Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Nitpicky capitalization complaints

In the first sentence, the B in black should be lowercase, not uppercase. 74.96.227.154 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see MOS:PEOPLANG. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It says that it should be uppercase when surrounded by other terms that are also uppercase “Asian-Pacific” was an example given for when to capitalize “color labels” as the page called them. As the B in black is ‘t surrounded by other race/ethnicity related words, I believe it should be lowercase.74.96.227.154 (talk)

I would prefer to simply follow the National Association of Black Journalists style guide, which states that NABJ... recommends that whenever a color is used to appropriately describe race then it should be capitalized, including White and Brown. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
There is debate about this issue. Some journalists suggest capitalizing Black but not white. But in any case, the B in black should be capitalized when referring to a Black person or a Black community. JJMM (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
That article you reference also says that what applies to one should apply to the other. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The National Association of Black Journalists style guide has no more legitimacy than the KKK style guide. "But in any case..." Nice try. It's really simple: to capitalize "black" but not "white" is to engage in black supremacy. 2603:7000:B23E:3056:C884:B510:DE1E:181F (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Did you not notice that the National Association of Black Journalists recommends capitalising All colours? White included? You may not like that style, but you cannot legitimately call that racist, and comparing them to the KKK is uncalled for. With that said, to all the editors that think capitalising Black but not white is a good idea: take a look at the above comment and ask yourselves, do we REALLY want to be stirring up unnecessary racial animosity? It may make YOU feel better as a white editor, that you're renouncing your privilege or something, but you still have it and no black man or lady is advanced just because you capitalised a B; but furthermore, how many fewer innocent black people will be beaten or worse by racists because you capitalised a B but not a w? Or how many MORE of them will be? The latter, sadly, seems to me more likely, and if any additional violence, gods forbid, should be committed against colour folk as a result of this kind of woke nonsense, that otherwise would not have, those advocating said woke nonsense will bare certain moral responsibility. (NOTE: because this style issue is grounded exclusively in soapbox/RGW motives, my comment, in isolation, would also appear to be soapboxing; however, in context, its purpose is to counter soapboxing that has already been put forth). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:C809:C011:7B50:20BB (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks really clunky with a random word capitalized in the middle of the sentence. Thebrakeman2 (talk)

Splitting proposal

The result was no consensus, defaulting to the status quo (not splitting). There was about equal support for splitting and not splitting. Arguments were equally compelling. There's consensus that the article is too big, and editors differ in their preferred method for fixing this: splitting or condensing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

I propose that sections Killing of Ahmaud Arbery#Trial be split into a separate page called Trial of Ahmaud Arbery. The sections within are large enough to make their own page. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the trial being split out, but the proposed name implies that Arbery is on trial. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Would "Trial for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery" be an acceptable title? Trial of Derek Chauvin relates to the murder of George Floyd, but "Trial of Travis and Gregory McMichael and William Bryan" seems too wordy Phillip Samuel (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree to split & "Trial for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery".Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
By the way, wonder if subsection “Pretrial evidence motions, rulings” should be included under the “Trial for the killing of Arbery”? Yes, it’s pretrial, but has bearing on evidence that could be presented at trial.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I would oppose a split. I just trimmed a huge chunk of text that was far too long; the focus should be on trimming other aspects of the article rather than atomizing content. Neutralitytalk 04:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
If this ever does need to be split, that won't be the name, because Arbery isn't on trial. If there's a WP:COMMONNAME for the trial, we'll use that. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of making an article about the trial, but it might just be easier to change the focus of this article. I don't feel there's a need to differentiate between Arbery's killing and the trial of his killers. A good title might be "Trial of Ahmaud Arbery's killers". Ahmaud Arbery isn't on trial, but his name is much more well-known than the men who killed him. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That sounds OK to me. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The trial should not be split for the simple reason - we didn't have many of the facts of the case until testimony was given at the trial. The video does not show everything. Taking the trial out of this article would remove details of what actually happened during the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. starship.paint (exalt) 09:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Splitting proposal

The result was no consensus, defaulting to the status quo (not splitting). There was about equal support for splitting and not splitting. Arguments were equally compelling. There's consensus that the article is too big, and editors differ in their preferred method for fixing this: splitting or condensing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

