Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Comment

Ahmaud Arbery was not a "participant" in this event. He was the VICTIM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.195.219 (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Arrests

Entire article needs to be updating to reflect that there are two arrests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:16, 8 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)

That edit was vandalism and it's been corrected. CalmHand1 (talk) 21:35, 6 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)

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)

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." Ditto CBS, etc. Tambourine60 (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

Good point. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. At the moment the relevance of the burglary part to the rest of the article is not sufficiently explained. I don't have enough information to proffer my own opinion as to whether the contents of that part are relevant or not to the article. However, if it is relevant, the connection needs to be better explained. Explain the relevance or omit the section. 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:C (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Leaky.Solar please don't reintroduce insinuations that imply Arbery had anything to do with incidents that occurred 1-2 months prior. That violates both BLP and OR. Guettarda (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Who, what? I'm not that person? My point is it should be omitted, because at the moment it is not explained. 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:C (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that's me. I reinstated the "Prior thefts" section of the background as I read the section as it was more about why the McMichaels thought that there was criminal activity in the area and that they were willing to chase down an individual. In all honesty if someone was jogging down a street I would leave them be, but a past criminal investigator/law enforcement with prior knowledge of crime in the area might be a little more jumpy....I'm fine with this being removed if it can be taken that Arbery had something to do with the thefts, which as far as I know hasn't been proven. I just felt it needs to be kept in the background section to showcase the McMichaels state of mind. Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking a side here, except to say that if you include it, its relevance to the article needs explanation. At the moment, there is no explanation. It's just sitting there. I don't know enough about this story to know the right answer, I'm just learning about it now. But it's clear at the moment that the part doesn't flow from the rest of the article. 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:C (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand, I may have completely bypassed the talk page before reinstating. Definitely will look for consensus on the talk page next time after seeing a massive removal. Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:27, 9 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 Spencer^{talk-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)

In that case, the edit request was not filled out properly by the submitter. Edit requests should be specific & uncontroversial. This is just a regular talk page post; as a reminder, edit requests should not be used to motivate editors to generally "add" information to the article, it should be listed in "change X to Y format." Thank you. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

I disagree. "Lynching" is not an American specific phenomenon, and the way you frame it is actually kind of disturbing. What I'm seeing here is a pattern of denial that allows extrajudicial killings to continue in the present day. You're framing this issue as historical vigilantism, not only justified for the time period while placing the responsibility purely on the KKK, while expressing your political bias at the same time.

Lynchings were not unique to the south, especially after African Americans began to migrate out of the southern states. Lynchings were not to enforce some unwritten code, they were instruments of terror to preserve the social hierarchy and to punish "offenders," whether or not they were guilty of "overstepping" their boundaries was irrelevant. They were illegal, but frequently went unpunished by authorities. This has not changed to this day. We see extrajudicial killings in the form of police shootings and this incident here. "Lynchings" don't have to be a collective punishment for social norm violations, they are killings not sanctioned by a court of law, but are socially condoned by a pattern of implicit precedents. Your comparison with Jacobins with Liberals or migrants with serfs only amounts to empty rhetoric, not factual information. Even from your comparison, your socially reinforced superiority is evident by comparing migrant workers in California to serfs. You deny lynchings still occur, blame the KKK and Democrats while implying the Republicans were an oppressed political party in the south, compare revolutionaries with Liberals, and associate migrants in "California" (a state frequently criticized by the Trump party), with serfs (slaves owned by landlords in exchange for food and rent). You can deny this all you like, but the statistics don't lie, and neither does the overrepresentation of media coverage that portrays black men as dangerous individuals who place them at higher risk of assault and murder that often goes unpunished unless there's a significant enough backlash. But usually, there isn't because of fear. Nothing's changed since the 60s. 8thfire izlit (talk) 21:04, 9 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. living^fract@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". living^fract@lk 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A group is defined as "three or more" living^fract@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 living^fract@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 states many 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" living^fract@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. living^fract@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/ living^fract@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 living^fract@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. living^fract@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 living^fract@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. living^fract@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. living^fract@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)

