Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 10

False claims about Arbery
We are not going to present the discredited and rejected claim made by three convicted murderers that Arbery was in any way responsible for any thefts or burglaries in the area, without explicitly and clearly stating that the claim is false. We are not going to be a platform for Arbery's murderers to continually smear him from their prison cells. If we are going to discuss their claimed motivation, we are required by BLP and fairness concerns to clearly state that their apparent beliefs were false - they were wrong to believe that Arbery had committed any such acts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And let us be crystal-clear here: the McMichaels and Bryan were convicted in a court of law of murder. They are not entitled to a presumption of innocence and their prior statements must be taken in the context of the fact that they are convicted murderers - the jury rejected every claim and defense they made. Arbery, on the other hand, is clearly entitled to a presumption of innocence - he was never arrested, never mind charged, much less convicted, of committing any thefts or burglaries in the area, and zero evidence was ever produced that he had done so. Arbery is innocent, his murderers are guilty. That is how Wikipedia is required to treat this topic. Period, end of sentence. Any edits to the contrary violate policy and human decency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with NBSB here. Aubrey was not "confronted" as much as he was assaulted and falsely imprisoned per court records. They profiled him as a Black man, not because he matched a description of an alleged burglar, again per court documents in the federal hate crimes trial. We need to choose our descriptors diligently.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's my opinion on the recent changes to the first paragraph on the lead by NBSB. A few things have been done so I'm going to try and address each one. The first change to the first sentence adds ...in a racially-motivated anti-Black hate crime. to the end. I agree that racially-motivated hate crime. should be included, as this is a factual and significant and goes along with the murder statement in the same sentence. However, I see issue with anti-Black because it creates problems with MOS:FIRST since it over describes and is not a phrase appearing in WP:RS much. I also see problem with the phrase falsely thinking because it's confusing and not in RS. What does it even mean?... they chased him believing he was a burglar but he simply wasn't?... they didn't believe he was burglar and merely falsely claimed it? ...Arbery didn't match the description of the burglars from before? Also this phrasing is not used in RS. It think what it should say is this Claiming to have believed Arbery looked like a burglar responsible for break-ins and thefts in the area, three white men pursued him: Travis McMichael and his father Gregory, who were armed and in one vehicle, and their neighbor, William "Roddie" Bryan, who was in another vehicle and recorded the pursuit and murder on his cell phone. Using "claiming" is important because according to the Reuters source this what they said to police. Saying the believed he was a burglar in WP:WIKIVOICE is indeed inappropriate and not supported by RS. The next change made by NBSB is changing "confronted" to "threatened". I oppose this since the claim that Travis McMichael threatened him is not substantiated by any RS that I can find. Confronted is a fine description, it's what used by The Cut and The BBC (both green lighted at WP:RSP). The self-defense part is tricky. I couldn't find this verbiage in any sources except this Department of Justice one, and it's not an independent source. CNN, The Cut again, and Vox use struggle. The thing that's difficult about using "defend himself" is that we don't know if that's exactly what he was doing. He made have been trying to escape or something else, we just don't know. No one does, and that's probably why RS has been resistant to using that term. Finally, killing is changed to murder, and I don't have an opinion on that they both are fine. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll just make the comment I did from the ANI thead: the way the lede is currently structured follows how a usual court decision would be written in which a chronology and non-judgemental, best-known version of the events would be given first before getting to the legal factors and guilt involved. In that manner, how some of the specific parts of the events are described in the first paragraph would be reasonable to have in language that does not reflect the final court decision, as long as follows from testimony and other statements obtained in RSes from the investigation. Obviously, by the end of the lede, their guilt and sentence must be established along with the court's determined motivation. The lede could have been written to focus on the conviction and sentencing