "wanted" outcome either way, in favour of anyone involved here. Let the courts do their job; wikipedia's job is to focus on the FACTS. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A court isn't what defines something as a lynching. Most states, and federal law, have no formal definition or law about lynchings. The idea that we have to wait for a judge to declare it a lynching is itself against the idea of neutrality on this site. If we were to follow this impossible and absurd standard being suggested here, then essentially the entire list of Lynchings In The United States would have to be removed. livingfract@lk 14:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Calling this a "lynching" is laughable. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Livingfractal: All of you are trying to drag politics into this basic fact.
- if "lynching" is a basic fact, the majority of reliable sources would report it in their own voice. They have not. Instead, they have quoted people describing it as a lynching. Your demand for "lynching" fails WP:NPOV. It is not the majority opinion of the reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, in the article it suggests that there is proof of Armaud entering the house, can somebody link me to this video? Or nearest proof Ola441edit (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- ...
that the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery became a viral video?Source: Vox
Created by Colinmcdermott (talk) and Starship.paint (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 05:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC).
- This strikes me as in somewhat poor taste — "became a viral video" make it sound like it's "The Hampsterdance Song". I see what it's trying to say, but the tone is wrong. (The linked source does have that issue in the headline, too, but it doesn't come off that way quite as strongly with the headline's wording, to me anyway.) Just my 2¢. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|Talk|Contributions 21:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that although the people involved in the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery were immediately identified by police, arrests were only made 74 days later, after a video of the shooting was publicized? Sources: WaPo and AJC
- @Goldenshimmer: - how about the above? starship.paint (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Resolves my concern, looks good to me! Thanks starship.paint. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|Talk|Contributions 04:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Goldenshimmer - thank you. Do you have concerns about the article itself? starship.paint (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- starship.paint: As an article it seems solid, and while I'm certainly no DYK expert, it seems to meet the guidelines. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|Talk|Contributions 23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Goldenshimmer - thank you. Do you have concerns about the article itself? starship.paint (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
(←) Needs full review - prior tick did not address the criteria. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- (If it's any help, I did go through the list at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria and it appeared to meet all the points, in case that wasn't clear from my earlier comment. Of course, if I missed something or otherwise did it wrong, never mind, and sorry for the trouble! First time commenting on one of these, so I'm not used to the procedure...) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|Talk|Contributions 21:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Goldenshimmer No big deal. It was everyone's first DYK review some time. All you need to do is list out that each criteria is met. I've pasted the checklist below. Just put a
y
in all of the fields that apply, and the review will be good to go. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)- The Squirrel Conspiracy Thanks! I've filled it in (hope you don't mind I replaced your signature in the template, since I didn't want to inadvertently "forge" it!) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|Talk|Contributions 22:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Goldenshimmer No big deal. It was everyone's first DYK review some time. All you need to do is list out that each criteria is met. I've pasted the checklist below. Just put a
- (If it's any help, I did go through the list at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria and it appeared to meet all the points, in case that wasn't clear from my earlier comment. Of course, if I missed something or otherwise did it wrong, never mind, and sorry for the trouble! First time commenting on one of these, so I'm not used to the procedure...) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|Talk|Contributions 21:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Sourcing: while I'd consider WGXA and The Daily Beast aren't the best sources — former's part of Sinclair Broadcast Group, which hasn't a stellar reputation, and the latter's quite tabloidy — the first is used in conjunction with other sources, and the latter is attributed when used alone, so I think it's fine. Note that aside from the hook and a couple other things I checked, I'm mostly taking it on faith that the citations provided support the text. Plagiarism-free: to the best of my knowledge — I don't see anything where the text "smells" like plagiarism, anyway. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|Talk|Contributions 22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Review looks good now. Thanks Goldenshimmer and sorry for all the hoop-jumping. This project loves its bureaucracy sometimes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the assistance! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|Talk|Contributions 00:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The McMichaels' and William Bryan's activities before the shooting
Kwwhit5531 - you added [1] Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael, and William Bryan saw Arbery outside their property and stated later to police that they had seen him earlier on home security footage. Both McMichaels' armed themselves, Travis with a shotgun and Gregory with a pistol. They then began pursuing him in their pickup truck, while William Bryan followed close behind in his own vehicle
, sourced to Waycross District Attorney George Barnhill's letter.