• @Ola441edit: - here, a man entered the house, and here, a man is in the house. starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Killing would seem the most appropriate wording at this point in time. 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:E (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea this article should be renamed with the term "Lynching", is simply nonsense. This is an encyclopedia, not a political pamphlet. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:57, 13 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)

"Alma mater" doesn't necessarily imply graduation. Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In U.S. usage, the phrase would not ordinarily be used unless the person had graduated from the school. It is especially not used to refer to a school that someone is currently enrolled in. The college seems to have said he only attended there for two semesters, and that his most recent enrollment there was seven years prior to the incident. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@BarrelProof:, do you have a source to support that usage? Merriam-Webster dictionary, which I understand as a fairly authoritative source for American usage, says otherwise. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Per the instructions of {{infobox person}}, the |alma_mater= parameter "is usually not relevant [...] for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates." From a quick look for dictionary, it appears that, in theory, it can sometimes apply without graduation, but I personally don't think it is appropriate for someone who attended only two semesters. I notice that the Bill Gates article actually does not use the |alma mater= parameter. If I understand correctly, Gates attended a university (specifically, Harvard) for about two years. I found some discussion of the issue in Talk:Bill Gates/Archive 5 and Talk:Bill Gates/Archive 6, and I notice that the Paul Allen, Sean Hannity, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg articles also do not include the |alma mater= parameter. See also Talk:Steve Jobs/Archive 6, Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 5, Talk:Sean Hannity/Archive 6, Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/Archive 1, and Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/Archive 3. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Indexing in the search bar

I'm not sure what the official term for this is on Wikipedia but this article is not indexed/listed in the search bar and only appears when the search is completed. That is, if you type "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" no results will be listed, but when you hit enter to complete the search, this page with that exact title will be listed as the first result. As a matter of convenience it would be helpful to index the article such that it appears as an auto-filled option. 104.13.110.123 (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh, same for me. DarthFlappy (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why, I am guessing it is because it is not reviewed? I dont know if its reviewed or not, or whether this is relevant to the issue or not. Another guess is because it is still new.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam and DarthFlappy: - issue is fixed for me. starship.paint (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Anything mentioned in the lead should be mentioned in the body and grammar isnt a reason to revert

Hi Premeditated Chaos, WP:LEAD anything that is mentioned in the lead should have been mentioned in the body of the article. There is only one mention of the word "African" in the whole article which is in the lead and black is mentioned in the "Emergency calls" section and inside quotation, and not really referring to Ahmaud Arbery. In my opinion, we should mention "African-American" in the body of the article because this case has been controversial because it involves European and African Americans. Currently, it is not mentioned even once in the article's body.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Biography of Living Person" rules applied for the dead guy, but not for the two living guys

Not useful WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So we can keep out the criminal activities of the dead guy, but that means the LIVING guys look like they killed a guy for no reason? LOL. Anyone advocating that position should stop editing this article and go away. Similarly, anyone who advocated the "jogging" propaganda that the family put out should go away. The guy is on VIDEO WALKING into a house ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMzcdGotbas ). Does that look like a Sunday jog? I know on my Sunday jogs I just walk into houses I don't own. Once again the collective "wisdom" of wikipedia gets it wrong again. 63.155.55.188 (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC) His walking into a home is covered in the article. Using the word "propaganda", as you did, is a violation of BLP. O3000 (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I know on my Sunday jogs I just walk into houses I don't own - he might have jogged before that, then started walking. You can't conclude that because he walked into the home, therefore he never jogged on the way there. starship.paint (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC) A man was shot dead, you find it both amusing and somehow justified because... He looked at a vacant property? Your opinion is sick, and your narrative is intentionally a weak ass murder-apologia. Well done. Koncorde (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference [16] to the original video showing the shooting appears to be a dead link.