first and then reviewed the actual crime, in which case describing the events of the murder with the language as outlined in the OP post here would be more appropriate. --M asem (t) 13:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * From a content basis, talking about Arbery's murderers as if they were reasonable in saying that he looked like a burglar, when all that meant was he was black, is unreasonable. They were profilers (supported by convictions for violating his civil rights), aggressors, and murderers (as supported by their conviction for murder). Any sort of prevarication in the lede that casts shade on Arbery and light on the convicted civil-rights-violating murderers is not WP:NPOV.Jacona (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But as it is written, it is approaching the topic from this chronological approach that starts with a non judgmental summary of the case. In thus specific situation, I find that odd since that requires one to step back from findings of guilt, and actually would suggest that the lede focus first on the conviction of the men involved, after which, restating the events of the crime but with established court findings would be right in line. (The lede is already a bit too awkward and confusing that a rewrite could help). --M asem  (t) 18:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of "falsely" believing, which I would agree is awkward phrasing, how about "claiming to believe he looked like...."? for me, that has the virtue of being true and also implicitly nodding towards the dubiousness of the claim. Just a thought.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's not a neutral summary of the case, it's s statement of the case when the perpetrators were presumed innocent and we could not use WikiVoice to describe the events as crimes. But, now that they have been found guilty (twice), we must adhere to NPOV and change the description to match the events as now-described by RS. We do not keep outdated language in the lead for "chronology".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If the lede is basically what the lede was before the conviction, which would then have had to be written on the presumption of innocence, and not significantly changed after they were convicted, that makes a lot sense why the lede is weird and causing problems. It definitely should be rewritten on the basis of the court's findings, which should resolve most of these issues. Thiz can include a full rewrite to focus on the cases impact etc. --M asem  (t) 18:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with M asem, rewriting the lede stating the outcome first would be an improvement. Jacona (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not stepping in something, but I had a go at rewriting the first paragraph. I agree that "falsely believed" is kind of awkward. I replaced it with "falsely assumed" and added a link to racial profiling to make it clearer. Also some other copyedits. I don't have an especially strong opinion on whether to include "anti-Black" in the lead, but amid a description of a Black man killed by three white men in a "racially motivated hate crime", it doesn't quite seem necessary? I may be missing some context, though. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing I would change immediately is to say in a new second sentence that "three white men (give names) were charged and convicted of several federal and state violations." Then all the followup is clearly in post-decision context. --M asem (t) 20:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposition
This is a modification of the one offered by

The TIME article cited in this proposition is dated to February 2022 and gives a detailed explanation of the incident from the perspective after conviction. They describe the incident between Travis and Arbery as a fight, I have modified this to be physical altercation to sound less WP:NEWSSTYLE. I can find no independent sourcing saying that Arbery was "defending himself" this is likely because it's unclear if he was defending himself or attempting to escape from the situation, this Vox article seems to display this confusion. What matters is that is not how RS describes what happened between Arbery and Travis, pre or post conviction. I found no RS support for the claim that Travis threatened Arbery with the shotgun, again the TIMES source describes this as a confrontation as well as many pre-conviction sources. The TIMES source also says without evidence rather than falsely. No one knows defiantly if Arbery was the trespasser or not, all we no is that there's no evidence that he was, and even more notably the McMichaels had no evidence that he was. Additionally, this is the phrasing in the body. Regards, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the above suggestion is good and much better than how the lede is currently written, which contains language unsupported by references. My only suggestion is to remove "in a racially-motivated hate crime" because