However the letter only states: It appears Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were following, in pursuit burglary suspect, with solid firsthand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking / telling him to stop. It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived.
(Issue 1) I believe that your text overreaches the source? Furthermore, notice that Barnhill keeps using "It appears", which is not at all definitive?
(Issue 2) I believe the only account of their activities was Gregory McMichael's witness account to the police, as depicted in the police report, right? We don't exactly have any proof other than that, so can't this information go into the Police report section or somewhere in the Investigation section instead of the Shooting section? The other stuff in the Shooting section are more definitive (video at the owner's house, 9-1-1 call, main video). starship.paint (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- fair enough, that should have said something more like "Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael, and William Bryan stated to police they saw Arbery outside their property and that they had seen him earlier on home security footage." Though this following part, can be verified independently due to video made by Bryan and doesn't rely on their statements "Both McMichaels' armed themselves, Travis with a shotgun and Gregory with a pistol. They then began pursuing him in their pickup truck, while William Bryan followed close behind in his own vehicle". As to sources their are four primary sources of the shooting and events shortly before it: the two 911 calls made by unknown individuals, the police report, and Bryan's cellphone video. Strangely, Bryan is not mentioned in the narrative of the police report, but he is listed as a witness in the report, as well as being mentioned in the D.A's recusal letter, which is were almost all detail actually comes from describing his involvment. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh and as to issue 2, it would probably be best to combine the two "before shootings" into some kind of "background" section. I added the section since Aubrey had a section describing events shortly before the shooting, and wanted to add section for the other individuals involved, so they don't appear out of nowhere in the article's narrative as well as provide some additional context as to how the incident began. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Jogging versus running
The word jogging should be kept in the article where it is presented as a claim: because his family said he was out jogging. However, the word jogging should not be used in an encyclopedia entry elsewhere: because it is possible he was not on a jog, but was running from his presence at a house site that he does not own. Jogging is a narrative provided by the family, and that should stay in the article, but as a claim and not in the objective framing of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Jogging should be the word used here. "Running" implies he wasn't exercising and has a negative connotation especially when describing people of color in a case like this. "Running" also sounds too definitive when there is a clear difference between running and jogging. We should go by the family's claim as most news articles are doing. Having "Running" in the sentence is immediately taking a stance against the family. Besides that, an overwhelming amount of news media outlets refer to him as jogging or a jogger. This includes CNN, CBS News, Washington Post, Fox News, The Hill, MSNBC, The Guardian, NPR, ABC News, BBC News, Vox, USA Today, Vice and Buzzfeed News.
Miss HollyJ (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
(Redacted)
- Running – jogging implies a POV interpretation of what he was doing – i.e., that he was out getting some exercise and was not in a hurry. Per the Jogging article, "Jogging is a form of trotting or running at a slow or leisurely pace. The main intention is to increase physical fitness with less stress on the body than from faster running but more than walking, ..." Jogging can be referred to as running, but running implies an interpretation of the intention and pace of the activity that may be unwarranted here. Of course it is OK to say that someone said he was jogging. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think the term jogging is perfectly appropriate here. It is not the fault of the wikipedia users if the accused or people in favour of them wishing to use specific other terms. I consider it a colloquial term for mid-load exercise. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whether it was for 'exercise' or not is at the heart of the matter. Wikipedia should not attempt to explain why he was running, and jogging is a form of running. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Simply using "running" is too vague. Jogging is more specific. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Jogging is more specific" – yes, but in a non-neutral way. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Running" is not neutral. It implies something negative in this case. Miss HollyJ (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- To those pretending there isn't a negative connotation to "running" in this context, do you agree there is a different framing in saying those accused of shooting were "driving" or "pursuing" or "chasing"? They were objectively driving, but to use that word gives a different narrative. The preponderance of sources state he was jogging. Until there is clear evidence, reported in the media, that he was "fleeing" or "running away from", the reported narrative is that he was jogging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.140.139 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, he was jogging during quarantine on private property away from the place of burglary and from the pursuit. Let's make sure the wording is definitely positive, disregarding everything the defense has to say. 93.159.149.134 (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- You are aware