Reference [16] to the original video showing the shooting appears to be a dead link (already). If the link comes back up, feel free to delete this section. Otherwise a different link to the original video would be appreciated. Rubiks6 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• This doesn't load the video for me. starship.paint (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we change the archive period to 3 days?

Can we change the archive period to 3 days? This talk page is over 100 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 03:10, 12 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)

How is his criminal history not related to this incident, but his football career/and college plans are? Singdawg (talk) 17:30, 10 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)

Why was the info removed about $2500 worth of equipment being stolen in the past

This article previously had information in it which gave more background information to what happened. In particular, a home builder in the area named Larry English stated that $2500 worth of fishing equipment was stolen from a unfinished home he was building in the area. This has context since Arbery himself was seen on security camera at a unfinished home just prior to the chase and subsequent shooting. While we do not know of these are linked, it should be information that the reader should have.

The quote is the following from the article I have attached as it's source:

"Larry English, a man building a home in the McMichaels’ neighborhood, said someone stole $2,500 in fishing gear from him earlier this year. English told the Daily Beast he never reported the theft. The second was reported to police by Travis McMichael, who said a 9mm pistol was stolen on January 1 from a vehicle parked outside his home."

174.48.155.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Because, as you yourself said, "we do not know of (sic) these are linked." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That appears to be contradicted by his statement to the Washington Post:

Larry English, the man who owns the house under construction, told The Washington Post that the structure was not robbed. “That’s completely wrong. I’ve never had a police report or anything stolen from my property, or any kind of robbery,” he said.

VR _talk 18:43, 10 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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery became a viral video? Source: Vox

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hack of Jeff Bezos' phone

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)

(←) 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)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

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)

"Credible" sources as sufficient to justify any statement

"In the afternoon of February 23, 2020, Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed 25-year-old African-American man, was jogging[2]"

How Wikipedia's standards for credible information work confuse me sometimes.

Let's say there is a reference, in this case an article in CNN, that states something. Now let's say the basis for that statement is conjecture on the part of a patently (though understandably) biased party, such as family member of the subject. It is still sufficiently "credible" for inclusion in an article lacking any evidence of the conjecture?

The video we all know of does not depict a person who can only be jogging. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion. The video depicts a person running. *That* is a statement of fact. There is nothing in the video revealing for what *purpose* the person is running. Also a fact, the common media assertions he was jogging are based on family member speculation alone, insofar as has been publicly reported at this juncture.

He absolutely could have been jogging. May well have been. But logically, there is precisely zero objective basis for concluding that.

Overt contradictions such as these -- acceptance of "credible references" as the source for assertions contrary to basic reasoning -- make Wikipedia less accessible to a less sophisticated person such as I. It's as if any assertion may be regarded "adequately credible" if it is based on a supposedly "adequately credible" source. That is, even if the assertion is patently incredible. E.g., it would be acceptable within Wikipedia for an article to include the statement, "night is day" so long as there are "valid sources" including that claim.

Given context, I'm not sure it's possible to comment as above without unwarranted assumptions about ulterior motives. But I will admit to having one. Once race is extensively brought into the examination of a current event, justifiably or otherwise (perspective), it often becomes highly volatile and divisive.