this isn't supported by the sources. They weren't convicted of committing a racially-motivated murder. They were convicted of "interference with rights" which is a hate crime, but as the article states: "All three men were found guilty of using force and threats of force to intimidate and interfere with Arbery's right to use a public street because of his race". Calling the murder racially motivated or listing the motive of the murder as anti-black racism in the infobox isn't supported by the convictions or sources. I'm not sure how the hate crime conviction could be presented in the first paragraph but we need to be careful to follow the sources. The suggested wording does say Arbery was racially profiled as a burglar and therefore chased and the hate crime conviction is noted in lower paragraphs. It's also questionable to say that "Three white men racially profiled him, assuming without evidence he was a burglar responsible for recent break-ins in the area" because William Bryan joined in the chase later and no source says he assumed Arbery was burglar. It's more correct to say the McMichael's did this. I would also say that the wording "using the vehicles to illegally confine him as he tried to run away" could be replaced because it's confusing. Maybe it could be said "they tried to illegally detain him" or "trap him". Nettless (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, while I believe in accuracy, this comes close to sophistry for me. While it's true that there was no federal crime of "murder" involved, the indictment specifically alleged that the interference with Mr. Arbery's rights resulted in his death.  The jury apparently agreed with this contention.  I suppose we could change "murder in a racially-motivated hate crime" to "murder during a racially-motivated hate crime," but it strikes me as a distinction without a difference.  The hate crime, the interference, the murder, they were all part of the same nucleus of interoperative facts.  It's not as though the actions and their motivations can be disentangled.  As ever, happy to bow to consensus should it be against me.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Stated most eloquently, Dumuzid. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If "the indictment specifically alleged that the interference with Mr. Arbery's rights resulted in his death", then calling it a racially-motivated murder could be appropriate, however reliable sources don't specifically say he was murdered due to his race, so I don't think we should word it like that unless reliable sources do. Sources generally say they were racially motivated in chasing Arbery, which should be specified in the lede. Regarding the hate crime conviction, CNN ran with the headline - Jury finds Ahmaud Arbery's killers were racially motivated in chasing him. Nettless (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, a bit, but for me "murdered in a racially motivated hate crime" does not scan to mean "was murdered due to his race," but for me, reads more as "was murdered after being embroiled in events that happened because of his race." This is certainly subject to some interpretation, however.  Would you be content with the "murdered during" wording I suggested above?  Dumuzid (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying "murdered during a racially-motivated hate crime," would be better, but I think it's still a bit ambiguous. Clarity is important here as we both interpreted the wording differently and it's also important to follow how reliable sources describe the hate crime conviction. Additionally, "Anti-black racism" as a motive in the infobox should probably be removed because that would specifically mean Arbery was murdered due to his race, as opposed to how CNN describes the hate crime convictions, which is that Arbery was chased due to his race. Nettless (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. This still strikes me as a bit of a WP:BLUESKY situation, but looking at coverage in the RSes, you are correct that they don't tend to state this verbatim (at least in my quick survey).  I think we should hear from others (and possibly take it to WP:BLPN).  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You said there is no sourcing that Mr. Bryan believed Arbery was a burglar. However, there is RS support for this claim. See TIMES, Independent, and People magazine. They all say that the McMichaels and Bryan believed Arbery was a burglar. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One of those fun situations where there are sources we can cite which support multiple different wordings. We're ultimately trying to summarize what they mean. I feel like the current version does that fairly well, but I appreciate there's some nuance in the wording re: hate crime that should be worked out. A suggestion: the hate crime conviction is poorly developed in the body of the article. It may be helpful to build that out first and see where things stand -- if a better summary emerges.