this video took place in February? Besides, a street for everyday traffic is not private property. Miss HollyJ (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, he was jogging during quarantine on private property away from the place of burglary and from the pursuit. Let's make sure the wording is definitely positive, disregarding everything the defense has to say. 93.159.149.134 (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- To those pretending there isn't a negative connotation to "running" in this context, do you agree there is a different framing in saying those accused of shooting were "driving" or "pursuing" or "chasing"? They were objectively driving, but to use that word gives a different narrative. The preponderance of sources state he was jogging. Until there is clear evidence, reported in the media, that he was "fleeing" or "running away from", the reported narrative is that he was jogging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.140.139 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Running" is not neutral. It implies something negative in this case. Miss HollyJ (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Jogging is more specific" – yes, but in a non-neutral way. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Simply using "running" is too vague. Jogging is more specific. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whether it was for 'exercise' or not is at the heart of the matter. Wikipedia should not attempt to explain why he was running, and jogging is a form of running. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Both – It's currently both with a note. That's what we know so far. When more details come out, we will fix the lede accordingly. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Jogging per CNN: "Ahmaud Arbery, 25, was jogging in a neighborhood outside Brunswick on February 23 when a former police officer and his son chased him down, authorities said." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 03:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Having both is misleading. And no, there is video footage of him literally running in a steady pace. "Running" gives into the notion that he was fleeing from a scene of a crime. In fact, no burglaries had even been reported during that time according to the police lieutenant. Miss HollyJ (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- You can not make claims based on your own personal assumptions. "there is video footage of him literally running in a steady pace" is your intepretation. Since you mentioned sources above, there's multiple that use running:
- ABC News: "More than two months after a black man was shot to death while running through a Georgia neighborhood..."
- The New York Times: "Public pressure for an arrest intensified on Tuesday with the release of the video that showed Mr. Arbery running toward a truck..."
- The Washington Post "By now you may have seen the horrific — but sadly, these days, no-longer-shocking — video of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery running down a Georgia street in broad daylight..."
- Using the word jogging pushes the family's point of view. Let's be neutral and use both. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- You just proved my point for me that overwhelming amounts of credible news media outlets are referring to him as jogging and not running. And no because there is no video evidence of him running from the scene of a crime. Not my interpretation. He is clearly jogging in the video. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- You can not make claims based on your own personal assumptions. "there is video footage of him literally running in a steady pace" is your intepretation. Since you mentioned sources above, there's multiple that use running:
- Jogging that's what all reliable sources that I am aware of are saying.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is it inherently biased to describe what he was doing as jogging rather than running? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.206.57 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it is. Jogging is a leisurely form of running, so if we say he was jogging, we are saying he was not trying to escape from people who were chasing him. That is not something we are in a position to conclude for ourselves. And most of the sources that I have seen have said only that his family said he was jogging. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Who are you to say he was trying to escape from people who were chasing him? And why do we have to disprove that when that's not even what's shown in the video? You don't have proof that he was fleeing from a crime scene. We do have proof that he was jogging. Miss HollyJ (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Where's the proof he was jogging...? If you're going to say the video, that would be based of your own personal interpretation. Arbery's family says jogging, the McMichaels say running away. It's words against words. Keep it as both until the investigation is over. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. He is clearly jogging. There is no neutrality in this case. Until you can find evidence that he is intentionally running from the scene of a crime, we go by what the video footage shows. As of now, nothing supports your argument. Even the sources you provided above contradict the agenda you're trying to push. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Calm down with your personal attacks, I'm not pushing any agenda. Currently, the article says he was running, not running away or running from. The current phrasing does not imply anything. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- You literally said Ahmaud Arbery jogging was just my interpretation of the video. Miss HollyJ (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Calm down with your personal attacks, I'm not pushing any agenda. Currently, the article says he was running, not running away or running from. The current phrasing does not imply anything. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. He is clearly jogging. There is no neutrality in this case. Until you can find evidence that he is intentionally running from the scene of a crime, we go by what the video footage shows. As of now, nothing supports your argument. Even the sources you provided above contradict the agenda you're trying to push. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, I did not say he was trying to escape from people who were chasing him (although, if it were me that was being chased by people with guns, I will admit that I might personally try to run away). Please try to pay closer attention to exactly what is being said. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Where's the proof he was jogging...? If you're going to say the video, that would be based of your own personal interpretation. Arbery's family says jogging, the McMichaels say running away. It's words against words. Keep it as both until the investigation is over. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Who are you to say he was trying to escape from people who were chasing him? And why do we have to disprove that when that's not even what's shown in the video? You don't have proof that he was fleeing from a crime scene. We do have proof that he was jogging. Miss HollyJ (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Lead accuracy and style
I don't think this is accurate: "confronted by three white men with a pickup truck". It would appear that Bryan never confronted Arbery at the scene of the shooting. "The confrontation involved Arbery trying to grab one of the men's gun"—that's an incredibly passive way to phrase the fact that Arbery lunged at Travis and tried to wrest away his gun. And "Travis fatally shooting Arbery" may not be totally accurate either, given there was a struggle for it—it would be more accurate at this point to write that "Travis' gun discharged, fatally…" Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tambourine60 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't write stories, Wikipedia attempts to present a consensus version of what appears in secondary sources. "Lunged" is editorializing language that carries a connotation of aggression that I do not believe is warranted (cf. earlier conversation about "running" vs "jogging") or found in the sources. And regarding the "gun discharged", this is also editorializing, and unsupported by the sources. Every source I can find, even those one might expect to take it easy on the shooter (eg Fox News), reports that the shots did not begin during a struggle for possession of the gun. ("The black man seems to attempt to run around the truck, and the moment he clears the vehicle, a shot rings out. A brief struggle ensues in what looks like an effort to control a shotgun, and another two shots are heard."[2]) Ford MF (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- While I agree that wikipedia does not write story, I think confronted by three men is still the wrong term. The two on the pickup truck were more directly involved clearly; the third one did not seem to be as involved, even if it may very possibly be so. But wikipedia needs to be accurate, so the statement of "three white men with a pickup truck" would be wrong. Also, while I do not doubt that racism was involved here, I think it is a bit pointless to mention "white man" or "black victim" per se. The colour should not make a difference. A court case will have to investigate motives etc... 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, there were only two men in the pickup truck. I believe that the fact that Arbery was black and the other men are white is a fundamental part of what makes the incident notable. It would be much less newsworthy and interesting to the general public if there was no difference in race between the man who was killed and the men who killed him. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Happily, it's been corrected. As to the assertion that "every source… reports that the shots did not begin during a struggle" — nice try. Neither the video nor most sources suggest that to be true. Try the NYT: "Mr. Arbery runs around the truck and disappears briefly from view. Muffled shouting can be heard before Mr. Arbery emerges, tussling with the man outside the truck as three shotgun blasts echo."[1] Ditto CBS, etc. Tambourine60 (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, there were only two men in the pickup truck. I believe that the fact that Arbery was black and the other men are white is a fundamental part of what makes the incident notable. It would be much less newsworthy and interesting to the general public if there was no difference in race between the man who was killed and the men who killed him. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- While I agree that wikipedia does not write story, I think confronted by three men is still the wrong term. The two on the pickup truck were more directly involved clearly; the third one did not seem to be as involved, even if it may very possibly be so. But wikipedia needs to be accurate, so the statement of "three white men with a pickup truck" would be wrong. Also, while I do not doubt that racism was involved here, I think it is a bit pointless to mention "white man" or "black victim" per se. The colour should not make a difference. A court case will have to investigate motives etc... 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Fausset, Richard (2020-05-05). "Ahmaud Arbery's Killing Will Go to Grand Jury as Graphic Video Emerges". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
Arrests
Entire article needs to be updating to reflect that there are two arrests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Burglary in the lead