It's appropriate to contribute to such divisiveness if that's where facts lead. But it's troubling and problematic if such material is treated as fact when it cannot be considered so based on available information and reason, regardless of whether sources can be found for the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.63.96 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC about this. Also, your argument is flawed. There absolutely no reliable source or person that claim that Ahmaud wasn't jogging. We only have an IP here saying that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have reason to tell you. Your inability to understand how does not mean the concern is based on an unreasoned assertion on my part. This time, try thinking first before resorting to snarkiness. You don't seem good at the former, but hopefully you're better at it than you are at the latter. I'll get you started. Again, he may be jogging. But there is no evidentiary basis for asserting he is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.63.96 (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the reason to tell? We don't do original research here. Wikipedia is not a criminal investigation office. We only report what reliable sources are saying. Do you have reliable sources that say he was not jogging??.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he wasn't jogging. Walking into the house. Running from the house through the front door. There is also the Police Reports, the two 911 Callers who said he was running... oh and the CCTV of him running from the house. The only ones claiming he was jogging was his family who weren't even there, so how much weight should be given to their claims? What we have here is a Covington Kids situation where people have made their own realities on what happened. But more videos of what really happened is rapidly changing the narratives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.20.226 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The police report says he was jogging. The video is clearly time lapse. Stick to the reliable sources instead of your original research. O3000 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to need a Cite for the claim the police report says he was jogging. Also the video is not "time lapsed" it's a CCTV video showing him WALKING into the building and then RUNNING from the building. It's a news organisation and therefore a "Reliable source" and NOT original research because THEY are the ones saying it in the video. The "jogging" narrative is being debunked absolutely. 118.208.20.226 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

More Sources incoming. AJC "The video shows a man wearing a white shirt and shorts, who appears to be Arbery, 25, walking down Satilla Drive on that Sunday afternoon. It shows the man walk into the garage of a house under construction and then walk around back of the house."..."A minute later, after a car passes, a figure that appears to be Arbery comes out of a front door of the house quickly and runs down the road in the direction of Travis McMichael’s home on Satilla Drive."118.208.20.226 (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you look at the clock on the video? It is time lapse photography. It makes it look like he is running because it is sped up. O3000 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbery walked into the house, yes. But was he jogging or running before that? Nobody knows. That's why it is not true that The "jogging" narrative is being debunked absolutely. starship.paint (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"But was he jogging or running before that?" Bingo! We get to the point. Nobody KNOWS. So why is it in the Wiki article? His family didn't know because they weren't there. What we DO know is he walked into the house. What we DO know is he ran down the street. The CCTV Confirms. The 911 Calls Confirm and the Police report Confirms. The family could have said he was having a picnic with the 3 little bears, but without evidence, it's simply a claim not a fact and should have been written as such in the article.118.208.20.226 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

For the third time, the video was time-lapse photography. And, the AJC article that you cited states: "A video made public Tuesday, which has gone viral worldwide, shows Arbery running at a jogger’s pace...". I don't see any bears. O3000 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm now thoroughly confused as to what we are arguing about. Are we arguing about what jogging versus running in the shooting video? We can find sources for that. Or are we arguing about what Arbery's outing was about? We don't really know that. starship.paint (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The AJC source says they are reviewing the latest video and according to their description, that someone who is believed to be Arbery is seen in the video "walking" down the street. Then "walking" to the back of the house under construction. It then states "after a car passes, a figure that appears to be Arbery comes out of a front door of the house quickly and runs down the road".--MONGO (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

"Running" as a term encompasses "jogging"—given all the controversy, what's the harm in using the more inclusive term that no one can argue is incorrect? Sure, sources use all sorts of words, but it makes sense for Wikipedia to use the most accurate of those, and the fact that he's running is not in dispute, whereas a number of people seem to object to the term "jogging", which has a connotation of running with the purpose of exercise. There's no way to know if a man being chased by two armed men in a pickup is more concerned with exercise or escape, especially given the fact that he's dead. There are other places in the article to convey his family's insistence that his purpose in initially going out that day was jogging for exercise. But this clearly references the running he was doing while being chased by two vehicles. Given that it seems more likely to be inaccurate than "running", which is objectively correct and neutral (could be for exercise, or to avoid a threat), why is "jogging" important here? Tambourine60 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the significant weight of reliable sources is using the word "jogging", while the push towards using the word "running" (which is neutral in many situations) does contain connotations. I.e. that he was running away from something for some reason. For all we know he was speed walking, hopping, zig-zagging, or playing hopscotch - so we use the terminology of the reliable sources to best summarise. Us using the word running suggests that we have taken an editorial stance over the use of the word jogging (i.e. we have decided that evidence does not support it). That is not our role. Koncorde (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, of course the video shows him running to defend himself from two men with guns, who were obviously not cops and one riding in the truck bed, after they persue and drive up to him (along with another vehicle), it was was a fight-or-flight response. But, we have no reason to believe that before they confronted Arbery that he wasn't jogging. Look at how he's dressed, shorts and a t-shirt with what seems to be athletic shoes... almost as if he were, I don't know, EXERCISING. Seriously he is wearing what joggers wear. Just saying. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Description of McMichaels wrong place for information addressed elsewhere