 * As for the proposals at the top: assuming without evidence - fine with me. confronted - eh. "confront" connotes an action in response (i.e. as though Arbery had done something wrong, leading someone to confront him about it). Replacing the text about Arbery defending himself after being chased and [threatened/confronted] with a shotgun with During a physical altercation with Arbery is a definite non-starter for me. The net effect seems to me to inflate Arbery's role in his own murder. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would accept "defending himself" if you can find any RS using that verbiage in the context of the fight between Arbery and Travis. The only source I have found is one from the Departement of Justice, which is not an independent source and just had litigation against the McMichaels making it practically a primary source, hence not usable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * to say the Travis "threatend him" is going to need support from WP:RS, can you please provide this. Also Rhododendrites said he was "meh" on using confronted, so I wouldn't say that's equivalent to disagreement. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From the CBC: "White men in pickup trucks chased Ahmaud Arbery for five minutes, and one threatened to shoot him...."; from ABC News: "Travis and Greg McMichael had agreed to plead guilty to hate crime charges that they chased, threatened and killed 25-year-old Arbery because he was Black.". Dumuzid (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I added your references to the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, I think it's fair to add that they were actually convicted of using "force and threats" per and many other sources, including the DOJ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point, I support the current revision of the text. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC) There have been recent revisions and I find 's comments about threatened to be persuasive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The current revision is good. I still think there's an issue with using the word "threatened". Of the two sources currently cited in the lede, one is about Gregory McMichael threatening to shoot Arbery from the car during the chase, while the other isn't specific and it's in reference to a rejected plea deal, whereas as the current revision is about Travis threatening Arbery with a shotgun after getting out of the car. Neither source says this, so we should have another source saying that if we're going to use this wording. I don't see any problems with using the word "confronted" instead. Another issue is the wording "using the vehicles to illegally trap him as he tried to run away". This implies they successfully trapped him, however it then says "After several minutes, Travis McMichael got out of his truck". This could be confusing. I think it should say "tried to illegally trap". I'm also not sure about saying "illegally" because it doesn't read well. Can you legally trap someone? Seems unnecessary. Finally, in the sentence "Travis McMichael shot him three times, murdering him.", perhaps "murdering" could be changed to "killing" because it's less repetitive and it reads better. The first sentence already says he was murdered and the article title says murder aswell. Nettless (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This a response to your edit here: We don't make editorial decisions on what we personally believe sounds positive or negative in favor of either party involved. We should describe this strictly the same way as RS. RS is 100% clear on the fact that Arbery and McMichael had a "physical altercation". This is how the interaction between Travis McMichael and Arbery has been described in RS pre-conviction and post-conviction. Your revision doesn't even describe the incident fully. It reads vague and could be interpreted by the reader as though Arbery was shot while running or while in state of surrender, which is not the case. Please revert your edit. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * In my edit caption, I stressed that the removal of "physical altercation" was of concern, I'm glad you share that concern. However, I believe that the edit was a great improvement. that made the paragraph much clearer. As far as the mention of the physical alteration, the wording still leaves it pretty obvious that that is what occurred. Your suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated. Jacona (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * all it says is Travis stepped out of his vehicle, it makes no mention or even hing that a physical altercation happened. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * So, you object to "After a vehicular pursuit that lasted several minutes, Travis McMichael got out of his truck and threatened Arbery with a shotgun, then shot him three times." because it needs to say more about a "physical altercation"? I'm not sure that the current wording fails to convey a physical altercation, but perhaps it would be improved if stated "After a vehicular pursuit that lasted several minutes, Travis McMichael got out of his truck,, physically contacting Arbery with a shotgun,' then shot him three times at point-blank range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacona (talk • contribs)


 * With regard to "physical altercation" or "physically contacting Arbery with a shotgun", this is the relevant text that appears in the body of the article (bold added for emphasis):