I think that its worth mentioning the burglary in the lead, in not in the opening sentence. Juno (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Should not be in the lead unless there's a proven connection to the shooting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Arbery's criminal history has nothing to do with his murder whatsoever besides being a potential poor excuse for his killers. It should not be mentioned whatsoever in the article unless the perps try to bring it up during their trial.★Trekker (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is a proven connection between burglary and the shooting — believing (whether rightly or wrongly) that he recognized Arbery from security videos of past burglaries was McMichael Sr.'s entire rationale for pursuing Arbery in the first place. All we need to know is that it has been prominently featured in just about every single mainstream news article, and that fact has not been seriously disputed. That said, what sentence it's in is really irrelevant as long as it's included with the weight it deserves. More on criminal history under "Priors" section below. Tambourine60 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- He was killed, but not necessarily "murdered." --24.112.201.120 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I've removed any mention of an alleged burglary from the lede. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Background, Burglary
Until there is any evidence of a link from the two burglaries to Ahmaud Arbery, why is this even a section? Who cares about the details of what crime someone thought someone else committed? It implies he was shot because he committed the burglaries. There is no evidence of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.140.139 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Arbery priors
The article is about the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, not Ahmaud Arbery and any priors. This page was previously vandalised by stormfront who added priors to tarnish his reputation and gaslight, those were removed but have now been readded. Since Arbery was a victim of a crime, crimes committed 8 years ago are no more relevant than what the victim had for breakfast; more importantly sources that are used to verify these priors are attributed to parties that have a vested interest against Arbery. If these items are included, they should at the very least be moved to the section prosecutor writings, as placing them in the background section primes the reader towards accepting the defense's case that Arbery was shot because he was a burglar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.184.5 (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree, and prior vandalism is irrelevant to the issue, as well as who was responsible for it. Many, many mainstream news sources have considered this information noteworthy – that's really all we need to know. Wikipedia is not a court of law with evidentiary rules. Arbery was pursued by Gregory McMichael because he believed he recognized him from video of prior burglaries. The fact that Arbery has been in trouble with the law is obviously information a reader would want to have – and had the McMichaels shot several unarmed black men in the past, it would be equally relevant and worthy of inclusion. And it obviously belongs in the mini-biographies of the people involved; it would be a mistake to move it to "Prosecutor writings" (a terribly named and bizarre section to begin with) — surely the main relevance of Arbery's criminal history is not that one of the DA's wrote about it. All that said, I don't see how the "mental health" stuff belongs here, and would favor it being moved to a section about the DAs reasoning for not bringing charges. Tambourine60 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I re-added them, and they were not originally added by anyone from Stormfront, but by another editor yesterday. They are not there to tarnish the victim's reputation, he and his family have my full sympathies for an act that I personally consider to be murder, the priors are important to understand why the second D.A. chose not to pursue charges, just as the background of Gregor McMichael as a former law enforcement officer is important to understanding the first D.A.'s recusal (she used to work with him). Arbery was arrested and convicted of the offenses mentioned, and while it is personally unpleasant to mention a murder victim's past mistakes, it is also necessary for understanding the events described in this article.--Kwwhit5531 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- If that's the case then greater emphasis should be made on McMichael's connection to the DA in the background section also, as it currently stands that section is limited and does not adequately convey conflicts of interest, instead reading more like a career summary. This event is significant because it represents not only a murder, but an element of suspected perfidy within the justice system. Priming the reader with Arbery's priors implies that the case is more significant as a point of law regarding self defense and citizen's arrest. If we're saying that criminal history is deemed a significant factor to be fleshed out to this degree we should also flesh out McMichael's DA connection; otherwise prior criminal history should be compacted and read closer to a description that Arbery had some criminal history, it does not represent NPOV to give a laundry list of Arbery's priors and contrast that with a short career summary. Another point, I tried to remove the sentence ' In the four months prior to Arbery's death, there were also three calls to the Glynn County Police Department reporting a trespasser on the site of a house under construction.' in the burglaries section before this article was locked, nowhere in the ABC source given does it actually state that there were 3 calls reporting a trespasser on site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.184.82 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you, that section was missing essential info on Gregory McMichael. I've added that information and hopefully soon will soon have further background in this article on the other individuals involved (Travis McMichael and Wiliams Bryan). I'll check that sentence you mentioned next. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alright that was in the source: "Officers with the Glynn County Police Department have been called to the Satilla Shores neighborhood three times since October 2019 over reports of a trespasser on the construction site of a new home being built near the McMichaels' house, according to police reports obtained by ABC News.". I added that quote to the citation as well, and if you want to make sure yourself (always smart to do with Wikipedia citations, trust no one) then follow the hyperlink and go down to the second to last paragraph to read it. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely—it's absurd to take out the specifics when they're clearly in the cited material. Am changing it back since obviously the reversion was made by someone who hadn't read the article. Tambourine60 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alright that was in the source: "Officers with the Glynn County Police Department have been called to the Satilla Shores neighborhood three times since October 2019 over reports of a trespasser on the construction site of a new home being built near the McMichaels' house, according to police reports obtained by ABC News.". I added that quote to the citation as well, and if you want to make sure yourself (always smart to do with Wikipedia citations, trust no one) then follow the hyperlink and go down to the second to last paragraph to read it. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you, that section was missing essential info on Gregory McMichael. I've added that information and hopefully soon will soon have further background in this article on the other individuals involved (Travis McMichael and Wiliams Bryan). I'll check that sentence you mentioned next. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- If that's the case then greater emphasis should be made on McMichael's connection to the DA in the background section also, as it currently stands that section is limited and does not adequately convey conflicts of interest, instead reading more like a career summary. This event is significant because it represents not only a murder, but an element of suspected perfidy within the justice system. Priming the reader with Arbery's priors implies that the case is more significant as a point of law regarding self defense and citizen's arrest. If we're saying that criminal history is deemed a significant factor to be fleshed out to this degree we should also flesh out McMichael's DA connection; otherwise prior criminal history should be compacted and read closer to a description that Arbery had some criminal history, it does not represent NPOV to give a laundry list of Arbery's priors and contrast that with a short career summary. Another point, I tried to remove the sentence ' In the four months prior to Arbery's death, there were also three calls to the Glynn County Police Department reporting a trespasser on the site of a house under construction.' in the burglaries section before this article was locked, nowhere in the ABC source given does it actually state that there were 3 calls reporting a trespasser on site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.184.82 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I re-added them, and they were not originally added by anyone from Stormfront, but by another editor yesterday. They are not there to tarnish the victim's reputation, he and his family have my full sympathies for an act that I personally consider to be murder, the priors are important to understand why the second D.A. chose not to pursue charges, just as the background of Gregor McMichael as a former law enforcement officer is important to understanding the first D.A.'s recusal (she used to work with him). Arbery was arrested and convicted of the offenses mentioned, and while it is personally unpleasant to mention a murder victim's past mistakes, it is also necessary for understanding the events described in this article.--Kwwhit5531 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Prior problems with the law are absolutely not necessary for understanding the events described in this article as his killing had nothing to do with those prior issues. That's the whole point. Readers may want to know that, but isn't that rather the issue? When a black man is shot, readers want to know if he's a "bad guy" i.e. did he deserve it? I don't see the same thirst for information when people are killed. I was once arrested for reckless driving. I'll bet if I get killed, that info won't come up anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.186.43.40 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Totally agreed, it should not be there at all, but if it's going to be there it should at least be there in a balanced way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.184.82 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- This information is definitely essential to understanding the circumstances of this incident as it shows that Arbery was not necessarily some random saint as his proponents would like people to believe. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Random sainthood is entirely irrelevant, he could have been a serial killer, but that doesn't make extrajudicial killings acceptable. this comment is pretty clear evidence that there's some actors here that would like to bias the neutrality of this article against Arbery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.218.92 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
BLP