In the "Travis and Gregory McMichael" section, this material seems extraneous and in the wrong place: "The involvement of the Glynn County Police Department as the primary investigator in a case involving a former officer was controversial.[30] Also, as the first D.A. involved in the case, Jackie Johnson, had previously worked with Gregory, she recused herself from further involvement in the case.[31]" The second sentence seems well-covered in the "Before the release of video recordings" where it obviously belongs. The first could be excised or moved there. Any objections? Tambourine60 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It's been moved to the section "Glynn County Police Department and District Attorney's Office for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag / Dispute Resolution

This article has serious neutrality problems. I've requested a Dispute Resolution in regards to this, especially considering the extensive debate in the various sections. Please do not remove the tag until the dispute has been resolves. Chrisvacc (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is a great deal of debate. Most of it appears to be you attempting to denigrate the dead person including numerous WP:BLP violations, like claims that illegal acts, like break-ins, occurred that appear in no RS. Like your numerous claims that this is all part of some sort of leftist agenda. There is zero evidence of your claims. I suggest that you remove the tag and revert your accusations. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that a joke? There's a 4 page debate in the section. No - it's not just me. There have been at least 6 other editors saying the same thing and you guys make zero attempt to reach consensus or any types of compromise. From a quick glance, (not including some long ones I don't feel like typing) of the people who have voiced concerns there have been:

Aussiewikilady BarrelProof 93.159.149.134 Nice4What

You just stick to edit-warring and removing edits you don't like. Chrisvacc (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring and removing edits? I don't believe I have ever edited this article. If all you can do is lash out like that, with total inventions, you seriously need to take a break. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember who removed edits to the article - but it was one of you guys from the other section, and I'm juggling too many things to open up tabs to check who it was. It's not that important specifically who it was - the point is edits keep getting reverted rather than reaching consensus.Chrisvacc (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, so when you don't get your way, you just lie. Yeah, that's a great way to obtain consensus. Just one of you guys (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisvacc: If your edits are removed, that suggests that your edits don't have consensus. If that happens, the onus is on you to build consensus for the changes you want to make. Consensus has to be established for changes, not to remove them.

And, by the way, while it's useful to establish a section for a neutrality dispute, you need to specify what you're disputing. There's a whole lot of back-and-forth on this page, and there's no way to tell what your specific issue is. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with @Chrisvacc:. 04:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

If anyone wants to present reliable sources to establish that Arbery's criminal record is relevant and WP:DUE, I'd suggest you do it here. starship.paint (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Person's involved section

It currently reads: Arbery studied in the electrical systems program at South Georgia Technical College during the fall 2012 and spring 2013 semesters and his mother said he was pursuing a career as an electrician. What does that mean, pursuing a career? Was he working as an electrician, or was he looking for a job as one? Dream Focus 17:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you would have to ask the subject's mother what precisely she meant. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"Pursuing a career" usually means a career field someone wants to enter or is learning to enter into...you don't need to pursue a job if you're already employed in said job. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

SPA's

I only learned about WP:SPA recently, but now I've noticed two such accounts editing this article contentiously. There's User:CalmHand1, mentioned above, and now there's User:Tambourine60. I'm seeing a pattern here.

