Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 6
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2020
![]() | This edit request to Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second of the two sentences: "After passing the truck's front, Arbery turns left.[31][33][35] Meanwhile, Travis McMichael, holding his shotgun, approaches Arbery at the truck's front.[34][36] " is not correct.
According to source [33]https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/05/us/ahmaud-arbery-jogging-georgia-shooting/index.html "...and just as he's passing the front of the vehicle, he makes a left and begins tussling with the man with the shotgun." This is also what can be seen in the frame by frame analysis of the video. 109.40.131.74 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- According to Source 33, "...and just as he's passing the front of the vehicle, he makes a left and begins tussling with the man with the shotgun." According to Source 34, "Travis McMichael steps out of the driver's side of the truck with a shotgun as Arbery approaches. Arbery tries to run around the passenger side of the truck. Travis McMichael approaches Arbery at the front of the truck." Both statements are sourced. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Dump it all. Very difficult to evaluate anything from crappy videos. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding the name of the guy who filmed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is his name keeps getting back? Who is adding it? Please read WP:BLPNAME, there is no value of his name to be mentioned. The guy is already receiving death threats etc and he probably doesn't need his name to be mentioned. WP:BLPNAME says, "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Please explain, how does his name serve this article?-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether his name is used or not, the 36 second video needs to be mentioned in the lead where it was before (I restored it). The video is mentioned in the third and fourth paragraph in the lead, and those mentions of it don't make any sense unless it's already been referenced earlier, and the video has it's own dedicated section in the article. The video is relevant and notable, and if it wasn't for the video going viral and the ensuing coverage, this article wouldn't even exist. Debate his name if you must, but the 36 second video should remain in the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with both of these points. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @SharabSalam, Isaidnoway, and AzureCitizen: - the actual video was 4 minutes long, but only 36 seconds was released. William Roddie Bryan may not be as innocent as he claims. Remember, Gregory McMichael told the police that Bryan also tried to cut Arbery off, but failed. Is it clear and obvious that Bryan is not directly involved? I don't think so. starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I figure we should wait until he's charged by the authorities with a crime, then he'll go from a potentially innocent bystander who filmed the event and received death threats for being involved to a potentially guilty defendant whose name should be added to the "persons involved" list (as well as other due places in the article). Taking private individuals and BLP crime into consideration, isn't that what we should do? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- According to his lawyers press conference he was unarmed during the incident...did not have communication with the McMichaels prior to the shooting...is a key witness, and has been cooperating with the GBI. Leave his name out, but reiterate my comment above about the 36 second video in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I figure we should wait until he's charged by the authorities with a crime, then he'll go from a potentially innocent bystander who filmed the event and received death threats for being involved to a potentially guilty defendant whose name should be added to the "persons involved" list (as well as other due places in the article). Taking private individuals and BLP crime into consideration, isn't that what we should do? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @SharabSalam, Isaidnoway, and AzureCitizen: - the actual video was 4 minutes long, but only 36 seconds was released. William Roddie Bryan may not be as innocent as he claims. Remember, Gregory McMichael told the police that Bryan also tried to cut Arbery off, but failed. Is it clear and obvious that Bryan is not directly involved? I don't think so. starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with both of these points. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Things have changed, he is now charged with murder.[1] Isaidnoway, AzureCitizen, Starship.paint--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
2017 Video
Seems the concensus is this video is not going to be added to the article so making this nonadmin (but involved) close of a discussion of folks talking past each other anyway. Revert me if I am in error.--MONGO (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
John Cummings (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Snapchat photos of crime scene with dead body posted by McMichael relative
May be useful references
- https://www.insider.com/lindsay-mcmichael-posted-ahmaud-arbery-body-photo-apology-2020-5
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ahmaud-arbery-death-black-jogger-killed-us-snapchat-lindsay-mcmichael-a9522036.html
- https://www.thedailybeast.com/lindsay-mcmichael-sister-of-ahmaud-arberys-alleged-killer-shared-picture-of-his-body-on-snapchat
John Cummings (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Good grief. But, I would not include. We can't visit the sins of the sister on the brother. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Gross, but not sure that it's relevant. Is the accused killer involved in that, like texting her the photo or something? Or did his sister take the photo herself and then post it, having nothing to do with her brother? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, as they say in K-pop and in posts on talk pages like these, "it's verified", no? Now, and Objective3000, this goes out to you too--I'll play devil's advocate here for a moment, and say that the article is about the shooting, not about the sister's brother, and this stuff if well-verified, so why not? "It's verified and relevant", which is what all those say who want to include the victim's previous run-ins with the law. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Verified is easy. Relevance, not so much. This is still a BLP. And why do K-Poppers keep killing themselves? O3000 (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: -
why do K-Poppers keep killing themselves?