 * The definition of an altercation is "a noisy argument or disagreement, especially in public." Rather than saying there was an "physical altercation" at that position in the lead, which is vague, or "physically contacting Arbery with a shotgun," which is awkward and doesn't explain it well, we should use something like "struggle over the weapon," which accurately summarizes the content in the body.  I'll make an edit to that effect in just a minute; revert if need be, but then please return to comment here on why that's not an improvement.  Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The definition of an altercation is "a noisy argument or disagreement, especially in public." Rather than saying there was an "physical altercation" at that position in the lead, which is vague, or "physically contacting Arbery with a shotgun," which is awkward and doesn't explain it well, we should use something like "struggle over the weapon," which accurately summarizes the content in the body.  I'll make an edit to that effect in just a minute; revert if need be, but then please return to comment here on why that's not an improvement.  Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I see it as an improvement. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. This was not an argument or a "disagreement," it was a lawful attempt by Arbery to defend himself against an assault. Travis McMichael was convicted of that assault and is guilty of that crime - this is not a question but a court-determined fact. Do you not understand that Travis McMichael was found guilty of aggravated assault? If not, you need to re-read the sources and the facts. COUNT6 and the Grand Jurors, aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, further charge and accuse TRAVIS MCMICHAEL, GREG MCMICHAEL and WILLIAM R BRYAN, individually and as parties concerned in the commission of a crime, with the offense of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-21, for that the said accused person, in the County of Glynn and State of Georgia, on or about the 23rd day of February, 2020, did make an assault upon the person of Ahmaud Arbery with a frrearm, deadly weapon, to wit: a 12 gauge shotgun, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof. Travis McMichael was found guilty of this crime by the jury. A rapist does not have a "physical altercation" with their victim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't make editorial decisions on what we personally believe sounds positive or negative in favor of either party involved - WHAT THE EVER-LOVING FUCK IS GOING ON HERE. THERE IS NO PARTY INVOLVED THERE IS A MURDERER AND A VICTIM. The "editorial decision" was made by the jury - Travis McMichael is not a "party," he is a murderer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me be crystal-clear here - you are attempting to both sides a vicious, racially-motivated murder committed by three white men who violated Ahmaud Arbery's civil rights, falsely imprisoned him, assaulted him, and murdered him. These are not sides of a debate, these are facts - determined by juries in the state of Georgia. We are bound by those facts, and we are bound to describe what happened in accordance with those facts - that Arbery was brutally murdered by Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and William R. Bryan, and that anything Arbery did in response to the unlawful, felonious assault against him was inherently an act in self-defense against said unlawful actions. This article should sound negative toward the McMichaels and Bryan, just as it sounds negative toward Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Epstein. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support NorthBySouthBaranof's edits. –– FormalDude  talk  01:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a vehement opinion on "confront" as opposed to "assault," but in the light of all the circumstances and legal findings, I think the self-defense language is more appropriate. Cheers, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * when addressing concerns please me mindful of WP:CIVIL. Using profanity to describe the good faith contribution of others is not the best way to voice your opinion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your contributions here can be described as little else than whitewashing. I'd hardly call that good faith. –– FormalDude  talk  02:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * if you think I'm whitewashing this you must also feel RS is, because I'm merely supporting how RS describes this event. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * {{re|FormalDude} Whitewashing in bad faith? To be clear, do you believe that any particular editor here is a racist? I want to make sure I'm following along.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly, we are going to state that the belief Arbery was a burglar was false - the sources I cited specifically state that there were no reported burglaries in the area, there is no evidence Arbery ever committed a burglary, and the word of three convicted murderers is worth nothing. The white father and son accused of murdering Ahmaud Arbery were told by police that he wasn’t a burglar just days before they chased the Black 25-year-old and shot him dead in the street, according to prosecutors. Rash said that wasn’t true. He testified there wasn’t a single burglary in the Satilla Shores neighborhood where the McMichaels and Bryan lived in the year before the shooting. But trial testimony revealed there had been no burglaries. Again, there are people here attempting to present this as if there are two sides - there are no longer two sides. This is no longer a set of allegations, it is a set of convictions, and we are not required in any way to present the claims and beliefs of convicted murderers as if they have any validity whatsoever.