What's the procedure for determining if a user is a sock puppet? Do I have to report them somewhere? FollowTheSources (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Generally we don't name names like you have but instead go to the Admin Notice Board if there concerns over conduct / sock puppet'ing. 2. Being an SPA isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world in and of itself 3. These sort of articles always attract new users. Some are IP users encouraged to start accounts to get around edit restrictions etc. The usual advice is to point them at relevant policy and advise them to improve their working knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Koncorde (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you know who the original account is, then post your concerns on WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Love of Corey (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this to me. At this point, as much it seems odd to me that these two accounts are both single-purpose and share the same 'specific' purpose, I think this is probably best handled the way it is right now: pushing back against attempts to include irrelevant material. I did ask the first of them what other accounts they edited under and I didn't see a response. Take that as you will. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Refusal to arrest

One of the major talking points in the media is that authorities initially refused to arrest the suspects. From USA Today,

The district attorney who previously led the investigation told police he did not see grounds for an arrest of the McMichaels or the man who recorded it from his vehicle, according to a memo obtained by USA TODAY.

This is not a trivial detail, but has been subject to much discussion, again as USA TODAY reports,

The original decision not to arrest the McMichaels or Bryan, and the more than two months that passed before charges were filed, fueled outcry across the nation with attorneys for Arbery's family saying he was racially profiled. Local officials and community leaders say a history of nepotism and privilege in the district attorney offices of Waycross and Brunswick has allowed the killers to remain free

This should be reflected in the article and the lead.VR _talk 15:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Vice regent: - it is now, what do you think? starship.paint (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of video

Resolved in the section "Should the article say the first shot was before or after the struggle?" below.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Those sources are just lying. The first shot comes after Arbery has grabbed Travis' gun on the left side of the truck, as you can see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIve50vSeLQ&bpctr=1589171906 172.220.106.194 (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC) first, we dont do investigations here. We rely on what sources are saying. Second, the audio clearly has a delay on it. The audio is late while the video comes earlier. Watch at 00:19.5 of the video when the gun powder appeared and in around 00:21 the sound was heard. This is probably because the video is a record from another Youtube video by someone who has low end pc (see the last part of the video especially from the 00:30).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Yeah, after looking up more copies of the video too I think you're right that this one has a delay. Sorry about that! 172.220.106.194 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, some sources that lend support to the idea that a gunshot was fired before there was a "struggle" – but others suggest after. An impartial look at the video reveals that there's no way to tell when the "struggle" began because the truck is blocking the view. Also "grapple" and "scuffle" and "struggle" mean different things. It's entirely possible that there is physical contact between the two men before the gunshot—and entirely possible there isn't. The NYT, for one, suggests the shot takes place AFTER the struggling has begun: 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." Others explain it's not possible to tell: Vox: "The video is blocked by the dashboard for a moment, and some unintelligible yelling can be heard. The video then shows the black man trying to run around the truck. It’s not possible to see what happens next, but there’s a gunshot; the black man and the white man who was standing in the road reappear in the frame, engaged in a struggle…" Daily News: "The runner crosses the road to pass the pickup on the passenger side, then crosses back in front of the truck. Shouting can be heard, a gunshot sounds, and the video shows the runner grappling with a man in the street over what appears to be a shotgun or rifle." In the absence of clear evidence, it's seems unnecessary POV to assert as fact that one came before the other, regardless of what sources say. This is obviously a hot-button topic, and it seems wise not to wade into assertions of the unknowable. Tambourine60 (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC) References None of the sources you have provided say that the straggling happened before the shooting.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC) That's totally nonresponsive to my comment and a straw-man argument. What I wrote was that it's impossible to tell which came first. I just cited two news sources saying it's impossible to tell, and one that says they happened simultaneously. Again, I'm not suggesting it should say that they were struggling first. The fact that this is controversial and has contradictory sources is precisely why I'm saying the article ought to not comment on the order or state the obvious truth, which is that there's no clear view of the two men when the gunshot goes off. Tambourine60 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)