I propose that sections Killing of Ahmaud Arbery#Trial be split into a separate page called Trial of Ahmaud Arbery. The sections within are large enough to make their own page. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the trial being split out, but the proposed name implies that Arbery is on trial. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Would "Trial for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery" be an acceptable title? Trial of Derek Chauvin relates to the murder of George Floyd, but "Trial of Travis and Gregory McMichael and William Bryan" seems too wordy Phillip Samuel (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree to split & "Trial for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery".Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
By the way, wonder if subsection “Pretrial evidence motions, rulings” should be included under the “Trial for the killing of Arbery”? Yes, it’s pretrial, but has bearing on evidence that could be presented at trial.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I would oppose a split. I just trimmed a huge chunk of text that was far too long; the focus should be on trimming other aspects of the article rather than atomizing content. Neutralitytalk 04:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
If this ever does need to be split, that won't be the name, because Arbery isn't on trial. If there's a WP:COMMONNAME for the trial, we'll use that. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of making an article about the trial, but it might just be easier to change the focus of this article. I don't feel there's a need to differentiate between Arbery's killing and the trial of his killers. A good title might be "Trial of Ahmaud Arbery's killers". Ahmaud Arbery isn't on trial, but his name is much more well-known than the men who killed him. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That sounds OK to me. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The trial should not be split for the simple reason - we didn't have many of the facts of the case until testimony was given at the trial. The video does not show everything. Taking the trial out of this article would remove details of what actually happened during the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. starship.paint (exalt) 09:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

'White'?

Why is 'White' sometimes capitalised? Brett Alexander Hunter (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PEOPLANG, "Ethno-racial" color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). There is no consensus either for or against using mixed case (Black and white)." WWGB (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Charges vs. Convictions Discrepancy

In the summary table section, the list of state charges includes "criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment," but the list of convictions for William Bryan states "criminal attempt to commit a felony." Are these one and the same? Is one a typographical error? Even if they both indicate the same charge, for those unfamiliar with the legal jargon and terminologies of the judicial system of the state of Georgia, it would be better to leave the wording identical in both sections. Otherwise, it would seem to the untrained observer that William Bryan was convicted of a crime with which he was not charged.

In addition, the inclusion of District Attorney Jackie Johnson in the "State charges" section is confusing and disorganized. It is not entirely clear that Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, or William Bryan were not charged with "violating the oath of a public officer" or "obstruction of justice." It is also not clear whether Johnson was convicted, acquitted, or the charges are still pending. If convicted, what was her sentence? The placement of these charges raises more questions than it answers. The charges of Jackie Johnson should be appended in a newly created section at the bottom of the table summary, or eliminated from the table summary altogether and only mentioned in the introduction and body.

Perhaps the table could be divided into sections with each defendant receiving his or her own separate section with charges, verdicts, convictions, and sentences clearly delineated.

On that note of eliminating abiguities and confusion for the lay person, it would also be helpful to include a brief explanation of how one can be charged with multiple counts for the same crime. If someone punched someone five times, I could understand five counts of assault even if the punches occurred during a single altercation. Each punch could constitute a separate assault. What is not entirely clear is how someone can be convicted of multiple counts of felony murder when only one murder occurred. By definition, murder cannot be carried out multiple times on the same victim. Attempted murder could be, but not murder itself. Clearly it does not violate any legal principles of double jeopardy as it occurs often enough, but to the lay person, it is not entirely clear why. If any legal experts could shed light on the matter in a clear and concise manner, it would be helpful. Just a thought... 66.91.36.8 (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't have much time to reply, I've fixed the first paragraph's issue. For the last paragraph's issue, I'm no law expert, but as I understand it, felony murder refers to a felony that resulted in a death. For example, Bryan was found guilty of three counts of felony murder because he committed three felonies - cutting off Arbery was assault, and two counts of trying to trap Arbery on different roads was false imprisonment and attempted. Without each instance of Bryan doing this, the death may not have happened. Thus, three counts of felony murder. starship.paint (exalt) 05:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

9-1-1 vs 911

This article has five instances of "9-1-1" and 15 examples of "911". The Wikipedia article for 9-1-1 uses the dashes and its first sentence offers 911 without the dashes as an alternative. If I were bold, which I am not for an article as hot as this one, I would change all to have dashes -- except when quoting a source that didn't use dashes. Bobagem (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead Section too long?