 * We don't say that Jeffrey Epstein had a "physical altercation" with his victims, we say that he raped them, period. And if you object to that comparison, I suggest that you need to step back and reconsider who you're defending here - the McMichaels and Bryan are just as guilty criminals as Epstein. They hunted down and slaughtered an unarmed man because he was young, black, and jogging in their neighborhood. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * at least 3 editors, for numerous reason, after discussing thought "without evidence" was the best way to explain the McMichaels view Arbery being a burglar. You are undoing days of community discussion and deliberations, this is disruptive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Assuming without evidence" as a phrase does not say that they were horribly wrong, it merely suggests that their suspicions had no evidence. It's the equivalent of ye olde "when did you stop beating your wife". The reality, per trial, conveys very different reasoning than "without evidence" for their assumption, so we should attribute the reason. Koncorde (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think checkers overstates the degree of consensus. Overall, Baranoff is on a better track: the 3 were found guilty.Jacona (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is mostly a copy editing concern. Everyone agrees on the facts, but "falsey assume" is ambiguous English. They killers really believed/assumed Ahmaud was a burglar. They really believed they were the good guys, probably right until they had to sit through their own trials and have it explained. Assume doesn't mean evidence based decision, it means the exact opposite. What is a false unevidenced belief? A fact based belief? Are you wanting us to read this as "the killers had evidence Ahmaud was a burglar, but pretended not to"? I doubt that. The prose is made less clear by adding negating statements. Can you imagine if we notate articles about war with "falsely" in front of any belief that we feel a belligerent held in error? It would render wiki unreadable. 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That the murderers believed/assumed Arbery to be a burglar is true. That Arbery was not a burglar is also true. Therefore, their belief/assumption was false, incorrect, wrong, however you'd like to phrase it. This article needs to be precisely clear that Arbery did not do what they believed he did. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to find where in the article it says Arbery was a burglar. It seems pretty clear he was not a burglar. Why do we need to precisely refute what wiki doesn't say? 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "erroneously" is fine verbiage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All I have concern with at this point is the phrase "assaulted with a shotgun" and "attempted to defend himself". Juries don't decide if someone is attempting to defend themselves, they only decide if a person is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court case is only helpful at saying the convictions. To say that Arbery was defending himself is going to need some support from RS, and I looked and looked last week to no avail. RS is confused on whether he was defending himself, trying to escape, or something else. No one knows for sure. We do have RS support that they had a struggle. It said "struggle over shotgun" before Baranof's edits, but I now see that as problematic since thats presented as a quote from Gregory McMichael in NYT. I believe it should say During a struggle with Arbery, Travis McMichael shot him three times, killing him. This is very consistent with the NYT article dated to Feb. this year (post conviction), the article says: The video shows a struggle before three shotgun blasts and ...Mr. Arbery emerges, fighting with Travis McMichael outside the truck as three shotgun blasts echo. Here's that article: Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The murderers were literally convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm for Travis McMichael's use of his shotgun to threaten Arbery. That was Count 6 of the indictment. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but when someone is assaulting you with a shotgun, you have a right to defend yourself against that assault, and that's what Arbery did. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that we need to describe this murder in a similar way that RS does. RS, as I've said, does not appear to be using language such as "defending himself" or "assaulted with a shotgun" when detailing the crimes. The main argument here against describing it the way RS does is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've been one of the only editors concerned of how RS is describing this, it's not our job to play lawyer and determine when the assaulting begins or ends. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue here, it seems to me, is that RSes from before the convictions are likely to describe the events in different ways. I think it is fair to interpret the events in light of the fact of the convictions, but reasonable minds may differ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree using older (pre-conviction) sourcing can make this problematic. That's why I've been careful to choose post-conviction sourcing such as the NYT above and Times. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging to alert to ongoing discussion.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It was a lynching.
The title should be updated to reflect that he was lynched. 2600:1004:B154:7C79:116F:3EB9:627E:E5B5 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Do any reliable sources refer to it as such, or is this your original research? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't completely dismiss the IP here. USA Today refers to it as a lynching, as does CNN, NYT, CRJ, VOX and quite a few others though I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate as the main article title, perhaps a redirect? It's mostly in reference to commentators and his family calling it a lynching but a few of the sources do say as much. This AJC piece disagrees though. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As we discuss in the article, many sources including the future President described this as a lynching. But that assessment isn't universal, and "murder" is still an accurate term so I think the existing title is better. VQuakr (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , that wasn't me dismissing the IP. That would be me reverting their edit. I was serious: are there reliable sources that call it a "lynching"? You have shown some examples of it, but I agree that a lot of it comes from commentators and isn't really said by the articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I mean I don't think the article should be moved to that title but I do think a redirect is probably reasonable? I mean it is my own opinion obviously that it is also a lynching but seems to have some pretty significant coverage as a lynching too. I also agree with VQuakr, this is by definition legally a murder and the more widely used term. Anyone object to me creating a redirect? PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It has existed as a redirect for quite a while. Lynching of Ahmaud Arbery. VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * oof. My bad! PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We have the redirect and already some examples of notable people describing the murder as a lynching in the article. Like everyone else, I don't think it should be moved to "Lynching of Ahmaud Arbery". I don't think any further action needs to be taken here.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 19:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

He was shot twice.