We cannot list a person's criminal history without it being WP:DUE and germane to the article. I am removing them for now until consensus is clear that they should be included. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we keep it until a consensus is reached? It's why the father and son were not charged by the second D.A so it relevant to whats already happened, from my understanding their still claiming self-defense based on his criminal record so its relevant at the moment, and assuming they plead not guilty it will likely play a major role in their defense and therefore is relevant or germane to the future. Also, I'm not sure how BLP: Biography of Living Persons, could possibly be relevant here. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Kwwhit5531: effect on family members is considered in the policy; see WP:BDP. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Kwwhit5531: No, see WP:BDP. We cannot add material like that without it being DUE and there being consensus for its inclusion. We would do the same if it were about the McMichaels. We can mention in the part about the initial distric attorney's decision that past criminal history was a factor, but listing it out in the biography portion is UNDUE in my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I really don't mean to insensitive to his family and if you read my earlier comments you'll see I'm not trying to steer this article towards one side or another. As to the effect on his family, we simply are stating things that are a matter of public record (reported on by local, state, national, and I would assume international media), and which he was convicted of (pleaded guilty, assuming I remember correctly), the crimes were relatively minor (neither were violent crimes) so its hard to see why they would present a danger to his immediate family. Also Arbery died in February, it just feels recent because it only started to be reported on at a national level (also when this article was created) a few days ago (when I learned of it myself even though I actually live in Georgia), so he's not necessarily as recently dead as it perhaps feels (though I realize the policy says an indeterminate length). As I've already mentioned several times its relevant due to the D.A. choosing not to pursue charges. The reason this article was created (why it qualifies as notable) is because several days ago this became a massive national controversy due to the fact that no arrests were made for months. Had those convictions not occurred its possible the McMichaels would have been charged months ago and this controversy would not have occurred, as that was the primary reason the D.A did not pursue charges. To not include that information, which arguably caused this article to exist as a result, seems to me to leave out crucial information on the subject of this article. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- A quick response to EverGreen: if the material is UNDUE in the background why is it relevant later on in the article, I mean they apparently even may met in the past or McMichaels was at somepoint aware of his existence to some extent according to one of the sources--Kwwhit5531 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I won't add this information, as you've made it clear that you want a consensus reached before adding anymore information on his arrest record, and I will respect that, but I thought I should also point out that its come to light that, "Greg McMichael once worked in her office. In that role, he investigated a 2018 shoplifting charge against Arbery. At the time Arbery was on probation for a gun-related incident that took place when he was still in high school. His probation was revoked after McMichael’s investigation."'[1], that seems like pretty relevant information to include in the article. Strangely, the fact that McMichaels had been the cause of Arbery's parole revocation, is not mentioned in either the police report (nor is William Bryan's filming of the incident, strange how it seems he didn't mention the film he just took to police that day, which I'm sure if he is also charged, which is under consideration, he will argue shows a "justifiable homicide" and therefore should exonerate him) or in Barnhill's letter. My point here not argue either sides case, but simply to show that information is a) relevant B) important for everyone involved. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- A quick response to EverGreen: if the material is UNDUE in the background why is it relevant later on in the article, I mean they apparently even may met in the past or McMichaels was at somepoint aware of his existence to some extent according to one of the sources--Kwwhit5531 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I really don't mean to insensitive to his family and if you read my earlier comments you'll see I'm not trying to steer this article towards one side or another. As to the effect on his family, we simply are stating things that are a matter of public record (reported on by local, state, national, and I would assume international media), and which he was convicted of (pleaded guilty, assuming I remember correctly), the crimes were relatively minor (neither were violent crimes) so its hard to see why they would present a danger to his immediate family. Also Arbery died in February, it just feels recent because it only started to be reported on at a national level (also when this article was created) a few days ago (when I learned of it myself even though I actually live in Georgia), so he's not necessarily as recently dead as it perhaps feels (though I realize the policy says an indeterminate length). As I've already mentioned several times its relevant due to the D.A. choosing not to pursue charges. The reason this article was created (why it qualifies as notable) is because several days ago this became a massive national controversy due to the fact that no arrests were made for months. Had those convictions not occurred its possible the McMichaels would have been charged months ago and this controversy would not have occurred, as that was the primary reason the D.A did not pursue charges. To not include that information, which arguably caused this article to exist as a result, seems to me to leave out crucial information on the subject of this article. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Kwwhit5531: No, see WP:BDP. We cannot add material like that without it being DUE and there being consensus for its inclusion. We would do the same if it were about the McMichaels. We can mention in the part about the initial distric attorney's decision that past criminal history was a factor, but listing it out in the biography portion is UNDUE in my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Kwwhit5531: effect on family members is considered in the policy; see WP:BDP. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Boone, Christian; Jr, Bert Roughton. "Glynn County commissioners say DA blocked arrests after fatal shooting". ajc. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