This is an incredibly long lead, as big as many other entire articles are. It's very dense and isn't (imo) suited to a lead section on an article. Particularly egregious is the addition of the murderer's justifications for their murder taking up most of the opening paragraph (when a simple "they racially profiled Ahmaud by incorrectly identifying him as a robbery suspect, chased then in their vehicles, surrounded him, at which point Travis murdered him with a shotgun" would suffice), but it takes up half of the opening paragraph. Much of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs includes overly dense details (such as what the DA officers did or didn't do, the "additional evidence section", the grand jury details aren't particularly relevant to a lead when the trial has proceeded past it to convictions & sentencing), and opening to the 4th paragraph is something of a summary of the previous paragraphs which shouldn't need to be done in a lead. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • they racially profiled Ahmaud by incorrectly identifying him as a robbery suspect - we can't go this far when sources don't. 2nd/3rd paragraphs are detailed because Arbery's killers nearly got away with it, if not for Gregory's decision to release the video. It's not a simple murder, charge and convict. Lots of things happened between murder and charge, and Jackie Johnson is being charged for it now. starship.paint (exalt) 12:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute

Ekpyros it seems obvious that NorthBySouthBaranof does not agree with the changes you are proposing for this article. Per WP:BRD you need to bring your proposal here and work towards consensus. Edit summaries are helpful, but they are never a substitute for discussion. Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, the edit removes the clear and multiply-sourced statement that there is no evidence Arbery committed theft or burglary, on the purported grounds that according to the the defense attorneys, only trespassing with intent is required for burglary and thus there was evidence of burglary. A defense attorney is not a reliable source for anything other than the attorney and their client's opinion, and one may not rebut sourced facts with mere opinions. That the attorneys for now-convicted murderers argued something at trial does not constitute "evidence." On a metaphysical level, trespassing with intent would require the murderers to have knowledge of Arbery's mental state, which of course they did not have. It may well be true that the murderers perceived or believed Arbery to have that intent, but perceptions and beliefs are not evidence and clearly cannot justify armed, murderous vigilantism toward an unarmed person. The jury appropriately disposed of the attorney's arguments with their unambiguous verdicts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
That sentence (" No evidence has emerged of Arbery committing burglaries or thefts in Satilla Shores.") stood out for me as I glanced through the article, as I had noticed above the sentence: "In 2018, McMichael had helped an investigation in the DA's office about Arbery's shoplifting charge, which led to a subsequent revocation and extension of Arbery's probation." It seems odd to be implying in one part of the article that Arbery did not have a record for theft, while in another to suggest he did have a record. I checked the source and found that he was caught shoplifting from Walmart in 2017, which extended the probation he received in 2013 for carrying a gun on school premises. So, Arbery did have a record for theft. There are two sources for the sentence that there is no evidence of Arbery committing thefts in Satilla Shores. One is from Reuters, [1] and says: "No evidence ever emerged that Arbery, who was saving money to return to technical college, took anything on his frequent runs through Satilla Shores. The property owner said through a lawyer he believed Arbery was stopping for a drink from a water faucet on the site." That is not the same thing as saying that there is no evidence of him stealing. That source is saying that there is no evidence that he stole anything while running through the neighbourhood. Unfortunately I cannot access the other source as it the New York Times and it requires payment. I assume it would be saying the same sort of thing, but I can't very that. Would someone with access please copy out here what the New York Times says about Arbery committing burglaries or thefts in Satilla Shores, so we can get an accurate account of what the sources do say. My feeling is that we might need to adjust the sentence to something like: "While Arbery had been caught shoplifting in 2017, there is no evidence that he took anything during his runs through the neighbourhood of Satilla Shores." SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@SilkTork: - there's an archived version of the NYT link. (1) The defendants have said they thought Mr. Arbery was guilty of burglaries in the area when they chased him. No evidence has been produced to show that to be true. (2) he had been recorded on video cameras inside the house numerous times before. But there was no evidence that he ever took anything. However, do you have a source that his 2017 theft was in Satilla Shores? I thought Satilla Shores was a pretty small neighbourhood, and Arbery did not live there, although he lived close to there. From FOX5, the theft was from a Walmart in Brunswick, Georgia, and Satilla Shores isn't in Brunswick, but near it. starship.paint (exalt) 12:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I think we need to be clear that sources are saying that there is no evidence that he stole from the area, Satilla Shores, or committed any burglaries, but not give the erroneous impression that he did not have a record for theft. While the current statement is qualified by "in Satilla Shores", and so is factually correct, there is a dissonance as the appearance is that he never stole. We need to be neutral on this point, and not mislead the readers into going away and saying "Wikipedia says that Ahmaud Arbery never stole." SilkTork (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
My feeling is that we might need to adjust the sentence to something like: "While Arbery had been caught shoplifting in 2017, there is no evidence that he took anything during his runs through the neighbourhood of Satilla Shores." Absolutely not - that's the same sort of poisoning the well bullshit that was explicitly rejected at trial. The fact that someone committed a prior bad act is not evidence they committed any other crime. The fact is that there is no evidence Arbery committed any theft or burglary in the community in question, much less on that particular day, which strikes directly to the heart of why his murderers will be sitting in prison until they die.
In his ruling on Monday, Walmsley noted that the McMichaels knew nothing of Arbery’s past when they chased him down that day. “It is apparent that defendants’ intended use of the victim’s other acts is to engage in speculation as to why Arbery acted as he did,” the judge wrote. Walmsley also said the defense was trying to get “clearly bad character and propensity evidence” before the jury that is unfairly prejudicial. “The character of the victim is neither relevant nor admissible in a murder trial,” the judge wrote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
We are not looking to present any person in this case as guilty or innocent or present any false or misleading information. We don't aim in a Wikipedia article to argue for or against anything; we just give the facts as neutrally and clearly as possible, reporting what sources say. That Arbery had been caught shoplifting does not have any bearing on the murder as "the McMichaels were unaware of Arbery's past at the time of the murder", but clarifying the point that while he did not steal from the area, or the house he was seen in, he did have a police record, which is brought up in, for example, the Pretrial rulings section as "Arbery's prior 'bad acts'". This is not "poisoning the well", as his police record is a fact that has been mentioned in reporting of this case, and is present in several places in our article; it is just ensuring that the readers are not confused by what appears to be contradictory information. SilkTork (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe it is false and misleading, and also a false light violation of BLP to suggest there is any connection between a three-year-old conviction for shoplifting and his violent murder. It does not belong in the lede, period, and it does not belong in a discussion of recent alleged theft incidents in the Satilla Shores community for which there is absolutely zero evidence that Arbery had any involvement in whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Criminal history excluded by RfC consensus