- have a read [10], and this other link is about Korean celebrities. [11] starship.paint (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: -
- Pondering a bit on why V is a pillar and relevance not, I realize it is. I can present any number of possible relevancies in a bar discussion (assuming I could find a bar that is open). But, I cannot verify a one of them. That is, verifiability must include relevance as you must verify relevance to include. (Try saying that ten times quickly.) O3000 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Verified is easy. Relevance, not so much. This is still a BLP. And why do K-Poppers keep killing themselves? O3000 (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, as they say in K-pop and in posts on talk pages like these, "it's verified", no? Now, and Objective3000, this goes out to you too--I'll play devil's advocate here for a moment, and say that the article is about the shooting, not about the sister's brother, and this stuff if well-verified, so why not? "It's verified and relevant", which is what all those say who want to include the victim's previous run-ins with the law. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- John Cummings, Lindsay is the new Karen? Guy (help!) 14:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do not feel that the sister's social media pictures are relevant to the shooting so I don't feel they should be included in this article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure -
Images of Arbery's body were shared on social media by the killer's sister
strikes me as relevant. The article currently includes a mural of Arbery and the fact that neonazis criticised Trump for saying something sympathetic. This article is about Arbery's death and the aftermath. Guettarda (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)- Is it in any of the top-notch sources? I couldn't find any. O3000 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here’s the crux. Mentioning that the sister did such suggests that the family, as a whole, has a cavalier attitude toward the killing of blacks. (BLP violation removed) And it may be anecdotal evidence of a wider problem. But, it isn’t really evidence of anything other than extraordinarily bad taste. At least as of yet. I think we need to stick to the preponderance of RS. Which will evince. Patience. (Did that answer your question @Drmies:)? O3000 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure -
Bryan arrest
As it appears that the person who made the blurry video has just been arrested for murder, I suggest we not use the video as any kind of evidence of anything. [12] O3000 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- His arrest and charges have been added, but I don't know what you mean by not using the video as any kind of evidence. The video is relevant and notable, and needs to be included. As far as screenshots from the video, I agree they should be left out. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- The video was made by someone that may be a part of the crime. Given the ability to modify videos at this time, why would we use it? We have editors here attempting to draw conclusions based on something developed by someone accused of involvement. O3000 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- O3000, nobody is allowed here to draw conclusions based on video, whether Bryan was arrested or not.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, CNN is already being used as is an NBC source and an AP source. These are good for RS coverage. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- O3000, nobody is allowed here to draw conclusions based on video, whether Bryan was arrested or not.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- The video was made by someone that may be a part of the crime. Given the ability to modify videos at this time, why would we use it? We have editors here attempting to draw conclusions based on something developed by someone accused of involvement. O3000 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Autopsy information: homicide, etc.
@AzureCitizen: I appreciate you trying to integrate the information I added to the lead in with the autopsy—but a couple brief issues:
- It's important to note in the lead that the manner of death was homicide and cause was gunshots sustained while struggling for the shotgun, as those are critical facts. The way the lead reads now, Arbery's shooting could have been a suicide. Check the articles on the shootings of Martin and Brown; they both are clear about the basics of what happened. This one's still in flux, but it seems at a minimum that we need to include that it was ruled homicide and its immediate cause.
- The autopsy really ought to be in a different section, since it was not part of the GCPD investigation and was released by the GBI. I kind of made it a different sub-section, but I think it needs to be moved out of that, or the section heading needs to be changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tambourine60 (talk • contribs)
- The lead includes that three people have been charged with felony murder. I think that makes it clear it was homicide, and certainly not suicide. But, yes, the autopsy report should be mentioned in the lead. WWGB (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Since I'm a nitpicker, my impression is autopsy results in a lot of US jurisdictions, and this probably includes Georgia, can have an indeterminate or similar cause of death which may included cases where they cannot decide if the death is suicide or homicide? I assume if the official autopsy result is suicide, it would be difficult to charge someone with felony murder without carrying out another autopsy. Definitely there can be cases where it's disputed whether a death was felony murder or suicide e.g. where someone alleges a person's suicide was staged. And actually another thought occurred to me. I wonder if it's possible for a death which no one disputes was a suicide to result in a felony murder charge in a state with a very broad definition of felony murder. For example, a death by heart attack an be charged as a felony murder in some jurisdictions [13], as can a co-felon being killed by the police [14] [15]. This doesn't seem to apply to Georgia which requires "causes the death of another human" [16] although then again Georgia also seems to allow felony murder for someone who provided the drugs resulting in an accidental drug overdose [17] [18] but Florida for example just says "When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate" [19]. I couldn't find specific commentary on this issue, the closest is that brief commentary at the end of that Penn Law Review article and [20]. However it may not be as far fetched as first comes to mind. The obvious example is a suicide bomber who whether by good fortune or intent, only managed to kill themselves. Could anyone else involved be charged with felony murder? The example which initially came to mind would be someone killed themselves because they realised they were caught and couldn't stand to go back to prison or whatever. (In fact I was initially thinking they could have told their co-felons they would do so, but it's unlikely this is necessary.) You can come up with other reasons why one participant in a felony eligible for felony murder may kill themselves e.g. they hurt a mob boss's child, they end up trapped in a situation where they are soon to die (albeit that may complicate the legal arguements), as an act of political protest, etc. Ultimate point being, I don't think Tambourine60 is wrong in that people being charged with felony murder does not demonstrate that there is no dispute over this being a homicide. Edit/final comment: A final thought is I was restricting myself to co-felons. If you include victims, it seems even more likely that this has arisen before. E.g. someone who is held captive kills themselves. I still couldn't find any sources dealing with this although I did find [21] which deals with actual cases rather than the hypotheticals of Jrank. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting! I wasn't actually suggesting that there's a possibility of felony murder charges brought without a death being ruled a homicide—I simply don't know enough about that to say. If that's common knowledge, then I suppose it's redundant information. As to the charging murder for cooperating in a suicide—people have been definitely been charged for killing others when they survive a suicide pact; there was a woman in LA who was charged with killing her children after she attempted to drown herself with them in the ocean as part of a traditional Japanese ritual[1]. As to non-suicidal people, that girl in MA who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the Death of Conrad Roy "texting" case, and of course Dr. Kevorkian did hard time. This law dictionary even claims: "Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful."[2] And this paper[3] goes into detail about the "Decriminalization of Suicide". But there continues to be a lot of debate just about the felony murder rule, and your questions are intriguing… Tambourine60 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Since I'm a nitpicker, my impression is autopsy results in a lot of US jurisdictions, and this probably includes Georgia, can have an indeterminate or similar cause of death which may included cases where they cannot decide if the death is suicide or homicide? I assume if the official autopsy result is suicide, it would be difficult to charge someone with felony murder without carrying out another autopsy. Definitely there can be cases where it's disputed whether a death was felony murder or suicide e.g. where someone alleges a person's suicide was staged. And actually another thought occurred to me. I wonder if it's possible for a death which no one disputes was a suicide to result in a felony murder charge in a state with a very broad definition of felony murder. For example, a death by heart attack an be charged as a felony murder in some jurisdictions [13], as can a co-felon being killed by the police [14] [15]. This doesn't seem to apply to Georgia which requires "causes the death of another human" [16] although then again Georgia also seems to allow felony murder for someone who provided the drugs resulting in an accidental drug overdose [17] [18] but Florida for example just says "When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate" [19]. I couldn't find specific commentary on this issue, the closest is that brief commentary at the end of that Penn Law Review article and [20]. However it may not be as far fetched as first comes to mind. The obvious example is a suicide bomber who whether by good fortune or intent, only managed to kill themselves. Could anyone else involved be charged with felony murder? The example which initially came to mind would be someone killed themselves because they realised they were caught and couldn't stand to go back to prison or whatever. (In fact I was initially thinking they could have told their co-felons they would do so, but it's unlikely this is necessary.) You can come up with other reasons why one participant in a felony eligible for felony murder may kill themselves e.g. they hurt a mob boss's child, they end up trapped in a situation where they are soon to die (albeit that may complicate the legal arguements), as an act of political protest, etc. Ultimate point being, I don't think Tambourine60 is wrong in that people being charged with felony murder does not demonstrate that there is no dispute over this being a homicide. Edit/final comment: A final thought is I was restricting myself to co-felons. If you include victims, it seems even more likely that this has arisen before. E.g. someone who is held captive kills themselves. I still couldn't find any sources dealing with this although I did find [21] which deals with actual cases rather than the hypotheticals of Jrank. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Pound, Leslie. "MOTHER`S TRAGIC CRIME EXPOSES A CULTURE GAP". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
- ^ "Legal Dictionary - Law.com". Law.com Legal Dictionary. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
- ^ "The Decriminalization of Suicide" (PDF).
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Who would like to update the lead? And what about moving the autopsy out from the GCPD section—I've found a source stating that it was GBI Regional Medical Examiner Dr. Edmund Donoghue[1] who performed the autopsy, with the report released April 1. I'm happy to do both, but am not totally sure where the autopsy section should go… Thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "GBI Dr. Edmund Donoghue".
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
African-American
From time to time, editors have removed or added back "African-American" from both the lead and/or from the "Persons involved" section. Bringing this up to establish consensus going forward (as it will probably happen again):
Should "African-American" be in the article?