- Come on, people are twisting themselves into knots to exclude this. McMichael had helped convict Arbery of felony for stealing a TV from Walmart—and that it was a parole violation following Arbery's conviction for carrying a loaded gun into a high school he didn't attend, resulting in the injury of two officers. Many mainstream sources have included this information and it's hard to see how it's irrelevant that an ex-cop chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary, also knew the guy's priors and in fact had HELPED CONVICT HIM in the past. This is precisely why it's being mentioned in mainstream sources. If the fact that an ex-cop had helped put Arbery away before he chased him and his son shot him isn't WP:DUE and germane, what the hell is? Tambourine60 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Inaccurate description of video
The article currently reads: "Meanwhile, Travis approached Arbery at the truck's front. A gunshot is heard before Arbery started to struggle with Travis in front of the truck." This is factually incorrect and does not accurately represent the cited sources, which all state something similar to: "A gun shot is heard and then Travis McMichael and Arbery are seen in front of the truck struggling." Obviously, "seen struggling" and "started to struggle" are not the same. Before, it read: "Arbery then turns left and runs toward Travis, with view of both becoming blocked by the truck. This is followed by the sound of a first gunshot. Both men then reappear, struggling in front of the truck." That was obviously accurate and represented the source. The fact is that it's impossible to know when any "struggle" began because for a brief period before and after the gunshot, any interaction between the two men is blocked by the truck and/or offscreen due to the motion of the camera. Why was it changed back to a less-accurate version? Tambourine60 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- The phrase "Arbery then turns left and runs toward Travis," is inaccurate because as the video shows, Arbery runs to the right to avoid Travis, initially standing to the left of the truck, who reappears on the right of the truck as Arbery and Travis make contact. The description should also mention Travis being armed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.184.82 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- No. You're talking about earlier, where Arbery arcs right before he reaches the truck and runs along it on the right (passenger) side. But immediately after he passes the truck, he very clearly turns and runs left, ending up on the left (driver) side of the truck. The video drops out before Travis reaches the front of the truck, but by the time he's back in frame he's still on the left side of the truck and moving backwards. Tambourine60 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tambourine60: - The clearest sources, which explicitly discuss what comes before and after, state that the shot was first, and the struggle was after. starship.paint (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- The Guardian But it appears from the video footage that by the time the clearly unarmed Arbery is tussling with Travis McMichael, who is holding the long gun, a shot has already been fired.
- TIME the footage appearing to show Arbery only began grappling with a man after the first shot
- Cox Media Though Arbery appears to be close to the shotgun, there does not appear to be a scuffle between the two men before Travis McMichael fires the weapon the first time starship.paint (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Just where did this happen?
The coordinates written in the article (31.1500°N 81.4915°W) appear on several online mapping websites to place the crime scene near a corner of Gloucester St (US 25) with Norwich St in an area with straight streets and square right angle intersections, but Bryan's video seems to suggest a different type of location. - knoodelhed (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here, 31.1236,-81.5563, I also added a citation to the coordinates. Make sure to zoom in. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Alma mater
Very minor issue to be honest, but are we sure South Georgia Technical College is his Alma Mater? From my understanding he was attending the college to become a electrician, but hadn't graduated yet by the time of his death. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- The text only says that he attended the college, not that he graduated from it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020 for Arbery killing
Please add this information to Arbery’s arrest record in his bio. Source: https://www.ajc.com/news/local/watch-gbi-updates-following-arrests-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/1aJbZe2uL9HrndjyWYjB2L/
Jackie Johnson, the Glynn County district attorney, recused herself from the case given Greg McMichael once worked in her office. In that role, he investigated a 2018 shoplifting charge against Arbery. At the time Arbery was on probation for a gun-related incident that took place when he was still in high school. His probation was revoked after McMichael’s investigation 2603:3024:12B8:6000:5DB5:D3A9:DB22:34B8 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Already done: Looks as though this information is already included in the article at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Investigation. Don Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 20:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- The information contained in that story was not already included. Previous reporting has already mentioned her recusal, that is clearly not what that article is about: Glynn County commissioners say DA blocked arrests after fatal shooting --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)