I have reverted SilkTork's addition of information about Arbery's past criminal record - that information is specifically excluded from inclusion in Wikipedia voice by explicit RfC consensus. Consensus can, of course, change, but such a change would require another explicit consensus to be formed. I conclude that the disputed information may be included in the article but not in Wikipedia's voice. As well as the inline citations to reliable sources, there must also be in-text attribution. In other words, the new phrase or sentence in the article should open with words such as "according to". Because it is so very important that this information is not given disproportionate prominence, the new phrase or sentence should be as brief and succinct as possible. It should not appear in the lead, it should not be given its own heading, and it absolutely must not in any way seem to excuse or justify Arbery's killing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that RfC. I have now amended the wording to comply with the RfC. SilkTork (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

disputed?

@SilkTork, you placed a [disputed – discuss] tag here? valereee (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

William "Roddie" Bryan was a mechanic

Murder of Ahmaud Arbery#Persons involved does not say what he did for a living.

William "Roddie" Bryan was a mechanic according to this page:

"he is a mechanic from Brunswick, Georgia. Bryan is a Trump supporter and works at a hardware store in the area."

I don't have time to add this, and it may need more references. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Birthday followed by age

The article starts with:

On February 23, 2020, Ahmaud Marquez Arbery (born May 8, 1994), a 25-year-old...

If his birth and death dates are included in the sentence, do we really want an additional prepositional phrase to restate the age? It seems duplicative.

The standard in biographies is to place the birthdate as we have it now. Thoughts on moving "a 25 year old" to a second sentence elsewhere? I would have just made the change myself, but it seems like this article has front loaded details into the lead, and I don't know if this is intentional or not. I will let those who edit this more make the choice, if a choice is made. - removed by someone else now 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

More about Aubrey other than his murder

It would be nice if you put more about Aubrey other than his murder. Like maybe you could speak about his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:4A06:A6D8:8168:490C:F500:54BE (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an article about his murder, not Arbery's life. Arbery is not even notable alone. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
There are several other articles that contain details of victims that only became known due to their murder. Gabby Petito, Nicholas Smarr and Jody Smith, Laci Peterson, Travis Alexander. What is the difference? Asr1014 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Asr1014, if you know of reliable sources that discuss Arbery's life further, we can expand the section. valereee (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Even with reliable sources, some of these details are pointless. I'm about to go pull trivia unrelated to the Smarr/Smith article now. I clicked it first, and that is a lot of irrelevant detail 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery/Archive_9&oldid=1111844968"