- Support as nom: Keep "African-American" in the first sentence of the lead, and omit it from the "Persons involved" section, as seen in similar articles like Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Michael Brown. Arbery's race is indisputably a part of this story for it's notability and the RS attention give to it (just like Martin and Brown); having it in the lead is important. Like the Martin and Brown articles, however, there is no need to say it again in a background section for style reasons. We've already told the reader up front in the first sentence of the lead, and there is an accompanying picture for the reader to see. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support - and also support in the lead identifying the McMichaels as white, instead of leaving that to an assumption, it's also consistent with SOTM and SOMB articles. Racial profiling is mentioned in the lead and the body of the article as well, and most sources also mention them being white and Arbery as African-American. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've added that to the lead as seen here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Isaidnoway - whether real or perceived, the racial disparity in these incidents is undoubtedly part of the public perception and discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support inclusion in the lead, remove from "persons involved" section. It is obviously relevant, so inclusion in the lead is appropriate, but it's unnecessary to restate it in the persons involved section. There is a fine line between including race as relevant information and repeatedly pointing out race and potentially amplifying race as an issue. Plus Arbery's picture is right there in that section, so the reader can see for himself that Arbery is black. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed the second instance again, unless a consensus forms here to include it twice instead of once. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Rreagan007, the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the body. How can we leave their race out of the body? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your logic, but I still don't think we should be repeating the race angle multiple times due to concerns of amplifying the race issues involved. Perhaps if the defendants are eventually charged with hate crimes we can add more about the race angle, but until then I think it's best to err on the side of caution. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Rreagan007, the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the body. How can we leave their race out of the body? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed the second instance again, unless a consensus forms here to include it twice instead of once. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support inclusion in the lead, and also that the McMichaels are white, because it's an obviously integral detail to this story. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- And include their races in the article body too, as the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the body, and should not include anything that is not in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." However, the MOS says that doesn't apply to basic facts, so it's fine to have it in the lead while not repeating it in the first section of the article. Do we consider his African-American race a basic fact? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- AzureCitizen, doesn't seem "basic" in this context. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that Arbery was black and the McMichaels were white is definitely important in understanding this incident as it joins a sizable collection of similar tragedies we have articles on. I'm sure we would all agree that if both had been white, this killing would not have been notable enough for a Wikipedia article. At the same time, things like gender, race, age and other basic facts are still basic facts. They are immutable characteristics that we really only need to tell the reader once, part of the basic experience that every human being who can read can understand. I think the importance of stating it right up front at the start of the lead but not repeating it again in the first paragraph after the table of contents lies in reader's perceptions of what Wikipedia editors appear to be doing by deliberately making it redundant. The style of the SOTM and SOMB articles got it right by stating it up front as a basic fact but refraining from stating it again in the next section, especially with a photo of Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown pictured there (same as this article). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- AzureCitizen, doesn't seem "basic" in this context. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." However, the MOS says that doesn't apply to basic facts, so it's fine to have it in the lead while not repeating it in the first section of the article. Do we consider his African-American race a basic fact? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty much every source seems to think that colour was relevant, so clearly yes. Guy (help!) 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly relevant because it's the reason why the killing has sparked controversy.
- I just uploaded this image to commons from Flickr.
Message on the outdoor church sign at Glendale United Methodist Church in Nashville, TN calling for justice for Ahmaud Arbery. #BlackLivesMatter - It might help you understand why "African American" should be mentioned. Also, it will help anyone who wants to enrich this article with more images.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Isaidnoway. Races in the lead, and in the body too. starship.paint (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
New details from preliminary hearing
- Travis McMichael testified that he fired the first shot from the shotgun straight into Arbery's chest [22]
- Gregory McMichael testified that he did not see Arbery commit any crimes, but chased Arbery because he "knew instinctively he was a criminal" [23]
- According to the GBI, Travis McMichael stood over Arbery's body and said "Fucking nigger." [24]
- GBI says Arbery did not steal anything either that day or any day previously [25]
- Bryan hit Arbery with his truck as he repeatedly tried to flee them [26]
- The McMichaels did not call 911 before grabbing guns, jumping in their truck, and chasing Arbery [27]
More will surely follow. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it was Bryan that him him with his truck. O3000 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranof, I think Justin Trudeau summed up the current situation in America very eloquently in about 20 seconds. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/justin-trudeau-pause-hesitates-answer-question-donald-trump-george-floyd-protests-canada-a9545566.html Guy (help!) 16:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also per GBI, Arbery was killed just 2.5 miles from his home, and the under-construction home was less than 2 miles from his home. This was his neighborhood too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Did you know 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020
![]() | This edit request to Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “jogging” to “running or jogging.” Jogging implies a specific physical activity performed for exercise. It is not known whether he was indeed exercising or moving quickly for some other reason. 136.49.208.103 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done. Sources call it "jogging". WWGB (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)