The state trial is free on you tube. In the prosecutor's closing argument she says he was shot twice. The medical examiner's testimony explains in great detail the damage from each of the two times he was shot.

You had on here that he was shot three times. That was wrong. Two times I came and changed it to "twice" and included the fact that I know this from the trial. Two times someone has come along and removed that CORRECT INFORMATION from the page.

Whoever you are, the least you can do is either leave the correct information on this page, or go LEARN for yourself what's correct before you remove this knowledge from the page. You are for no valid reason denying the public from gaining this bit of fact. Stop it. 2600:1702:4B18:7430:256A:45B:B14F:ED35 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, this is one of the odd aspects of the way Wikipedia has chosen to orient and organize itself. What you are doing we call original research.  While I know it can be frustrating, we really need for this to be reported in a secondary source before we include it in the article.  I think that will happen in short order.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The testimony at trial of the medical examiner who did the autopsy isn't a reliable enough source for you? Please tell me where you're going to get reliable information about his wounds. Or is wikipedia just refusing to share this information? 2600:1702:4B18:7430:E4C1:D11B:558:319 (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He was only fatally shot once. That doesnt mean how many times he was shot, it means he was killed one time.  nableezy  - 18:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No as a matter of fact, ALL THREE wounds would be fatal. The one on his wrist could have been stopped with treatment. The ones on his chest and left armpit both were fatal. Seriously. If you don't know, and obviously you don't, stay out of it. 2600:1702:4B18:7430:E4C1:D11B:558:319 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, if "not knowing" kept one from opining on Wikipedia, I think we'd all be long gone. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Racially"
The citation for the opening statement of this article does not support the use of the adverb "racially". A hate crime, as referred to in the citation in a rights denial issue, is not limited to racial issues. Whatever your political opinion may be which is sure to bias the development of this entry, or the opinion you may have of the individuals who perpetrated this act, there is no self-admission or evidence anywhere to substantiate the claim that this was racially motivated. If there is, please cite a relevant source. 213.137.71.106 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, the department of justice's press release is Federal Judge Sentences Three Men Convicted of Racially Motivated Hate Crimes in Connection with the Killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia. Does that work for you? Dumuzid (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What protected classification resulting in the hate crime convictions was at issue other than the victim's race? VQuakr (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Disputed content
I would like to invite to engage here and attempt to persuade others that the content they wish to add belongs in the article. has already indicated that they believe this content to be overly detailed for lead. I would add that it appears to be UNDUE since it appears to suggest an alternative motivation for the murder from the one established in a court of law (i.e. hate crime). Indeed, Yodabyte has implied in their recent edit summary that it was their intent to suggest this: should be included in lead section shows potential motive even if hate and racism are also potential motives. That's called original research and it goes against one of our core policies. I will once again remind Yodabyte that the WP:ONUS is on them to get consensus for disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Early History Between Arbery and McMichael
When he was in high school, Arbery was sentenced to five years probation as a first offender on charges of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He was convicted of probation violation in 2018 after he was charged with shoplifting, court documents show. https://www.ajc.com/news/local/brunswick-attorney-released-the-video-arbery-shooting/JkpbvTuJt9wfl3tkcLTTvO/ --Jesuskingfromstars (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with him getting murdered. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jesus king from stars? Valereee (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)